4 Amendments of Daniel BUDA related to 2015/2287(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that the institutions, agencies and other bodies of the European Union still fail to take fully into account the changes introduced by the Lisbon Treaty and the Charter of Fundamental Rights when applying Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, especially as concerns participatory democracy; notes and welcomes the recent judgments of the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice in the Digital Rights Ireland1 and Schrems2 cases, in both of which the Court based itself on the Charter when declaring invalid the Data Retention Directive3 and the Safe Harbour Decision4 respectively; stresses that the actual public access to documents and the management of registers of documents need to be based on standards which adequately comply with Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter; __________________ 1 Joined Cases C-293/12 and C-594/12. Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 April 2014. 2 Case C 362/14. Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 06.10.15. 3 Directive 2006/24/EC. 4 Commission Decision 2000/520/EC of 26 July 2000.
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Points out, in this connection, that the TreReiteraties in force no longer contain any provisions comparable to the ones in Article 207(3) of the EC Treaty, which were used to justify the application of the exception protecting the ‘space to think’ in Article 4(3) of the Regulation to legislative matters; reiterates its view, once agaits view, which is also held by the European Ombudsman, that the current procedures for trilogues prior to a possible first-reading agreement fail to ensure a satisfactory level of legislative transparency and access to documents and that; points out that, while trilogues are important and effective, the procedures currently applicable to them undermine the openness in the legislative procedure that ‘contributes to strengthening democracy by allowing citizens to scrutinise all the information which has formed the basis of a legislative act’, as stated by the Court of Justice in the joined cases Sweden and Turco v Council;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Considers, therefore, that documents created in the framework of trilogues, such as agendas, summaries of outcomes, minutes and the ‘four column’ documents drawn up to facilitate negotiations, which without doubt are documents relating to legislative procedures, cannot in principle be treated differently from other legislative documents; recalls that it has already instructed its own competent bodies to take action in this respect and has called on other institutions to do likewise; takes the view that a list of trilogue meetings should be made available and meeting documentthe agendas made directly accessible on the register;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 – point 1 (new)
Paragraph 5 – point 1 (new)
(1) Welcomes the idea to request that the Commission establish a register of delegated acts, which are an important part of EU legislation, and points out that under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and in order to ensure full, democratic and transparent oversight by Parliament, access must also be granted to the documents drawn up as part of the procedure for the delegation of powers;