Activities of Andrzej HALICKI related to 2022/2015(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Public access to documents – annual report for the years 2019-2021 (debate)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on public access to documents – annual report for the years 2019-2021
Amendments (21)
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
A a. whereas Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 recognises the particular importance of even wider access to documents when EU institutions act in their legislative capacity and underlines especially the need for direct access to legislative documents;
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)
Recital A b (new)
A b. whereas the Court of Justice of the European Union underlines that public scrutiny of information, on which legislative action is taken, is a precondition for the exercise of democratic rights (Sweden and Turco v Council, C39/05 P and C-52/05; Council v Access Info Europe, C-280/11P); whereas CJEU concluded that openness in that respect contributes to strengthening democracy by allowing citizens to scrutinize all the information which has formed the basis of a legislative act and stated that the possibility for citizens to find out the considerations underpinning legislative action is a precondition for the effective exercise of their democratic rights;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas openness builds trust; whereas the EU institutioncan be one factor in building citizen's trust in the Union; whereas the functioning of the EU is founded on representative democracy; whereas EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies must strive for the highest possible standards of transparency, accountability and integrity; whereas openness and the participation of civil societytizens and civil society in the democratic life of the Union are indispensable for promoting good governance in the EU institutions;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
B a. whereas access to accurate information is vital in preventing misinformation and combating fake news;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas in the final report of the Conference on the Future of Europe, citizens expressed their dissatisfaction with the lack ofcalled for more transparency in the EU’s decision-making process and voiced a desire for more citizen involvement and accountability;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas citizens’ expectations as regards transparency, and accountability andof public institutions, and possible technical solutions have evolved in recent years; whereas this may require the adoption of new technical solutions and guidelineguidelines to reflect these developments;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas Parliament adopted its first-reading position on the Commission proposal for reform of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in December 2011; whereas negotiations on that regulation have been at a standstill since 2012; whereas the EU has taken on many new responsibilities since the regulation came into force; whereas increased responsibility requires increased transparencdemocratic scrutiny in order to uphold the EU’s credibility and legitimacy in citizens’ eyes;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes with concern that in 2021, following a request for public access to text messages between the Commission 's President and the CEO of a pharmaceutical company regarding the purchase of COVID-19 vaccines, the Commission refused to even search properly for such text messages, let alone grant public access to them; recalls that registering a document is a consequence of the existence of a document and not a prerequdid not disclose the messages and did not inform whether the text messages in question existed; regrets that currently the Commission’s internal policy is, in effect, not to regisite for its existence; supportsr text messages; takes note of the Ombudsman’s finding of maladministration by the Commission in this case17 ; _________________ 17 https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/deci sion/en/158295.
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes with concern that a common problem faced in requests for access to documents is the refusal of access by institutions on the basis of insubstantial arguments; reiterates that an institution invoking one of the exceptions to accessReiterates that an institution invoking one of the exceptions to access to documents under Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 has to make an objective and individual assessment and show that the risk to the interest protected is foreseeable and not purely hypothetical, ands well as define how access to the document would specifically and effectively undermine the interest protected18 ; highlights that it might be possible to disclose some parts of a document when other parts need to be protected; notes with interest the case lodged against the Council for its frequent recourse to the informal ‘working document’ predicate19 ; notes with concern that a common problem faced in requests for access to documents is the refusal of access by institutions on the basis of insubstantial arguments; _________________ 18 Judgment of the CJEU of 22 March 2018, Emilio De Capitani v European Parliament, T-540/15, EU:T:2018:167; judgment of the CJEU of 1 July 2008, Sweden and Turco v Council of the European Union, Joined Cases C-39/05 P and C-52/05, EU:C:2008:374. 19 Case lodged on 7 May 2021, De Capitani v Council of the European Union, T- 163/21.
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Is concerned that there are persistent inconsistencies in how similar requests for access to documents are handled by different institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and in some case even different Directorates-General within one organisation; calls for development of best practices to allow for uniform application and interpretation of provisions in Regulation 1049/2001 and the relevant case law of the CJEU;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Welcomes the new transparency steps taken by the Council in 2020 to allow the public to better exercise the democratic right to scrutinise the EU legislative processes; notes that the adopted measures include proactive publication of progress reports on negotiations on draft laws as well as Council’s mandates for negotiations with the European Parliament, in line with proposals made by the Ombudsman in her inquiries into legislative transparency in the Council and the transparency of trilogues4a; regrets that there are still differences from presidency to presidency in the practice of proactive publishing of documents; calls for the establishment of permanent guidelines binding on all presidencies; _________________ 4a https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/pre ss-release/en/130298
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Regrets the fact that access to the advice of the institutions’ respective Legal Services is too limited; notes with interest that the Court has highlightakes note of the CJEU judgement which stated that Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 imposes, in principle, an obligation to disclose the opinions of the Council’s Legal Service relating to a legislative process; noteds that the question of whether a legal opinionaccording to the Court the only possible grounds for refusal on account of the protection of legal advice given in the context of the legislative process is a particularly sensitive depends on whethernature of the content of the opinion itself ior its particularly sensitive, not on whether the legislative process related to the opinion is sewide scope that goes beyond the context of the legislative process; echoes Court’s opinion that in such case institiveution concerned is obliged to give a detailed statement of the reasons for such a refusal20 ; _________________ 20 Judgment of 21 April 2021, Laurent Pech v Council of the European Union, T- 252/19, EU:T:2021:203.
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Welcomes the Commission’s intention to increase transparency within the EU based on ‘transparency by default’; calls on all EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies to publish documents proactively on their websites and make the search of these documents easy for citizens in order to allow for public scrutiny; implores the Commission not to consider any proposal to revise Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 that would lower the standards of transparency and access to documents; deplores the fact that negotiations have long been at a standstill and strongly urges the Council and the Commission to resume negotiations with the other institutionsParliament on the basis of the Commission’s proposals from 2008 and 2011; notes that any reform will need to address key issues such as the scope of the grounds for refusal, theo grant access to documents, a public-interest test, transparency in the legislative process, and opposition to block exemptions well as the issue of vexatious and repeated requests; calls for the Council, the Commission and the Parliament to work constructively with the ultimate aim of giving EU citizens wider and improved access to documents;
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Stresses the importance of Parliament’s Transparency Register and calls for the introduction of a mandatory requirement for all Members to make public all scheduled meetings with people external to Parliament wdeclaration of scheduled meetings with diplomatic representatives of third countries in case of an active role on a report or a resolution to allow for scrutiny of interest representation and decision making process, in line with the reform plan proposed by President Roberta Metsola; calls for a swift implementation of the re these meetings relate to a report or resolution of the European Parliament; form that is aimed at strengthening the Parliament's integrity, independence and accountability; calls for the reform to reflect the need for more transparency, also through better access to documents, in order to ensure public scrutiny;
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Calls for a revision of the Staff Regulations, especially Article 22(c) thereof, in order to align them with the standards of the Whistleblower Directive; reiterates its call for a special committee tasked with identifying potenwelcomes the endorsement by the political flaws in the European Parliament’s rules on transparency, integrity and corruption and with making proposals for reforms; recalls its commitment to setting up a committee of inquiry to investigate cases of corruption and improper actions by non-EU countries seeking to buy influence in the European Parliament; recalls its position that the Commission should put forward a proposal to set up a new ethics body for the EU institutions as soon as possiblgroups' leaders of the reform plan and reminds that the reform should be aimed at enhancing public trust in the Parliament while protecting the right of MEPs in the free exercise of their mandate;
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Welcomes the Ombudsman’s practical recommendations on how to record text and instant messages sent or received by staff members in their professional capacity23 ; recognises that certain work-related text and instant messages aremay be considered as ‘documents’ within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 on public access to documents and invites the other EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies to also recognise this; calls on the other EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies to use a broad interpretation of the concept of ‘document’, which is particularly important in an information society and in the context of new forms of communication; _________________ 23 https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/do c/correspondence/en/158383.
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12 a. Welcomes the 2021 Ombudsman’s guidelines for the EU administration on policies and practices to give effect to the right of public access to documents in view to improve internal procedures in order to make the process easy and open to citizens, such as providing the public with the information on how to submit a request for public access to documents, as well as on the procedure the institution follows in dealing with requests and the information on the means of redress12a; _________________ 12a https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/do c/correspondence/en/149198
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)
Paragraph 12 b (new)
12 b. Encourages the EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies to put in place on its respective websites advice on what elements a request for documents under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 should contain and how detailed it should be in order to streamline the processing of the requests;
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Calls for the EU institutions to have a policy of ‘transparency by design’ and publish documents linked to legislative files proactively, within a reasonable time frame and in a user-friendly way; calls for the EU institutions to comply fully with the judgment of the CJEU in Case T-540/1524 on access to trilogue documents; insists that the EU institutions and in particular the Council should improve its rules and procedures on legislative transparency, including the accessibility and classification of legislative documents; _________________ 24 Judgment of 22 March 2018, Emilio De Capitani v European Parliament, T-540/15, EU:T:2018:167.
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16 a. Notes that citizens are often facing long delays in receiving access to documents; calls on the institutions to process requests for access to documents without undue delay; acknowledges however that the delays may be caused by the complexity of a given case; in such instances, calls for the institutions to explain to the applicant the reasons for the necessary delays;