11 Amendments of Cristian TERHEŞ related to 2019/2198(INI)
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas in case 1302/2017/MH on the European Commission's handling of a request for public access to the opinions of its Legal Service concerning the Transparency Register, the Ombudsman found that the European Commission's continuous refusal to grant access to the documents constitutes maladministration due to the fact that the Commission has failed to be as open and forthcoming as possible about the very measure aimed at promoting transparency as a means to achieve greater EU legitimacy and accountability;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 10 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Points out that transparency and full access to documents held by the institutions have to be the rule, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, and that, as has already been stipulated by the precedents consistently set by the CJEU, exceptions to that rule have to be properrestrictively interpreted;
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Welcomes the decision of the European Court of Justice, in case C- 213/15 P (Commission v Patrick Breyer), where the Court upheld the judgment of the General Court, finding that the Commission cannot refuse access to written submission of the Member States held by it, on the sole ground that they are documents relating to court proceedings. The Court considers that any decision on such an application for access must be taken on the basis of Regulation 1049/2001. Documents linked to the Court of Justice's judicial activity are not, as a matter of principle, outside the scope of the Regulation, where they are in the possession of the EU institutions listed in the Regulation, such as the Commission in this specific case.
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)
Paragraph 13 b (new)
13b. Welcomes the decision of the Council of the EU, further to the opening by the Ombudsman of case 1011/2015/TN, to apply Regulation 1049/2001 to documents held by its General Secretariat in relation to tasks of support to various intergovernmental bodies and entities, such as the opinions of the panel in case, regarding the candidates' suitability to perform the duties of Judge and Advocate-General at the Court of Justice and the General Court of the EU. Salutes the Ombudsman opinion that greater openness is to be favoured regarding the issue of how to strike the correct balance between the need to protect the personal data of persons being assessed for high public office with the need to ensure maximum transparency in relation to the process of making appointments to high public office.
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 c (new)
Paragraph 13 c (new)
13c. Emphasis that when the EU institutions issue official documents or reports that have any sort of impact on the Member States or their citizens, the right to know the identity and background of those who wrote them prevails over the need to protect the privacy rights of the individuals who wrote such documents or reports;
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 d (new)
Paragraph 13 d (new)
13d. Condemns the fact that the Council has classified Section III, Legal Analysis from the opinion of its Legal Service with respect to the Commission's proposal for a Regulation on the protection of the Union's budget in case of generalised deficiencies as regards the rule of law in the Member States. The European citizens have, thus, been deprived of their right to access such an important source of information regarding critical legislation deeply impacting the citizens of the EU. Notes that in such cases the interest of the public to be aware of the content of these documents is paramount, condemns the opacity of the Council and urges it to make the entire opinion of its Legal Service available;
Amendment 103 #
15a. Supports the civil society's call1a for a reform regarding the public hearings of the European Court of Justice to be live streamed, as it already is the case for some national and international courts, for example the Conseil Constitutionnel in France and the European Court of Human Rights; _________________ 1a https://thegoodlobby.eu/campaigns/open- letter-to-the-president-of-the-court-of- justice-of-the-european-union-asking-for- eu-courts-to-live-stream-their-public- hearings/
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 16 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Recalls in this respect the Ombudsman decision, dated 19/12/2017, in case 682/2014/JF where the Commission's requirement that all persons who ask for public access to documents must provide their postal address for its paper post sending arrangements is maladministration, highlighting that insisting on renewed requests and procedural formalities, when they are unnecessary and serve no obvious useful purpose, shows a lack of respect for citizens' fundamental rights;
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Stresses that privacy and the protection of personal data should be respected while ensuring transparency, securing a case by case evaluation and observing the principle of restrictively interpreting exceptions to the right of citizens of accessing public information and documents;
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Calls on the institutions to ensure the transparency of legislative procedures on the basis of the relevant legislation and, case law and Ombudsman recommendations;