3 Amendments of Cristian TERHEŞ related to 2024/2056(INI)
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital M
Recital M
M. whereas in 2023, the Ombudsman published a special report following her strategic inquiry into the time the European Commission takes to deal with requests for public access to documents; whereas the Ombudsman’s inquiry revealed that when individuals seek a review of an access decision, known as a confirmatory request, the Commission misses the deadlines set out in the law in 85% of cases; whereas the Ombudsman submitted this report to the European Parliament with a view to seeking its help in prevailing upon the Commission to act on her recommendations, being of the opinion that citizens are entitled to expect better practices from an open, modern and service-minded EU administration;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital M a (new)
Recital M a (new)
M a. whereas in 2023 the Ombudsman criticised the Commission’s initial failure to include specific emails in the scope of an access request concerning exchanges on draft EU soil, forest, and climate adaptation strategies; whereas during the Ombudsman’s inquiry, the Commission agreed to register the emails in question and examine whether they could be released; whereas this practice should not be applied arbitrarily and the Commission should consistently apply this approach to all cases, including in the negotiations related to the purchase of COVID-19 vaccines;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Congratulates the Ombudsman for her efforts to further contribute to the clarification of what constitutes an EU document and stresses that it is essential that the EU institutions follow the Ombudsman’s recommendations in order to adapt their administrative practices to take into account evolving means of communication; Recalls with great 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 Commission’s purchase of COVID-19 vaccines, the Commission refused to acknowledge that such text messages fall within the definition of a ‘document’ under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001; notes that, even though the Commission would have to register and search for such text messages, it could still decide not to grant full public access to them if the exceptions listed in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, such as commercial interest, applied; recalls that registering a document is a consequence of the existence of a document and not a prerequisite for its existence; takes note of the Ombudsman’s finding of maladministration by the Commission in this case(32); is concerned about the fact that the Commission has failed to follow up on the Ombudsman’s recommendation following her inquiry to conduct another search for relevant text messages; calls on the Commission to conduct a full search without delay; expresses deep concern about the growing distance between citizens and the EU institutions, which this situation has caused;