37 Amendments of Tineke STRIK related to 2022/2015(INI)
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 11 a (new)
Citation 11 a (new)
— having regard to the EU Ombudsman Decision in Case OI/4/2021/MHZ on how the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) complies with its fundamental rights obligations and ensures accountability in relation to its enhanced responsibilities,
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 11 b (new)
Citation 11 b (new)
— having regard to the Report on the fact-finding investigation on Frontex concerning alleged fundamental rights violations of the Frontex Scrutiny Working Group (FSWG),
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 16 a (new)
Citation 16 a (new)
— having regard to the 2020 Consolidated Annual Report Activity of the European Border Coast Guard Agency,
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the TEU provides that ‘every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union’ and that decisions must be taken as openly and as close to citizens as possible13 ; whereas the TFEU provides that the Union’s institutions, bodies, offices and agencies are to conduct their work as openly as possible and that citizens and residents must have a right of access to documents14 ; whereas this is a very important fe right of access to documents is a fundamental right, protected by the Charter of Fundamental rRights as itnd the Treaties, which should be exercised in a proactive way enablesing citizens to effectively exercise their right to scrutinise the EU’s work and follow the decision- makingactivities of EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, in particular the legislative process; within the EUhereas the CJEU has repeatedly stressed the link between access to documents and democracy; _________________ 13 Article 10(3) TEU, read in the light of the thirteenth recital of the preamble thereto and Article 1(2) and Article 9 thereof. 14 Article 15 TFEU.
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas openness and accountability builds trust; whereas citizens’ trust in the EU institutions is fundamental for democracy, good governance and effective policy-making; whereas the EU institutions must strive for the highest possible standards of transparency, accountability and integrity; whereas openness and the participation of civil society are indispensable for promoting good governance in the EU institutions; there is a need to ensure modes of scrutiny which combine democratic oversight, control and auditing activities; whereas openness and the participation of civil society are indispensable for promoting good governance in the EU institutions; whereas good governance, accountability building, openness in the functioning of the EU and its decision- making process should be the leading principles of the culture within the EU institutions;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
C a. whereas there is a clear public interest in disclosing legislative documents so that citizens can effectively exercise their right to scrutinise the legislative process; whereas according to Article 16(8) TEU the Council must meet in public when it deliberates and votes on a draft legislative act; whereas designating most preparatory documents in ongoing legislative procedures as ‘LIMITE’ represents a disproportionate restriction on citizens’ right to access legislative documents; whereas in order to enable citizens to fully exercise their right to access documents, all legislative documents produced and/or circulated in preparatory bodies should be listed in a user-friendly public register; whereas according to the CJEU access to legislative documents must be as wide as possible and justification for refusing access should be well-founded, including in the Council’s working groups1a; _________________ 1a Case T 163/21 https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/do cument.jsf;jsessionid=DD19440C415747 D82260E788B77D832F?text
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)
Recital C b (new)
C b. whereas openness and transparency principles should govern not only the decision-making process but also the way in which a text is drafted; whereas transparency and access to documents should also be guaranteed in relation to how EU policies are implemented at all levels and how EU funds are used;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas citizens’ expectations as regards transparency, accountability and technical solutions have evolved in recent years; whereas this may require in view of the lack of transparency in EU institutions and the difficulties in requesting access to documents; whereas this may require enforcing implementation of the current legislation, CJEU and ECtHR case law, the adoption of new technical solutions and guidelines, as well as measures to monitor progress;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the leading concerns raised in the inquiries closed by the Ombudsman in 2021 were transparency in decision making, accountability and the refusal of public access to information and documents (29 %), followed by a culture of service (26 %) and, the proper use of discretion (18 %)15 ; , including in infringement procedures (18 %), the respect for procedural rights (12%) and the violation of fundamental rights (11%) 15 ; whereas according to the Ombudsman report, “revolving doors” continues to be a matter of concern; _________________ 15 https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/doc/ annual-report/en/156017, p. 31.
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas the Union’s response to the COVID-19 crisis showed its ability to act, but also demonstrated the need for increased transparency within the Union; whereas the way in which the Commission handled the case of the text messages exchanged between the Commission President and the CEO of a pharmaceutical company on the purchase of a COVID-19 vaccine is a matter of deep concern; whereas the Ombudsman has presented recommendations on how to record text messages as a follow-up of the case;
Amendment 36 #
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 transparency and accountability in order to uphold the EU’s credibility and legitimacy in citizens’ eyes;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Is deeply concerned that Members, former Members, and staff of the European Parliament are alleged to have engaged in corruption, laundered money and participated in a criminal organisation in exchange for influence over Parliament’s decisions; recalls the importance of transparency in preventing and fighting corruption and in ensuring the accountability of persons performing public duties; notes that a high level of transparency makes it easier to track activities related to the decision- making process and may help in exposing criminal activities;
Amendment 45 #
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 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 prerequisite for its existence; supports the Ombudsman’s finding of maladministration by the Commission in this case17 ; is concerned about the fact that the Commission has failed to follow up on the Ombudsman’s recommendation following her inquiry to search again for relevant text messages and calls on the Commission to conduct a full search without delay; highlights that following this case the Ombudsman has presented recommendations on how to record text messages; calls on EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies to follow up on these recommendations and to make this follow-up public; expresses deep concern about the growing distance between citizens and EU institutions that this situation has caused; _________________ 17 https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/deci sion/en/158295.
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Amendment 53 #
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, bodies or agencies on the basis of insubstantial arguments; takes note of the frequent use of the exceptions in Article 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 to refuse full access to documents; reiterates that an institution, body or agency invoking one of the exceptions to access has to make an objective and individual assessment and show that the risk to the interest protected is well-founded, foreseeable and not purely hypothetical, and defineuly justify 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’ predicatcalls on institutions, bodies, offices and agencies to integrate these assessments in their access to documents practice; highlights that it might be possible to disclose some parts of a document when other parts need to be protected, taking into account the overriding public interest in disclosure, including the need to ensure closer involvement of citizens in the decision- making process, good governance, efficiency and accountability to citizens; notes with interest that in its judgement on the case lodged against the Council for its frequent recourse to the informal ‘working document’ predicate, the Court stressed that access to legislative documents must be as wide as possible and that the Council must grant access to documents drawn up within its working groups relating to the legislative procedure19 ; _________________ 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 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Recalls that according to the European Ombudsman, restrictions on access to documents, particularly legislative documents, should be exceptional and limited to what is absolutely necessary; recalls as well, that any decision denying public access to documents must be based on clearly and strictly defined legal exemptions, accompanied by reasoned and specific justification, allowing citizens to understand the denial of access, and to make effective use of the legal remedies available; considers that a more proactive approach would help ensure effective transparency as well as prevent unnecessary legal disputes that could result in unnecessary costs and burdens for both the citizens and the institutions;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Takes note of the fact that the Commission receives the highest number of initial applications for public access to documents (8 420 in 2021), followed by the Council (2 083 in 2021) and Parliament (499 in 2021); acknowledges that the institutions’ response rate is quite positive overall (in 2021, it was 75 % for the Commission, 89.5 % for the Council and 95 % for Parliament); highlights however that the enhanced delays and unfounded refusal to disclose, including partially, of documents undermines citizens’ right of scrutiny on EU institutions;
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Notes that in its current document management policy, e-mails are automatically deleted after 6 months unless registered by staff; expresses its concern that this practice has led to the disappearance of important correspondence relevant to policy decisions; calls on the Commission to ensure systematic registration and archiving of non-private correspondence by default; further calls upon EU Agencies to apply Regulation 1049/2001 in their policy on access to documents;
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5 b. Expresses concern about the difficulties in accessing documents from some EU agencies which prevent that citizens and MEPs can effectively scrutinize them; considers that the disclosure of meetings and interactions between EU agencies and third parties is required to ensure enhanced transparency;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 c (new)
Paragraph 5 c (new)
5 c. Calls for more transparency on the national applications for funding, the communication between Commission and Member States and the implementation of EU funding, including the RRF;
Amendment 69 #
6. Welcomes Frontex’s establishment of a document register on a dedicated website; notes, however, that the register contains very few documents related to the implementation of joint operations, which is the agency’s core activity; also regrets that in 2020, less than 5% of public access to documents requests received full access, this preventing effective public scrutiny; stresses that this information is necessary for understanding the agency’s work; endorses the Ombudsman’s recommendation, following her own- initiative inquiry 4/2021/MHZ, that the agency should take a more proactive approach to transparency ‘on how Frontex complies with its fundamental rights obligations and ensures accountability in relation to its enhanced responsibilities’ , that the agency should take a more proactive approach to transparency, including publishing documents which are necessary to understand the respective roles and responsibilities of the actors involved in its operations and reporting any incident observed, with a view to ensuring greater accountability for its operations;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Takes note of the fact that Council in 2021 out of a total of 3586 documents added to the register, classified 1327 legislative documents as “LIMITE”, and that 839 of those were subsequently made public on request; stresses that excessive use of LIMITE severely hampers and delays the access to documents by citizens; calls on the Council to revise its guidelines for classifying documents as “LIMITE” with a view to ensure pro- active publication by default and only use LIMITE for duly justified exceptional cases and to reconsider such limitation regularly;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 c (new)
Paragraph 6 c (new)
6 c. Is deeply concerned that Frontex has ordered to recover legal fees in the amount of EUR 23,700 from two individuals in the General Court case T- 31/181b regarding requests for access to documents; highlights that charging civil society with excessively high legal fees has a chilling effect on civil society’s access to justice in the field of access to documents which is a fundamental right laid down in Article 42 of the Charter and undermines their right to an effective remedy under Article 47 of the Charter; calls on the Agency to withdraw its demand for recovering of the costs; _________________ 1b https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/do cument.jsf?docid=221083&doclang=EN
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 d (new)
Paragraph 6 d (new)
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Deplores the fact that EU institutions do not proactively publish most documents related to legislative files, preventing citizens from knowing which documents actually exist and thus impeding their right to request access to documents; regrets the fact that available information on legislative documents is presented by the Council in a register which is incomplete and not user-friendly;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8 b. Regrets that official documents are frequently over-classified and reiterates its position that clear and uniform rules should be established for the classification and declassification of documents; stresses that ensuring that citizens are able to understand, follow in detail and participate in the progress of legislation is a legal requirement under the Treaties and the Charter, and a basic requirement for democratic scrutiny and democracy as a whole; underlines that according to the CJEU, citizens must also be able to follow in detail the decision-making process in the preparatory bodies involved in the legislative procedures and have access to all relevant information; believes that documents created in trilogues such as agendas, summaries of outcomes, minutes and general approaches in the Council are related to legislative procedures and should be treated as legislative documents;
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 c (new)
Paragraph 8 c (new)
8 c. Stresses that international agreements have binding force and an impact on EU legislation, and underlines the need for negotiations to be transparent throughout the entire process, including by ensuring MEPs access to the relevant documents; recalls that according to Article 218 TFEU, the Parliament shall be fully and immediately informed at every stage while negotiations are taking place;
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 d (new)
Paragraph 8 d (new)
8 d. Stresses the importance of the measures taken to enhance the transparency of decisions taken in infringement procedures; regrets the lack of transparency regarding letters of formal notice and infringement procedures against Member States;
Amendment 89 #
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’; 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 institutions on the basis of Commission’s proposals from 2008 and 2011; notes that any reform will need to address key issues such as extension of the scope to all EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, the scope of the grounds for refusal, the definition of 'document', the public- interest test, transparency in the legislative process, and opposition to block exemptions; calls for the Council, the Commission and Parliament to work constructively with the ultimate aim of giving EU citizens wider and improved access to document, as well as to integrate CJEU and ECtHR case law and to take into account the new technological developments; calls for the Council, the Commission and Parliament to work constructively and publish documents in a proactive manner with the ultimate aim of ensuring that EU citizens can fully exercise their right to access to documents in order to perform their scrutiny role to EU institutions, bodies offices and agencies;
Amendment 106 #
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 work-related text and instant messages are ‘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 and follow the Ombudsman’s recommendations accordingly; 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/doc/ correspondence/en/158383.
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12 a. Calls on the Commission to ensure compliance with Article 218 TFEU and to make publicly available relevant documents, such as documents sent to Member States, in connection with infringement procedures;
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Calls for the EU institutions, bodies and agencies 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 wayincluding documents forming part of or related to legislative procedures, within a reasonable time frame and in a user-friendly and accessible way, as well as complaints against refusals to grant access; 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 thaturges the Council shouldto 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 120 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Calls for the Commission and the other EU institutions, agencies and bodies to be more proactive in publishing documents and statistics regarding how they handle document access requests, as such information would help with assessing the institutions’ proactive approach to document access; requests to use the EU Ombudsman’s short guide on policies and practices to give effect to the right of public access to documents as a basis1c; calls on the EU institutions to implement without delay a user-dedicated joint database on the state of play of legislative files as agreed in the Inter-Institutional Agreement on Better Law-making; _________________ 1c https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/do c/correspondence/en/149198
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 b (new)
Paragraph 15 b (new)
15 b. Calls for a user-friendly system on the European Parliament's website whereby for each roll-call vote, the text voted on and the voting results can be filtered by group and by MEP; further calls for the roll-call vote results, the MEP presence data and the text put to the vote, to be made available in machine- readable formats;
Amendment 124 #
16. Recalls that an application for access to a document must be handled promptly26 ; notes with concern that the Ombudsman receives many citizen complaints about extreme delays in gaining access to requested documents; supports the Ombudsman’s views that access delayed is effectively access denied and that administrative processes should be streamlined to ensure that citizens receive access to documents in a timely manner; calls for more data on the institutions’ compliance with the deadlineson the EU institutions, bodies and agencies to ensure compliance with the deadlines, and for more data on their compliance with the deadlines; further calls upon the Commission to take measures to enforce compliance by other EU institutions with deadlines; stresses that pro-active publication of documents in the register is the best solution to lower the amount of access to documents requests and to avoid delays; calls as a last resort, for documents to be made public automatically if deadlines to process access to documents requests are not respected repeatedly; _________________ 26 Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, Article 7.
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Notes with concern that at present, citizens can only challenge the refusal of an access-to-document request by bringing court proceedings against the institution and/or by making a complaint to the Ombudsman; calls for EU institutions to ensure full and swift follow up of decisions and recommendations by the Ombudsman; calls for the EU institutions, bodies and agencies to adopt more accessible procedures for handling complaints about refusals to grant access and measures to ensure that citizens can challenge decisions where needed; recommends, in this context, appointing independent, senior official experts with the capacity to review, without undue delay, appeals concerning access-to-documents requests;