Activities of Heidi HAUTALA related to 2010/2294(INI)
Legal basis opinions (0)
Amendments (17)
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the new Treaties deleted any reference to ‘the preservationing of the effectiveness of the Council’s decision- making process’ (Articles 255 and 207 (3) of the former TEC) as a possible limit to transparency, thereby deleting a Treaty basis for the so-called ‘space to think’ of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 as far as the legislative procedures are concerned; whereas Article 298 TFEU means that the ‘space to think’ should be narrowed also as regards non-legislative procedures,
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty the EU acquired extensive prerogativnew competences in the field of criminal law (Articles 82 and 83 TFEU) and police co- operation; whereas such new prerogativescompetences could affecting basic human rights highlight the need for a more open legislative procedure,
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J a (new)
Recital J a (new)
Ja. whereas Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 establishes an obligation for the institutions to consider partial access to a document in case only parts of it are covered by an exception; whereas partial access granted is often unduly limited and only concerns the title or the introductory paragraphs of the documents while access to the substantive paragraphs is denied,
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J b (new)
Recital J b (new)
Jb. whereas Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights establishes ‘the right of every person to have access to his or her file, while respecting the legitimate interests of confidentiality and of professional and business secrecy’; and whereas serious gaps in the implementation of this right persist which creates pressure to invoke rules of public access to gain access to one’s own file,
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J c (new)
Recital J c (new)
Jc. whereas Article 15 TFEU establishes a clear obligation for all Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies to ‘conduct their work as openly as possible’; whereas this obligation also applies to the committees assisting the Commission in its duties; whereas this obligation is not respected in the Commission’s Standard rules of procedure for committees, which stipulate that all committee discussions and documents relating to ‘comitology’ procedures are to be confidential;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Recalls that the Court of Justice has clarified in the case Sweden v Commission (case C-64/05 P) that Member States do not have an absolute veto right regarding documents originating from them, but only the possibility of an assent procedure, confirming that none of the exceptions to the right of access to documents is applicable to a consultation procedure, the purpose of which is to assess whether or not an exception to access to documents is applicable; considers that a legislative clarification is needed in order to ensure the correct application of this case-law to avoid the still existing delays and controversies, as shown by the IFAW case;
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Recalls that the landmark judgment of the Court of Justice in the joined cases Sweden and Turco v Council stressed an obligation of transparency in the legislative procedure, as ‘openness in that respect contributes to strengthening democracy by allowing citizens to scrutinise all the information which has formed the basis of a legislative act’; stresses therefore that any exceptions referring to the legislative procedure, including legal advice and, should be extremely limited and as far as to the so-called ‘space to think’, should be extremely limited nonexistent;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Calls on the Commission to make publicly available agendas, minutes and declarations of interests as regards expert groups, and names of members, proceedings and votes of the ‘committees established under Article 291 TFEU concerning implementing powers (the so called old comitology’ committees), as well as all of the documents considered by such groups and committees, including draft delegated acts and draft implementing acts;
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Recalls that the Court of Justice in some of its recent decisions, such as in the cases of API and TGI as mentioned above, has acceptestablished the existence of a ‘general presumption’, thus relieving the Commission in some cases of a duty to examine requested documents individually; stresses that this is in principle contrary to the core principles of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001; recalls that the case law of the Court of Justice also highlights the need to revise the access rules for parties directly concerned in relation to their own files held by the institutions;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Notes that the Court of Justice, like all other EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, must carry out its work ‘as openly as possible’, pursuant to Article 1 TEU; emphasises that while Article 15 TEU only specifically applies to the administrative documents of the Court, this does not preclude the adoption of measures on a different legal base, conferring the right of access on other Court documents, in accordance with Article 1 TEU;
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Recalls that the new Treaties abolished the specific reference to the Council’s obligation to define the cases in which it acts in a legislative capacity and to the need to preserve the effectiveness of its decision-making process (Article 207(3) of the former TEC), the so-called ‘space to think’, and that the current ‘survival’ of this concept is based only on Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 as far as the legislative procedures are concerned;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20a. Recalls that Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 establishes a clear obligation for the institutions to grant access to all those parts of the document that are not covered by any of the exceptions; notes that partial access granted is often unduly limited and stresses that access should be genuinely considered also in relation to those substantive parts of documents that are of interest to the applicant;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Emphasises that the so-called first reading trialogues and the conciliation procedures (as explicitly listed in Article 294 TFEU) are a substantial phase of the legislative procedure, and not a separate ‘space to think’; requests, therefore, that the documents created in their framework should not b, such as agendas, summaries of outcomes and the ‘four column’ documents drawn up for facilitating negotiations, should not be in principle treated differently from other legislative documents, and that they should be made public in trialogues;
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Stresses that whendocuments relating to international agreements have legislative effects, accessshould be granted to the public, as they are not categorically excluded from public access, and that access to them should be refused only when there is real harm to international relations; emphasizes that since international agreements have binding effects, a public interest test should be grantintroduced to the publicexception; points out that Parliament, which is elected by the EU citizens, has a special role in representing the public interest; stresses, therefore, the need to fully respect the new prerogatives assigned to Parliament by the Lisbon Treaty in the field of international agreements, and that no bilateral agreements with third countries may prohibit this;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Emphasises the current lack of coherent EU administrative law pursuant to Article 298 TFEU, such as rules regarding the delivery of administrative decisions that can be appealed against, or a clear concept of ‘administrative tasks’ as mentioned in Article 15(3) TFEU; calls, therefore, on the EU institutions to urgently define a common EU administrative law, and to provide a common and horizontally applicable definition of an ‘administrative task’ especially for the European Central Bank, the European Investment Bank and the Court of Justice; Commits itself to make a recommendation for a legislative proposal on this issue, pursuant to Article 225 TFEU, which should inter alia address the issue of the transparency and accountability of the Commission’s conduct of infringement proceedings to complainants, the Parliament and citizens;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34 a (new)
Paragraph 34 a (new)
34a. Considers that copyright rules, to the extent that they apply at all to documents within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, cannot be invoked to refuse public access to documents or to prevent the publication of such documents on the Internet;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39 a (new)
Paragraph 39 a (new)
39a. Calls on the Council and Commission to negotiate with the Parliament to amend the Joint Declaration on the co-decision procedure, and the Inter-Institutional Agreement on better law-making, to this end; commits itself, in the interim, to amend its rules of procedure, including the annexed code of conduct on co-decision negotiations, to give full binding effect to these principles;