BETA

21 Amendments of Sophia IN 'T VELD related to 2013/2155(INI)

Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 a (new)
- having regard to Article 11 of the TEU and the obligation of the institutions to maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with representative associations and civil society;
2014/01/14
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
K. whereas resort to the European Ombudsman represents a valuable option where denial of access to a document has been confirmed by the administration concerned; whereas, however, there is no means of enforcing the Ombudsman’s decisions;deleted (Transposed into Paragraph)
2014/01/14
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
L. whereas litigation entails extremely lengthy processes, the risk of high, even prohibitive costs, and an uncertain outcome, putting an unreasonable burden on citizens who wish to challenge a decision to refuse (partial) access; whereas this means in practice that there is no effective legal remedy against a negative decision on a request for access to documents;deleted (Transposed into Paragraph)
2014/01/14
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital M
M. whereas faster, less cumbersome and more accessible procedures for handling complaints against refusals to grant access are urgently needed, so as to reduce the need for litigation and create a true culture of transparency;deleted (Transposed into Paragraph)
2014/01/14
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
N. whereas the annual reports of the three institutions and of the bodies and agencies should present figures in a comparable format, which should include, for example: number of documents requested; number of applications; number of documents to which (partial) access is granted; number of applications granted before and after confirmatory application; access granted by the Court; partial access granted by the Court; access denied;deleted (Transposed into Paragraph)
2014/01/14
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AE
AE. whereas informal trilogues between the Commission, Parliament and the Council are defining for the formation of EU legislation; whereas trilogues are not public and documents regarding informal trilogues, including agendas and summeary reports, are noby default made available neither to the public by default, nor to the Parliament, which is in contradiction with Article 15 TFEU;
2014/01/14
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AH
AH. whereas requests for in camera meetings in Parliament should, in principle, be considered along the lines of Regulation (EC) 1049/2001, whereas such requests shall be evaluated by the Parliament on a case-by-case basis, and shall not be granted automatically;
2014/01/14
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital AK
AK. whereas the Court of Justice has ruled in Case C-536/11, paragraph 43 that ‘any request for access to the [cartel file] must be assessed on a case-by-case basis [by the national courts], taking into account all the relevant factors of the case’; whereas it is recommended that EU guidelines be drawn up as a helpful tool for judges; whereas such guidelines need to distinguish between company documents and cartel files held by the Commission;deleted (Transposed into Paragraph)
2014/01/14
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Recalls that the widest possible public access to documents is needed to effectively allow citizens and civil society to comment on all aspects of EU activity;
2014/01/14
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Recalls the need to establish an appropriate equilibrium between transparency and data protection, as made clear by the Bavarian Lager case- law, and stresses that data protection should not be 'misused', in particular, for the purpose of covering conflicts of interest and undue influence in the context of EU administration and decision-making; points out that the judgment of the Court of Justice in the Bavarian Lager case is based on the current wording of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and does not prevent the wording from being changed, which is necessary and urgent, notably after the clear proclamation of the right of access to documents in the Treaties and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights;
2014/01/14
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Calls on the institutions, bodies and agencies to strictly apply Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, taking full account of the body of case-law relating thereto, and harmonising their existing internal rules to the letter and the spirit of the Regulation, particularly with regard to deadlines to respond to requests for access to documents, while ensuring that this does not result in longer deadlines;
2014/01/14
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Calls on the institutions, bodies and agencies to implement fully Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, and put in place public document registers with clear and accessible structures; good search functionality; regularly updated information on new documents produced and registered; inclusion of references to non-public documents; user guidance on the types of documents held in a registry to assist public users;
2014/01/14
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Calls on the institutions, bodies and agencies to publish systematically and without delay in their document registers, all documents disclosed via public access to documents requests which were not previously publicly available;
2014/01/14
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 c (new)
4c. Calls on the institutions, bodies and agencies to increase the proactive publication of documents, including internal administrative documents, and include these in their public registries;
2014/01/14
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Stresses that resort to the European Ombudsman represents a valuable option where denial of access to a document has been confirmed by the administration concerned; recalls, however, there is no means of enforcing the Ombudsman's decisions;
2014/01/14
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Stresses that litigation entails extremely lengthy processes, the risk of high, even prohibitive costs, and an uncertain outcome, putting an unreasonable burden on citizens who wish to challenge a decision to refuse (partial) access; emphasises that this means in practice that there is no effective legal remedy against a negative decision on a request for access to documents;
2014/01/14
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 c (new)
5c. Calls upon the EU institutions, bodies and agencies to adopt faster, less cumbersome and more accessible procedures for handling complaints against refusals to grant access are urgently needed, so as to reduce the need for litigation and create a true culture of transparency;
2014/01/14
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 d (new)
5d. Stresses that the annual reports of the three institutions and of the bodies and agencies should present figures in a comparable format, which should include, for example: number of documents requested; number of applications; number of documents to which (partial) access is granted; number of applications granted before and after confirmatory application; access granted by the Court; partial access granted by the Court; access denied;
2014/01/14
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Calls on the institutions, bodies and agencies to maintain up-to-date public figures on the number of classified documents they hold, according to their classification;
2014/01/14
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 a (new)
Cartel leniency 28a. Stresses that the Court of Justice has ruled in Case C-536/11, paragraph 43 that 'any request for access to the [cartel file] must be assessed on a case-by-case basis [by the national courts], taking into account all the relevant factors of the case';
2014/01/14
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 b (new)
28b. Recommends that EU guidelines be drawn up as a helpful tool for judges; whereas such guidelines need to distinguish between company documents and cartel files held by the Commission;
2014/01/14
Committee: LIBE