Activities of Cornelia ERNST related to 2022/2015(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Public access to documents – annual report for the years 2019-2021 (debate)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on public access to documents – annual report for the years 2019-2021
Amendments (21)
Amendment 1 #
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 3 #
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 6 #
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 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 19 a (new)
Citation 19 a (new)
— having regard to CJEU judgement of 25 January 2023 T-163/21 De Capitani v. Council,
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 19 b (new)
Citation 19 b (new)
— having regard to CJEU judgement of 27 November 2019 T-31/18 Luisa Izuzquiza and Arne Semsrott v European Border and Coast Guard Agency;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
G a. whereas the "ad-hoc working group" on Covid-19 certificates was established in secrecy and public access to minutes of this group was denied;
Amendment 39 #
H a. whereas in the CJEU judgement of 25 January 2023 T-163/21 De Capitani v. Council the Court made clear that the purpose of Regulation No 1049/2001 is to give the public a right of access that is as wide as possible so any exceptions derogate from the principle must be interpreted and applied strictly (§68 of the Judgment); it furthermore clarified that Article 4(3) of Regulation provides inter alia an exception on the access to legislative documents on the ground that their disclosure would seriously undermine the institution in question’s decision-making process; when refusing access to documents invoking that exception , the Council has to demonstrate that disclosure of the documents at issue would specifically and actually undermine its decision-making process and that the risk of such undermining was reasonably foreseeable and not purely hypothetical;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H b (new)
Recital H b (new)
H b. whereas as a result of the CJEU judgment T-31/18 Izuzquiza and Semsrott v Frontex, in which two citizens have asked Frontex for access to documents on the Operation Triton; Frontex sought payments of 23,700 EUR from the citizens for the legal costs. Whereas further the CJEU by its order reduce that amount to 10,520 EUR to be paid to Frontex. Whereas, the Ombudsman found the maladministration on the side of Frontex in regards to its recent practice regarding access to documents in its decision of 15 December 2022 in Cases 1261/2020 and 1361/2020. Whereas the decision by Frontex not to communicate any more by email with individuals who request public access to documents. Frontex obliges requesters to use its online access portal. This causes problems for requesters because the portal often does not work and is malfunctioning. Whereas the Ombudsman noted that “Frontex’s opinion, similar to its previous replies, does not give the impression that Frontex has genuinely internalised the EU’s recognition of the importance of civil society for the Union’s democratic culture and governance. It does not seem to attach importance to the fact that the functioning of its portal had severe negative consequences for the functioning of well-established online platforms set up by civil society, platforms that Frontex was familiar with before setting up its portal”. Whereas taking the two above factors together, it seems that current practice established by Frontex to create the technical obstacles in access to documents and to seek excessive legal costs when the case is lost, may have a chilling effect on the members’ of the society seeking access to documents from Frontex and which eventually may contribute to more obscurity and lack of transparency and no access to documents on the Frontex activities;
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes with concernRegrets 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 ; as well as the Ombudsman’s practical recommendations on how to record text and instant messages sent or received by staff members in their professional capacity; notes that the Commission's behaviour has hurt citizens' trust and undermined public scrutiny of the Union's work; _________________ 17 https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/deci sion/en/158295.
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Regrets in particular that until the present day the advices of the Legal Service of the European Parliament are limited in access, often even not available for the Members of other committees;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5 b. Emphasises that citizens, in order to make use of their right of access to documents of the Union institutions laid down in Article 15(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, need to be given access in their respective languages; invites all EU institutions to ensure the provision of requested documents in all official EU languages;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. WelcomesTakes note of Frontex’s establishment of a document register on a dedicated website; notestrongly regrets, however, that the register contains very few documents related to the implementation of joint operations, which is the agency’s core activity; stresses that this information; also regrets that in 2020, less than 5% of public access to documents requests received full access, thus preventing effective public scrutiny; stresses that public access to documents of Frontex is necessary for understanding and scrutinizing 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 with a view to ensuring greater accountability for its operations;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Condemns Frontex's misrepresentation of meetings with lobby organisations between 2017 and 2019, including many of whom were not registered in the transparency register at time of the meeting; notes that Frontex's false statements were only uncovered after journalists made use of their right to access relevant documents; calls, in line with the Ombudsman's own-initiative inquiry 4/2021/MHZ, on Frontex to improve the transparency of its operations;
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6 b. Regrets that case OC/2021/0451/A1 of OLAF was not publicly accessible until leaked through journalists; calls for upcoming OLAF reports on Frontex to be made public; stresses that Frontex's cover-ups of human rights violations are in contradiction to Article 2, 3, 6, 21 and 205 of the Treaty on European Union and undermine the legitimacy of the European Union's executive actions;
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13 a. Calls on the Council to fully comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in T- 163/21 De Capitani v. Council on access to documents developed by the Council in its working groups;
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)
Paragraph 13 b (new)
13 b. Furthermore, calls on the Council presidencies to continue the Finnish initiative to expand proactive disclosure of legislative documents and to ensure the limited application of the ‘limite’ label to such documents, restricting both the number of documents and the duration of the validity of this label;
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 c (new)
Paragraph 13 c (new)
13 c. Calls on the Council to further develop the Council’s standing practice on the proactive publication of contacts with lobbyists;
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 d (new)
Paragraph 13 d (new)
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 e (new)
Paragraph 13 e (new)
13 e. Calls on the Council to organise an expert seminar about the changing nature of the concept of ‘a document’ in times of diversifying modes of communication, and its legal and practical challenges;
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17 a. Calls for a revision of the public access to documents regime in relation to Frontex. Highlights that Regulation 1049/2001 was designed to offer a solution to a specific transparency issue, namely, to address allegations of democratic deficit directed at the decision- making institutions. Stresses that its extension to any transparency matter regarding any other Institution, body or agency fails to acknowledge the inherent differences underlying the organic structure of the EU and its policy areas and that the implementation of Regulation 1049/2001 is not counterbalanced by proper safeguards, and ultimately fails to uphold the right that any EU citizens or resident is granted under the EU Charter;
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 b (new)
Paragraph 17 b (new)
17 b. Calls on Frontex to change its practice and start to communicate with members of the civil society and any other actors requesting access to documents via email per recommendation made by Ombudsman in her decision of 15 December 2023 and to immediately suspend the policy on seeking extensive legal costs from members of the public who seek to access the documents but lost their legal cases before the CJEU;