2013/2155(INI) | [ParlTrack]

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;

Amendment 10 #

Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas the rejection of the ACTA agreement has shown that secrecy does not actually protect negotiations, but that, rather, it harms them through the lack of democratic legitimacy that accompanies it;deleted

Amendment 11 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas the ~~rejection of the ACTA agreement has shown that secrecy does not actually protect negotiations, but that, rather, it harm~~public should be informed about negotiations on international agreements twhe~~m through the lack of democratic l~~re this will not be detrimental to the negioti~~macy that accompanies it~~ations;

Amendment 12 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas ~~citizens are clamouring for more transparency, including from EU institutions, as exemplified by recent initiatives such as Wikileaks, LobbyPlag, VoteWatch and other revelations made by whistleblowers~~broad public access to documents is a key element of a lively democracy;

Amendment 13 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas citizens are clamouring for more transparency, ~~including from EU institutions, as exemplified by recent initiatives such as Wikileaks, LobbyPlag, VoteWatch and other revelations made by whistleblower~~accountability and for a stronger fight against corruption, including from EU Institutions;

Amendment 14 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas ~~in a healthy democracy citizens should not have to rely on whistleblowers in order to ensure transparency of their governments’ competences and activitie~~citizens must be guaranteed broad access to documents;

Amendment 15 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)

Ga. whereas citizens have a right to know how the decision-making process works, how their representatives act, hold them accountable and to know how public money is allocated and spent;

Amendment 16 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital H

H. whereas the EU legislation on access to documents is still not being properly applied by the Union’s administration; whereas the exceptions of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 are being applied routinely rather than of exceptionally by those administrationsgreater efforts should be made to implement EU legislation on access to documents; whereas the exceptions of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 should be defined more precisely;

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)

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)

Amendment 19 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital L

L. whereas litigation ~~entails extremely~~to challenge a decision is an option available to everyone but can entail lengthy processes, the risk of high~~, even prohibitive~~ costs, and an uncertain outcome, p~~utt~~osing a~~n 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;~~

Amendment 2 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas ~~it is a general rule that access to legislative documents should be fully provided, while exceptions regarding non- legislative documents should be narrowed~~the EU's decision-making mechanisms and legislation need to be more transparent;

Amendment 20 #

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 ~~mean~~is in practice ~~that there is n~~an obstacle to effective legal remedy against a negative decision on a request for access to documents;

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)

Amendment 22 #

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~~;

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)

Amendment 24 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital V

V. whereas athe number of applications for access to documents ~~have~~ resulteding in cases being lodged with the General Court or taken on appeal to the Court of Justice is falling (Commission: from 15 cases and 3 appeals in 2011 to 14 cases and 1 appeal in 2012; Council: from 1 case and 2 appeals in 2011 to 1 appeal in 20128; Parliament: none in 2011 or 2012); __________________ 8 Council v In 't Veld (intervention by European Parliament in support of In ‘t Veld).

Amendment 25 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AA

AA. whereas the institutions have failed to implement Articles 15(2) and 15(3), subparagraph 5 of the TFEU, regarding the obligation for the European Parliament and the Council to meet in public when considering a draft legislative act, and to publish the documents relating to the legislative procedures under the terms laid down by the regulations referred to in Article 15(3), subparagraph 2access to documents should not be placed on the same footing as access to procedures;

Amendment 26 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AD

AD. whereas international agreements have binding effects and impact on EU legislation; whereas ~~negotiation documents~~documents related to them should be public in principle, without prejudice to legitimate exceptions; whereas the application of the exception for the protection of international relations applies as stated in paragraph 19 of In ‘t Veld v Council (T-529/09);

Amendment 27 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AD

AD. whereas international agreements have binding effects and impact on EU legislation; whereas negotiation documents should be public in principle, without prejudice to legitimate exceptions; whereas the application of the exception for the protection of international relations applies as stated in paragraph 19 of In ‘t Veld v Council (T-529/09)the public should be informed about such agreements;

Amendment 28 #

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 summery reports, are not made available to the public ~~by default~~in order to avoid any outside influence on the legislative process at this decisive stage;

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;

Amendment 3 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas ~~secrecy and discretion belong to an era when Europe was built by diplomats and civil servants; whereas~~ transparency is essential to a democratic political union of citizens in which they can fully participate in the democratic process; whereas transparent administration benefits the interests of citizens, the fight against corruption and the legitimacy of the Union’s political system and legislation;

Amendment 30 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AE a (new)

AEa. whereas the legislative decision- making process is very complex, with many preparatory, confidential and secret documents which are vital for the whole legislative process;

Amendment 31 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AG

AG. whereas the negotiations on the revision of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 have been in deadlock owing to the incompatible positions taken; whereas the new instrument will need to provide ~~for significantly more~~at least the same level of transparency ~~than~~as the status quo;

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;

Amendment 33 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AI

AI. whereas the classification of documents into levels of confidentiality falling under the scope of the 2010 Framework Agreement on relations between Parliament and the Commission, or as ‘sensitive documents’ under Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, should be made on the basis of careful and specific consideration; ~~whereas overclassification leads to unnecessary and disproportionate secrecy of documents and to meetings being held in camera without proper justification;~~

Amendment 34 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital AJ

AJ. whereas transparency remains the rule, including in relation to a cartel leniency programme; whereas an automatic ban on disclosure is a violation of the rule of transparency, as laid down in the Treaties; whereas secrecy is the exception, and must be justified on a case- by-case basis by national judges with regard to actions for damages;deleted

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)

Amendment 36 #

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;~~

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;

Amendment 38 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Recalls that transparency enhances citizens' trust in the European Institutions, by allowing them to be informed and participate in the Union's decision making process and contribute in this way in making the EU more democratic;

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;

Amendment 4 #

Salvador SEDÓ i ALABART

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. ~~whereas secrecy and discretion belong to an era when Europe was built by diplomats and civil servants;~~ whereas transparency is essential to a democratic political union of citizens in which they can fully participate in the democratic process; whereas transparent administration benefits the interests of citizens, the fight against corruption and the legitimacy of the Union’s political system and legislation;

Amendment 40 #

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;

Amendment 41 #

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; calls on the Council to publish minutes of the meetings of Council working groups, including, in the light of the Access Info Europe case, the names of Member States and their proposals.

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;

Amendment 43 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Calls on the EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies to further develop a more proactive approach on transparency by making publicly accessible on their internet websites as many categories of documents as possible; considers that this approach helps ensuring effective transparency as well as preventing unnecessary litigation, which might cause unnecessary costs and burdens for both the Institutions and the citizens;

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;

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;

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;

Amendment 47 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Calls on the administrations to provide ~~full~~an indication of ~~all~~those documents falling within the scope of a request for access to documents under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, following the initial application;

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;

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;

Amendment 5 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas ~~secrecy and discretion belong to an era when Europe was built by diplomats and civil servants; whereas~~ transparency is essential to a democratic ~~political u~~European Union of citizens in which they can fully participate in the democratic process and exercise public scrutiny; whereas transparent administration benefits the interests of citizens, the fight against corruption and the legitimacy of the Union’s political system and legislation;

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;

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;

Amendment 52 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Resolves to examine how the deliberations in its Bureau and its Conference of Presidents can be made more transparent, inter alia, by keeping detailed minutes and by disclosing these to the public.

Amendment 53 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Calls ~~on the Council to move forward with~~for progress to be made on the revision of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001; ~~calls on the Council and Parliament to agree on a new instrument that provides significantly more transparency, including the effective implementation of Article 15 TFEU;~~

Amendment 54 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. ~~Calls~~Expresses its disappointment with the fact that since December 2011, when it adopted its first reading position on the revision of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, no progress has been made, since the Council and the Commission did not seem ready to embark on substantive negotiations; Calls therefore on the Council to finally move forward with the revision of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001; calls on the Council and Parliament to agree on a new instrument that provides significantly more transparency, including the effective implementation of Article 15 TFEU;

Amendment 55 #

Judith SARGENTINI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Calls on all EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies to apply Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in a way coherent with the provisions of the Aarhus Convention; fully supports the policy of the European Medicine's Agency to publish clinical trial reports of pharmaceuticals on the European market upon request, once the decision-making process for the medicine in question has been completed, stresses that any revision of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 should fully respect the Aarhus Convention and should define any exemption in full compliance with it;

Amendment 56 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

~~10. Recommends that each EU institution or body appoint from within its management structures a Transparency Officer, to be responsible for compliance and for improving practices;~~deleted

Amendment 57 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. ~~Recommends that each~~Calls on the EU institutions or body ~~appoint from within its management structures a Transparency Officer, to be responsible for compliance and for improv~~to ensure adequate compliance and improve monitoring and reporting practices;

Amendment 58 #

Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

~~11. Calls on all the institutions to evaluate and, where necessary, review their internal arrangements for reporting wrongdoing, and calls for the protection of whistleblowers;~~deleted

Amendment 59 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Calls on all the institutions to evaluate and, where necessary, review their internal arrangements for reporting wrongdoing~~, and calls for the protection of whistleblowers~~;

Amendment 6 #

Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas Member States should apply at least the same transparency standards as the EU institutions;

Amendment 60 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Calls on all the institutions to evaluate and, where necessary, review their internal arrangements for reporting wrongdoing, and calls for the protection of whistleblowers; Calls, in particular, on the European Commission to report to the European Parliament its experiences with the new rules on whistle-blowing for EU staff adopted in 2012 and with their implementing measures; Calls on the Commission to come forward with a proposal to protect whistleblowers not only morally, but also financially in order to properly protect and support whistle- blowers as part of the democratic system.

Amendment 61 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Calls on the EU institutions, bodies and agencies to harmonise their Annual Reports on access to documents, and to present similar statistics~~, in a compatible form and to the fullest and most inclusive extent possible (e.g. in tables in the Annex which allow for direct comparison)~~;

Amendment 62 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Calls on the EU institutions, bodies and agencies to ~~adopt the recommendations put forward by Parliamen~~take account of Parliament's recommendations set out in its previous resolution on public access to documents;

Amendment 63 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

~~14. Calls on the EU institutions to include in their annual transparency reports a reply to Parliament’s recommendations;~~deleted

Amendment 64 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

Amendment 65 #

Jan MULDER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

Amendment 66 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Calls on the Commission to enhance the transparency of expert groups and comitology groups, by holding their meetings in public and publishing the recruitment procedure for members, as well as information regarding membership, proceedings, documents considered, votes, decisions and minutes of meetings, all of which should be published online in a standard format; calls on the Commission to improve and fully implement internal guidelines for all DGs for the recruitment procedure (concerning i.e. balanced composition, conflict of interest policy, public calls) and rules for reimbursement; to report on this matter not only in the annual access to documents report, but also in the annual activity reports of DGs; calls in particular to report on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) Stakeholder Advisory Group;

Amendment 67 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Calls on the Commission, the Council and Parliament to ensure the greater transparency of informal trilogues, by holding the meetings in public, publishing documentation including calendars, agendas, minutes, documents examined, amendments, decisions taken, information on Member State delegations and their positions and minutes, in a standardised and easy accessible online environment, by default and without prejudice to the exemptions listed in Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001;deleted

Amendment 68 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. ~~Rec~~Calls ~~that Article 9 of Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 on sensitive documents is a compromise that no longer reflects the new co~~for data relating to privacy, trade secrets and intellectual property and senstit~~utional and legal obligations in place since the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force~~ive information related to court cases and competition cases to be protected;

Amendment 69 #

Motion for a resolution
Subheading 5

~~Classification of documents~~deleted

Amendment 7 #

Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)

Db. whereas the Commission should make a proposal in order to harmonize the rules regarding right to access documentation in all Member States and ensure that all documents older than 100 years are made public;

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;

Amendment 71 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

~~18. Calls on the Commission to propose a regulation laying down clear rules and criteria for the classification of documents by the EU institutions, bodies and agencies;~~deleted

Amendment 72 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

~~19. Calls on the institutions to assess and justify requests for in camera meetings in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001;~~deleted

Amendment 73 #

Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

~~20. Calls on the Union institutions to set up an independent EU oversight authority for the classification of documents and the examination of requests for holding sessions in camera;~~deleted

Amendment 74 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

~~20. Calls on the Union institutions to set up an independent EU oversight authority for the classification of documents and the examination of requests for holding sessions in camera;~~deleted

Amendment 75 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 – indent 1 (new)

- Financial information Calls on the institutions to make publically available and accessible to citizens documents relating to the European Union budget, its implementation and beneficiaries of Union funds and grants

Amendment 76 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 – indent 2 (new)

- Such documents shall also be accessible via a specific website and database, and on a database dealing with financial transparency in the Union.

Amendment 77 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. ~~Expresses concern at the routine~~Notes the increasing application of the exception for the protection of international relations as a justification for the classification of documents; stresses that it is essential to provide adequate protection for sensitive documents drawn up in the context of international negotiations;

Amendment 78 #

Judith SARGENTINI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Stresses that international agreements, such as the envisaged Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, have binding effects and impact on EU legislation, and that the negotiation documents should therefore be public in principle;

Amendment 79 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Stresses that international agreements have binding effects and impact on EU legislation, and that ~~the negotiation documents~~documents related to them should therefore be public in principle;

Amendment 8 #

Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS

Motion for a resolution
Recital D c (new)

Dc. whereas private documents held by Member States governments and EU institutions should be returned to their legitimate owners;

Amendment 80 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. ~~Recalls~~Points out that when an institution decides to refuse access to a document which it has been asked to disclose, it must~~, in principle, explain how disclosure of that document could specifically and actually undermine the public interest as to international relations~~ state the reasons for which access has been refused;

Amendment 81 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)

24a. Points out that in particular in relation to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, the lack of transparency has created anxieties both among interested non-governmental organisations and among the public at large and calls for a full disclosure of the state of play before the next round of negotiations will start.

Amendment 82 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Emphasises that opinions of the institutions’ legal services ~~must, in principle, be disclo~~should be disclosed only after thorough consideration in each individual cased, as underlined by the Court’s ruling in Turco that ‘Regulation No 1049/2001 seeks, as indicated in recital 4 of the preamble and Article 1, to give the public a right of access to documents of the institutions which is as wide as possible’14 ; __________________ 14 Joined cases Sweden and Turco v Council and Commission (C-39/05 P and C-52/05 P), paragraph 35.

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';

Amendment 84 #