2018/2096(INI) | [ParlTrack]

Kostadinka KUNEVA, Martina ANDERSON, Dennis de JONG, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 j (new)

16j. Takes note of some national laws obliging government to send documents, including internal documents on legislative considerations internally, to national archives after a number of years where they are made accessible to the public; takes note that some Member States had to discount on rules regarding the public access to documents to adapt to internal rules of Council; calls on Member States to implement these laws in the best interest of citizens’ access to documents; reminds of its own rules to send all Parliament documents to the EU archive after the end of the next term; calls on Council to adopt a similar rule to publish Council documents after two Commission terms; calls on Council to compare national rules and to align national disclosure rules according to the best practise in the interest of citizens’ access to documents;

Amendment 101 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Takes note of the statement made by the Austrian Presidency to the joint committee on Constitutional Affairs and on Petitions on keeping the European Parliament informed on the progress of the Council’s ongoing reflections on how to improve its rules and procedures as regards legislative transparency, and expressing readiness to engage with Parliament at the appropriate level in a joint reflection on those topics that require interinstitutional coordination; and regrets that no input has been so far submitted to the European Parliament.

Amendment 102 #

Kostadinka KUNEVA, Martina ANDERSON, Dennis de JONG, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17a. Further recommends that the Council: (a) enlists documents regardless of their status in the Document Register even those that are not available to the public with the relevant indication that corresponds to the level of publicity; (b) provides justification for the level of classification on the basis of the criteria developed; (c) provides in an easily comprehensible manner for all citizens votes, explanation of votes and minutes , materializing the obligation provided in article 8 and 9 of the internal rules of procedure1a; __________________ 1a Council Decision of 22 March 2004 adopting the Council’s Rules of Procedure, 2004/338/EC, Euratom;

Amendment 103 #

Kostadinka KUNEVA, Martina ANDERSON, Dennis de JONG, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 b (new)

17b. Considers that, in order to provide the widest possible public access to legislative documents, each document that is not made public in full has to be accompanied by an argumentation why, in a specific and actual manner relating to the document at hand the document would undermine either (a) the institutions’ decision-making process or (b) the protection of institutions interest in seeking legal advice, as well as accompanied by an argumentation why there is no overriding public interest;

Amendment 104 #

Kostadinka KUNEVA, Martina ANDERSON, Dennis de JONG, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18a. Regrets the Draft Policy Paper on legislative transparency produced by the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union and addressed to the Permanent Representatives Committee, was classified as ‘LIMITE’1a; considers that the milestone approach presents no added value whatsoever and puts forward a scheme that allows selective publication of documents only after they have been considered by the competent bodies; Considers that certain elements of the new approach are mutually exclusive (i.e. built-in flexibility and greater standardization) and incompatible with the constitutional norms of the Union; Deplores the fact that the Council proclaimed it will strive to strike a balance between the case law and various calls for greater transparency and the need to preserve the necessary flexibility for effective legislative work, which implies not conforming with the jurisprudence of the CJEU as it stands; __________________ 1a General Secretariat of the Council, Draft Polity Paper on Legislative Transparency, 11099/18, Brussels, 13 July 2018.

Amendment 105 #

Kostadinka KUNEVA, Martina ANDERSON, Dennis de JONG, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 b (new)

18b. Notes that according to the jurisprudence of the CJEU the “space to think” is to be viewed as an exception and not the norm and consequently as a restriction of the principle of transparency1a; reiterates that giving the public the widest possible right of access entails, that the public must have a right to full disclosure of the requested and thus application of exception should be strict; __________________ 1a Judgement of the General Court of 22 March 2011, Access Info Europe v. Council of the European Union, Case T- 233/09, par. 56.

Amendment 11 #

Kostadinka KUNEVA, Martina ANDERSON, Dennis de JONG, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA

Motion for a resolution
Recital F (new)

Fa. whereas in order to create a genuine bicameral legislative system which is democratic and transparent in its decision-making Council decisions should be taken by one single legislative Council, while the existing specialised legislative Council configurations should be turned into preparatory bodies, similar to committees in the Parliament;

Amendment 12 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)

Fa. whereas the principle of transparency firstly was elucidated in 1995 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in a case against the Council 1a, the institution almost three decades later has not ensured a high level of adherence to the principle; __________________ 1a Judgement of the Court of First Instance of 19 October 1995, John Carvel and Guardian Newspapers Ltd. v. Council of the European Union, Case T-194/94.

Amendment 13 #

Martina ANDERSON, Kostadinka KUNEVA, Dennis de JONG, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA

Motion for a resolution
Recital H

H. whereas following the inquiry, the Ombudsman found that the Council’s current practices with regard to transparency of its decision-making process, in specific regards to preparatory discussions that take place at Coreper and National Working group level, constitute maladministration;

Amendment 14 #

H. whereas following the inquiry, the Ombudsman found that the lack of transparency by the Council on public access to its legislative documents and the Council’s current practices with regard to transparency of its decision-making process constitute maladministration;

Amendment 15 #

Martina ANDERSON, Kostadinka KUNEVA, Dennis de JONG, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA

Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)

Ha. whereas the Court of Justice has established that the principles of publicity and transparency are inherent to the EU legislative process, and that the effectiveness and integrity of the legislative process cannot undermine the principles of publicity and transparency which underlie that process1a; __________________ 1a Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2018 — De Capitani v Parliament (Case T-540/15), par. 81 and 83

Amendment 16 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital J

J. whereas the Council did not reply to the recommendations contained in the Ombudsman’s report within the legally prescribed timeline of three months, and, because of the importance of the issue of legislative transparency, the Ombudsman decided not to grant the Council any extensions beyond this deadline, and submitted the report to the European Parliament;

Amendment 17 #

Kostadinka KUNEVA, Martina ANDERSON, Dennis de JONG, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA

Motion for a resolution
Recital J a (new)

Ja. whereas the European Parliament has regularly requested more transparency from the Council, for example in its resolutions of 18 April 20181a and 28 April 20161b on the discharge of the Council as well as in its resolution on 14 September 2017 on Transparency, accountability and integrity in the EU institutions1c; __________________ 1a European Parliament resolution of 18 April 2018 with observations forming an integral part of the decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2016, Section II - European Council and Council (2017/2138(DEC)),P8_TA(2018)0125 1b European Parliament decision of 28 April 2016 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2014 Section II – European Council and Council (2015/2156(DEC)). 1c European Parliament resolution of 14 September 2017 on transparency, accountability and integrity in the EU institutions (2015/2041(INI)), P8_TA(2017)0358.

Amendment 18 #

Kostadinka KUNEVA, Martina ANDERSON, Dennis de JONG, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA

Motion for a resolution
Recital J b (new)

Jb. whereas the Ombudswoman also ruled in Complaint 1271/2017/ANA that the Council was not justified in holding back access to an opinion of its Legal Service concerning an inter-institutional agreement;

Amendment 19 #

Kostadinka KUNEVA, Martina ANDERSON, Dennis de JONG, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA

Motion for a resolution
Recital J c (new)

Jc. whereas the Conference of Parliamentary Committees for Union Affairs of Parliaments of the European Union adopted during its Plenary Meeting in Sofia on 17/19 June 2018 its resolution in which it urges the Council to reflect on the proposals made by 26 national parliaments of Member States to enhance the openness of legislative deliberations at EU-level 1a; __________________ 1a Contribution of the LIX COSAC, articles 2.6 and 2.7

Amendment 2 #

Paulo RANGEL

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas the integrity of the Statute and the independence of the Ombudsman depend on avoiding any overlap between the powers constitutionally assigned to the latter and those of the European Parliament and the Court of Justice of the European Union;

Amendment 20 #

Cecilia WIKSTRÖM

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 (new)

-1. Is deeply concerned that a common criticism of the European Union is that it is democratically deficient. Therefore, by having one of its three main institutions taking decisions without the transparency that is to be expected from a democratic establishment is detrimental to the ambitious venture that is the European project;

Amendment 21 #

Martina ANDERSON, Kostadinka KUNEVA, Dennis de JONG, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Is deeply convinced that democratic and transparent decision-making at the European level is indispensable to increase citizens’ trust in the European project and the EU institutions, especially in the run-up to the European elections in May 2019, and is therefore determined to ~~defend and enhance European democracy~~enhance the democratic accountability of all EU institutions;

Amendment 22 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Is deeply convinced that a fully democratic and transparent decision- making at the European level is indispensable to increase citizens’ trust in the European project and the EU institutions, especially in the run-up to the European elections in May 2019, and is therefore determined to defend and enhance European democracy;

Amendment 23 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Shares the view of the Ombudsman that ensuring that citizens are able to follow the progress of legislation is a legal requirement under the Treaties, as EU decisions must be taken “as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen”;

Amendment 24 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Shares the view of the Ombudsman that ensuring that citizens are able to ~~follow~~understand and follow in detail the progress of legislation is a legal requirement under the Treaties;

Amendment 25 #

Kostadinka KUNEVA, Martina ANDERSON, Dennis de JONG, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Shares the view of the Ombudsman that ensuring that citizens are able to follow the progress of legislation is a legal requirement under the Treaties and a basic democratic requirement;

Amendment 26 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Believes that there is currently a distinct gap between formal transparency, i.e. the legal recognition and insertion of transparency in the EU legal foundations as a self-standing principle closely linked to the rule of law, and of substantial transparency, i.e. steps to effectively materialise in a corresponding level;

Amendment 27 #

Kostadinka KUNEVA, Martina ANDERSON, Dennis de JONG, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Reiterates that the Inter- institutional Agreement on a mandatory Transparency which is being negotiated, is a first good step; notes that the current text only covers high ranking officials of the Council;

Amendment 28 #

Kostadinka KUNEVA, Martina ANDERSON, Dennis de JONG, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 c (new)

2c. Deeply regrets the fact that the Council has blocked the revision of the Regulation 1049/2001 and urges the Council to re-open its discussions based on the position adopted by Parliament in second reading as laid down in resolution of 12 June 2013 1a. __________________ 1a European Parliament resolution of 12 June 2013 on the deadlock on the revision of Regulation (EC) No. 1049/2001 (2013/2637(RSP))

Amendment 29 #

Kostadinka KUNEVA, Martina ANDERSON, Dennis de JONG, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 d (new)

2d. Shares the viewpoint of the Ombudswoman’s strategic inquiry; deplores the fact that the Council did not reply within the deadline in the findings. Regrettably this is a recurring topic and is constantly showcased also from complaints submitted to the Ombudswoman. This matter should be considered of high importance in the democratic life of the Union and the effective participation of citizens across the continent hindering the fulfilment of the constitutional treaties and the Charter;

Amendment 3 #

Kostadinka KUNEVA, Martina ANDERSON, Dennis de JONG, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas the Ombudswoman has contributed greatly to highlight issues of transparency in the life of the Union through inquiries and cases brought before her;

Amendment 30 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Emphasises that ~~transparency at all stages~~a high degree of transparency of the legislative process is essential to enable citizens, media, and stakeholders to hold their elected representatives and governments accountable;

Amendment 31 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Emphasises that transparency at all stages of the legislative process is essential to enable citizens, media, and stakeholders to hold their elected representatives and governments accountable, to guarantee citizens participation right, as enshrined in Article 10 (3) TEU, and to ensure the fundamental right to freedom of information, as enshrined in Article 11 of the Charter;

Amendment 32 #

Kostadinka KUNEVA, Martina ANDERSON, Dennis de JONG, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Emphasises that full transparency at all stages of the legislative process, including in the informal negotiations between the three main EU institutions (‘trilogues’), is essential to enable citizens, media, and stakeholders to hold their elected representatives and governments accountable;

Amendment 33 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Recalls that transparency has four distinct aspects that are intertwined, namely (a) openness of the legislative process (b) right to access to documents (c) transparency of the legal norm as concomitant to legal certainty (d) offering wide reasoning and sufficient explanation of the motives of a legislative text;

Amendment 34 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Believes that ~~a high degree of~~full transparency acts as a safeguard against the emergence of speculation, fake news and conspiracy theories;

Amendment 35 #

Kostadinka KUNEVA, Martina ANDERSON, Dennis de JONG, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Believes that a high degree of transparency acts as a safeguard against the ~~emergence~~spread of speculation, fake news and conspiracy theories;

Amendment 36 #

Cecilia WIKSTRÖM

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Believes that a high degree of transparency acts as a safeguard against the emergence of speculation, fake news and conspiracy theories, in that it provides a factual basis for publicly refuting such claims;

Amendment 37 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Strongly believes transparency is an essential ingredient of the rule of law, while ensuring that it is observed throughout the legislative process affects the effective materialization of the right to vote and the right to stand in elections and a handful of rights, i.e. right of expressions and its particular aspect the freedom of speech and the right to receive information. Considers also that forging an active European citizenship necessitates margin for public scrutiny, review and evaluation of the process and the prospect to challenge the outcome. Underlines that this would contribute to the gradual familiarization with basic concepts of the legislative process and foster the participatory elements of the democratic life of the Union.

Amendment 38 #

Kostadinka KUNEVA, Martina ANDERSON, Dennis de JONG, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. Reminds that the principles of publicity, openness and transparency are inherent to the EU Legislative process, in order to allow citizens to find out the considerations underpinning legislative actions and therefore ensures effective exercise of their democratic rights 1a. __________________ 1a Joined Cases C-39/05 and C-52/05 P, Kingdom of Sweden and Maurizio Turco v. Council of the European Union, European Court Reports 2008 I-04723

Amendment 39 #

Kostadinka KUNEVA, Martina ANDERSON, Dennis de JONG, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Recalls that the European Parliament represents the interests of European citizens in a ~~fully~~n open and transparent manner~~, and welcomes the substantial progress made by the Commission~~; calls on the Commission to make substantial progress in improving its transparency standards ensuring full transparency, inter alia, in the conduct of international negotiations and its interactions with interest representatives; notes that the Council ~~does not yet follow comparable~~(and the European Council) do not yet ensure full transparency standards;

Amendment 4 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)

Cb. whereas the European Ombudswoman opined that the lack of transparency regarding EU Member States’ positions during negotiations amount to maladministration and a violation of Article 41 of the Charter;

Amendment 40 #

Kostadinka KUNEVA, Martina ANDERSON, Dennis de JONG, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Recalls that the European Parliament represents the interests of European citizens in a ~~fully~~n open and transparent manner, and welcomes the ~~substantial~~ progress made by the Commission in improving its transparency standards, inter alia in the conduct of international negotiations and its interactions with interest representatives; ~~note~~regrets that the Council does not yet follow comparable transparency standards;

Amendment 41 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Recalls that the European Parliament represents the interests of European citizens in a fully open and transparent manner, and welcomes the ~~substantial~~ progress made by the Commission in improving its transparency standards, inter alia in the conduct of international negotiations and its interactions with interest representatives whereas ‘revolving-door’ still remains an alarming issue; notes that the Council does not yet follow comparable transparency standards;

Amendment 42 #

Kostadinka KUNEVA, Martina ANDERSON, Dennis de JONG, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Reiterates its call on the Council, including its preparatory bodies, to join the Transparency Register as soon as possible; calls on all Member States to introduce binding rules advancing the transparency of interest representation; calls on the Member States to introduce rules for their representatives including but not limited to, at COREPER and Working Group Levels;

Amendment 43 #

Martina ANDERSON, Kostadinka KUNEVA, Dennis de JONG, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Points out that the work of the preparatory bodies of the Council, i.e. the Committees of Permanent Representatives (Coreper I + II) and more than 150 working groups, is an integral part of the Council’s decision-making procedure; argues that these structures must proactively improve the transparency of decision-making procedures at working group and Coreper levels, as to improve the overall transparency of the legislative process in the European Council;

Amendment 44 #

Kostadinka KUNEVA, Martina ANDERSON, Dennis de JONG, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Points out that the work of the preparatory bodies of the Council, i.e. the Committees of Permanent Representatives (Coreper I + II) ~~and~~, more than 150 working groups, informal bodies like the Financial Services Committee, the Eurozone Working-group or preparatory bodies like the Economic and Financial Committee, is an integral part of the Council’s decision-making procedure and play a key role in the legislative process;

Amendment 45 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Considers that the Committees of Permanent Representatives (COREPER I- II) meeting documents should be made publicly available as well as the general position of each member state before the beginning of negotiations.

Amendment 46 #

Kostadinka KUNEVA, Martina ANDERSON, Dennis de JONG, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6b. Considers it regrettable that the Council and the European Council have still not adopted a code of conduct for their members; recalls its call to the Council to introduce a specific code of ethics, including sanctions, which addresses the risks specific to national delegates; insists that the Council must be just as accountable and transparent as the other institutions;

Amendment 47 #

Kostadinka KUNEVA, Martina ANDERSON, Dennis de JONG, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 c (new)

6c. Strongly believes that informal formations, subsidiary organs or other affiliated informal organs related to the European Council (i.e., the Euro Group, the Euro Summit, and the EU-27) should be properly formalized and engulfed properly in the constitutional structure of the Union. Transparency obligations should be applicable indiscriminately to their activities and publicity of documents should include analytical agendas and working documents (non-papers) that are circulated prior to meetings.

Amendment 48 #

Kostadinka KUNEVA, Martina ANDERSON, Dennis de JONG, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Deplores the fact that, unlike committee meetings in the European Parliament, meetings of the preparatory bodies of the Council as well as the majority of debates in the Council are held in camera; proposes that citizens, media and stakeholders should have access by appropriate means to the meetings of the Council and its preparatory bodies~~, includ~~ via livestreaming ~~via~~and web-streaming, as well as making the minutes of these meeting publically available in order to make all stages of the legislative process in both components of the European legislature fully transparent;

Amendment 49 #

Kostadinka KUNEVA, Martina ANDERSON, Dennis de JONG, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA

7. Deplores the fact that, unlike committee meetings in the European Parliament, ~~meetings of the preparatory bodi~~the majority of the debates ofin the ~~Council as well as the majority of deba~~specialised legislative Council configurations , which should become preparatory bodies similar to committees in the ~~Council~~European Parliament, are held in camera; proposes that citizens, media and stakeholders should have access by appropriate means to the meetings of the ~~Council and its preparatory bodies,~~specialised Council configurations including via webstreaming, in order to make ~~all stages of~~ the legislative process in both components of the European legislature ~~fully~~ transparent;

Amendment 5 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C c (new)

Cc. whereas the treaties (Article 15(3) of TFEU) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (Article 42) have attributed constitutional value to the principle of transparency;

Amendment 50 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Deplores the fact that, unlike committee meetings in the European Parliament, meetings of the preparatory bodies of the Council as well as the majority of debates in the Council are held in camera; ~~propos~~believes that citizens, media and stakeholders ~~should have~~must have full access by appropriate means to the meetings of the Council and its preparatory bodies, including via webstreaming, in order to make all stages of the legislative process in both components of the European legislature fully transparent and accessible;

Amendment 51 #

Kostadinka KUNEVA, Martina ANDERSON, Dennis de JONG, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Stresses the paramount importance of guaranteeing full transparency and full public access to the documents held by the EU institutions; highlights the fact that EU legislation on access to documents is seriously outdated; strongly regrets that the Council is blocking the revision of Regulation (EC) No. 1049/2001;

Amendment 52 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Opines that denying the access to documents to Members of the European Parliament, has the potential to threaten the principle institutional balance and to negate the essential practice of the mutual sincere cooperation. Notes that it is an excessive burden for the effective function of parliamentary duties, having to pursue an ex post check on an ad hoc basis after every refusal of a request to access documents.

Amendment 53 #

Martina ANDERSON, Kostadinka KUNEVA, Dennis de JONG, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. ~~Not~~Deplores that the Council does not proactively publish most documents related to legislative files, ~~and that available information is presented~~preventing citizens also from knowing in real time which documents actually exist, thus limiting citizens’ exercise of their right to request public access to documents; regrets that available information on legislative documents is presented by the Council in a register which is incomplete and not user- friendly; ~~welcomes in this regard the progress made by the Commission, Parliament and the Council in the creation of a joint database for legislative file~~underlines that the Commission, Parliament and the Council must swiftly complete all necessary steps to adopt the joint database for legislative files with a view to ensuring full transparency and a simplified and full public access to all related information and documents;

Amendment 54 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Notes that the Council does not proactively publish most documents related to legislative files, and that available information is presented in a register which is incomplete and not user-friendly; calls on the Council to act on the Ombudsman’s proposals to list all the documents available on its registrar, irrespective of their format and whether or not they are partially or accessible at all; welcomes in this regard the progress made by the Commission, Parliament and the Council in the creation of a joint database for legislative files;

Amendment 55 #

Kostadinka KUNEVA, Martina ANDERSON, Dennis de JONG, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Notes that the Council does not proactively publish most documents related to legislative files, and that available information is presented in a register which is incomplete and not user-friendly; welcomes in this regard the progress made by the Commission, Parliament and the Council in the creation of a joint database for legislative files; calls on all the European Institutions involved in the creation of this joint database to publish a detailed template;

Amendment 56 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Considers that all documents (legislative, intergovernmental conferences and meeting documents) from the period before 1999 should be de- classified and uploaded to the Document Archive of the Council being available publicly;

Amendment 57 #

Martina ANDERSON, Kostadinka KUNEVA, Dennis de JONG, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Considers the Council’s practice of systematically classifying documents distributed in its preparatory bodies relating to legislative files as ‘LIMITE’ to be a violation of CJEU case law1 and of the legal requirementRecognises that the ruling of the ECJ should be fully implemented and that there should be the widest possible public access to legislative documents; __________________ 1 For the principle of the widest possible public access, see: Joint Cases C-39/05 P and C-52/05 P Sweden and Turco v. Council [2008] ECLI:EU:C:2008:374,till existing inconsistencies and divergent para ~~34; Case C-280/11 P Council v. Access Info Europe [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:671, para 27; and Case T-540/15 De Capitani v. Parliament [2018] ECLI:EU:T:2018:167, para 80~~ctices should be avoided.

Amendment 58 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. ~~Consider~~Deplores the Council’s endemic practice of systematically classifying all documents distributed in its preparatory bodies relating to legislative files as ‘LIMITE’ to be a violation of CJEU case law1 and of the legal requirement that there should be the widest possible public access to legislative documents; observes that in 2015, 84% of requests for public access to documents marked as “LIMITE”, and related to on-going legislative procedures in 2015 were granted; __________________ 1 For the principle of the widest possible public access, see: Joint Cases C-39/05 P and C-52/05 P Sweden and Turco v. Council [2008] ECLI:EU:C:2008:374, para 34; Case C-280/11 P Council v. Access Info Europe [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:671, para 27; and Case T-540/15 De Capitani v. Parliament [2018] ECLI:EU:T:2018:167, para 80.

Amendment 59 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Considers the Council’s practice of systematically classifying documents distributed in its preparatory bodies relating to legislative files as ‘LIMITE’ to be a violation of CJEU case law1 and of the legal requirement that there should be the widest possible public access to legislative documents; Reminds that the “LIMITE” marking has no legal basis and is not part of the possible classification under regulation 1049/2001 nor under the Council Decision of 23 September 2013 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information, while its use by the Council has a detrimental effect on the right of public access to documents; __________________ 1. For the principle of the widest possible public access, see: Joint Cases C-39/05 P and C-52/05 P Sweden and Turco v. Council [2008] ECLI:EU:C:2008:374, para 34; Case C-280/11 P Council v. Access Info Europe [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:671, para 27; and Case T-540/15 De Capitani v. Parliament [2018] ECLI:EU:T:2018:167, para 80

Amendment 6 #

Kostadinka KUNEVA, Martina ANDERSON, Dennis de JONG, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas the European Parliament works with a high degree of transparency ~~at all stages of the~~in its legislative procedure, including the committee stage, making it possible for citizens, the media and stakeholders to clearly identify different positions within Parliament and the origin of specific proposals, as well as to follow the processes leading to compromises and the adoption of final decisions;

Amendment 60 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Exceptions of Article 4 of the Regulation No 1049/2001 pending its revision should not be applied by default and whereas jurisprudence does not require justification for limiting access to a document, institutions shall strive to offer the fullest reasoning possible for taking such a decision that is a restriction of Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and as such should adhere by the principle of proportionality. Further supports that a decision to restrict access should be accompanied by an argumentation why, in a specific and actual manner relating to the document at hand;

Amendment 61 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. ~~Deems it unacceptable that the positions taken in the preparatory bodies of the Council by individual Member States are neither published nor~~Welcomes the Council’s practice regarding the disclosure of legislative documents containing Member States’ individual positions upon request, as a consequence of the ECJ’s judgement, as an important step for the legitimacy of EU legislation, however deems it insufficient. Recommends the systematic~~ally~~ record~~ed, making it impossible for citizens, media and stakeholders to effectively scrutinise the behaviour of their elected governments;~~ing of the names of the Member States, where it is deemed appropriate, when expressing positions in preparatory bodies, allowing thus for greater transparency on the position taken by national governments on EU laws.

Amendment 62 #

Martina ANDERSON, Kostadinka KUNEVA, Dennis de JONG, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Deplores the fact that following the judgement of the Court of Justice in Access Info in 2013, COREPER decided that as a rule, the drafter of the document should record Member States´ names in documents relating to on-going legislative procedures “where appropriate”; Deems it unacceptable that the positions taken in the preparatory bodies of the Council by individual Member States are neither published nor systematically recorded, making it impossible for citizens, media and stakeholders to effectively scrutinise the behaviour of their elected governments;

Amendment 63 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Deems it unacceptable that the positions taken in the preparatory bodies of the Council by individual Member States are neither published nor systematically recorded, making it impossible for citizens, media and stakeholders to effectively scrutinise the behaviour of their elected governments; calls for a systematic record of Member State governments to be kept and made publically available, where appropriate, when they express positions in council preparatory bodies;

Amendment 64 #

Martina ANDERSON, Kostadinka KUNEVA, Dennis de JONG, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. DStresses that the positions of the Member States within the Council during the EU legislative process must be recorded and made a matter of public knowledge in a timely and accessible manner; deems it unacceptable that the positions taken in the preparatory bodies of the Council by individual Member States are neither published nor systematically recorded, making it impossible for citizens, media and stakeholders to effectively scrutinise the behaviour of their elected governments; underlines that in a system based on the principle of democratic legitimacy, co-legislators must be held accountable to the public for their actions;

Amendment 65 #

Paulo RANGEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. ~~Points out that this~~Recalls that, under Article 10(2) of the Lisbon Treaty, national governments are democratically accountable to national parliaments, and considers this to be the linchpin for the functioning of national parliaments in the European Union; points out that the lack of information and transparency also hampers the ability of national parliaments to control the actions of national governments in the Council, and enables members of national governments to distance themselves in the national sphere from decisions made at the European level which they shaped and took themselves; considers ithat this practice, which must be urgently ended, is conducive to infringement of the Treaties and irresponsible on the part of members of national governments t~~o undermine trust in the European Union by~~hat are ‘blaming Brussels’ for decisions that they themselves were involved in~~; demands an immediate end to this practice;~~.

Amendment 66 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Points out that this lack of information also hampers the ability of national parliaments to control the actions of national governments in the Council, and enables members of national governments to distance themselves in the national sphere from decisions made at the European level which they shaped and took themselves; considers it irresponsible on the part of members of national governments to undermine trust in the European Union by ‘blaming Brussels’ for decisions they themselves were involved in; ~~demands an immediate end~~argues that a systematic record of the positions of Member States in Preparatory Bodies would act as a positive disincentive to this practice;

Amendment 67 #

Jude KIRTON-DARLING

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11 Points out that this lack of information also hampers the ability of national parliaments to control the actions of national governments in the Council, and enables members of national governments to distance themselves in the national sphere from decisions made at the European level which they shaped and took themselves; considers it irresponsible on the part of members of national governments to undermine trust in the European Union by ‘blaming Brussels’ for decisions they themselves were involved in; demands an immediate end to this practice; notes that this practice plays into the hands of populist politicians, who seek to delegitimise the EU in the eyes of the public, and was a major contributing factor to the Brexit vote in June 2016;

Amendment 68 #

Kostadinka KUNEVA, Martina ANDERSON, Dennis de JONG, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Points out that this lack of information also hampers the ability of national parliaments to control the actions of national governments in the Council, and enables members of national governments to distance themselves in the national sphere from decisions made at the European level which they shaped and took themselves; considers it irresponsible on the part of members of national governments to undermine trust in the European Union by ‘blaming Brussels’ for decisions they themselves were involved in; demands an immediate end to this practice and a systematic public debriefing during legislative negotiations;

Amendment 69 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11a. Considers that the traceability of the legislative process is also an inherent aspect of transparency which is essential to ensure that citizens not simply receive documents in abstracto but can competently follow the legislative procedure. Highlights the Legislative train schedule1a and the European Parliament legislative observatory1b as good practices of the European Parliament that suggests to be integrated in the website of the Council in order to allow citizens to follow the legislative procedure from its inception until its completion. __________________ 1a http://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative- train/ 1b http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/home/ home.do

Amendment 7 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas the European Parliament works with a high degree of transparency at all stages of the legislative procedure, including the committee stage, making it possible for citizens, the media and stakeholders to clearly identify different positions within Parliament and the origin of specific proposals, as well as to follow the ~~processes leading to compromises and the~~ adoption of final decisions;

Amendment 70 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11a. Considers that a closer cooperation between national parliaments and the European Parliament can help to close gaps in accountability of national ministers and heads of state and government for their legislative activities in the Council;

Amendment 71 #

11b. Commits itself to propose, in line with Article 9 of Protocol No. 1 of the Treaty on the role of national parliaments of the EU and Rule 142 of its Rules of Procedure, to national parliaments to exchange any documents one parliament might have access to that are of interest for other parliaments as well, if necessary with precautions regarding the classification status of such documents; propose to provide for necessary infrastructure for such exchange if enough national parliaments reply positively to the European Parliament’s invitation;

Amendment 72 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 c (new)

11c. Calls on the Commission to grant access to the Parliament to the so-called “flash reports” produced by Commission representatives attending meetings of the Council;

Amendment 73 #

Martina ANDERSON, Kostadinka KUNEVA, Dennis de JONG, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Considers ~~it incompatible with democratic principles that,~~the lack of transparency in interinstitutional negotiations between the co-legislators, the lack of transparency in the Council leads to an imbalance with regard to available information and thus to a structural advantage of the Council over the European Parliament; reiterates its call for the improvement of the exchange of documents and information between Parliament and the Council and for access to be granted to representativ incompatible with democratic principles; reiterates its call for the publication of all trilogue documents; stresses that the lack of transparency about the EU legislative process increases citizens’ distrust, with regard not only to the lawfulness of ~~Parliament as observers to meetings of the Council and its bodies,~~ an isolated act, but also to the legitimacy of the decision-making p~~articular in the case of legislation;~~rocess as a whole

Amendment 74 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Considers it incompatible with democratic principles that, in interinstitutional negotiations between the co-legislators, the lack of transparency in the Council leads to an imbalance with regard to available information and thus to a structural advantage of the Council over the European Parliament; reiterates its call for the improvement of the exchange of documents and information between Parliament and the Council and for access to be ~~granted~~publically available, as well as to representatives of Parliament, as observers to meetings of the Council and its bodies, in particular in the case of legislation;

Amendment 75 #

Kostadinka KUNEVA, Martina ANDERSON, Dennis de JONG, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Considers it incompatible with democratic principles that, in interinstitutional negotiations between the co-legislators, the lack of transparency in the Council leads to an imbalance with regard to available information and thus to a structural advantage of the Council over the European Parliament; reiterates its call for the improvement of the exchange of documents and information between Parliament and the Council and for access to be granted to representatives of Parliament as observers to meetings of the Council and its bodies, in particular in the case of legislation in a way equivalent to which the Parliament grants access to the Council to its meetings;

Amendment 76 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Reminds that the institutions have agreed in the inter-institutional agreement of 13 April 2016 1a to promote the utmost transparency of the legislative process and that according to the constitutional setting of the Union, the European Parliament and the Council exercise as the co-legislators their powers on an equal footing. That being said equality of the two institutions should also extend unequivocally to the obligations prescribed by the primary European law. __________________ 1a Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on Better Law-Making, OJ L 123, 12.05.2016, par. 1.

Amendment 77 #

Charles GOERENS, Jasenko SELIMOVIC

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Encourages the Council to make significant and serious efforts towards transparency in the ongoing tripartite negotiations about a mandatory EU Transparency Register;

Amendment 78 #

Martina ANDERSON, Kostadinka KUNEVA, Dennis de JONG, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Sofia SAKORAFA, Ángela VALLINA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Notes that the practices of the European Parliament, has been identified by the Ombudsman as having high standards of transparency; Demands that the Council, as one of the two components of the European legislature, aligns its working methods with the standards of a ~~parliamentary democracy, rather than acting like a diplomatic forum;~~ transparency that exist in the European Parliament;

Amendment 79 #

Kostadinka KUNEVA, Martina ANDERSON, Dennis de JONG, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Demands that the Council, as one of the two components of the European legislature, aligns its working methods with the standards of a parliamentary democracy and participatory democracy as required under the Treaty, rather than acting like a diplomatic forum;

Amendment 8 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas the Charter introduces third general rights, as is the one to transparent administration and access to documents (Article 42).

Amendment 80 #

Cecilia WIKSTRÖM

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Demands that the Council, as one of the two components of the European legislature, aligns its working methods with the standards of a parliamentary democracy, rather than acting like a diplomatic forum, which is not its intended function;

Amendment 81 #

Jo LEINEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Is of the opinion that Member States’ governments deprive citizens of their right to information and circumvent transparency standards as well as proper democratic control by preparing or predetermining far-reaching economic and financial decisions in informal formats such as the Eurogroup and the Euro-Summit; insists that – without delay – EU legislation on transparency and access to documents is applied to informal bodies within the Council, in particular the Eurogroup; calls to fully formalise the Eurogroup at the next revision of the Treaties in order to guarantee proper public access and parliamentary scrutiny;

Amendment 82 #

Kostadinka KUNEVA, Martina ANDERSON, Dennis de JONG, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Reiterates its call to transform the Council into a true legislative chamber, thus creating a genuinely bicameral legislative system involving the Council and Parliament, with the Commission acting as the executive; suggests involving the currently active specialised legislative Council configurations as preparatory bodies for a single legislative Council, meeting in public, similarly to the functioning of the committees in the European Parliament, and where all final legislative decisions must be taken;

Amendment 83 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Reiterates that following the strategic inquire concerning the transparency of the trilateral negotiations1a, some progress was made but there are still recommendations that have not taken up largely due to the reluctance of the Council. Taking into account the fact that trilogues have diminished significantly the need to have a second and third reading, overtaking the majority of legislative files to be the default decision-making process. Opines that this has led to expedited procedure, which accelerate legislation making on the one hand but have significantly hampered transparency and integrity of the institutions. The recommendations of the Ombudswoman included publication of the ‘‘trilogue calendar’’, publication of the four-column documents and list of attendees. __________________ 1a Decision of the European Ombudsman setting out proposals following her strategic inquiry OI/8/2015/JAS concerning the transparency of Trilogues, 12 July 2016.

Amendment 84 #

Kostadinka KUNEVA, Martina ANDERSON, Dennis de JONG, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)

13b. Considers that in order to achieve transparency in the trilogues all three institutions should contribute because as per the settled case law trilogues form part of the legislative process, there is no general presumption against non- disclosure based on article 13 TEU and article 294 TFEU 1a and finally trilogues cannot represent a space for European organs to think. __________________ 1a Judgement of the General Court of 22 March 2018, Emilio De Capitani v. European Parliament, Case T-540/15, Digital Reports (unpublished).

Amendment 85 #

Martina ANDERSON, Dennis de JONG, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Sofia SAKORAFA, Ángela VALLINA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

~~14. Reiterates its call to transform the Council into a true legislative chamber thus creating a genuinely bicameral legislative system;~~Deleted

Amendment 86 #

Martina ANDERSON, Kostadinka KUNEVA, Dennis de JONG, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Sofia SAKORAFA, Ángela VALLINA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Considers voting in public to be a fundamental characteristic of democratic decision - making; urges the Council to ~~make use of the possibility of qualified majority voting (QMV), and to refrain, where possible, from the practice of taking decisions by consensus and thus without a formal vote in public~~vote publicly and record voting positions;

Amendment 87 #

Jérôme LAVRILLEUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 – point a

(a) to systematically record the identity of Member State governments and their representatives when they express positions in Council preparatory bodies;

Amendment 88 #

Martina ANDERSON, Kostadinka KUNEVA, Dennis de JONG, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 – point b

(b) to ~~develop clear and publicly available criteria for how it designates documents as ‘LIMITE’, in line with EU law~~reform its internal guidelines on ‘LIMITE’ documents, which have no solid legal basis and which are incompatible with the transparency required under the TEU so that they respect the principle according to which LIMITE status can only be given to a preliminary draft that does not have an author yet and that does not produce any effect in the legislative procedure;

Amendment 89 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 – point b

b) to ~~develop clear and~~immediately develop a systematic and clear criteria, which is publically available ~~criteria for how it~~, and detail how the Council designates documents as ‘“LIMITE’,” and that is in line with relevant EU law;

Amendment 9 #

Kostadinka KUNEVA, Martina ANDERSON, Dennis de JONG, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA

Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)

Db. whereas the CJEU has decided that increased openness enabled citizens to participate more closely in the decision- making process and guarantees that the administration enjoys greater legitimacy and is more effective1a; __________________ 1a CJEU, Joined Cases C-39/05 P and C- 52 P, Kingdom of Sweden and Maurizio Turco v. Council of the European Union, European Court Reports 2008 I-04723.

Amendment 90 #

Kostadinka KUNEVA, Martina ANDERSON, Dennis de JONG, Kostas CHRYSOGONOS, Sofia SAKORAFA, Barbara SPINELLI, Ángela VALLINA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16a. Recommends that the principles of transparency and openness should apply to all democratic processes in Member States; notes that the British EU Referendum in 2016 was not a fully transparent process due to allegations of the leave campaign breaking electoral law; as an effect of this, notes that 1.8 million citizens in the north of Ireland may be disenfranchised from their democratic rights as citizens which limits European participative democracy; considers that forging a participative citizenship necessitates full transparency and participation in the democratic process for all European citizens;

Amendment 91 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16a. Deplores the Council’s practice of encoding some documents as “WK” (working document), DS (document de séance) and MD (meeting document) even during legislative procedures, and using this system not to register those documents; reminds that, according to Articles 11 and 12 of Regulation 1049/2001 the registration of a document is mandatory;

Amendment 92 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 b (new)

16b. Considers that references to professional secrecy cannot be used to systematically retain documents from being registered and disclosed;

Amendment 93 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 c (new)

16c. Highlights that since the 2007 Joint Declaration on practical arrangements for the codecision procedure, the General Court and the CJEU have adopted several judgments classifying the right of access to documents as described by Article 42 of the Charter, article 15 TFEU and Regulation 1049/01 as an expression of participative democracy in the EU;

Amendment 94 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 d (new)

16d. Reminds that according to the CJEU (case C-57/16P) the Commission’s impact assessments should be considered legislative documents and should be directly accessible and considers that the same principle applies to impact assessments prepared by the co-legislator during the legislative procedure;

Amendment 95 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 e (new)

16e. Reminds that according to the CJEU (T-540/15), trilogue tables form part of the legislative process and shall therefore be directly accessible to the public, unless there is a reasonably foreseeable – and not purely hypothetical – likelihood of the protected interest being undermined and highlights that under Regulation 1049/2001 the decision- making process must risk be seriously undermined (Case T-211/00); Reminds that this also applies to documents containing opinions for internal use as part of deliberations and preliminary consultations;

Amendment 96 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 f (new)

16f. Considers that the Parliament, regardless of the positions taken by the other Institutions, shall apply the provisions of Article 12 of Regulation 1049/2001 to all trilogues documents;

Amendment 97 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 g (new)

16g. Is of the opinion that the practice of first reading agreements, that has become the common practice to adopt European legislation, should be better legally framed in order to make it comply with transparency and accountability requirements;

Amendment 98 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 h (new)

16h. Suggests, for this purpose, to review the current joint declaration on practical arrangements for the codecision procedure, which was agreed before the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, and the Better Law Making inter-institutional agreement with a view to formalising the first reading agreements;

Amendment 99 #