2022/2015(INI) | [ParlTrack]

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)

A a. whereas transparency and integrity crucially contribute to the fight against corruption and maladministration; whereas Parliament called for an ambitious ethics body in its resolution of 16 September 2021;

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Insists that the EU institutions have the obligation to implement Article 15(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in line with democratic principles, in particular those laid down in Article 10(3) of the Treaty on European Union; emphasises that transparency is fundamental to enable accountability and democratic scrutiny of the EU institutions;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Stresses that for there to be effective access to the European institutions' documents, it is not enough for them to be available online – they must also be translated into all the official languages of the European Union; regrets, in this regard, that a great deal of information is only available in English;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Stresses the need to ensure that citizens are able to follow, understand and participate in order to bring them closer to the decision-making process;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1 b. Stresses that the pandemic and the changes in the institutions' working procedures may have slowed down the processing of requests for access to documents; stresses that the institutions must put in place mechanisms to ensure that the highest level of transparency and access to documents is maintained, even in the event of a crisis;

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. ERegrets that the EU institutions still fail to fully comply with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and that this regulation is still not updated in line with the new provisions on transparency of the Treaty of Lisbon; emphasises that any update to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 should faithfully integrate the principles established by the case law, ensure that its scope is extended to all EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies as provided for in the Treaty of Lisbon, and adapt the regulation to technological developments, with~~out constituting a step back compared to the current legislative framework~~ the ultimate aim of improving and expanding access to EU documents;

Amendment 15 #

Miapetra KUMPULA-NATRI, Włodzimierz CIMOSZEWICZ, Victor NEGRESCU, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA, Pascal DURAND

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Emphasises that any update to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001~~Urges the Council to unblock the 2008 recast of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and emphasises that any update should faithfully integrate the principles established by the case law and adapt the regulation to technological ~~developments without constituting a step back compared to~~, social, cultural and political developments with a view to enhancing transparency and accountability improving the current legislative framework;

Amendment 16 #

Jacek SARYUSZ-WOLSKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Emphasises that any update to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 should faithfully integrate the principles established by the case law and adapt the regulation to technological developments without constituting a step back compared to the current legislative framework; believes that the Union should fully exploit the potential of new technologies to enable the public to access as many documents as possible in the simplest possible way;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Emphasises that any update to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, whether with regard to the extension of its institutional scope or its recast, should faithfully integrate the principles established by the case law and adapt the regulation to technological developments without constituting a step back compared to the current legislative framework;

Amendment 18 #

Miapetra KUMPULA-NATRI, Włodzimierz CIMOSZEWICZ, Victor NEGRESCU, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA, Pascal DURAND

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Emphasises that increased transparency in the Union's decision- making is the result of democratic development and the culture of participation; recalls that a balanced framework is needed in which the interests of the Union are safeguarded and which is consistent for all institutions;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2 b. Invites the EU institutions to improve findability and accessibility of the documents related to search on their internet pages;

Amendment 2 #

Miapetra KUMPULA-NATRI, Włodzimierz CIMOSZEWICZ, Victor NEGRESCU, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA, Pascal DURAND

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)

A a. whereas transparency and accountability are a precondition for citizens’ trust in EU institutions;

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Invites the~~Calls for all EU institutions to ensure the systematic provision of ~~data~~all documents in an open, machine- readable format, which is especially essential for numerical or financial data; asks all EU institutions to also make data available in an open, machine-readable format that has not been published in such format in the past; invites all EU institutions to consider to increase the number and to enlarge the categories of documents they directly make available in their public registers;

Amendment 21 #

Miapetra KUMPULA-NATRI, Włodzimierz CIMOSZEWICZ, Victor NEGRESCU, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA, Pascal DURAND

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Invites the EU institutions to ensure the provision of data concerning the implementation of Union policies in an open, machine- readable format, which is especially essential for numerical or financial data;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Invites the~~Calls on all EU institutions to ensure the systematic provision of ~~data~~all documents in an open, machine- readable format, which is especially essential for numerical or financial data;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Invites the EU institutions to ensure the provision of data in an open, user- friendly, machine- readable format, which is especially essential for numerical or financial data;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Invites the EU institutions to ensure the provision of data in an open, user- friendly machine- readable format, which is especially essential for numerical or financial data;

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Invites Parliament’s own relevant bodies to ensure that documents are easily accessible to the public; calls, in particular, for amending Rule 122(3) of the Rules of Procedure to ensure the provision of data in an open, machine- readable format;

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Invites Parliament’s own relevant bodies to ~~ensure that documents are easily accessible to the public~~improve the accessibility of the documents to the public, irrespective of their medium;

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Invites Parliament’s own relevant bodies to ensure that documents are easily accessible ~~to the public~~for all citizens, including the blind and visually impaired, and available in all EU languages ;

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Emphasises that citizens, in order to make use of their right of access to documents of the Union's 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 29 #

Miapetra KUMPULA-NATRI, Włodzimierz CIMOSZEWICZ, Victor NEGRESCU, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA, Pascal DURAND

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Calls for a user-friendly system on the European Parliament's website whereby for each roll-call vote, the text voted on and the voting results can be filtered by group and by MEP; further calls for the roll-call vote results, the MEP presence data and the text put to the vote, to be made available in machine- readable formats;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Recital A b (new)

A b. whereas transparency is corollary of the principles of openness enshrined in the EU treaties;

Amendment 30 #

Miapetra KUMPULA-NATRI, Włodzimierz CIMOSZEWICZ, Victor NEGRESCU, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA, Pascal DURAND

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Calls on all relevant EU institutions to increase the number and to enlarge the categories of documents they directly make available in their public registers;

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls for all EU institutions to fully comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case T- 540/152 on access to trilogue documents; remains ready to engage with the Council and the Commission to jointly define the legislative milestones for which access to documents must be ensured; _________________ 2 Judgment of 22 March 2018, Emilio De Capitani v European Parliament, T-540/15, EU:T:2018:167.

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Regrets the fact that the Council systematically refuses to grant access to its internal documents under the pretence of protecting its decision-making process; stresses that the lack of transparency affects both public scrutiny and the cooperation with the other institutions, notably the European Parliament;

Amendment 33 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Insists that the Council should improve its rules and procedures on legislative transparency, including the accessibility and classification of legislative documents; calls on the Council to follow the Ombudsman recommendation by substantially reducing the number of legislative documents issued as ‘LIMITE’ and to reconsider such limitation regularly;

Amendment 34 #

Jacek SARYUSZ-WOLSKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Insists that the Council should improve its rules and procedures on legislative transparency, including the accessibility and classification of legislative documents; recalls, however, that the Council also works with a large number of documents of a sensitive nature and must ensure the highest level of protection against unauthorised access;

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Insists that the Council should improve its rules and procedures on legislative transparency, including the accessibility and classification of legislative documents with the aim of working as openly as possible;

Amendment 36 #

Miapetra KUMPULA-NATRI, Włodzimierz CIMOSZEWICZ, Victor NEGRESCU, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA, Pascal DURAND

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7 a. Highlights the importance of the recent judgement of the CJEU in Case T- 163/21 on access to legislative documents of Council’s working groups concluding that access to legislative documents must be as wide as possible and that exceptions could apply only if access to such documents would specifically, effectively and in a non-hypothetical manner seriously undermine the possibility of reaching an agreement on the legislative proposal in question;

Amendment 37 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7 a. Recalls that the Council as any other institution has the obligation to demonstrate how and why publication of the information would harm a legitimate interest protected by one of the exceptions; points out that it should explain why it considers this harm substantial enough to override the public interest in accessing that document;

Amendment 38 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7 a. Recalls that a corruption scandal such as the one affecting the EU institutions may increase the interest of citizens and organisations in access to documents; calls on the institutions to prioritise transparency and avoid opaque practices;

Amendment 39 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7 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 4 #

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas the purpose of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents1 is to confer on the public the widest possible right of access to the documents of the institutions, in order to effectively exercise their right to scrutinise the work and activities of the EU institutions; whereas, in light of this right and recent case law, any exceptions have to be interpreted and applied strictly and the institutions have the obligation to demonstrate how disclosure would specifically and actually undermine the interests protected by the exceptions; _________________ 1 OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43.

Amendment 40 #

Miapetra KUMPULA-NATRI, Włodzimierz CIMOSZEWICZ, Victor NEGRESCU, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA, Pascal DURAND

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7 b. Insists that all EU institutions, participating in trilogues, follow Article 12 of Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 making legislative documents, that is to say, documents drawn up or received in the course of procedures for the adoption of acts which are legally binding in or for the Member States, directly accessible; interprets that the categories of documents which are to be directly accessible through Parliament's public register website shall include preparatory legislative documents as recognised by the CJEU’s jurisprudence, no matter if authored by the Parliament alone or together with the other institutions, such as political and technical trilogue documents, including but not limited to all versions of the joint multi-column document referred to in the Code of Conduct for negotiating in the context of the ordinary legislative procedure;

Amendment 41 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7 b. Insists that the systematic publication of the mandate to start trilogue negotiations and of the final position of the Council endorsing the outcome of the negotiations is a bare minimum and that in order to mirror the transparency of Parliament in the legislative negotiations, the Council should also systematically record the identity of Member States when they express their positions in Council;

Amendment 42 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Underlines that the European Ombudsman plays an important role in facilitating citizens’ access to documents ~~and has developed an important informal procedure with the institutions for submitt~~, notably when the access has been partially or completely refused by an EU institution or body, and welcomes the Fast-Track procedure for ‘access to documents’ complaints that can result ing a recommendation to the institution concerned about the full or partial disclosure of the requested document(s).

Amendment 43 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8 a. Stresses that transparency in the decision-making process increases citizens' willingness to accept the political choices made; regrets, in this regard, that although Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 provides for an exception to access to documents of the institutions where the protection of the commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property, is concerned, the Commission has nevertheless failed in its duty of transparency by not making public, in the context of the contracts for the purchase of vaccines against Covid-19, information relating to the manufacturers' liability, the price of the doses sold and the dates and volumes of doses delivered to each Member State;

Amendment 44 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8 a. Welcomes the Ombudsman’s Decision on the Commission's refusal of public access to text messages exchanged between the Commission President and the CEO of a pharmaceutical company on the purchase of a COVID 19 vaccine finding maladministration by the Commission; recalls that text messages are considered documents by Regulation 1049/2001 regardless of the registration criteria used by the Commission or any other EU institution, body, office or agency; calls on the Commission to follow the Ombudsman’s recommendations;

Amendment 45 #

Miapetra KUMPULA-NATRI, Włodzimierz CIMOSZEWICZ, Victor NEGRESCU, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA, Pascal DURAND

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8 a. Condemns Frontex's misrepresentation of meetings with lobby organisations between 2017 and 2019, many of which were not registered in the transparency register at the 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 46 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8 a. Recalls that the Court of Justice has observed that it is precisely transparency concerning legal advice that contributes to conferring greater legitimacy on the institutions in the eyes of European citizens and increasing their confidence in them by allowing divergences between various points of view to be openly debated (judgment of 4 September 2018, ClientEarth v Commission);

Amendment 47 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)

8 b. Stresses that European citizens, as taxpayers, have a legitimate interest in knowing how EU funds are used; regrets, in this context, that the written notification sent to Hungary in connection with the application of Article 6(1) of Regulation 2020/2092 was not made public on the grounds that the exceptions referred to in Articles 4(1)(4), 4(2)(2) and (3) and 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 were applicable, relating in particular to the protection of the public interest of the Union, the protection of court proceedings and legal advice, and the objectives of inspection, investigation and audit activities;

Amendment 48 #

Miapetra KUMPULA-NATRI, Włodzimierz CIMOSZEWICZ, Victor NEGRESCU, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA, Pascal DURAND

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)

8 b. Regrets that case OC/2021/0451/A1 of OLAF was not publicly accessible until leaked through journalists; stresses that Frontex's cover- ups of human rights violations are in contradiction to Articles 2, 3, 6 and 21 of the Treaty on European Union and Article 205 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and undermine the legitimacy of the European Union's executive actions;

Amendment 49 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)

8 b. Recalls conclusion 39 of the Conference on the Future of Europe, asking to “ensure transparency of decision-making by allowing independent citizens’ observers to closely follow the decision-making process, guaranteeing broader right of access to documents, and develop on this basis stronger links and an enhanced dialogue between citizens and the EU institutions;

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas the purpose of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents1 is to confer on the public the widest possible right of access to the documents of the institutions; whereas, in light of this right and recent case law, any exceptions have to be individually assessed, interpreted and applied strictly and the institutions have the obligation to demonstrate how disclosure would specifically and actually undermine the interests protected by the exceptions; _________________ 1 OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43.

Amendment 50 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 c (new)

8 c. Regrets 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 comply with a journalist's request to grant access to these text messages; recognises that this also resulted from the absence of a clear regulation on what constitutes a 'document'; supports a broad interpretation of the concept of ‘document’, which would include such work-related text and instant messages; supports the Ombudsman’s finding of maladministration by the Commission in this case 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;

Amendment 6 #

Miapetra KUMPULA-NATRI, Włodzimierz CIMOSZEWICZ, Victor NEGRESCU, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA, Pascal DURAND

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

B a. whereas in 2021 the most often occurring reason for the refusal of access to documents by Council was the protection of the Council’s decision- making process amounting to 223 cases; whereas of 1327 legislative documents issued as LIMITE, 839 were eventually made public on request, indicating that LIMITE is used excessively and not reviewed sufficiently by Council itself with a view of making them public and increasing transparency;

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

B a. whereas Article 15(3) TFEU, which has been inserted by the Lisbon Treaty, extends the scope of the transparency obligation to all institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, while the ECB, the EIB and the CJEU are only covered in the exercise of their administrative tasks;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

B a. whereas the Conference on the Future of Europe included among its proposals and measures on decision- making the guarantee of a wide right of access to documents;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Insists that the EU institutions have the obligation to implement Article 15(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in line with democratic principles, in particular those laid down in Article 10(3) of the Treaty on European Union; and Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights; stresses that the EU institutions must work as closely as possible to citizens and that access to documents is a key tool in ensuring citizen’s trust in the Union;

source: 735.468

2023/02/14 LIBE 133 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Motion for a resolution
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 10 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

A a. Whereas transparency is one of the key founding elements of the European Union and, despite this fact, the European Commission is not disclosing the name of authors of the Rule of law reports, which raises doubts about the objectivity, accuracy and professionalism of these reports;

Amendment 100 #

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Lucia ĎURIŠ NICHOLSONOVÁ, Jana TOOM

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Calls for a revision of the Staff Regulations, especially Article 22(c) thereof, in order to align them with the standards of the Whistleblower Directive; reiterates its call for a special committee tasked with identifying potential flaws in the European Parliament’s rules on transparency, integrity and corruption and with making proposals for reforms; recalls its commitment to setting up a committee of inquiry to investigate cases of corruption and improper actions by non-EU countries seeking to buy influence in the European Parliament, thereby undermining the image of the Union both in the Member States and among international partners; recalls its position that the Commission should put forward a proposal to set up a new ethics body for the EU institutions as soon as possible;

Amendment 101 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Calls for a revision of the Staff Regulations, especially Article 22(c) thereof, in order to align them with the standards of the Whistleblower Directive; reiterates its call for a special committee tasked with identifying potential flaws in the European Parliament’s rules on transparency, integrity and corruption and with making proposals for reforms; recalls its commitment to setting up a committee of inquiry, following the outcome of the criminal investigations and possible court proceedings, to investigate cases of corruption and improper actions by non- EU countries seeking to buy influence in the European Parliament; recalls its position that the Commission should put forward a proposal to set up a new ethics body for the EU institutions as soon as possible;

Amendment 102 #

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Lucia ĎURIŠ NICHOLSONOVÁ, Jana TOOM

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Calls for a revision of the Staff Regulations, especially Article 22(c) thereof, in order to align them with the standards of the Whistleblower Directive; reiterates its call for a special committee tasked with identifying potential flaws in the European Parliament’s rules on transparency, integrity and corruption and with making proposals for reforms; recalls its commitment to setting up a committee of inquiry to investigate cases of corruption and improper actions by EU countries, non-EU countries, private companies and corporate lobbying seeking to buy influence in the European Parliament; recalls its position that the Commission should put forward a proposal to set up a new ethics body for the EU institutions as soon as possible;

Amendment 103 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11 a. Calls on the Commission to be more transparent as regards contracts with third parties; calls on the Commission to proactively publish information about the tender process including the criteria against which third parties tenders are assessed, possible prior risk assessments, scientific evidence of the effectiveness of the product or service covered, the contract including the amount of EU funding spent and time period, the desired outcomes, possible audits and the assessment of the result;

Amendment 104 #

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Lucia ĎURIŠ NICHOLSONOVÁ, Jana TOOM

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11 a. Highlights in view of the recent scandals the risks with in camera meetings; deeply regrets the fact that the Commission and the Council insist on in camera meetings without proper justification; considers that requests for in camera meetings should be properly evaluated; calls for clear criteria and rules governing requests for in camera sessions in the EU institutions;

Amendment 105 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Welcomes the Ombudsman’s practical recommendations on how to record text and instant messages sent or received by staff members in their professional capacity23 ; recognises that work-related text and instant messages are ‘documents’ within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 on public access to documents and invites the other EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies to also recognise this; calls on the other EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies to ~~use a broad interpretation of~~strictly apply theis concept of ‘document’, which is particularly important in an information society and in the context of new forms of communication, which are being used to discuss matters relating to the policies, activities and decisions; _________________ 23 https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/doc/ correspondence/en/158383.

Amendment 106 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Welcomes the Ombudsman’s practical recommendations on how to record text and instant messages sent or received by staff members in their professional capacity23 ; recognises that work-related text and instant messages are ‘documents’ within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 on public access to documents and invites the other EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies to also recognise this and follow the Ombudsman’s recommendations accordingly; calls on the other EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies to use a broad interpretation of the concept of ‘document’, which is particularly important in an information society and in the context of new forms of communication; _________________ 23 https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/doc/ correspondence/en/158383.

Amendment 107 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Welcomes the Ombudsman’s practical recommendations on how to record text and instant messages sent or received by staff members in their professional capacity23 ; recognises that certain work-related text and instant messages ~~are~~may be considered as ‘documents’ within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 on public access to documents and invites the other EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies to also recognise this; calls on the other EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies to use a broad interpretation of the concept of ‘document’, which is particularly important in an information society and in the context of new forms of communication; ~~_________________ 23 https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/do c/correspondence/en/158383.~~

Amendment 108 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12 a. Welcomes the 2021 Ombudsman’s guidelines for the EU administration on policies and practices to give effect to the right of public access to documents in view to improve internal procedures in order to make the process easy and open to citizens, such as providing the public with the information on how to submit a request for public access to documents, as well as on the procedure the institution follows in dealing with requests and the information on the means of redress12a; _________________ 12a https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/do c/correspondence/en/149198

Amendment 109 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12 a. Calls on the Commission to ensure compliance with Article 218 TFEU and to make publicly available relevant documents, such as documents sent to Member States, in connection with infringement procedures;

Amendment 11 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

A a. whereas Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 recognises the particular importance of even wider access to documents when EU institutions act in their legislative capacity and underlines especially the need for direct access to legislative documents;

Amendment 110 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)

12 b. Encourages the EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies to put in place on its respective websites advice on what elements a request for documents under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 should contain and how detailed it should be in order to streamline the processing of the requests;

Amendment 111 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Highlights that transparency and full access to the documents held by the institutions have to be the rule and that exceptions to that rule have to be strictly interpreted, taking into account the overriding public interest in disclosure; Calls for the EU institutions to have a policy of ‘transparency by design’ and publish documents linked to legislative files proactively, within a reasonable time frame and in a user-friendly way; calls for the EU institutions to comply fully with the judgment of the CJEU in Case T-540/1524 on access to trilogue documents; insists that the Council should improve its rules and procedures on legislative transparency, including the accessibility and classification of legislative documents; _________________ 24 Judgment of 22 March 2018, Emilio De Capitani v European Parliament, T-540/15, EU:T:2018:167.

Amendment 112 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Calls for the EU institutions, bodies and agencies to have a policy of ‘transparency by design’ and publish documents linked to legislative files proactively, ~~within a reasonable time frame and in a user-friendly way~~including documents forming part of or related to legislative procedures, within a reasonable time frame and in a user-friendly and accessible way, as well as complaints against refusals to grant access; calls for the EU institutions to comply fully with the judgment of the CJEU in Case T-540/1524 on access to trilogue documents; ~~insists that~~urges the Council ~~should~~to improve its rules and procedures on legislative transparency, including the accessibility and classification of legislative documents; _________________ 24 Judgment of 22 March 2018, Emilio De Capitani v European Parliament, T-540/15, EU:T:2018:167.

Amendment 113 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Calls for the EU institutions to have a policy of ‘transparency by design’ and publish documents linked to legislative files proactively, within a reasonable time frame and in a user-friendly way; calls for the EU institutions to comply fully with the judgment of the CJEU in Case T-540/1524 on access to trilogue documents; insists that the EU institutions and in particular the Council should improve its rules and procedures on legislative transparency, including the accessibility and classification of legislative documents; _________________ 24 Judgment of 22 March 2018, Emilio De Capitani v European Parliament, T-540/15, EU:T:2018:167.

Amendment 114 #

Motion for a resolution
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)

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)

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)

13 d. Calls on the Council to reopen the dialogue with the Member States and the General Secretariat on measures to improve the cohesion, standardisation and clarity of document management across the Council;

Amendment 118 #

Motion for a resolution
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 119 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14 a. ; reiterates its urgent call upon the institutions to continue discussions on moving towards the establishment of a dedicated and user-friendly joint database on the state of play of legislative files (Joint Legislative Database) as agreed in the 2016 Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making to ensure greater transparency; stresses that documents made public, should be published in a format that allows them to be searchable and machine-readable;

Amendment 12 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)

A b. whereas the Court of Justice of the European Union underlines that public scrutiny of information, on which legislative action is taken, is a precondition for the exercise of democratic rights (Sweden and Turco v Council, C39/05 P and C-52/05; Council v Access Info Europe, C-280/11P); whereas CJEU concluded that openness in that respect contributes to strengthening democracy by allowing citizens to scrutinize all the information which has formed the basis of a legislative act and stated that the possibility for citizens to find out the considerations underpinning legislative action is a precondition for the effective exercise of their democratic rights;

Amendment 120 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Calls for the Commission and the other EU institutions, agencies and bodies to be ~~more~~ proactive in publishing documents and statistics regarding how they handle document access requests, as such information would help with assessing the institutions’ proactive approach to document access; requests to use the EU Ombudsman’s short guide on policies and practices to give effect to the right of public access to documents as a basis1c; calls on the EU institutions to implement without delay a user-dedicated joint database on the state of play of legislative files as agreed in the Inter-Institutional Agreement on Better Law-making; _________________ 1c https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/do c/correspondence/en/149198

Amendment 121 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15 a. Calls for all EU institutions to ensure the systematic provision of documents in an open, machine-readable format, which is especially essential for numerical or financial data and to ensure the same format for documents published in the past; calls for amending Rule 122(3) of the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure to ensure the provision of data in an open, machine-readable format;

Amendment 122 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15 a. Believes that the EU's institutions should make full use of the potential of new technologies to ensure full and easy access to information

Amendment 123 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 b (new)

15 b. Calls for a user-friendly system on the European Parliament's website whereby for each roll-call vote, the text voted on and the voting results can be filtered by group and by MEP; further calls for the roll-call vote results, the MEP presence data and the text put to the vote, to be made available in machine- readable formats;

Amendment 124 #

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Lucia ĎURIŠ NICHOLSONOVÁ, Jana TOOM

16. Recalls that an application for access to a document must be handled promptly26 ; notes with concern that the Ombudsman receives many citizen complaints about extreme delays in gaining access to requested documents; supports the Ombudsman’s views that access delayed is effectively access denied and that administrative processes should be streamlined to ensure that citizens receive access to documents in a timely manner; calls ~~for more data on the institutions’ compliance with the deadlines~~on the EU institutions, bodies and agencies to ensure compliance with the deadlines, and for more data on their compliance with the deadlines; further calls upon the Commission to take measures to enforce compliance by other EU institutions with deadlines; stresses that pro-active publication of documents in the register is the best solution to lower the amount of access to documents requests and to avoid delays; calls as a last resort, for documents to be made public automatically if deadlines to process access to documents requests are not respected repeatedly; _________________ 26 Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, Article 7.

Amendment 125 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Recalls that an application for access to a document must be handled promptly26 ; notes with great concern that the Ombudsman receives many citizen complaints about extreme delays in gaining access to requested documents; supports the Ombudsman’s views that access delayed is effectively access denied and that administrative processes should be streamlined to ensure that citizens receive access to documents in a timely manner; calls for more data on the institutions’ compliance with the deadlines; _________________ 26 Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, Article 7.

Amendment 126 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16 a. Notes that citizens are often facing long delays in receiving access to documents; calls on the institutions to process requests for access to documents without undue delay; acknowledges however that the delays may be caused by the complexity of a given case; in such instances, calls for the institutions to explain to the applicant the reasons for the necessary delays;

Amendment 127 #

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Lucia ĎURIŠ NICHOLSONOVÁ, Jana TOOM

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16a. Emphasises that the pandemic and the changes in the institutions' working procedures resulted in a slowdown in the processing of requests for access to documents; stresses that it is essential for the institutions to put in place mechanisms to ensure that the highest level of transparency and access to documents is maintained, even in the event of a crisis;

Amendment 128 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Notes with concern that at present, citizens can only challenge the refusal of an access-to-document request by ~~bringing court proceedings against the institution and/or by making a complaint to the Ombudsman~~making a complaint to the Ombudsman, whose recommendations are unfortunately not legally binding, or by bringing court proceedings against the institution in the CJEU, which entails extremely lengthy processes, the risk of high, even prohibitive costs, and uncertain outcome, putting an unreasonable and deterring 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; calls for the EU institutions, bodies and agencies to adopt more accessible procedures for handling complaints about refusals to grant access; recommends, in this context, appointing independent, senior officials with the capacity to review, without undue delay, appeals concerning access-to-documents requests;

Amendment 129 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Notes with concern that at present, citizens can only challenge the refusal of an access-to-document request by bringing court proceedings against the institution and/or by making a complaint to the Ombudsman; calls for EU institutions to ensure full and swift follow up of decisions and recommendations by the Ombudsman; calls for the EU institutions, bodies and agencies to adopt more accessible procedures for handling complaints about refusals to grant access and measures to ensure that citizens can challenge decisions where needed; recommends, in this context, appointing independent~~, senior official~~ experts with the capacity to review, without undue delay, appeals concerning access-to-documents requests;

Amendment 13 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)

A b. Whereas the European Commission had not disclosed in over 15 years the name of the authors of the Progress Reports for Romania and Bulgaria within the Verification and Cooperation Mechanisms, like GRECO or Venice Commission do with their reports, which made these reports pure political, instead of technical, as they were intended;

Amendment 130 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Notes with concern that at present, citizens can only challenge the refusal of an access-to-document request by bringing court proceedings against the institution and/or by making a complaint to the Ombudsman; calls for the EU institutions, bodies and agencies to adopt more accessible, swifter and simplified procedures for handling complaints about refusals to grant access; recommends, in this context, appointing independent, senior officials with the capacity to review, without undue delay, appeals concerning access-to-documents requests;

Amendment 131 #

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Lucia ĎURIŠ NICHOLSONOVÁ, Jana TOOM

Motion for a resolution
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 132 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17 a. Considers that the current way to find the voting history of Members of European Parliament, via pdf-files covering hundreds of votes on the Parliament's website, is not user-friendly and does not contribute to the EU's transparency; calls on the Parliament Bureau to develop a user-friendly system where for each roll-call vote the text voted and the voting results per group and per MEP are visible at the same time;

Amendment 133 #

Motion for a resolution
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;

Amendment 14 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas openness and accountability builds trust; whereas citizens’ trust in the EU institutions is fundamental for democracy, good governance and effective policy-making; whereas the EU institutions must strive for the highest possible standards of transparency, accountability and integrity; whereas ~~openness and the participation of civil society are indispensable for promoting good governance in the EU institutions;~~ there is a need to ensure modes of scrutiny which combine democratic oversight, control and auditing activities; whereas openness and the participation of civil society are indispensable for promoting good governance in the EU institutions; whereas good governance, accountability building, openness in the functioning of the EU and its decision- making process should be the leading principles of the culture within the EU institutions;

Amendment 15 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas openness ~~builds trust; whereas the EU institution~~can be one factor in building citizen's trust in the Union; whereas the functioning of the EU is founded on representative democracy; whereas EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies must strive for the highest possible standards of transparency, accountability and integrity; whereas openness and ~~the~~ participation of ci~~vil society~~tizens and civil society in the democratic life of the Union are indispensable for promoting good governance in the EU institutions;

Amendment 16 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

B a. whereas access to accurate information is vital in preventing misinformation and combating fake news;

Amendment 17 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas in the final report of the Conference on the Future of Europe, citizens expressed their dissatisfaction with the lack of transparency in the EU’s decision-making process and voiced a desire for more citizen involvement and accountability, whereas the transparency of the decision-making process will increase citizens’ trust in the European Union, and in the democratic nature of the European institutions, and will ensure greater legitimacy, efficiency and accountability of the administration to the citizens;

Amendment 18 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas in the final report of the Conference on the Future of Europe, citizens ~~expressed their dissatisfaction with the lack of~~called for more transparency in the EU’s decision-making process and voiced a desire for more citizen involvement and accountability;

Amendment 19 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

C a. whereas there is a clear public interest in disclosing legislative documents so that citizens can effectively exercise their right to scrutinise the legislative process; whereas according to Article 16(8) TEU the Council must meet in public when it deliberates and votes on a draft legislative act; whereas designating most preparatory documents in ongoing legislative procedures as ‘LIMITE’ represents a disproportionate restriction on citizens’ right to access legislative documents; whereas in order to enable citizens to fully exercise their right to access documents, all legislative documents produced and/or circulated in preparatory bodies should be listed in a user-friendly public register; whereas according to the CJEU access to legislative documents must be as wide as possible and justification for refusing access should be well-founded, including in the Council’s working groups1a; _________________ 1a Case T 163/21 https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/do cument.jsf;jsessionid=DD19440C415747 D82260E788B77D832F?text

Amendment 2 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 11 a (new)

Amendment 20 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)

C b. whereas openness and transparency principles should govern not only the decision-making process but also the way in which a text is drafted; whereas transparency and access to documents should also be guaranteed in relation to how EU policies are implemented at all levels and how EU funds are used;

Amendment 21 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas citizens’ expectations as regards transparency, accountability and technical solutions have evolved in recent years~~; whereas this may require~~ in view of the lack of transparency in EU institutions and the difficulties in requesting access to documents; whereas this may require enforcing implementation of the current legislation, CJEU and ECtHR case law, the adoption of new technical solutions and guidelines, as well as measures to monitor progress;

Amendment 22 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas citizens’ expectations as regards transparency, efficiency, accountability and technical solutions have evolved in recent years; whereas this may require the adoption of new technical solutions and guidelines that increase accountability and efficiency;

Amendment 23 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas citizens’ expectations as regards transparency, and accountability ~~and~~of public institutions, and possible technical solutions have evolved in recent years; whereas this may require the adoption of new ~~technical solutions and guideline~~guidelines to reflect these developments;

Amendment 24 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas the leading concerns raised in the inquiries closed by the Ombudsman in 2021 were transparency in decision making, accountability and the refusal of public access to information and documents (29 %), followed by a culture of service (26 %) ~~and~~, the proper use of discretion ~~(18 %)15 ;~~ , including in infringement procedures (18 %), the respect for procedural rights (12%) and the violation of fundamental rights (11%) 15 ; whereas according to the Ombudsman report, “revolving doors” continues to be a matter of concern; _________________ 15 https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/doc/ annual-report/en/156017, p. 31.

Amendment 25 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas in case 1499/2021/SF16, the Ombudsman found that the Council and Commission’s refusal to give full public access to documents related to legislative negotiations constituted maladministration; _________________ 16 https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/deci sion/en/157727.

Amendment 26 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)

F a. whereas the 2021 review of the Ombudsman’s ‘fast-track’ procedure for dealing with complaints about public access to documents showed both a significant decrease in processing times by two thirds and an increase in the number of access to documents complaints;[1] [1] https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/do c/annual-report/en/156017

Amendment 27 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F b (new)

F b. whereas in case 1499/2021/SF[1], the Ombudsman found that the Council’s refusal to give full public access to documents related to legislative negotiations constituted maladministration;highlighting that keeping the public informed about the progress of legislative procedures is a legal requirement and that timely access to legislative documents is crucial for citizens to exercise their treaty-based right to participate in the democratic life of the EU [CLC1] ; [1] https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/de cision/en/157727 [CLC1]

Amendment 28 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

~~G. whereas the Union’s response to the COVID-19 crisis showed its ability to act, but also demonstrated the need for increased transparency within the Union;~~deleted

Amendment 29 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas the Union’s response to the COVID-19 crisis showed its ability to act, but also demonstrated the need for increased transparency within the Union; whereas the way in which the Commission handled the case of the text messages exchanged between the Commission President and the CEO of a pharmaceutical company on the purchase of a COVID-19 vaccine is a matter of deep concern; whereas the Ombudsman has presented recommendations on how to record text messages as a follow-up of the case;

Amendment 3 #

Motion for a resolution
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 30 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas the Union’s response to the COVID-19 crisis showed its ability to act, but also demonstrated the need for increased transparency within the Union; , for instance regarding the procurement of vaccines and the EU’s economic recovery programmes; whereas the Ombudsman found that the Commission’s refusal of public access constituted maladministration in case 790/2021/MIG and 1316/2021/MIG

Amendment 31 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas the Union’s response to the COVID-19 crisis showed its ability to act, but also demonstrated the need for increased transparency within the Union, as well as the adoption of a better policy on tackling disinformation, in order to obtain better and more accurate information for the European citizen;

Amendment 32 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)

G a. Whereas the Commission has blatantly violated the transparency principle and negotiated with the pharmaceutical companies contracts regarding the manufacturing of the anti- Covid-19 vaccines, which, to this day, are not fully disclosed not only to the media and the people, but not even to the Members of the European Parliament;

Amendment 33 #

Motion for a resolution
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 34 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital G b (new)

G b. Whereas the European Ombudsman has conducted an investigation at the end of 2021 regarding the Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and the Pfizer's CEO Albert Bourla about the exchange of personal texts and calls related to the procurement of COVID-19 vaccines, which the Commission has refused to disclose afterwards; whereas the Ombudsman found that this behaviour constituted maladministration, as the exchanges took place in the context of negotiations on a contract for the procurement of vaccines that was later concluded1a _________________ 1a https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/rec ommendation/en/151678

Amendment 35 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital G c (new)

G c. Whereas the European Public Prosecutor's Office has announced on the 14th of October 2022 that there is an ongoing investigation into the acquisition of COVID-19 vaccines in the EU and the fact that the exceptional confirmation comes after the extremely high public interest into the matter;

Amendment 36 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital H

H. whereas Parliament adopted its first-reading position on the Commission proposal for reform of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in December 2011; whereas negotiations on that regulation have been at a standstill since 2012; whereas the EU has taken on many new responsibilities since the regulation came into force; whereas increased responsibility requires increased transparency and accountability in order to uphold the EU’s credibility and legitimacy in citizens’ eyes;

Amendment 37 #

H. whereas Parliament adopted its first-reading position on the Commission proposal for reform of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in December 2011; whereas negotiations on that regulation have been at a standstill since 2012; whereas the EU has taken on many new responsibilities since the regulation came into force; whereas increased responsibility requires increased transparency in order to uphold the EU’s credibility and legitimacy in citizens’ eyes, and their trust;

Amendment 38 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital H

H. whereas Parliament adopted its first-reading position on the Commission proposal for reform of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in December 2011; whereas negotiations on that regulation have been at a standstill since 2012; whereas the EU has taken on many new responsibilities since the regulation came into force; whereas increased responsibility requires increased ~~transparenc~~democratic scrutiny in order to uphold the EU’s credibility and legitimacy in citizens’ eyes;

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 4 #

Motion for a resolution
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 40 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)

H a. Whereas due to the lack of a common approach access to information held by the EU institutions is still difficult for citizens

Amendment 41 #

Motion for a resolution
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 42 #

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Lucia ĎURIŠ NICHOLSONOVÁ, Jana TOOM

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Is deeply concerned that Members, former Members, and staff of the European Parliament are alleged to have engaged in corruption, laundered money and participated in a criminal organisation in exchange for influence over Parliament’s decisions; recalls the importance of transparency in preventing and fighting corruption and in ensuring the accountability of persons performing public duties; notes that a high level of transparency makes it easier to track activities related to the decision- making process and may help in exposing criminal activities;

Amendment 43 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Recalls that the widest possible public access to documents is essential to public scrutiny on all aspects of EU activity, and that trust of citizens in the Union directly depends on transparency;

Amendment 44 #

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Lucia ĎURIŠ NICHOLSONOVÁ, Jana TOOM

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Notes with great concern 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~~ by the Commission with billions of euros of the tax payers' money, the Commission refused to acknowledge that such text messages fall within the definition of a “document” pursuant to Regulation (EC) 1049/2001, which specifies that a document means “any content whatever its medium (written on paper or stored in electronic form or as a sound, visual or audio-visual recording) concerning a matter relating to the policies, activities and decisions falling within the institution's sphere of responsibility”; and therefore fall under Regulation (EC) 1049/2001; notes that even though the Commission would have to register and search for such text messages, it can still decide not to grant full public access to them if the exceptions listed in the Regulation, such as commercial interests, apply; 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 ; _________________ 17 https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/deci sion/en/158295.

Amendment 45 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Notes with concern 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 ; is concerned about the fact that the Commission has failed to follow up on the Ombudsman’s recommendation following her inquiry to search again for relevant text messages and calls on the Commission to conduct a full search without delay; highlights that following this case the Ombudsman has presented recommendations on how to record text messages; calls on EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies to follow up on these recommendations and to make this follow-up public; expresses deep concern about the growing distance between citizens and EU institutions that this situation has caused; _________________ 17 https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/deci sion/en/158295.

Amendment 46 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Notes with concern~~Regrets 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 47 #

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Lucia ĎURIŠ NICHOLSONOVÁ, Jana TOOM

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Notes with concern that in 2021, following a request for public access to text messages between the Commission 's 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 prerequ~~did not disclose the messages and did not inform whether the text messages in question existed; regrets that currently the Commission’s internal policy is, in effect, not to regisite ~~for its existence; supports~~r text messages; takes note of the Ombudsman’s finding of maladministration by the Commission in this case17 ; _________________ 17 https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/deci sion/en/158295.

Amendment 48 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Regrets that the Commission record-keeping policy excludes text messages arguing they would be “short- lived documents” by their nature and "are not meant to contain important information relating to policies, activities and decisions of the Commission"; points out however that in practice text messages are being used for this purpose; urges the Commission to bring its internal guidelines on document registration in line with Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 and register text messages relating to the policies, activities and decisions of the Commission; notes that in several Member States it has become common practice for public bodies to archive text messages relating to policies, activities and decisions, subject to access to documents laws;

Amendment 49 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Stresses that transparency in the decision-making process increases citizens' willingness to accept the political choices made; considers it regrettable, in this regard, that although Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 provides for an exception to access to documents of the institutions where the protection of the commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property, is concerned, the Commission has nevertheless failed in its duty of transparency by not making public, in the context of the contracts for the purchase of vaccines against Covid-19, information relating to the manufacturers' liability, the price of the doses sold and the dates and volumes of doses delivered to each Member State;

Amendment 5 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 16 a (new)

— having regard to the 2020 Consolidated Annual Report Activity of the European Border Coast Guard Agency,

Amendment 50 #

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Lucia ĎURIŠ NICHOLSONOVÁ, Jana TOOM

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Recalls that Article 10(3) TEU recognises participatory democracy as one of the main democratic principles of the EU, thereby highlighting that decisions must be taken as close to citizens as possible; further recalls that fully democratic, accountable and highly transparent decision-making at the European level is indispensable to build citizens’ trust in the EU institutions;

Amendment 51 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2 b. Regrets that President von der Leyen was absent in the plenary debate on the matter of access to documents;

Amendment 52 #

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Lucia ĎURIŠ NICHOLSONOVÁ, Jana TOOM

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 c (new)

2 c. Deplores that the Commission has been deleting documents on a massive scale, including minutes from closed meetings, reports and internal documents, as a consequence of software introduced by former Commission President Jean- Claude Juncker in 2015, which deletes emails automatically after six months, unless they are registered .17a _________________ 17a https://www.spiegel.de/international/euro pe/a-new-controversy-erupts-around- ursula-von-der-leyen-s-text-messages-a- 6510951f-e8dc-4468-a0af-2ecd60e77ed9

Amendment 53 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Notes with concern that a common problem faced in requests for access to documents is the refusal of access by institutions, bodies or agencies on the basis of insubstantial arguments; takes note of the frequent use of the exceptions in Article 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 to refuse full access to documents; reiterates that an institution, body or agency invoking one of the exceptions to access has to make an objective and individual assessment and show that the risk to the interest protected is well-founded, foreseeable and not purely hypothetical, and d~~efine~~uly justify how access to the document would specifically and effectively undermine the interest protected18 ; highlights that it might be possible to disclose some parts of a document when other parts need to be protected; notes with interest the case lodged against the Council for its frequent recourse to the informal ‘working document’ predicatcalls on institutions, bodies, offices and agencies to integrate these assessments in their access to documents practice; highlights that it might be possible to disclose some parts of a document when other parts need to be protected, taking into account the overriding public interest in disclosure, including the need to ensure closer involvement of citizens in the decision- making process, good governance, efficiency and accountability to citizens; notes with interest that in its judgement on the case lodged against the Council for its frequent recourse to the informal ‘working document’ predicate, the Court stressed that access to legislative documents must be as wide as possible and that the Council must grant access to documents drawn up within its working groups relating to the legislative procedure19 ; _________________ 18 Judgment of the CJEU of 22 March 2018, Emilio De Capitani v European Parliament, T-540/15, EU:T:2018:167; judgment of the CJEU of 1 July 2008, Sweden and Turco v Council of the European Union, Joined Cases C-39/05 P and C-52/05, EU:C:2008:374. 19 Case lodged on 7 May 2021, De Capitani v Council of the European Union, T- 163/21.

Amendment 54 #

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Lucia ĎURIŠ NICHOLSONOVÁ, Jana TOOM

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Notes with concern that a common problem faced in requests for access to documents is the refusal of access by institutions on the basis of insubstantial arguments; reiterates that an institution invoking one of the exceptions to access has to make an objective and individual assessment and show that the risk to the interest protected is foreseeable and not purely hypothetical, and define how access to the document would specifically and effectively undermine the interest protected18 ; highlights that it might be possible to disclose some parts of a document when other parts need to be protected, a process which must be subjected to an equally objective and individual assessment conducted by the respective Union’s institution, body, office or agency, and approved by the EU ethics body; notes with interest the case lodged against the Council for its frequent recourse to the informal ‘working document’ predicate19 ; _________________ 18 Judgment of the CJEU of 22 March 2018, Emilio De Capitani v European Parliament, T-540/15, EU:T:2018:167; judgment of the CJEU of 1 July 2008, Sweden and Turco v Council of the European Union, Joined Cases C-39/05 P and C-52/05, EU:C:2008:374. 19 Case lodged on 7 May 2021, De Capitani v Council of the European Union, T- 163/21.

Amendment 55 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Notes with concern that a common problem faced in requests for access to documents is the refusal of access by institutions on the basis of insubstantial arguments; reiterates that an institution invoking one of the exceptions to access has to make an objective and individual assessment and show that the risk to the interest protected is foreseeable and not purely hypothetical, and define how access to the document would specifically and effectively undermine the interest protected18 ; highlights that it might be possible to disclose some parts of a document when other parts need to be protected; ~~notes with interest the case lodged against the Council for its frequent recourse to the informa~~takes note of the CJEU’s judgment in case T-163/21 De Capitani vs Council of the European Union, where the Court recognised the public’s right of access to documents from Council ‘working ~~document’ predicate19~~groups acting in the context of a legislative process, but that access still needs to be actively requested; ; _________________ 18 Judgment of the CJEU of 22 March 2018, Emilio De Capitani v European Parliament, T-540/15, EU:T:2018:167; judgment of the CJEU of 1 July 2008, Sweden and Turco v Council of the European Union, Joined Cases C-39/05 P and C-52/05, EU:C:2008:374. ~~19 Case lodged on 7 May 2021, De Capitani v Council of the European Union, T-163/21.~~

Amendment 56 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Notes with concern that a common problem faced in requests for access to documents is the refusal of access by institutions on the basis of insubstantial arguments; reiterates that an institution invoking one of the exceptions to accessReiterates that an institution invoking one of the exceptions to access to documents under Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 has to make an objective and individual assessment and show that the risk to the interest protected is foreseeable and not purely hypothetical, ands well as define how access to the document would specifically and effectively undermine the interest protected18 ; highlights that it might be possible to disclose some parts of a document when other parts need to be protected; notes with interest the case lodged against the Council for its frequent recourse to the informal ‘working document’ predicate19 ; notes with concern that a common problem faced in requests for access to documents is the refusal of access by institutions on the basis of insubstantial arguments; _________________ 18 Judgment of the CJEU of 22 March 2018, Emilio De Capitani v European Parliament, T-540/15, EU:T:2018:167; judgment of the CJEU of 1 July 2008, Sweden and Turco v Council of the European Union, Joined Cases C-39/05 P and C-52/05, EU:C:2008:374. 19 Case lodged on 7 May 2021, De Capitani v Council of the European Union, T- 163/21.

Amendment 57 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Notes with concern that a common problem faced in requests for access to documents is the refusal of access by institutions on the basis of insubstantial arguments; reiterates that an institution invoking one of the exceptions to access has to make an objective and individual assessment and show that the risk to the interest protected is foreseeable and genuine and not purely hypothetical, and define how access to the document would specifically and effectively undermine the interest protected18; highlights that it might be possible to disclose some parts of a document when other parts need to be protected; notes with interest the case lodged against the Council for its frequent recourse to the informal ‘working document’ predicate19; _________________ 18 Judgment of the CJEU of 22 March 2018, Emilio De Capitani v European Parliament, T-540/15, EU:T:2018:167; judgment of the CJEU of 1 July 2008, Sweden and Turco v Council of the European Union, Joined Cases C- 39/05 P and C-52/05, EU:C:2008:374. 19 Case lodged on 7 May 2021, De Capitani v Council of the European Union, T- 163/21.

Amendment 58 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Recalls that according to the European Ombudsman, restrictions on access to documents, particularly legislative documents, should be exceptional and limited to what is absolutely necessary; recalls as well, that any decision denying public access to documents must be based on clearly and strictly defined legal exemptions, accompanied by reasoned and specific justification, allowing citizens to understand the denial of access, and to make effective use of the legal remedies available; considers that a more proactive approach would help ensure effective transparency as well as prevent unnecessary legal disputes that could result in unnecessary costs and burdens for both the citizens and the institutions;

Amendment 59 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Stresses that European citizens, as taxpayers, have a legitimate interest in knowing how EU funds are used; regrets, in this context, that the written notification sent to Hungary in connection with the application of Article 6(1) of Regulation 2020/2092 was not made public on the grounds that the exceptions referred to in Articles 4(1)(4), 4(2)(2) and (3) and 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 were applicable, relating in particular to the protection of the public interest of the Union, the protection of court proceedings and legal advice, and the purpose of inspection, investigation and audit activities;

Amendment 6 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 16 a (new)

— having regard to the 2020 Consolidated Annual Report Activity of the European Border Coast Guard Agency,

Amendment 60 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Is concerned that there are persistent inconsistencies in how similar requests for access to documents are handled by different institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and in some case even different Directorates-General within one organisation; calls for development of best practices to allow for uniform application and interpretation of provisions in Regulation 1049/2001 and the relevant case law of the CJEU;

Amendment 61 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Takes note of the fact that the Commission receives the highest number of initial applications for public access to documents (8 420 in 2021), followed by the Council (2 083 in 2021) and Parliament (499 in 2021); acknowledges that the institutions’ response rate is quite positive overall (in 2021, it was 75 % for the Commission, 89.5 % for the Council and 95 % for Parliament); highlights however that the enhanced delays and unfounded refusal to disclose, including partially, of documents undermines citizens’ right of scrutiny on EU institutions;

Amendment 62 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Welcomes the new transparency steps taken by the Council in 2020 to allow the public to better exercise the democratic right to scrutinise the EU legislative processes; notes that the adopted measures include proactive publication of progress reports on negotiations on draft laws as well as Council’s mandates for negotiations with the European Parliament, in line with proposals made by the Ombudsman in her inquiries into legislative transparency in the Council and the transparency of trilogues4a; regrets that there are still differences from presidency to presidency in the practice of proactive publishing of documents; calls for the establishment of permanent guidelines binding on all presidencies; _________________ 4a https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/pre ss-release/en/130298

Amendment 63 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Regrets the fact that access to the advice of the institutions’ respective Legal Services is too limited; ~~notes with interest that the Court has highligh~~takes note of the CJEU judgement which stated that Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 imposes, in principle, an obligation to disclose the opinions of the Council’s Legal Service relating to a legislative process; noteds that ~~the question of whether a legal opinion~~according to the Court the only possible grounds for refusal on account of the protection of legal advice given in the context of the legislative process is a particularly sensitive ~~depends on whether~~nature of the content of the opinion ~~itself i~~or its particularly ~~sensitive, not on whether the legislative process related to the opinion is se~~wide scope that goes beyond the context of the legislative process; echoes Court’s opinion that in such case instit~~ive~~ution concerned is obliged to give a detailed statement of the reasons for such a refusal20 ; _________________ 20 Judgment of 21 April 2021, Laurent Pech v Council of the European Union, T- 252/19, EU:T:2021:203.

Amendment 64 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Notes that in its current document management policy, e-mails are automatically deleted after 6 months unless registered by staff; expresses its concern that this practice has led to the disappearance of important correspondence relevant to policy decisions; calls on the Commission to ensure systematic registration and archiving of non-private correspondence by default; further calls upon EU Agencies to apply Regulation 1049/2001 in their policy on access to documents;

Amendment 65 #

Motion for a resolution
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)

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 67 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5 b. Expresses concern about the difficulties in accessing documents from some EU agencies which prevent that citizens and MEPs can effectively scrutinize them; considers that the disclosure of meetings and interactions between EU agencies and third parties is required to ensure enhanced transparency;

Amendment 68 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 c (new)

5 c. Calls for more transparency on the national applications for funding, the communication between Commission and Member States and the implementation of EU funding, including the RRF;

Amendment 69 #

6. Welcomes Frontex’s establishment of a document register on a dedicated website; notes, however, that the register contains very few documents related to the implementation of joint operations, which is the agency’s core activity; also regrets that in 2020, less than 5% of public access to documents requests received full access, this preventing effective public scrutiny; stresses that this information is necessary for understanding 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~~ ‘on how Frontex complies with its fundamental rights obligations and ensures accountability in relation to its enhanced responsibilities’ , that the agency should take a more proactive approach to transparency, including publishing documents which are necessary to understand the respective roles and responsibilities of the actors involved in its operations and reporting any incident observed, with a view to ensuring greater accountability for its operations;

Amendment 7 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 19 a (new)

— having regard to CJEU judgement of 25 January 2023 T-163/21 De Capitani v. Council,

Amendment 70 #

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Lucia ĎURIŠ NICHOLSONOVÁ, Jana TOOM

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Welcomes~~Takes note of Frontex’s establishment of a document register on a dedicated website; ~~note~~strongly 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 71 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Points out that proactive publication of documents by the EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies would not only answer to citizens' expectation of a transparent Union, but would also significantly reduce the number of access to documents requests and prevent many unnecessary court cases resulting in high costs and workload for both citizens seeking access to documents and the institutions; considers that the institutions should not call on individual citizens to bear the costs incurred by the institutions resulting from hiring external lawyers, because this creates a chilling effect on the right to access to documents; regrets the decision by the previous Executive Director of Frontex to recover 23,700 euros from individual citizens seeking access to documents, which was later reduced to 10,520 euros by the Court.19a _________________ 19a Order of the General Court, Izuzquiza & Semsrott v Frontex, Case T-31/18 DEP, 26 March 2021

Amendment 72 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Takes note of the fact that Council in 2021 out of a total of 3586 documents added to the register, classified 1327 legislative documents as “LIMITE”, and that 839 of those were subsequently made public on request; stresses that excessive use of LIMITE severely hampers and delays the access to documents by citizens; calls on the Council to revise its guidelines for classifying documents as “LIMITE” with a view to ensure pro- active publication by default and only use LIMITE for duly justified exceptional cases and to reconsider such limitation regularly;

Amendment 73 #

Motion for a resolution
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 74 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Believes it is necessary to further develop a more proactive approach to transparency by making as many of documents as possible available to the public in the simplest and easiest way

Amendment 75 #

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Lucia ĎURIŠ NICHOLSONOVÁ, Jana TOOM

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6 b. Expresses deep concern about the long delay for MEPs to be granted access to the OLAF report on Frontex’ activities; Is concerned about the fact that both OLAF and Frontex Management Board failed to define ownership of the report and decision making processes for its release following requests by MEPs and the Ombudsman; stresses that the decision not to make the OLAF report promptly available to all MEPs contradicted the need for democratic scrutiny over the agency’s responsibilities for human rights violations; requests that the findings in the upcoming OLAF reports on Frontex are made publicly available and calls for immediate access of MEPs to these additional reports when they will be finalised to ensure Members scrutiny on the Agency; recalls its resolution and the findings of the FSWG report, which called on the Agency to refrain from seeking to recover the (excessively high) costs of external lawyers from applicants in court cases based on access to information requests2a; _________________ 2a https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/doc ument/TA-9-2021-0442_EN.html

Amendment 76 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6 b. Regrets that the Parliament Bureau rejected the Ombudsman’s recommendation on the Bureau's refusal to grant public access to documents related to the revision of the list of expenses that might be covered by the General Expenditure Allowance (GEA), which she qualified as maladministration; urges the Bureau to set a good example and grant public access to documents proactively and not to interpret the exemptions too narrowly;

Amendment 77 #

Motion for a resolution
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 78 #

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Lucia ĎURIŠ NICHOLSONOVÁ, Jana TOOM

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 c (new)

6 c. Is deeply concerned that Frontex has ordered to recover legal fees in the amount of EUR 23,700 from two individuals in the General Court case T- 31/181b regarding requests for access to documents; highlights that charging civil society with excessively high legal fees has a chilling effect on civil society’s access to justice in the field of access to documents which is a fundamental right laid down in Article 42 of the Charter and undermines their right to an effective remedy under Article 47 of the Charter; calls on the Agency to withdraw its demand for recovering of the costs; _________________ 1b https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/do cument.jsf?docid=221083&doclang=EN

Amendment 79 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 c (new)

6 c. Regrets the deliberate refusal of the Commission to provide full and detailed information on implementation and enforcement of EU law to Parliament, which allows for neither parliamentary nor public scrutiny; calls on the institutions to respect the principle of sincere cooperation and proactively publish this information;

Amendment 8 #

Motion for a resolution
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 80 #

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Lucia ĎURIŠ NICHOLSONOVÁ, Jana TOOM

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 d (new)

6 d. Strongly regrets that a complete and public overview of EU funding to third countries for facilitating cooperation on migration issues remains unavailable; calls on the Commission to ensure full transparency, including by establishing a clear overview of all instruments within the EU budget used to finance cooperation with third countries in the field of migration management, including information on the amount, purpose and source of funding, as well as detailed information on any other potential support measures provided by EU agencies such as Frontex, in order to ensure that Parliament and the public can exercise scrutiny of the implementation of the EU budget; calls on the Commission to develop and implement a precise methodology for tracking the 10 % expenditure earmarked for migration and forced displacement to effectively ensure proper transparency and accountability regarding this expenditure, as required by the Regulation;

Amendment 81 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 d (new)

6 d. Regrets the Commission's refusal to publish statistics indicating the effectiveness of EU policies, which hinders any public scrutiny over policies significantly impacting fundamental rights; calls on the Commission to proactively publish such statistics in order to prove that policies are necessary and proportionate to achieve their objective;

Amendment 82 #

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Lucia ĎURIŠ NICHOLSONOVÁ, Jana TOOM

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 e (new)

6 e. Reiterates its proposals made in previous reports on access to documents, such as the creation of clear and uniform rules for the classification and declassification of documents and an independent EU authority overseeing this, and regrets the lack of serious follow up by Commission and Council;

Amendment 83 #

Sophia IN 'T VELD, Lucia ĎURIŠ NICHOLSONOVÁ, Jana TOOM

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 f (new)

6 f. Commends the Court of Justice for broadcasting the delivery of its judgments and the reading of the Advocate Generals' opinions live on its website, in order to allow citizens to follow hearings under the same conditions as if they were physically present; calls on the Court of Justice to also broadcast all hearings live.

Amendment 84 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8 a. Notes that the 2020 Rule of Law report, the 2021 and 2022, do not have the name of the authors who wrote the report; calls on the Commission to be fully transparent about the report and disclose in the report the name of the experts who wrote it; Reminds that the Commission was as opacque when drafting the Progress Reports for Romania and Bulgaria within the Verification and Cooperation Mechanisms;

Amendment 85 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8 a. Deplores the fact that EU institutions do not proactively publish most documents related to legislative files, preventing citizens from knowing which documents actually exist and thus impeding their right to request access to documents; regrets the fact that available information on legislative documents is presented by the Council in a register which is incomplete and not user-friendly;

Amendment 86 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)

8 b. Regrets that official documents are frequently over-classified and reiterates its position that clear and uniform rules should be established for the classification and declassification of documents; stresses that ensuring that citizens are able to understand, follow in detail and participate in the progress of legislation is a legal requirement under the Treaties and the Charter, and a basic requirement for democratic scrutiny and democracy as a whole; underlines that according to the CJEU, citizens must also be able to follow in detail the decision-making process in the preparatory bodies involved in the legislative procedures and have access to all relevant information; believes that documents created in trilogues such as agendas, summaries of outcomes, minutes and general approaches in the Council are related to legislative procedures and should be treated as legislative documents;

Amendment 87 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 c (new)

8 c. Stresses that international agreements have binding force and an impact on EU legislation, and underlines the need for negotiations to be transparent throughout the entire process, including by ensuring MEPs access to the relevant documents; recalls that according to Article 218 TFEU, the Parliament shall be fully and immediately informed at every stage while negotiations are taking place;

Amendment 88 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 d (new)

8 d. Stresses the importance of the measures taken to enhance the transparency of decisions taken in infringement procedures; regrets the lack of transparency regarding letters of formal notice and infringement procedures against Member States;

Amendment 89 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Welcomes the Commission’s intention to increase transparency within the EU based on ‘transparency by default’; implores the Commission not to consider any proposal to revise Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 that would lower the standards of transparency and access to documents; deplores the fact that negotiations have long been at a standstill and strongly urges the Council and the Commission to resume negotiations with the other institutions on the basis of Commission’s proposals from 2008 and 2011; notes that any reform will need to address key issues such as extension of the scope to all EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, the scope of the grounds for refusal, the definition of 'document', the public- interest test, transparency in the legislative process, ~~and~~ opposition to block exemptions~~; calls for the Council, the Commission and Parliament to work constructively with the ultimate aim of giving EU citizens wider and improved access to document~~, as well as to integrate CJEU and ECtHR case law and to take into account the new technological developments; calls for the Council, the Commission and Parliament to work constructively and publish documents in a proactive manner with the ultimate aim of ensuring that EU citizens can fully exercise their right to access to documents in order to perform their scrutiny role to EU institutions, bodies offices and agencies;

Amendment 9 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the TEU provides that ‘every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union’ and that decisions must be taken as openly and as close to citizens as possible13 ; whereas the TFEU provides that the Union’s institutions, bodies, offices and agencies are to conduct their work as openly as possible and that citizens and residents must have a right of access to documents14 ; whereas th~~is is a very important f~~e right of access to documents is a fundamental right, protected by the Charter of Fundamental rRights a~~s it~~nd the Treaties, which should be exercised in a proactive way enablesing citizens to effectively exercise their right to scrutinise the ~~EU’s~~ work and ~~follow the decision- making~~activities of EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, in particular the legislative process; w~~ithin the EU~~hereas the CJEU has repeatedly stressed the link between access to documents and democracy; _________________ 13 Article 10(3) TEU, read in the light of the thirteenth recital of the preamble thereto and Article 1(2) and Article 9 thereof. 14 Article 15 TFEU.

Amendment 90 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Welcomes the Commission’s intention to increase transparency within the EU based on ‘transparency by default’; calls on all EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies to publish documents proactively on their websites and make the search of these documents easy for citizens in order to allow for public scrutiny; implores the Commission not to consider any proposal to revise Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 that would lower the standards of transparency and access to documents; deplores the fact that negotiations have long been at a standstill and strongly urges the Council ~~and the Commission~~ to resume negotiations with the ~~other institutions~~Parliament on the basis of the Commission’s proposals from 2008 and 2011; notes that any reform will need to address key issues such as the scope of the grounds for refusal, theo grant access to documents, a public-interest test, transparency in the legislative process, a~~nd opposition to block exemption~~s well as the issue of vexatious and repeated requests; calls for the Council, the Commission and the Parliament to work constructively with the ultimate aim of giving EU citizens wider and improved access to documents;

Amendment 91 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Welcomes the Commission’s intention to increase transparency within the EU based on ‘transparency by default’; ~~implore~~demands the Commission not to consider any proposal to revise Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 that would lower the standards of transparency and access to documents; deplores the fact that negotiations have long been at a standstill and strongly urges the Council and the Commission to resume negotiations with the other institutions on the basis of Commission’s proposals from 2008 and 2011; notes that any reform will need to address key issues such as the scope of the grounds for refusal, the public-interest test, transparency in the legislative process, and opposition to block exemptions; calls for the Council, the Commission and Parliament to work constructively with the ultimate aim of giving EU citizens wider and improved access to documents;

Amendment 92 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Stresses that for there to be effective access to the European institutions' documents, it is not enough for them to be available online – they must also be translated into all the official languages of the European Union; considers it regrettable, in this regard, that a great deal of information is only available in English;

Amendment 93 #

10. ~~Stresses the importance of Parliament’s Transparency Register and calls for the introduction of a mandatory requirement for all Members~~Calls for the Parliament’s Transparency Register to be made mandatory and also cover former members of the European Parliament; calls for a stricter interpretation ensuring that all meetings between third-party representatives and Members of the European Parliament, accredited parliamentary assistants or staff members’ shall only take place in accordance with the EU Transparency Register provisions; Calls for mandatory anti-corruption and transparency training for Members of the European Parliament, accredited parliamentary assistants and staff members; and calls for the introduction of a mandatory requirement for all Members of the European Parliament, accredited parliamentary assistants, political group staff and European Parliament staff, to make public all scheduled meetings with people external to Parliament where these meetings relate to a report, initiative report or resolution of the European Parliament;

Amendment 94 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Stresses the importance of Parliament’s Transparency Register and ~~calls for the introduction of a mandatory requirement for all Members to make public all scheduled meetings with people external to Parliament w~~declaration of scheduled meetings with diplomatic representatives of third countries in case of an active role on a report or a resolution to allow for scrutiny of interest representation and decision making process, in line with the reform plan proposed by President Roberta Metsola; calls for a swift implementation of the re ~~these meetings relate to a report or resolution of the European Parliament;~~ form that is aimed at strengthening the Parliament's integrity, independence and accountability; calls for the reform to reflect the need for more transparency, also through better access to documents, in order to ensure public scrutiny;

Amendment 95 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Stresses the importance of Parliament’s Transparency Register and calls for the introduction of a mandatory requirement for all Members to make public all scheduled meetings with people external to Parliament where these meetings relate to a report or resolution of the European Parliament; Certain people - i.e. human rights defenders, political opposition, religious and ethnic minorities, and independent journalists - should, on duly justified grounds regarding their protection and security, and upon approval of the EU ethics body, be exempted from this mandatory requirement.

Amendment 96 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Stresses the importance of Parliament’s Transparency Register and calls for the introduction of a mandatory requirement for all Members to make public all scheduled meetings with people external to Parliament where these meetings relate to a report or resolution of the European Parliament; the transparency and accountability of Members are essential for maintaining the trust of Union citizens in the legitimacy of the political and legislative decision-making process in the European Union.

Amendment 97 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10 a. Calls on the EU institutions to facilitate access to documents and based on full transparency, communication and direct democracy principle

Amendment 98 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Calls for a revision of the Staff Regulations, especially Article 22(c) thereof, in order to align them with the standards of the Whistleblower Directive; ~~reiterates its call for a special committee tasked with identifying poten~~welcomes the endorsement by the political flaws in the European Parliament’s rules on transparency, integrity and corruption and with making proposals for reforms; recalls its commitment to setting up a committee of inquiry to investigate cases of corruption and improper actions by non-EU countries seeking to buy influence in the European Parliament; recalls its position that the Commission should put forward a proposal to set up a new ethics body for the EU institutions as soon as possiblgroups' leaders of the reform plan and reminds that the reform should be aimed at enhancing public trust in the Parliament while protecting the right of MEPs in the free exercise of their mandate;

Amendment 99 #