11 Amendments of Włodzimierz CIMOSZEWICZ related to 2022/2015(INI)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
A a. whereas transparency and accountability are a precondition for citizens’ trust in EU institutions;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Recital A b (new)
Recital A b (new)
A b. whereas transparency is corollary of the principles of openness enshrined in the EU treaties;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)
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 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
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 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
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 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Invites theCalls on all EU institutions to ensure the systematic provision of dataall documents in an open, machine- readable format, which is especially essential for numerical or financial data;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
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 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
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 41 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)
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 46 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
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 49 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)
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;