4 Amendments of Isabel SANTOS related to 2022/2015(INI)
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
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 91 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Welcomes the Commission’s intention to increase transparency within the EU based on ‘transparency by default’; imploredemands 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 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
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 102 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
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;