Activities of Christofer FJELLNER related to 2015/2041(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Transparency, accountability and integrity in the EU institutions (short presentation) SV
Amendments (8)
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that the Treaty on European Union (TEU) marked a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union in which decisions are taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen (Article 1 TEU); notes that there is a considerable lack of trust among EU citizens in EU trade-policy making, and believes that a radical shift is needed in the way thatmore can always be done to increase the level of information abouton trade negotiations that is communicated to the public, in order to ensure but reminds that a balance between transparency and effectiveness has to be struck, as in all otheir lnegiotimacyations;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Is concerned at the misleading registration practices of economic interests in expert grouppublic consultations, which distort the number of such interests represented in both absolute and relative terms, as well as the imbalance vis-à-vis non-economic interests;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Recognizes that expert groups need access to best available scientific expertise;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Understands that though strict criteria to ensure the independence of expert groups is of great importance, access to the best available expertise must at all times take precedent in order to ensure truly science based policy making;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Welcomes the fact that the Committee on International Trade (INTA) and the Commission’s Directorate-General for Trade have been collaborating pro-actively to enhance cooperation, establish best practices and improve communication channels, and that this collaboration has been especially useful for monitoring trade negotiations through INTA Standing Rapporteurs and targeted monitoring groups; welcomes recent efforts by the Commission to increase the transparency of trade negotiations; believes, nevertheless, that the Council and the Commission can still improve their working methods to better cooperate with Parliament as regards access to documents, information and decision-making for all issues and negotiations related to CCP (such as information relating to negotiations – including scoping, mandates and evolution of negotiations – provisional application of trade agreements, activities and decisions taken by bodies created by trade and/or investment agreements, expert meetings, and delegated and implementing acts); notes with regret that after one year of negotiations between the Commission and Parliament onwelcomes the initiatives taken by the Commission to improve the access to documents related to the TTIP negotiations, there is still no; acknowledges that the TTIP negotiations agreement about access to confidential documents the most transparent negotiations in history;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses that, as pointed out by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), imperatives for transparency derive from the democratic nature of governance within the EU, and that, where confidential information is beyond the reach of public access, as in the case of trade negotiations, it must be available to parliamentarians who scrutinise trade policy on behalf of citizens; considers therefore that access to classified information is essential for scrutiny by Parliament, which in returnat Parliament should abide by its obligation to manage such information properly; considers that there should be clear criteria for labelling documents as ‘classified’; notes that the case law of the ECJ makes it clear that where a document originating in an EU institution is covered by an exception with regard to the right to access, the institution must clearly explain why access to this document could specifically and effectively undermine the interest protected by the exception, and that the risk must be reasonably foreseeable and not purely hypothetical; calls on the Commission to implement the recommendations of the European Ombudsman of July 2015 with particular regard to access to documents for all negotiations, and calls on the Commission to convince EU negotiating partners to increase transparency at their end;
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6.. Urges the EU agencies to establish much stricter criteria and procedures to ensure the independence of their scientific panels from the economic sectors regulated by them, in order to properly avoid conflicts of interest, with particular emphasis on the ability to use a status of ‘invited specialists’ making it possible to receive input from experts who have links toemployed in regulated industries but are disqualified from drafting or decision-making roles in scientific opinions.
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Welcomes private sector investment in research and development; reminds that most experts have participated in research projects funded by the private sector; recalls that expertise is a scarce resource which should not be made inaccessible to expert groups;