Activities of Renate SOMMER related to 2010/2294(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Annual report on monitoring the application of EU law (2009) - Better legislation, subsidiarity and proportionality and smart regulation - Public access to documents 2009-2010 (debate)
Amendments (16)
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas, although the new Treaties deleted any reference tono longer mention ‘the preservation of the effectiveness of the decision-making process’ (Articles 255 and 207(3) of the former TEC) as a possible limit to transparency, thereby deleting a Treaty basis for the so-called ‘space to think’ of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001is has no bearing on the mandatory protection of confidentiality which is essential to the legislative process,
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas the public has an increasing interest in having access to documents relating to international agreements, and whereas such agreementsshould be informed about agreements which have legal effects in the EU legal order similar to those of EU internal legislation, as shown in the case of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA),
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers, in the light of ten years of experience with the application of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and taking into account the case-law of the Court of Justice, that it is necessary to revise that Regulation in order to clarify some of its provisions, narrow its exceptions and that it is necessary to revise Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in order to establish unambiguous definitions and distinctions, clarify some of its provisions and specify any exceptions, with a view to ensureing that the transparency promised by the Treaties becomes a realityis achieved;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls on the Commission to present a revised proposal for a revision of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 which would fully take into account the requirements for greater transparency enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty, and stated in the case-law of the Court of Justice and expressed in the concurrent votes by Parliament on amendments to the 2008 proposal in this and the previous parliamentary term;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses that classification of documents directly affects the citizen’s right to access to documents; recalls that the current system of classification lacks any legislative basis in the form of secondary legislation adopted in a democratic legislative process but functions only on the basis of interinstitutional agreements and is prone to over-classification; calls for common rules of classification in the form of a regulation;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Calls on the EU institutions to work towards an ambitious new ‘EU Fmore transparent EU rules on freedom of Iinformation Act’, fully reflectingwhich take full account of the proposals in this report, recent case-law and the new Treaties;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Recalls that the landmark judgment of the Court of Justice in the joined cases Sweden and Turco v Council stressed an obligation of transparency in the legislative procedure, as ‘openness in that respect contributes to strengthening democracy by allowing citizens to scrutinise all the information which has formed the basis of a legislative act’; stresses therefore that any exceptions referring to the legislative procedure, including legal advice and, should be limited, but also that it is imperative for the so- called ‘space to think’, should be extremely limit to be preserved;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Calls on the Council to extendincrease transparency to the working groups by providing, for example, the working groups’ minutes and, lists of members; strongly opposes the current practice of such groups, where the deliberations until the final decision are closed to the public, and the use of ‘limited’ documents (a term not deriving from Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001) for this purpose; opposes as well the practice of unregistered documents, such as room documents and meeting documents; insists that such groups’ final decisions must be made available to the public;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Recalls that the new Treaties abolished theno longer specifically reference to the Council’s obligation to define the cases in which it acts in a legislative capacity and to the need to preserve the effectiveness of its decision-making process (Article 207(3) of the former TEC), the so-called ‘space to think’, and that the current ‘survival’ of this concept is based only on Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) 1049/2001;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Emphasises the open-ended definition in the current Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, which does not provide clear conditions for application or take into account the case-law of the Court of Justice; stresses the need for an appropriate definition in accordance with the concept of legal certainty by narrowing the concept;
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Highlights the need to establish an appropriate equilibrium between transparency and data protection, as made clear by the Bavarian Lager case-law, and stresses that data protection should not be ‘misused’, in particular, for the purpose of covering conflicts of interest and undue influence in the context of EU administration and decision-making; points out that the judgment of the Court of Justice in the Bavarian Lager case is based on the current wording of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and does not prevent the legislature from establishing a new equilibrium;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Emphasises the current lack of coherent EU administrative law specifically applying to the EU institutions, such as rules regarding the delivery of administrative decisions that can be appealed against, or a clear concept of ‘administrative tasks’ as mentioned in Article 15(3) TFEU; calls, therefore, on the EU institutions to urgently define a common EU administrative law, and to provide a common and horizontally applicable definition of an ‘administrative task’ especially for the European Central Bank, the European Investment Bank and the Court of Justice;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Points out that in several cases extensive delays have led to proceedings being started before the Court of Justice based on a lack of response, followed by a late Commission response, making the court case void and forcing the individual concerned to start the whole procedure once again; calls, therefore, for the adoption of sancturges the Commissions, that would prevent the possibility of noterefore, to respecting the deadlines set in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
38. Believes at the same thatmoreover that the greatest possible transparency has to apply to the work of Parliament’s internofficial bodies (such as the Conference of Presidents, the Bureau and the Quaestors), as well as to MEPs’ activities, such as participation in parliamentary work and parliamentary attendance, and MEPs’ allowances and spending, in conformity with data protection rules and the position taken by the European Ombudsman differentiating between the databases for general expenditure, the pension scheme, parliamentary assistance expenses and travel and subsistence allow, as well as to MEPs, their participation in parliamentary work and their parliamentary attendances;