5 Amendments of Helmut SCHOLZ related to 2022/2015(INI)
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
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 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
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 45 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
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 48 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)
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 50 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 c (new)
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;