49 Amendments of Dennis de JONG related to 2018/2096(INI)
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas the Ombudswoman has contributed greatly to highlight issues of transparency in the life of the Union through inquiries and cases brought before her;
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)
Recital C b (new)
Cb. whereas the European Ombudswoman opined that the lack of transparency regarding EU Member States’ positions during negotiations amount to maladministration and a violation of Article 41 of the Charter;
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C c (new)
Recital C c (new)
Cc. whereas the treaties (Article 15(3) of TFEU) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (Article 42) have attributed constitutional value to the principle of transparency;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas the Charter introduces third general rights, as is the one to transparent administration and access to documents (Article 42).
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)
Recital D b (new)
Db. whereas the CJEU has decided that increased openness enabled citizens to participate more closely in the decision- making process and guarantees that the administration enjoys greater legitimacy and is more effective1a; __________________ 1a CJEU, Joined Cases C-39/05 P and C- 52 P, Kingdom of Sweden and Maurizio Turco v. Council of the European Union, European Court Reports 2008 I-04723.
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas the Union function lies on a dual structure of legitimacy as provided in Article 10(2) of the TEU. The Union is founded on representative democracy as stipulated in Article 10(1) and should operate on principles and mechanisms of participatory democracy as per Article 11, paragraphs 1-3 TEU. Transparency is a sine-qua-non component of this dual legitimacy as it is only when citizens know who, why and how decisions have been made they participate in the electoral process and in other forms of political participation beyond elections in an informed and enlightened manner;
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
Fa. whereas the principle of transparency firstly was elucidated in 1995 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in a case against the Council 1a, the institution almost three decades later has not ensured a high level of adherence to the principle; __________________ 1a Judgement of the Court of First Instance of 19 October 1995, John Carvel and Guardian Newspapers Ltd. v. Council of the European Union, Case T-194/94.
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas following the inquiry, the Ombudsman found that the Council’s current practices with regard to transparency of its decision-making process, in specific regards to preparatory discussions that take place at Coreper and National Working group level, constitute maladministration;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas the Council did not reply to the recommendations contained in the Ombudsman’s report within the legally prescribed timeline of three months, and, because of the importance of the issue of legislative transparency, the Ombudsman decided not to grant the Council any extensions beyond this deadline, and submitted the report to the European Parliament;
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J a (new)
Recital J a (new)
Ja. whereas the European Parliament has regularly requested more transparency from the Council, for example in its resolutions of 18 April 20181a and 28 April 20161b on the discharge of the Council as well as in its resolution on 14 September 2017 on Transparency, accountability and integrity in the EU institutions1c; __________________ 1a European Parliament resolution of 18 April 2018 with observations forming an integral part of the decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2016, Section II - European Council and Council (2017/2138(DEC)),P8_TA(2018)0125 1b European Parliament decision of 28 April 2016 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2014 Section II – European Council and Council (2015/2156(DEC)). 1c European Parliament resolution of 14 September 2017 on transparency, accountability and integrity in the EU institutions (2015/2041(INI)), P8_TA(2017)0358.
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J b (new)
Recital J b (new)
Jb. whereas the Ombudswoman also ruled in Complaint 1271/2017/ANA that the Council was not justified in holding back access to an opinion of its Legal Service concerning an inter-institutional agreement;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J c (new)
Recital J c (new)
Jc. whereas the Conference of Parliamentary Committees for Union Affairs of Parliaments of the European Union adopted during its Plenary Meeting in Sofia on 17/19 June 2018 its resolution in which it urges the Council to reflect on the proposals made by 26 national parliaments of Member States to enhance the openness of legislative deliberations at EU-level 1a; __________________ 1a Contribution of the LIX COSAC, articles 2.6 and 2.7
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Is deeply convinced that democratic and transparent decision-making at the European level is indispensable to increase citizens’ trust in the European project and the EU institutions, especially in the run-up to the European elections in May 2019, and is therefore determined to defend and enhance European democracyenhance the democratic accountability of all EU institutions;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Believes that there is currently a distinct gap between formal transparency, i.e. the legal recognition and insertion of transparency in the EU legal foundations as a self-standing principle closely linked to the rule of law, and of substantial transparency, i.e. steps to effectively materialise in a corresponding level;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Reiterates that the Inter- institutional Agreement on a mandatory Transparency which is being negotiated, is a first good step; notes that the current text only covers high ranking officials of the Council;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 c (new)
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2c. Deeply regrets the fact that the Council has blocked the revision of the Regulation 1049/2001 and urges the Council to re-open its discussions based on the position adopted by Parliament in second reading as laid down in resolution of 12 June 2013 1a. __________________ 1a European Parliament resolution of 12 June 2013 on the deadlock on the revision of Regulation (EC) No. 1049/2001 (2013/2637(RSP))
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 d (new)
Paragraph 2 d (new)
2d. Shares the viewpoint of the Ombudswoman’s strategic inquiry; deplores the fact that the Council did not reply within the deadline in the findings. Regrettably this is a recurring topic and is constantly showcased also from complaints submitted to the Ombudswoman. This matter should be considered of high importance in the democratic life of the Union and the effective participation of citizens across the continent hindering the fulfilment of the constitutional treaties and the Charter;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Recalls that transparency has four distinct aspects that are intertwined, namely (a) openness of the legislative process (b) right to access to documents (c) transparency of the legal norm as concomitant to legal certainty (d) offering wide reasoning and sufficient explanation of the motives of a legislative text;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Strongly believes transparency is an essential ingredient of the rule of law, while ensuring that it is observed throughout the legislative process affects the effective materialization of the right to vote and the right to stand in elections and a handful of rights, i.e. right of expressions and its particular aspect the freedom of speech and the right to receive information. Considers also that forging an active European citizenship necessitates margin for public scrutiny, review and evaluation of the process and the prospect to challenge the outcome. Underlines that this would contribute to the gradual familiarization with basic concepts of the legislative process and foster the participatory elements of the democratic life of the Union.
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Reminds that the principles of publicity, openness and transparency are inherent to the EU Legislative process, in order to allow citizens to find out the considerations underpinning legislative actions and therefore ensures effective exercise of their democratic rights 1a. __________________ 1a Joined Cases C-39/05 and C-52/05 P, Kingdom of Sweden and Maurizio Turco v. Council of the European Union, European Court Reports 2008 I-04723
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recalls that the European Parliament represents the interests of European citizens in a fully open and transparent manner, and welcomes the substantial progress made by the Commission in improving its transparency standards, inter alia in the conduct of international negotiations and its interactions with interest representatives whereas ‘revolving-door’ still remains an alarming issue; notes that the Council does not yet follow comparable transparency standards;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Reiterates its call on the Council, including its preparatory bodies, to join the Transparency Register as soon as possible; calls on all Member States to introduce binding rules advancing the transparency of interest representation; calls on the Member States to introduce rules for their representatives including but not limited to, at COREPER and Working Group Levels;
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Points out that the work of the preparatory bodies of the Council, i.e. the Committees of Permanent Representatives (Coreper I + II) and more than 150 working groups, is an integral part of the Council’s decision-making procedure; argues that these structures must proactively improve the transparency of decision-making procedures at working group and Coreper levels, as to improve the overall transparency of the legislative process in the European Council;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Considers that the Committees of Permanent Representatives (COREPER I- II) meeting documents should be made publicly available as well as the general position of each member state before the beginning of negotiations.
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. Considers it regrettable that the Council and the European Council have still not adopted a code of conduct for their members; recalls its call to the Council to introduce a specific code of ethics, including sanctions, which addresses the risks specific to national delegates; insists that the Council must be just as accountable and transparent as the other institutions;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 c (new)
Paragraph 6 c (new)
6c. Strongly believes that informal formations, subsidiary organs or other affiliated informal organs related to the European Council (i.e., the Euro Group, the Euro Summit, and the EU-27) should be properly formalized and engulfed properly in the constitutional structure of the Union. Transparency obligations should be applicable indiscriminately to their activities and publicity of documents should include analytical agendas and working documents (non-papers) that are circulated prior to meetings.
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Deplores the fact that, unlike committee meetings in the European Parliament, meetings of the preparatory bodies of the Council as well as the majority of debates in the Council are held in camera; proposes that citizens, media and stakeholders should have access by appropriate means to the meetings of the Council and its preparatory bodies, includ via livestreaming viaand web-streaming, as well as making the minutes of these meeting publically available in order to make all stages of the legislative process in both components of the European legislature fully transparent;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Opines that denying the access to documents to Members of the European Parliament, has the potential to threaten the principle institutional balance and to negate the essential practice of the mutual sincere cooperation. Notes that it is an excessive burden for the effective function of parliamentary duties, having to pursue an ex post check on an ad hoc basis after every refusal of a request to access documents.
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Notes that the Council does not proactively publish most documents related to legislative files, and that available information is presented in a register which is incomplete and not user-friendly; calls on the Council to act on the Ombudsman’s proposals to list all the documents available on its registrar, irrespective of their format and whether or not they are partially or accessible at all; welcomes in this regard the progress made by the Commission, Parliament and the Council in the creation of a joint database for legislative files;
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Considers that all documents (legislative, intergovernmental conferences and meeting documents) from the period before 1999 should be de- classified and uploaded to the Document Archive of the Council being available publicly;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. ConsiderDeplores the Council’s endemic practice of systematically classifying all documents distributed in its preparatory bodies relating to legislative files as ‘LIMITE’ to be a violation of CJEU case law1 and of the legal requirement that there should be the widest possible public access to legislative documents; observes that in 2015, 84% of requests for public access to documents marked as “LIMITE”, and related to on-going legislative procedures in 2015 were granted; __________________ 1 For the principle of the widest possible public access, see: Joint Cases C-39/05 P and C-52/05 P Sweden and Turco v. Council [2008] ECLI:EU:C:2008:374, para 34; Case C-280/11 P Council v. Access Info Europe [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:671, para 27; and Case T-540/15 De Capitani v. Parliament [2018] ECLI:EU:T:2018:167, para 80.
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Exceptions of Article 4 of the Regulation No 1049/2001 pending its revision should not be applied by default and whereas jurisprudence does not require justification for limiting access to a document, institutions shall strive to offer the fullest reasoning possible for taking such a decision that is a restriction of Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and as such should adhere by the principle of proportionality. Further supports that a decision to restrict access should be accompanied by an argumentation why, in a specific and actual manner relating to the document at hand;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Deems it unacceptable that the positions taken in the preparatory bodies of the Council by individual Member States are neither published nor systematically recorded, making it impossible for citizens, media and stakeholders to effectively scrutinise the behaviour of their elected governments; calls for a systematic record of Member State governments to be kept and made publically available, where appropriate, when they express positions in council preparatory bodies;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Points out that this lack of information also hampers the ability of national parliaments to control the actions of national governments in the Council, and enables members of national governments to distance themselves in the national sphere from decisions made at the European level which they shaped and took themselves; considers it irresponsible on the part of members of national governments to undermine trust in the European Union by ‘blaming Brussels’ for decisions they themselves were involved in; demands an immediate endargues that a systematic record of the positions of Member States in Preparatory Bodies would act as a positive disincentive to this practice;
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Considers it incompatible with democratic principles that, in interinstitutional negotiations between the co-legislators, the lack of transparency in the Council leads to an imbalance with regard to available information and thus to a structural advantage of the Council over the European Parliament; reiterates its call for the improvement of the exchange of documents and information between Parliament and the Council and for access to be grantedpublically available, as well as to representatives of Parliament, as observers to meetings of the Council and its bodies, in particular in the case of legislation;
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Reminds that the institutions have agreed in the inter-institutional agreement of 13 April 2016 1a to promote the utmost transparency of the legislative process and that according to the constitutional setting of the Union, the European Parliament and the Council exercise as the co-legislators their powers on an equal footing. That being said equality of the two institutions should also extend unequivocally to the obligations prescribed by the primary European law. __________________ 1a Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on Better Law-Making, OJ L 123, 12.05.2016, par. 1.
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Notes that the practices of the European Parliament, has been identified by the Ombudsman as having high standards of transparency; Demands that the Council, as one of the two components of the European legislature, aligns its working methods with the standards of a parliamentary democracy, rather than acting like a diplomatic forum; transparency that exist in the European Parliament;
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Reiterates that following the strategic inquire concerning the transparency of the trilateral negotiations1a, some progress was made but there are still recommendations that have not taken up largely due to the reluctance of the Council. Taking into account the fact that trilogues have diminished significantly the need to have a second and third reading, overtaking the majority of legislative files to be the default decision-making process. Opines that this has led to expedited procedure, which accelerate legislation making on the one hand but have significantly hampered transparency and integrity of the institutions. The recommendations of the Ombudswoman included publication of the ‘‘trilogue calendar’’, publication of the four-column documents and list of attendees. __________________ 1a Decision of the European Ombudsman setting out proposals following her strategic inquiry OI/8/2015/JAS concerning the transparency of Trilogues, 12 July 2016.
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)
Paragraph 13 b (new)
13b. Considers that in order to achieve transparency in the trilogues all three institutions should contribute because as per the settled case law trilogues form part of the legislative process, there is no general presumption against non- disclosure based on article 13 TEU and article 294 TFEU 1a and finally trilogues cannot represent a space for European organs to think. __________________ 1a Judgement of the General Court of 22 March 2018, Emilio De Capitani v. European Parliament, Case T-540/15, Digital Reports (unpublished).
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Considers voting in public to be a fundamental characteristic of democratic decision - making; urges the Council to make use of the possibility of qualified majority voting (QMV), and to refrain, where possible, from the practice of taking decisions by consensus and thus without a formal vote in publicvote publicly and record voting positions;
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 – point b
Paragraph 16 – point b
b) to develop clear andimmediately develop a systematic and clear criteria, which is publically available criteria for how it, and detail how the Council designates documents as ‘“LIMITE’,” and that is in line with relevant EU law;
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Recommends that the principles of transparency and openness should apply to all democratic processes in Member States; notes that the British EU Referendum in 2016 was not a fully transparent process due to allegations of the leave campaign breaking electoral law; as an effect of this, notes that 1.8 million citizens in the north of Ireland may be disenfranchised from their democratic rights as citizens which limits European participative democracy; considers that forging a participative citizenship necessitates full transparency and participation in the democratic process for all European citizens;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Takes note of the statement made by the Austrian Presidency to the joint committee on Constitutional Affairs and on Petitions on keeping the European Parliament informed on the progress of the Council’s ongoing reflections on how to improve its rules and procedures as regards legislative transparency, and expressing readiness to engage with Parliament at the appropriate level in a joint reflection on those topics that require interinstitutional coordination; and regrets that no input has been so far submitted to the European Parliament.
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Further recommends that the Council: (a) enlists documents regardless of their status in the Document Register even those that are not available to the public with the relevant indication that corresponds to the level of publicity; (b) provides justification for the level of classification on the basis of the criteria developed; (c) provides in an easily comprehensible manner for all citizens votes, explanation of votes and minutes , materializing the obligation provided in article 8 and 9 of the internal rules of procedure1a; __________________ 1a Council Decision of 22 March 2004 adopting the Council’s Rules of Procedure, 2004/338/EC, Euratom;
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 b (new)
Paragraph 17 b (new)
17b. Considers that, in order to provide the widest possible public access to legislative documents, each document that is not made public in full has to be accompanied by an argumentation why, in a specific and actual manner relating to the document at hand the document would undermine either (a) the institutions’ decision-making process or (b) the protection of institutions interest in seeking legal advice, as well as accompanied by an argumentation why there is no overriding public interest;
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Regrets the Draft Policy Paper on legislative transparency produced by the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union and addressed to the Permanent Representatives Committee, was classified as ‘LIMITE’1a; considers that the milestone approach presents no added value whatsoever and puts forward a scheme that allows selective publication of documents only after they have been considered by the competent bodies; Considers that certain elements of the new approach are mutually exclusive (i.e. built-in flexibility and greater standardization) and incompatible with the constitutional norms of the Union; Deplores the fact that the Council proclaimed it will strive to strike a balance between the case law and various calls for greater transparency and the need to preserve the necessary flexibility for effective legislative work, which implies not conforming with the jurisprudence of the CJEU as it stands; __________________ 1a General Secretariat of the Council, Draft Polity Paper on Legislative Transparency, 11099/18, Brussels, 13 July 2018.
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 b (new)
Paragraph 18 b (new)
18b. Notes that according to the jurisprudence of the CJEU the “space to think” is to be viewed as an exception and not the norm and consequently as a restriction of the principle of transparency1a; reiterates that giving the public the widest possible right of access entails, that the public must have a right to full disclosure of the requested and thus application of exception should be strict; __________________ 1a Judgement of the General Court of 22 March 2011, Access Info Europe v. Council of the European Union, Case T- 233/09, par. 56.