15 Amendments of Salvatore IACOLINO related to 2010/2294(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the Lisbon Treaty introduced a new constitutional framework of EU institutional transparency, with a view to an open, efficient and independent European administration (Article 298 TFEU), by establishing a firm fundamental right of access to documents of EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies; this right is afforded by the Treaty not only to EU citizens but also to any natural or legal person residing in a Member State and should nevertheless be exercised in compliance with the general principles and limits (set with a view to protecting certain public or private interests) laid down by the regulations adopted by the European Parliament and the Council (Article 15 TFEU),
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the new Treaties deleted any reference to ‘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 1049/2001, which allows access to be refused to a document relating to a matter where the decision has not yet been taken by the institution, if this 'would seriously undermine the institution's decision- making process', unless access is justified by 'an overriding public interest in disclosure',
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas transparency is an essential part of a participatory democracy, being complementary to representative democracy on which the functioning of the Union is based, as explicitly stated in Articles 9-11 TEU, allowing the citizen to participate incitizens (who must, however, act within the appropriate channels established by the institutions) to be informed of the individual acts and activities included in the decision-making process and to exercise public scrutiny and, thus ensuring the legitimacy of a democratic political system,
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the current Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 does not provide clear definitions ofspecify the cases in which Member States may exercise their right of veto on access to documents and describes in a general manner several important issues, such as Member States’ veto right, limitations of the ‘space to think’, clear and narrow definition of the exceptions,exceptions to the right to access, the classification of documents, and equilibriumbalancing criteria between transparency requirements and data protection,
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas Article 15 TFEU and Article 412 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights introduce a broad notion of the term ‘document’ relating to information whatever its medium of storage,
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that transparency is the general rule and with the Lisbon Treaty (and accordingly, with the acquisition of binding legal force for the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights) it became a legally binding fundamental right of the citizen, and that, therefore, any decisions denying access to documents must be based on clearly and strictly defined exceptions, reasonably explained and well-founded, allowingon legally standardised exceptions for which reasonable grounds exist and which are well-founded on the existence of specific, concrete requirements relating to the protection of public interest (such as public security) or private interest (such as the protection of an individual's private life) which, in the case at issue, clearly both override the right to access; this would allow the citizens to understand the denial and to effectively use the legal remedies available to them;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Recalls that Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 on sensitive documents is a compromise that does not reflect any more the new constitutional and legal obligations after the Lisbon TreatyTakes the view, in terms of ensuring an ever increasing application of the right to access, that it is also necessary to specify the scope of the limitations laid down in Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 on sensitive documents; this should be done with the awareness, however, that it is vital to lay down some specific limits in such matters in order to protect interests that may be at stake (since sensitive documents protect key interests of the Union or the Member States in sectors such as public security, defence and military issues) and that, in any case, it complies with the provisions of the Treaties (indeed, Article 17 TFEU accepts limits to the right of access in order to protect particular public interests);
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Calls on the Council to extend transparency to the working groups by providing for example minutes and lists of members; strongly opposes the current general practice of such groups, where the of not allowing public access to deliberations until the final decision are closed to the public, andis adopted, where, under the current regulations, a ban on access should be justified only if the disclosure of the internal document would seriously undermine the institution's decision-making process; opposes, furthermore, the use of ‘limited’ documents (a term not deriving from Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001) for this purpose; opposes as well, likewise, the practice of unregistered documents, such as room documents;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Recalls that transparency as required by the Treaties is not limited to legislative procedures but includes as well non- legislative work of EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, although – as stipulated by the Treaty itself (Article 15(6) TFEU) – specific institutions such as the Court of Justice, the European Central Bank and the European Investment Bank are subject to the provisions on transparency and right of access 'only when exercising their administrative tasks'; stresses that Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 is the only proper legal act for assessing the right of access to documents, and that the exceptions to that right laid down therein are exhaustive; accordingly, other legal acts, such as the founding regulations of agencies, cannot introduce additional grounds for refusing access;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Emphasises the open-ended definition in the currentPoints out that the current Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 seeks to limit the scope of the 'space to think' by stipulating that, as a prerequisite for refusal to grant access, disclosure of the document must not merely undermine the decision-making process, but must 'seriously' undermine it, and in any case allowing this limit to be overstepped where there is 'an overriding public interest in disclosure'; stresses however that in spite of the above-mentioned considerations, Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, contains an open-ended definition 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 60 #
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, andin the sense that measures adopted to ensure that personal data are protected must comply both with the regulations on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and with the free movement of such data, in order to maintain a balance between the free movement of personal data and the protection of private life; 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 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Welcomes the consensus reached by the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) and the European Ombudsman on the appropriate balance between data protection and transparency, especially as regards the proactive approach meaning that ‘institutions assess and subsequently make clear to data subjects – before or at least at the moment they collect their data – the extent to which the processing of such data includes or might include its public disclosure’; this enables there to be a meeting point between the interest of individuals in protecting their privacy and the burdens placed on data processors with regard to the requirement to collect and retain personal data (see also in this regard the judgment of the Court of Justice 'College van burgemeester en wethouders van Rotterdam' of 7 May 2009);
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Stresses that transparency is closely connected with the right of good administration, as referred to in Article 298 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (which stipulates, however, that right to access should be exercised while respecting the legitimate interests of confidentiality and of professional and business secrecy); highlights that administrative transparency guarantees democratic control of EU administrative tasks, the participation of civil society and the promotion of good governance (Article 15 TFEU);
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. Considers that specially trained officer posts should be created andposts should be created for specially trained officers, some of whom should also be charged with acting as 'procedure manager' when a request for access is received; considers, to that end, that proper training of officials should be provided in each DG or corresponding unit of the institutions to create the best possible proactive policy as well as to evaluate requests in the most efficient way;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
38. Believes at the same time that transparency has to apply to the work of Parliament’s internal 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 allowances;