Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-24-Speech-3-292"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030924.10.3-292"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should first like to thank Mr Cashman for his work and congratulate him on his detailed report on the issue we are debating today, namely transparency. All three of our institutions are firmly committed to transparency and are determined to honour that commitment. I am grateful for this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Commission and provide more detail on some of the key points raised by Mr Cashman.
In the light of all this, I truly believe that the assessment of a year of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 has to be very positive. The rapporteur indicated as much. Of course, this should not be an excuse for complacency. On the contrary, it should encourage the introduction of further improvements to the initiatives and measures adopted. All is not perfect, but I do believe it is fair to state that things are going well.
It should be emphasised that this is an important instrument of transparency. It grants clear and unequivocal rights to the citizens of the Union. It is worth highlighting, however, that as far as the Commission is concerned this instrument has been used mainly by law professionals. In particular, it has been used by law firms. This needs to be borne in mind. What this suggests is that, generally, the citizens tend to use conventional methods of obtaining good quality, clear, precise and relevant information on activities undertaken by the institutions. They favour this approach, rather than consulting specific documents. It is also true, however, that universities and non-governmental organisations, for example, have made considerable use of this facility. This is an area closely linked to transparency. We must maintain our efforts to ensure continued improvement of the information made available by the institutions on their activities.
Mrs Maij-Weggen is leaving the House. I would like to take this opportunity to thank her for the excellent work she has undertaken over the years. She has striven to ensure transparency and to improve the quality of the information available to our citizens. In so doing, she has helped to promote effective democracy.
Mr Cashman stated considerable progress had been made, and that this should be recognised. I agree with him. Our annual report has recently been released, and presents a fairly detailed overview of the situation. I also agree with Mr Cashman that there is scope for further improvements and that such improvements must be effected. In addition, case law is facilitating the interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. Consequently, the use of this important tool facilitating transparency will improve, and democracy will therefore be strengthened. In this connection and by way of example, I should like to refer to the decisions handed down by the Court of Justice at Luxembourg concerning the non-disclosure of legal opinions. The decisions of the Court confirm our practice, which recognises the institutions’ need to preserve the independence of such legal rulings. In other words, time for reflection is needed.
Clearly, therefore, progress is being made. According to this report, a further step towards the aim of maximum transparency should be the creation of a single register of documents to replace the current registers. Nonetheless, if what we are about is making it easier for the citizens to search for and identify documents, the crucial factor is not the choice between one or several registers. Rather, it is a point of entry to a unified portal, where clear information is given as to which documents are contained in each register. Mr Cashman rightly pointed this out. In any case, further consideration must be given to the technical solutions that will enable us to move towards better integration of these instruments in the future.
I should also like to refer to the significant progress made with regard to the number of documents directly accessible. By way of example I could mention the Commission’s agendas and the minutes of our meetings. It goes without saying that it is our intention to strengthen this approach and develop it further. For instance, between now and the end of the year the register of documents concerning comitology will become accessible to the public.
Further, the practice regarding access to documents concerning infringement procedures has been updated. This was another of the criticisms made by Mr Cashman. Now, when proceedings are completed, the assumption is that such documents may be released. In this connection, it should be borne in mind that Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 provides protection where it is required, namely for investigations conducted under such procedures. In this way, for ongoing, unfinished cases a balance is struck regarding the aforementioned assumption on non-disclosure.
Finally, ladies and gentlemen, I must point out that the Commission has never refused access to documents without providing suitable justification for its decision. The Commission always invokes Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. Quite simply, the unspecified exceptions referred to in our annual report relate to cases in which access to documents was refused on the basis of a number of the exceptions provided for in the regulation, not on a single one of these. It was therefore impossible to be specific. Such refusals amount to 12% of the refusals to provide information. In other words, they amount to 38% of 30% of the refusals.
I would like to thank Mr Cashman for his recommendations on how to improve transparency still further. His suggestions are useful for all the institutions, and due account will be taken of them.
We shall consider possible improvements to allow better integration of instruments for archiving and identifying documents. We shall also take up Mr Cashman’s suggestion and consider a common methodology for the drafting of annual reports. This would facilitate comparisons. Mr Cashman’s suggestions concerning the evaluation report, due to be presented by the Commission early in 2004 will also be borne in mind. The three institutions dealt with all these issues yesterday, at a truly productive and fruitful meeting.
Some problems remain. We have reservations concerning the possible creation of a directive harmonising national legislation in this field, as mentioned by Mr Cashman in his report. There is no appropriate legal basis for such a step. I am aware that Mr Cashman himself appreciates the difficulties and shares our misgivings. Mr Cashman made this clear at our meeting yesterday."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples