Open access

Anneli Jäätteenmäki, co-rapporteur on parliament’s report on access to EU documents

In the latest issue of The Parliament Magazine (Issue 285, 30 March 2009) Anneli Jäätteenmäki argues that the European parliament sent a strong signal for transparency when it adopted the report on access to EU documents.

“Citizens have less and less trust in European institutions, according to the latest Eurobarometer 70 survey. This is largely because of the lack of information provided by the EU to the public, and the difficulty people face when requesting documentation from an EU institution. Therefore, I am happy that the European parliament sent a strong signal about transparency on 11 March when it adopted the Cashman and Jäätteenmäki report on access to EU documents.

Contrary to the commission, the parliament gave strong support for the ECJ landmark ruling on the so-called Turco case. In this judgment, the ECJ called on the council to strengthen “the democratic right of European citizens to scrutinise the information which has formed the basis of a legislative act”. This would work by giving access to the documents (such as the legal service opinions) which have been excluded in order to “protect” the institution’s decision-making process. I agree with the ECJ that such a justification may no longer be invoked to outweigh the overriding principle ensuring democratic control by the EU citizens of the EU legislative process.

Another breakthrough in improving transparency is that the EP wants to eliminate member states’ right to veto the disclosure of documents about how they implement community law.

On the whole the EP requires more transparency in the documents that are originating from the member states. The ECJ has already specified that the obligation for member states to be consulted in relation to requests for access to documents originating from them does not give them a right of veto, or the right to invoke national laws or provisions. The institution receiving a request may refuse access only on the grounds of the exceptions.

Finally, I am pleased that the EP is proposing a broader definition for the documents than that which the commission was originally proposing. The broad definition of a document includes “any data or content whatever its medium”, as well as information contained in databases. The commission’s proposal would have weakened the basic structure of the transparency regulation, through the broad definition of “documents” and the requirement that exceptions from the rule of transparency are based on a clearly delimited in casu (in case) judgments.

If the Lisbon treaty is to come into force some day, it would extend the publicity of documents requirement to all EU institutions and organs. Furthermore, article 42 of the charter of fundamental rights – which would become legally binding – emphasises the importance of the principle of publicity. Therefore, narrowing the definition of documents and other proposals that weaken transparency would be incompatible with the new EU treaty.

The result of the parliament’s vote sends a strong message to the commission and the council about the importance of transparency at EU level. I am very glad that already seven ministers have called for the EU to make good its commitment to transparency. “This reform process should be about moving forward, not backward, in the process of opening up the EU – a Union ‘in which decisions are taken as openly as possible’, ministers from Finland, Sweden, Estonia, Denmark, and Slovenia have said.

I hope that the Cashman/Jäätteenmäki report will serve as a basis for a common position to be reached under Swedish EU presidency in the second half of 2009.”