In the December Plenary, the European Parliament voted on a report that called to increase the accessibility of documents to the public. Several Member States strongly oppose the will of MEPs to increase transparency to EU documents.
The regulation on access to documents needs to be updated to take account changes in the Lisbon treaty. Currently, the regulation only covers documents of the Parliament, the Council and the Commission, whereas the Lisbon treaty gives the public a right of access to documents of all EU institutions, bodies and agencies.
Several member states, including France, Germany, Spain and the UK, are opposed to making more documents public.
The Danish Presidency circulated a discussion paper to Member States that rejects many or the amendments proposed by MEPs in December. The issues will be further discussed by the Council working group on information on 9 March.
The access to document debate has been going on for four years, with the Council and the Parliament disagreeing on the proposal to revise rules on access to documents. The European Commission made a proposal in 2008, which was criticised by MEPs and by the European Ombudsman and the European data-protection supervisor, for reducing access. Many Civil society organisations have called for greater access to documents to allow for citizens to take part in the Policy debate.
What are the changes?
The Parliament called for a broader definition of “document”. Any data content, whatever its medium (written on paper or stored in electronic form or as a sound, visual or audiovisual recording), concerning a matter falling within the sphere of responsibility of an EU institution, body, office or agency would be considered a document. The changes would make the regulation apply to all documents “held” by any EU Institution, including the European Court of Justice, the European Central Bank and the European Investment Bank.
There is however exceptions to the right of access as in principle, all documents of the institutions should be accessible to the public. However, certain public and private interests (e.g. public security, intellectual property rights, etc.). The report highlighted hjat exceptions should not apply to documents transmitted in the context of legislative procedures or for the purpose of influencing policy-making by lobbyists and other interested parties.
Furthermore, these exceptions could not apply if there were an “overriding public interest in disclosure”. This interest would be deemed to exist where the document requested relates to the “protection of fundamental rights and the rule of law, sound management of public funds, or the right to live in a healthy environment, including emissions into the
environment”.
Member States should not have a right to veto access to documents originating from them, nor a right to refer to provisions in their own legislation in order to justify confidentiality. They would however have to be consulted in order to assess whether one of the exceptions foreseen by this regulation is applicable.