Fuente: © European Parliament
http://www.europarl.eu.int/

EU: Access to documents: MEPs want more clarity for the citizen

/noticias.info/ Could facilitating access to the EU institutions' documents strengthen the Union's legitimacy in the eyes of its citizens? Although the EU has made itself more transparent with each successive treaty, consulting a Community document remains tricky for the uninitiated, and the secrecy surrounding certain deliberations helps deepen the democratic "divide". The solution, say MEPs, is to open up "Brussels"… and the Member States.

A Commission proposal to revise the 2001 regulation on access to EU documents was debated at a Civil Liberties Committee hearing on Monday, with representatives of the Commission, the Council and civil society.

Better access to the institutions' documents would help to bridge the "democratic divide" between the EU and its citizens, said Marco Cappato, (ALDE, IT) rapporteur for the annual stocktaking report on the application of the 2001 regulation. "The EU is always trying to explain what it is. But if we wish to avoid this information being stigmatised by eurosceptics as propaganda, then it must be based on the public nature of the institutions". For the rapporteur, "we must enable those who do not know very well how the institutions work nonetheless to find what they are seeking".

"The real democratic deficit is at the Council"

To counter growing euroscepticism, "we must say clearly what we do for the citizen, and how we do it", said Michael Cashman (PES, UK, rapporteur on the revision of the 2001 regulation. In Mr Cashman's view, "the real democratic deficit is at the Council. We can no longer accept that it debates, deliberates and votes in secret".

The right to know is "as important as the right to vote"

The future regulation will improve access to documents, said Commission Vice-President and communication strategy Commissioner Margot Wallström, observing that "the right to know is as important as the right to vote". The proposal codifies the existing texts, and aligns them with the Aarhus Convention on access to information and with Court of Justice case law. It also defines the concept of a "document" - to qualify, a text should be "transmitted or registered or received", said Ms Wallström. "We give more legal clarity and predictability (…) there will be more openness, transparency and access. That is what citizens have the right to demand and what the EU has a duty to deliver", she said.

This view was shared by a Council representative, show saw in the new text a "clear and transparent basis". By contrast, he was more cautious about making public the positions of Member States' delegations, considering it necessary to assess this "case by case" and to "protect the higher public interest".

What is a document?

The NGO representatives invited to the debate nonetheless remained sceptical. "No part of this proposal seems to make more documents accessible. It could even restrict them" said Ian Harden, general secretary to the European Ombudsman. "Reducing the scope of the definition of a document would be a step backwards, and this is the Commission's choice", he declared, opining that "its discretionary power would be strengthened" by the new text. "The European Parliament is the only authority with directive legitimacy". The citizen must be able to turn to it" in the event of dispute, he added.

"This is getting ridiculous. It's like Bill Clinton's definition of sex: it's not transmitted, so it doesn't exist", said Steve Peers of Statewatch, judging these definitions to be "a real step backwards" as compared with Court of Justice case law. He also considered that Parliament and the Council should do more to open up the co-decision procedure, because documents specific to dialogue between the institutions are not accessible, and we never know how negotiations are progressing".

A European transparency commissioner??

This view was shared by Tony Venables, of the European Citizen Action Service, which called on the executive to equip itself with a an "independent commissioner for transparency", responsible only for processing requests for access to documents.

"I heard very clear concerns with which I agree" commented Michael Cashman, who will now tackle his draft report.

notas_de_prensa_archivo