Fuente: © European Union
http://europa.eu.int

The citizens' right to know – transparency, access and outreach – essential tools for democracy Opening address to the public hearing "Towards a European Freedom of Information Act"

Margot Wallström European Vice-President for Institutional relations and communication

/noticias.info/ European Parliament, Brussels, 2 June 2008

Chairman, Members, Excellencies,

In a democratic society, citizens need to know what the decision makers are up to and they must be able to scrutinize them. To me, the right to know is just as important a cornerstone to democracy as the right to vote.

We have come a far way since 1992, when the Member States adopted a Declaration on the right of access to information (attached to the final act of the Maastricht Treaty). This Declaration stated an important principle:

"Transparency of the decision-making process strengthens the democratic nature of the institutions and the public's confidence in the administration."

This is what steered us towards the adoption of Regulation 1049 in 2001. And this is what has guided us ever since.

So this hearing comes at the right time: the Commission's proposal for a revised Regulation 1049/2001 is on the table. The EU legislator – Parliament and Council – will shortly start examining them. I'm therefore grateful for the opportunity to present the Commission's proposals for amending and recasting the Regulation on public access to documents. And later this afternoon you will be given a more detailed survey by Jens Nymand Christensen from the Commission's General Secretariat.

As a general remark, I think it's safe to say that the Regulation has served us well during the past seven years:

* The annual reports of the institutions show a dramatic increase in the number of requests for access.
* At the same time, more and more information has been actively disseminated by the EU institutions.

Taken together, the disclosure on request and the active dissemination have led to a radical improvement of the openness of the EU. The EU Institutions are today more open and transparent than they have ever been.

We know from experience that the Regulation has often been used by companies, law firms and lobbyists. Also, the part of requests made by the academic world has increased significantly in recent years. In other words, the Regulation has mainly benefited professionals of EU affairs more than citizens.

This being said, the work is far from over. Much has happened over the past years, not least with regard to technical developments. So the time is right to review and improve the rules. We have not proposed a complete overhaul of the existing Regulation. We should rather build on what has been achieved over the years and up to now.

The Commission's proposal is largely based on the results of the public consultation, held a year ago. It also takes into account the Resolution of this Parliament on access to the institutions' texts; and it codifies recent case law. Finally, our proposal builds on experience drawn from seven years of practice and day-to-day work.

More should be done to improve access for citizens to EU documents. We propose two main lines of action to meet this objective:

* to further develop the active dissemination of documents, in particular of documents in relation with the legislative process;
* to clarify the legal text and move towards a single legal framework for access to documents.

More concretely, the Commission proposal includes the following amendments to the Regulation:

* there will be an obligation for institutions to disclose documents relating to the legislative process from the outset.

That's new and it's an improvement. Up to know the Regulation has said it should only be done "as far as possible". Now we go further;

* the Regulation will be aligned with the provisions on access to information of the Århus Convention; this is a step towards creating a single framework for the right of access to documents from the EU institutions; the Lisbon Treaty will further extend this framework to all EU institutions, bodies and agencies;
* a clearer definition of the concept of "document" is given, taking into account the growing amount of information and data stored in electronic databases

That's new and it's an improvement. The current definition is not sharp enough – it's vague. Now we are clear about that a text should be transmitted or registered or received. As an example: your own scribbling notes from a meeting is not a document, but when you make them into a report to your colleagues and send it to them, then that is a document. Add to that our strict internal rules on registration and document management, and it's evident that some critics are simply not describing the daily reality in the EU institutions. (And it's actually very close to rules well known in some particular Member States.);

* the Regulation clearly spells out the specific protection afforded to documents related to ongoing investigations; this is not a new restriction but a clarification of existing restrictions.

Let me elaborate a bit on this, since I know it has been criticised. Both the current Regulation and our proposal have Articles both with definitions and with exceptions. I think everyone agrees with this principle. What we do now with articles 2, 3 and 4 (because they have to be seen together!) is three things:

(i) we clarify what constitutes a document (Art. 3)

(ii) we clarify what kinds of documents are as a principle not accessible, and when (Art. 2)

(iii) we list the exceptions; that is when "the institution shall refuse access to a document where disclosure would undermine the protection of the public interest" (Art. 4)

But there are no new restrictions – any documents which would be handed out under the current rules will also be disclosed under the future rules. What we do – and what I see as a clear improvement – is that we give more legal clarity and predictability.

* in line with recent case law the rules on disclosure of personal data and on access to documents originating from the Member States are clarified.

Let me elaborate on this as well.

First on personal data: we take a proactive stance and say that all "names, titles and functions of public office holders and interest representatives in relation with their professional activities" shall as a general rule always be disclosed. It's only when there is a question of other personal data that – as a second step – we have to apply the special Regulation on data protection (45/2001).

Secondly on Member States' documents: Member States have been able to give a blank refusal. We want to change that (and so does the Court)! We propose that if a Member State does not want us to hand out one of their documents, they will have to give clear reasons for it. Those reasons will always have to be in line with the Regulation. As we say in Article 5.2: "The institution shall appreciate the adequacy of a reason given by a Member State insofar as they are based on exceptions laid down in this Regulation."

I hope this clears up some of the misunderstandings that have been heard recently. And I want to stress this again and be absolutely clear: any documents which would be handed out under the current rules will also be disclosed under the future rules. The Commission does not intend to come back on what has already been achieved.

I would also like to stress the fact that we are proposing a recast of the Regulation. This will result in a single consolidated text, which is much clearer for citizens than an act amending another act. This is an example of the Commission's drive for "better law-making".

The amended Regulation will lead to increased openness and transparency for the way in which the European institutions operate, in particular concerning their legislative work.

* * *

Amending the legislation is one way to improve the public's access to EU documents. But there are many other things we can do to improve access by citizens to our documents, without amending the Regulation.

Improved dissemination and quicker publication is one. Another is to improve our registers, both as regards their scope and their accessibility. For example, I can announce that this week I will make the register of my correspondence directly accessible on the internet.

The conclusion is easy to draw: in parallel to the legislative work regarding the review of the Regulation, which is now starting, the institutions should continue to improve their communication with citizens.

This is our proposal. Now it's up to the European Parliament and to the Council to take the next steps.

The Commission's objective with this proposal is simple and obvious: increased openness, transparency and access – better outreach, understanding and legitimacy. That is what citizens have the right to demand and what the EU has a duty to deliver. We have come quite far, and now we're aiming to go even further!

Thank you.

notas_de_prensa_archivo