{"id":11615,"date":"2012-05-11T19:55:05","date_gmt":"2012-05-11T19:55:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.access-info.org\/s1-advancing-the-right-to-know\/c2-european-union\/11615"},"modified":"2018-11-13T10:13:19","modified_gmt":"2018-11-13T09:13:19","slug":"threat-to-eu-transparency-grows","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.access-info.org\/es\/2012-05-11\/threat-to-eu-transparency-grows\/","title":{"rendered":"Threat to EU transparency grows"},"content":{"rendered":"

Threat to EU transparency grows as trilogues begin on access to EU documents<\/span><\/h1>\n

\"parliament_only_hope_EU_transparency\"Madrid, 11 May 2012<\/em> – The threat that the right of access to information from European Union bodies will be reduced moved a step closer to reality yesterday (10 May 2012) when the 27 Member States approved a document from the Danish EU Presidency which would add broad exceptions to the existing rules.<\/p>\n

The 10 May document obtained today (11 May 2012) by Access Info Europe<\/a><\/span> shows that the \u201ccompromise\u201d position adopted by the ambassadors of the EU 27 includes:<\/p>\n

\u2022 Limiting and narrowing the definition of a document;
\n\u2022 Limiting access to databases;
\n\u2022 Adding a presumption that transparency harms legal advice coupled with a severe weakening of the public interest test;
\n\u2022 New blanket exclusions for documents relating to investigations and documents submitted to courts by non EU actors (e.g.: private companies);
\n\u2022 New exceptions for staff selection and awarding of contracts and grants;
\n\u2022 Doubling of time limit for reviewing appeals;
\n\u2022 Providing access to only some documents in the case of request for a large number of documents or a long document.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Whilst the Council\u2019s proposal contains some positive features, such as establishing information officers and a clearer privacy provision which would provide access when public officials are \u201cacting in the framework of their professional activities related to Union matters\u201d, these are far outweighed by the severe restrictions on access included in the Danish Presidency\u2019s proposals.<\/p>\n

Perhaps the most worrying of all these proposals is the inclusion of a presumption that transparency harms legal advice, given that a significant proportion of decisions which are taken by the Council of the EU and by the European Commission will at some point pass through the legal services for advice. In a remarkable move, the proposed provision puts the burden on the applicant to prove that there is a public interest in accessing legal advice and proposes that \u201cthe principles underlying this regulation do not in themselves constitute such an overriding public interest\u201d. In other words, the public\u2019s right of access to documents as established by the EU treaties and all the reasons for it given by those treaties \u2013 good governance, participation, openness of the legislative process \u2013 will be impermissible arguments in favour of transparency.<\/p>\n

This document is now the Council\u2019s \u201cmandate\u201d for negotiating with the Parliament and the European Commission \u2013 something analogous to a negotiation between the cabinet, administration and parliament at the national level.<\/p>\n

The Swedish government has already characterised the proposals as going in the \u201copposite direction\u201d to transparency and being worse than the much-criticised 2008 proposals put forward by the European Commission, a report by Wobbing.eu this week revealed.1<\/sup><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

In a public document dated 9 May 2012, the Finnish government has also come out against the Danish proposals, saying that Finland is \u201chighly critical\u201d of the mandate.2<\/sup><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

The split in the Nordic consensus on the appropriate levels of EU transparency is a worrying sign that the Danish presidency has been unable to persuade the larger EU states to ease up on their entrenched position against transparency. These states include France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK. They are reported to be joined by Austria, the Czech Republic, Greece, Malta, and Portugal, bringing them a voting majority in the Council of the EU.<\/p>\n

There has been particular criticism of the UK government for working to weaken the access to documents rules given that it is promoting a strong transparency agenda domestically and has just taken over the chairmanship of the Open Government Partnership.<\/p>\n

Hopes Rest in the Parliament<\/h2>\n

The key to the future of EU transparency now rests with the European Parliament, which in December 2011 adopted a strong position in favour of strengthening the access to documents rules, uniting all the political parties in the parliament, with the exception of the right of centre European People\u2019s Party.<\/p>\n

As the debate about EU transparency now moves to the \u201ctripartite\u201d negotiations the Parliament will need to stand firm on its position, which has previously included a position against all the most troubling proposals from the Commission, and those now proposed by the Council.<\/p>\n

Civil Society groups in January issued a set of 20 demands for reforms which would bring the EU\u2019s access to documents rules into line with international and comparative standards. The focus now is not on promoting the highest standards but stopping regressive reforms which would shut down public access to key EU decision making.<\/p>\n

Overview of the concerns<\/h2>\n