{"id":29250,"date":"2017-07-27T11:02:51","date_gmt":"2017-07-27T09:02:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.access-info.org\/?p=29250"},"modified":"2018-11-13T10:03:18","modified_gmt":"2018-11-13T09:03:18","slug":"transparency-of-commissioners-travel-expenses-disproportionate-says-european-commission","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.access-info.org\/es\/2017-07-27\/transparency-of-commissioners-travel-expenses-disproportionate-says-european-commission\/","title":{"rendered":"Transparency of Commissioners\u2019 travel expenses \u201cdisproportionate\u201d says European Commission"},"content":{"rendered":"

Madrid, 27 July 2017<\/em> \u2013 Access Info has described as extremely regrettable that six months after 120 European citizens requested access to last year\u2019s travel expenses of the 28 EU Commissioners, the Commission has taken a unilateral decision<\/a> to disclose data just for January and February 2016, and that it will not contemplate any greater transparency.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, in response to our letter<\/a> to Vice President Timmermans proposing that this data be published proactively, the Commission has concluded that it \u201cdoes not see added value in publishing online the detailed travel expenses\u201d as the cost of processing the data \u201cwould be disproportionate.\u201d<\/p>\n

The limited disclosure of data and disappointing response to our letter comes after the European Ombudsman accepted a formal complaint from 53 of the requesters<\/a> protesting numerous violations in handling the requests, including a refusal to process them, on top of the refusal to make this basic travel data public. A full timeline is provided below.<\/p>\n

\u201cGiving 120 requesters only two months\u2019 worth of expenses data is a token gesture,\u201d<\/em> commented Helen Darbishire, Executive Director of Access Info Europe. \u201cThe Commission has told us that it has had<\/em> lengthy discussions about how to handle these requests over the course of the past six months. That time could have been better spent responding to the requests<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThe real cost here is not the cost of processing data, but rather it\u2019s the cost to the credibility of and trust in the European Commission when it refuses to publish basic information about the spending of taxpayers\u2019 funds<\/em>,\u201d added Darbishire.<\/p>\n

Access Info noted that not only is confidence in the EU at stake here, but that the refusal of the Commission to publish this data set a very bad example across the EU and more widely.<\/p>\n

\u201cPresented with an opportunity to show some leadership on making public spending transparent \u2013 something essential for fighting corruption and ensuring integrity of public life \u2013 the Commission has decided to hide behind minimal actions and an apparent aversion to being open with the public<\/em>,\u201d noted Andreas Pavlou, Access Info Researcher and Campaigner.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe European Commission could be setting a gold standard and promoting a best practice for all Member States to aspire to rather than lowering the bar<\/em>,\u201d concluded Pavlou.<\/p>\n\n

<\/div>\n