In the first half of 2012, the Danish presidency of the Council of the European Union abandoned an attempt to overhaul the bloc's rules on public access to documents, Regulation 1049/2001. When EU ministers gathered in Luxembourg on 26 June for the General Affairs Council, no recast of the access rules was on the table to discuss, let alone to decide.
After more than a week of internal deliberations, the presidency chose not to forward the file to the preparatory meeting of EU ambassadors ahead of the Council. The move drew disappointment from civil-society organisations such as Access-Info Europe and open criticism from member states that had regarded Denmark as an ally on transparency.
Nordic neighbours voice disappointment
Finland's minister of justice, Anna-Maja Henriksson, described access to documents as extremely important for her country and said there had been high hopes of reaching agreement during the Danish presidency. Discussions on the file, she noted, had been pending for more than four years without significant progress on the key questions.
In her assessment the reform process had focused on limiting access rather than improving it. Broadening the institutional scope of the regulation and improving access to legislative documents were, she argued, key reforms flowing from the Lisbon Treaty — reforms she called urgent and overdue. Sweden's justice minister, Beatrice Ask, had earlier accused the presidency of putting forward proposals "even worse" than those from the Commission.
Commission accused of "poisoning" the debate
Michael Cashman, a member of the European Parliament and rapporteur on the file for the Socialists and Democrats, publicly criticised the European Commission for what he called "poisoning" the debate and briefing against the Danish presidency within the Council. He suggested that Commission officials would not have acted that way unless the instruction came from President Barroso and Secretary-General Catherine Day.
Malmström: "I might have acted differently"
Commissioner Cecilia Malmström, then responsible for home affairs and herself a former member of the European Parliament who had defended transparency when the existing rules were adopted, distanced herself from the file. Speaking during an EU–US high-level meeting in Copenhagen, she said institutional matters fell to her colleague Maroš Šefčovič and that she did not want to interfere.
"I might have acted differently had this been my area of responsibility, but it hasn't," she said. Asked about the Commission's collective responsibility as a collegium, she maintained she had not been involved, and said it would now be up to the Parliament to decide whether to revive the 2008 proposal.
The Danish explanation
Nicolai Wammen, Denmark's minister for European affairs, said the issue had proved as difficult as anticipated but stressed that openness remained a high priority for the Danish side, tied to the EU's legitimacy in the eyes of citizens and businesses. The presidency had done everything it could to bridge the gap between Parliament and Council, he said, but there had been no political will among member states and the Commission to move towards greater openness.
Marlene Wind, professor of political science at the University of Copenhagen, offered a pragmatic reading: where a position is unlikely to gain support, a presidency may see little value in flagging it publicly.
What the outcome meant
The decision left the 2001 regulation in force unchanged, with no recast in prospect — though some negotiators believed a limited reform should not be ruled out entirely. The amendments the Commission had proposed in 2008 were frozen rather than withdrawn and could be revived at short notice; efforts by pro-transparency countries and the Parliament to stop the Commission rolling back the existing rules had not succeeded.
The stalemate also meant no alignment with the Lisbon Treaty's emphasis on civil-society participation and citizens' access to legislative documents, no clear adjustment to the Aarhus Convention on environmental transparency, and no fresh signal to the European Court on the right of access. A separate case later showed how the Council handled a court ruling on the same subject, described in Council obstructs ruling on transparency; a general overview of the tools involved is set out in the guide on how to use European freedom-of-information rules.
Frequently asked questions
What is Regulation 1049/2001?
Regulation 1049/2001 governs public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents. The 2012 episode concerned a proposed "recast", or overhaul, of these rules, which was ultimately not pursued.
Why did the Danish presidency drop the recast?
The presidency judged that there was insufficient agreement among member states and the Commission. Rather than bring an unsupported file to the Council, it opted not to advance it to the ambassadors' preparatory stage.
What happened to the Commission's 2008 amendments?
They were neither adopted nor formally withdrawn. They remained on file and could be revived, leaving the existing 2001 regulation in force in the meantime.