EU Access-to-Documents Reform Stalls Under the Danish Presidency

A rejected proposal

Negotiations to update the European Union's rules on public access to documents looked likely to end with no substantive change at all. The latest proposal was rejected on 8 June, when an updated negotiating mandate dated 4 June failed to win the backing of member states' representatives at a working-party meeting of national experts four days later.

The presidency had suggested amendments that in some respects moved toward the European Parliament's position. For some member states that step toward greater transparency was too large; for others it was insufficient — leaving the Danish presidency caught between a rock and a hard place.

The options on the table

With the proposal rejected, the presidency could stand firm on a previous mandate given by a majority of member states — a course likely to be rejected outright by the Parliament, causing the negotiations to collapse. Alternatively, it could drop the controversial amendments to the existing rules that the Commission had tabled back in 2008 and instead push a narrower change known as a "Lisbonisation": a formal adjustment of the current rules to the Lisbon Treaty that would neither add to nor subtract from the existing right of access to EU documents held by the institutions.

Positions of the negotiators

Michael Cashman, the Labour MEP (UK) who served as the Parliament's rapporteur and chief negotiator, noted that the Lisbon Treaty was already in force and that the proposed adjustments would make no practical difference on that point. Anneli Jäätteenmäki, the Finnish liberal MEP and co-rapporteur, indicated through the constitutional committee that her position depended on possible moves from the presidency.

Nicolai Wammen, the Danish minister for European affairs, said it was a misunderstanding to claim that Denmark was trying to restrict access. A "presidency source" who declined to be named gave a similar account, explicitly denying that the presidency wanted to introduce a member-state veto on access, while admitting that a new reference to national law "might appear a bit unclear". The presidency also stated it had no aim to make the definition of documents more restrictive for users.

A sharpening tone

The debate grew pointed. Antony Gravili, a spokesman for the Commission, told the news site EUobserver.com that the push for transparency was driven by the lawyers of large companies. Asked to respond to the Commission's characterisation, the presidency spokesman Jakob Alvi rejected it. What path the Danish presidency would take after the rejection was not clear at the time of the report.

Frequently asked questions