A clear, if not overwhelming, majority in the European Parliament voted against proposed weakenings of the EU's existing access-to-documents law. The Commission, however, signalled that it was ready to press for more restrictive rules.
The Strasbourg vote
By 394 votes to 197, with 35 abstentions, the directly elected members of the European Parliament rejected the Commission's suggestions for a new transparency law. The vote, taken at the plenary session in Strasbourg on Thursday 15 December, gave clear backing to amendments put forward by MEP Michael Cashman (Socialists and Democrats, UK) and others in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, known as LIBE. As rapporteur, Cashman told the debate: "Only through transparency can citizens participate in an informed way in the democratic process, which is even more important in the current crisis." The votes against came predominantly from the largest group, the European People's Party (Christian Democrats).
What the amendments secured
The Parliament's position sought to strengthen and safeguard several points:
- It secured transparency as an overriding principle where fundamental rights and a healthy environment were concerned.
- It required that people could not hide behind data-protection and privacy rules when acting as professionals in legislation, especially lobbyists or representatives of interested parties.
- It rejected suggestions that member states or other third parties should be able to veto access to documents forwarded to the EU on the basis of their own national legislation.
- It kept the existing 15-working-day deadline for handling requests and rejected other proposed weakenings, such as withholding documents on copyright grounds.
A defence of old victories?
Many of these amendments largely restated what was already in the regulation adopted in 2001, making it hard to judge whether the Parliament was advancing the case for transparency or merely defending earlier gains. More troubling for openness was a proposal to extend the three existing categories of document classification to cover material marked "restricted" — the lowest level of classification used by the Council. Under it, documents could be classified, and so placed beyond the reach of access requests, if they contained "information which could be disadvantageous to the interest of the Union or of one or more of the member states". The Parliament thereby accepted a limit on transparency, on the argument that parliamentarians — or some of them — would gain the same access as members of the Commission and the Council. That might even out the balance between the EU institutions, but it would not open the system to ordinary citizens.
The road ahead
The vote gave momentum to a case that had been stalled for more than three years. The incoming Danish presidency could begin preparing negotiations between the three institutions — the Commission, the Council and the Parliament — with the aim of finalising a new regulation on access to documents, though this would not be easy. During the debate, Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič was not enthusiastic about the majority's amendments: he said the agreement risked taking time and that, given the amendments in the report, agreement on changes was not within reach; while he could not anticipate the Council's position, many of the amendments, he said, "cannot be accepted by the Commission".
Because it falls to the Commission to propose the final piece of legislation, that phrase was not a promising sign for smooth negotiations. The next step would be a formal reaction from the Council of ministers to the vote, expected in January, after which the Danish presidency would assess whether a compromise could be negotiated. Denmark was regarded as a pro-transparency country, though Danish diplomats were aware they likely represented a minority in the Council on the issue, and it was well known that in 2009 the Council had leaned closer to the restrictive Commission than to the pro-transparency Parliament. Whether the euro crisis and the wider debate over the EU's legitimacy would lead to better or worse access rules remained an open question.
Frequently asked questions
What did the European Parliament vote on?
It voted, by 394 to 197 with 35 abstentions, to reject the Commission's proposed changes to the access-to-documents law and to back amendments drafted in the LIBE committee.
Why was the Commission's response significant?
Because the Commission proposes the final legislation, Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič's statement that many amendments "cannot be accepted by the Commission" signalled difficult negotiations ahead.
What concession did the Parliament make on secrecy?
It accepted extending classification to documents marked "restricted", which could keep material outside access rules if disclosure was deemed disadvantageous to the Union or a member state.