[FYI] (Fwd) [EFIL] "Open letter" from civil society to MEPs

["Axel H Horns" <horns@ipjur.com>]

------- Forwarded message follows -------
To:             	office@statewatch.org
From:           	Statewatch <statewatch-off@geo2.poptel.org.uk>
Date sent:      	Tue, 01 May 2001 12:41:09 +0100
Send reply to:  	EFIL@yahoogroups.com
Subject:        	[EFIL] "Open letter" from civil society to MEPs

[ Double-click this line for list subscription options ] 


PRESS RELEASE: embargoed to 00.01 hrs 2 May 2001
______________________________________________________________________
______ ____

"OPEN LETTER from civil society on the new code of access to documents
of the EU institutions" (2 May 2001)

to: All Members of the European Parliament

from: 

European Citizens Action Service (ECAS)
European Environmental Bureau (EEB)
European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
Standing Committee of Experts on International Immigration, Refugee
and Criminal Law, Utrecht (the "Meijers Committee") Statewatch
______________________________________________________________________
______ ____

"We call on the European Parliament to reject the proposed "deal"
offered by the Council of the European Union on the new code of access
to EU documents.

We believe this proposal weakens current rights of citizens, it does
not fulfil the Amsterdam Treaty commitment to further the cause of
open government and ignores important requirements of the Aarhus
Convention on access to environmental information (which the Community
and all its Member States have signed). It has been drawn up without
proper consultation with civil society groups. 

Moreover it has been adopted as a result of "trilogue" negotiations
with the Council (and the European Commission) which have taken place
behind closed doors for over five months. At no stage has a full,
open, debate in the parliament taken place on the various substantive
issues proposed. We believe that the procedure followed is not only
inappropriate given the nature of the topic in question, citizens
access to information, but also substantially weakens the nature and
purpose of the co-decision procedure as such and parliament's function
in that respect.

We ask you not to adopt this approach, but to maintain current rights
and insist on a new round of discussions based upon a reaffirmation of
the principles of transparency set out in the Amsterdam treaty.

Our criticisms of the "deal" now presented to the Parliament are as
follows:

1. It reduces citizens' rights under the 1993 Decision (prior to the
"Solana Decision" of last summer) as interpreted by the ECJ and CFI.
We have detailed chapter and verse of the specific ways in which the
current situation has been worsened, for example, with regard to the
institutions "space to think", with regard to the pre-emption of
institutions classifications systems over the citizens' right of
access to information on decision-making processes with regard to
"third parties" (including EU member states) being able to deny
citizens access to documents submitted to EU decision-making  and with
regard to the supremacy of this new draft Regulation over existing
national freedom of information legislation in the various member
states (see Footnote below).

2. It does not meet the commitment taken in the Amsterdam Treaty
(Article 255,TEC) to "enshrine" the citizens' right of access to EU
documents. This commitment was to ensure that at the very least the
1993 Decision, and subsequent decisions by the courts and the
Ombudsman are entrenched in binding legislation, and moreover to
include new rights such as the establishment of public registers of
all documents with direct access on the internet (subject only to
Article 4.1 of the draft Regulation).

The new code was intended to be drawn up in the spirit of the
foundational article of the European Union, Article 1, namely that:
"This Treaty makes a new stage in the process of creating an ever
closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken
as openly as possible". This clearly indicates that the very minimum
which is "possible" is the status quo. Anything less that the status
quo can be considered in breach of Article 255, read in the light of
Article 1.

3. The proposal further undermines democratic standards by seeking to
exclude from public access, for example, documents defined as
"sensitive documents" covering not just foreign and military policy
but also ones concerning public security, immigration, legal measures
trade and aid - and any non-classified documents which refers to them.
The proposal would give EU member states, and other "third parties"
like NATO, a right to "veto" access to documents submitted to EU
institutions.

4. The proposal disregards the Aarhus Convention's requirements by
limiting the right of access to EU citizens and residents; by phrasing
exceptions in mandatory instead of discretionary terms; by failing to
require reasons for refusal in all cases; and by other shortcomings.

5. Finally, we are appalled about the way in which this "deal" has
been drawn up. It was prepared in secret negotiations instead of going
through the proper co-decision process (where the position of each
institution at each stage would be on the record and thus open to
public debate). This undercover dealing goes against the fundamental
values of openness and is, we believe, a disgrace to democratic
standards.

In these circumstances, we conclude that the proposal before the
Parliament has failed to meet the needs of citizens, it has not taken
proper account of the reasoned critiques from civil society, and it
will be interpreted - outside of Brussels - as a "deal" which does
more to protect the interests of the institutions than the interests
of the citizens.

Therefore, we ask you not to endorse this proposal and invite the
Commission to present a new draft proposal to meet the Amsterdam
commitment.

Many months and years have already gone by in the attempt to create
meaningful, and inclusive, open government within the European Union
and this flawed policy proposal must not be the last word. There is
still time to continue the normal process of co-decision or to return
to the drafting table. We urge the European Parliament to vote this
"deal" down and make a courageous stand for the benefit of the
European citizen it represents."

FOOTNOTE

The views of civil society have consistently been placed on the
record: 1) At a conference in the European Parliament on 26 April 1999
(where the Commission's unpublished discussion paper on the new code
was the subject of much criticism); 2) At a "hearing" organised by the
Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights in the European Parliament
on 18 September 2000; 3) At a seminar in the European Parliament
organised by civil society groups on 27 February 2001. Representatives
of the Council, Commission and European Parliament were present at
these meetings.

Draft Regulation of the European Parliament and  Council Regulation
laying down the general principles and the limits of the citizen's
right of access to documents of the European Parliament, the Council
and the Commission, and its explanatory memorandum, drafted by
Professor Deirdre Curtin and Professor Herman Meijers for the Standing
Committee of Experts in international migration, refugee and criminal
law, July 1999,Utrecht, Netherlands. 

European Environmental Bureau (EEB) Comments on the European
Commission's Proposal for a Regulation regarding public access to
documents of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission
17 March 2000, prepared by Ralph Hallo.

In November 2000 Essays for an Open Europe, by Tony Bunyan, Deirdre
Curtin and Aidan White was published, sent to all MEPs, and
extensively circulated throughout the EU.

The Statewatch's "Observatory" on the new code has carried all the
draft proposals, with critiques from civil society, since 1999
<www.statewatch.org>.

Our detailed critique of the draft "common position", discussed at the
meeting of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights on 26 April
2001 was sent to all MEPs and placed on the internet (see: 

<http://www.statewatch.org/news/2001/apr/civilsocietyresponse2.htm>

----------




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


EFIL email addresses:
Post message: EFIL@yahoogroups.com 
Subscribe:    EFIL-subscribe@yahoogroups.com 
Unsubscribe:  EFIL-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com 
List owner:   EFIL-owner@yahoogroups.com 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 




------- End of forwarded message -------