The struggle for openness
Statewatch Observatory on the adoption of Regulation 1049/2001/EC
This "Observatory" tracks the progress of the new measure to put into effect Article 255 of the Amsterdam Treaty to "enshrine" the citizens' right of access to documents from the Council of the European Union, the European Commission and the European Parliament. The measure has to be agreed by these three insitutions under the co-decision procedure.
The "Observatory" has five sections: "Current drafts on the table" and (A) the current Decisions on public access to EU documents and the Commission proposal(s) (B.1) reports from the European Parliament committees (B.2) European Parliament vote on 1st reading report (C) proposals by the Council (D) critiques and comments by civil society.
This "Observatory" now represents an archive of the legislative process leading to the adoption of the new Regulation.
Final version of the new EU code of access to documents: Netherlands court case withdrawn & European Parliament negotiating over access to classified documents: New Regulation (html) New Regulation (pdf file)
Final "compromise" text adopted by the European Parliament (3.5.01) and the Council of the European Union (14.5.01): Full-text
COMPROMISE/COMMON TEXT
The "compromise/common text" agreed between the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament's Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights will be discussed in the parliament's plenary session on Wednesday, 2 May and voted on 3 May. The new Regulation is a combination of the Commission's original proposal as amended by the parliament's report:
Commission's proposed Regulation on public access to documents (2nd version, 21.2.00): Text (html)
Amendments to the Commission proposal by the parliament: Text (Word 97, dated 25.4.01)
Critique from civil society of the compromise Regulation: Text (html)
FINAL DRAFTS "ON THE TABLE"
The "compromise/common texts" of the Council and the EP delegation:
Council version of "common text": Council (pdf) Council (html)
Cashman (PSE)/Maij-Weggen(PPE) version of "compromise/common text": Text (11.4.01, Word 97) Text (17.4.01, pdf)
Amendments to the amendments: 19.4.01: Cashman (PSE)/Maij-Weggen(PPE): Text (Word 97)
Comments on the amendments: More compromises
Amendments to the "compromise/common text"
Amendments to the "compromise text" from the Green/EFA group and the ELDR (Liberals): Amendments (Word 97)
The view of civil society
The position of Statewatch, the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ), European Citizens Action Service (ECAS), European Environmental Bureau (EEB) Professor Deirdre Curtin, Utrecht University and a member of the Standing Committee of Experts ("The Meijers Committee", Utrecht) and Ulf Oberg, Stockholm University: Critique of the "Brussels stitch-up" (html)
Do the proposed "common text" agreed by the Council and the EP delegation lower current standards?
Analysis by Steve Peers, Reader in Law, Human Rights Centre, University of Essex: Lower standards
Draft Council common position
11.4.01: Common text with the Cashman/Maij-Weggen text (version 2 of this draft): Text (Word 97)
4.4.01: Common text with Cashman/Maij-Weggen text of 5.4.01: Text Critique This draft Council position would also significantly undermine rights available under the current code of access to EU documents. The European Parliament's representatives have consistently said they would not support any proposal which undermine current rights. Analysis: Council draft position undermines existing rights
Current draft of the European Parliaments' 1st reading position:
Version 6: Cashman/Maij-Weggen(PSE/PPE) report (Word 97) 11.4.01
Version 5: Cashman/Maij-Weggen(PSE/PPE) report (pdf) 5.4.01
Version 4: Cashman/Maij-Weggen (PSE/PPE) report (Word 97). 22.3.01. Critique of report: Critique
First "trilogue" series comparison of texts on the new code from each of the three institutions
NB: the comparative table on SN 1296 contains the text of the European Parliament's report adopted on 16 November 2000, the European Parliament's position in SN 1652 and SN 1715 contains the European Parliament's "compromise" text. With the breakdown of the "trialogue" discussions the parliament has reverted to its original position in SN 1296.
Comparison of the three drafts as at 19.1.01: SN 1296 (pdf file) SN 1296 (Word 97)
Comparison of the three drafts as at 13.2.01: SN 1652 (Word 97)
Comparison of the three drafts as at 15.2.01: SN 1715 (pdf file) SN 1715 (Word 97)
To date there have been four versions of the parliament's report. The latest, dated 20 February, is "on the table" of the Committee for Citizens' Freedoms and Rights:
Ver 3:Cashman/Maij-Weggen (PSE/PPE) report (Word 97, 20.2.01) Critique of report: Critique
Ver 4: Cashman/Maij-Weggen (PSE/PPE) report (Word 97, 22.3.01) Critique of report: Critique
A. The current Decision(s) and the Commission's proposal(s)
Decision 93/731, December 1993: 1993 Council Decision
Decision 2000/23, December 1999: 1999 Decision
Decision 2000/527, adopted August 2000: 2000 Decision Background to this Decision: Background
Commission's "unpublished" discussion papers, 22.1.99 and 23.4.99
Commission's unpublished and leaked drafts of proposal: 22.10.99 and 29.11.99
Commission's proposed Regulation on public access to documents (1st version, 26 January 2000): Jan 2000
Commission's proposed Regulation on public access to documents (2nd version, 21 February 2000): Feb 2000
B. 1. Reports from the European Parliament's committees
The lead committee in the European Parliament is the Citizens' Freedom and Rights Committee. Five other committees will be adopting "opinions" on the proposed new measure which will be submitted to the lead committee for it to take into consideration before adopting its final report. This final report will go to a plenary session of the full parliament. After this the Council will make its views known on the Commission's proposal. The Commission can amend its proposal at any time and would respond to the EPs' and Council positions. The measure, as revised by the Commission, then goes back to the parliament.
Citizen's Freedom and Rights Committee (rapporteur: Michael Cashman)
1st draft report: Cashman ("rtf" format)
2nd draft report: now a "Common Position" between Cashman (PSE) and Maij-Weggen (PPE) for this Committee and the Committee on Constitutional Affairs: Cashman/Maij-Weggen 3rd draft, 15.9.00: Cashman/Maij-Weggen2 (Word97)
Amendments proposed to the Cashman/Maij-Weggen report (2) for the meeting on 23 October:
Amendments (PDF format) Amendments (Word 97)
Cashman/Maij-Weggen report adopted by the Committee on 23.10.00 which now goes to the EP's plenary session on 15 November: Cashman/Weggen-final (Word 97) Statewatch's proposed amendments to this report in line with improving citizens' right of access to EU documents: Statewatch
Committee on Constitutional Affairs (rapporteur: Hanja Maij-Weggen)
1st Draft report: Maij-Weggen (PDF format) Adopted report, 18.10.00: Maij-Weggen2 (Word 97)
Legal Affairs and Internal Market Committee (rapporteur: Heidi Hautala)
Draft report: Hautala Report adopted unanimously 10 October with minor amendments: Hautala2 (PDF format)
Culture Committee (rapporteur: Ole Andreasen)
Draft report: Andreasen (PDF format) Report adopted 10 October: Andreasen2 (PDF format)
Petitions Committee (rapporteur: Astrid Thors)
Draft report: Thors (PDF format) Report adopted on 10 October: Thors2 (PDF format)
Foreign Affairs Committee (rapporteur: Cecilia Malmstrom)
Draft report: Malmstrom (PDF format) Report adopted 10 October with major changes deleting amendments for more openness: Malmstrom2 (PDF format)
Committee on Budgetary Control (rapporteur: Diemut Theato)
Draft report: Theato (PDF format) Adopted report: Theato2 (Word 97)
B. 2. European Parliament plenary vote on 1st reading report
European Parliament vote on report on access to documents on 16 November: Full list of amendments, voting list and analysis: EP vote
European Parliament "has ignored civil society" plus full-text of the report adopted: Report
European Parliament adopt report on access to EU documents - but what happened to citizens'
rights?: EP vote, where now?
C. The Council's proposals on the new measure
6th version: new draft date (29.1.01): New draft
5th version: draft (dated 22.12.00): New draft (pdf)
4th version: draft (dated 18.12.00) of Council's common position leaves the incoming Swedish Presidency with a difficult job: New draft
3rd version (dated 1.12.00) "Solana Decision" extended to cover justice and home affairs, trade and aid: "Solana Two Decision"
2nd version of draft common position: Solana Decision" back on the agenda (28.11.00): "Solana Two"
1st version: Council's draft position on access to documents, full-text and analysis: Council
Survey shows which EU governments back openness, which do not: Openness survey (29.11.00)
D. Critiques and commentaries by civil society
Speech by Tony Bunyan, Statewatch editor, to the "hearing" in the European Parliament on 18 September: Talk
Statewatch: Amendments to Commission proposal Analysis
European Environment Bureau: EEB
European Federation of Journalists: EFJ
Select Committee on the European Union, House of Lords, UK: Report
European Federation of Journalists publishes "Essays for an Open Europe", which argue that civil society needs to join in the debate on access to EU documents: Essays
Spotted an error? If you've spotted a problem with this page, just click once to let us know.
Statewatch does not have a corporate view, nor does it seek to create one, the views expressed are those of the author. Statewatch is not responsible for the content of external websites and inclusion of a link does not constitute an endorsement. Registered UK charity number: 1154784. Registered UK company number: 08480724. Registered company name: The Libertarian Research & Education Trust. Registered office: MayDay Rooms, 88 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1DH. © Statewatch ISSN 1756-851X. Personal usage as private individuals "fair dealing" is allowed. We also welcome links to material on our site. Usage by those working for organisations is allowed only if the organisation holds an appropriate licence from the relevant reprographic rights organisation (eg: Copyright Licensing Agency in the UK) with such usage being subject to the terms and conditions of that licence and to local copyright law.