EU: NEW CODE OF ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS -
"Trialogue" talks collapse
01 January 2001
The Council, Commission and European Parliament failed to resolve their different positions on a new code
In an attempt to resolve the substantial differences between their draft positions the three EU institutions - the Council (15 EU governments), the European Commission and the European Parliament - held a series of informal "trialogue" meetings in January and February. These meetings were held on 24 January, 6 and 14 February and ended in failure. It is now clear that the deadline set by the Amsterdam Treaty (TEC) of 1 May 2001 will not be met and that it is unlikely that a new code of access will be agreed before the autumn.
When the European Parliament adopted the report from the Committee for Citizens' Freedoms and Rights at its plenary session on 16 November it put off adopting the legislative resolution - this would then have been the parliament's First reading position (see Statewatch, vol 10 no 6).
On 20 December COREPER, the Brussels-based permanent representatives of the Council (the 15 EU governments), discussed the final draft of their common position drawn up under the French Presidency (see below).
Before, and after, Christmas the main parliament rapporteurs, Michael Cashman (PSE) and Hanji Maij-Weggen (PPE), held informal discussions with the Commission to see if there was any room for compromise between their two positions (the Commission had put out its draft measure in January 2000).
Sweden took over the Presidency of the EU Council on 1 January and the "trialogue" meetings were set up. Little was achieved at the first meeting on 24 January. The Council made clear its opposition to certain clauses in the EP's report, particularly the provisions on including interinstitutional agreements (the Commission too is opposed to including these).
For the second "trialogue" meeting on 6 February the EP drew up a "compromise" report which made a number of changes to the Cashman/Maij-Weggen report. However, little progress was made and by the time of the final planned meeting on 14 February the Council at least knew there could be no agreement (the meeting of COREPER on that day had before it the final French draft Council common position for the next General Affairs Council on 26-27 February).
With the collapse of the talks the three institutions - after a three month delay between 16 November and 14 February - are reverting to the "normal" legislative procedure. The European Parliament will now adopt in March its legislative resolution which will make the Cashman/Maij-Weggen report its First reading position (though there was some talk of adopting its slightly improved "compromise" version of 6 February). Under the "co-decision" procedure (under which all three institutions have to agree) the Council could accept the EP's position but it will not, so the Council will then adopt its common position (on which a majority of EU governments are agreed). The European Commission will then inform the parliament of its position on the proposals.
The EP then has three months to accept the Council's common position or to amend it, which it is likely to. If, within a further three months, the Council cannot agree with the parliament's views (which it is very unlikely to) then within six weeks a "Conciliation Committee" of the three institutions is set up - this committee has six further weeks to agree. This process could take the rest of the year or could be shorter, but whatever happens now it will not meet the 1 May Treaty deadline.
To any outside observer it was crystal clear by December last year that the positions of the three institutions were irreconcilable and were not likely to be resolved through informal, secret meetings.
How did this fiasco come about?
The commitment made in Amsterdam in June 1997, nearly four years ago, was intended to "enshrine" the citizens' right of access to EU documents (under Article 255). It was meant to build on the existing code and practice and turn it into<