EU secrecy: To "gag" or not?
01 July 1994
The governing bodies of the European Union (EU) continue to be in confusion over the operation of secrecy rules agreed in December 1993 which have led to the Guardian newspaper taking out a case in the European Court of Justice (see Statewatch vol 3 no 6; vol 4 nos 1, 2 & 3).
The General Affairs Council on 16-17 May voted by 10 votes to 2 to confirm its rejection of the request for information made by Guardian journalist John Carvel. The two delegations voting against, the Netherlands and Denmark, were also opposed to "the systematic refusal of requests by private individuals for the release of minutes of Council meetings' and called for the rules to be relaxed. The Permanent Representatives Committee (COREPER, high-ranking officials from each of the 12 EU states) discussed possible compromises on 19 May and 9 June and agreed a new report again by 10 votes to 2.
This report proposed that in response to request for information which were to be refused there was to be "careful consideration to the arguments for or against a positive reply", and that if the full contents of the minutes of a Council had already been released to the press then they should be given to inquirer.
The most controversial proposal concerned the "Working Party on General Affairs" (English version) or "Groupe des Affaires Gnrales" (French version) - known as the GAG group - the English translation of the proper name of the group seems to have been calculated to avoid this acronym. The GAG group was to be empowered to circulate draft replies to confirmatory application (where an inquirer has been turned down and exercises their right to appeal against the decision) and agree by a majority on the course of action with COREPER and the full ministerial Council being bound by this decision - this was attacked on the grounds it gave too much power to middle-ranking officials. The report also said minutes should not be disclosed which "identify" the position of an individual country without the agreement of that country (a position the UK backs strongly).
At the June meeting of the General Affairs Council the item (no 20 on the agenda) was not even discussed. The Danish and Dutch put forward a new, amending proposal which sought to avoid a blanket "no" to whole areas of information. This proposal was watered down in meetings of the "Amis la Presidence" group and COREPER. At the General Affairs Council on 18 July a clear divide on the issue emerged with the amended amendment from Denmark and the Netherlands being rejected by 7 votes to 5 (Denmark, Netherlands, UK, Spain and Ireland). Moreover, the delegations from Sweden, Norway and Finland, who attended as observers until full membership in 1995, expressed strong backing for the Danish- Dutch views.
0Project de conclusions du conseil: Accss du public aux documents du Conseil JUR 131 7450/94 Restricted; Report from the Presidency: Public access to Council documents JUR 140 7667/94, 9 June Restricted; General Affairs Council 16-17 May 1994, press release.