Sanatarkat istuntoselostukset

Tiistai 21. toukokuuta 2013 - Strasbourg

16. Asetuksen (EY) N:o 1049/2001 uudelleenarvioinnin umpikuja (keskustelu)

  Der Präsident. − Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärung der Kommission über die Blockade der Revision der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1049/2001 (2013/2637(RSP)).

  Tonio Borg, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I would like to make the following statement.

On 30 April 2008 the Commission submitted a proposal for a recast of Regulation 1049/2001. As this proposal was pending with the European Parliament after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the Commission submitted, on 21 March 2011, a second proposal, which was separate but complementary to the first one. The objective was to make the regulation compliant with the new Treaty and the European Charter of Fundamental Rights which, since the Lisbon Treaty, is legally binding on EU institutions when they propose laws and on Member States whenever they implement EU laws.

The first reading position, adopted by the European Parliament on 15 December 2011, contains many amendments touching on parts of the regulation which the Commission did not propose to modify. In the Commission’s view, these amendments are not compatible with the interinstitutional agreement on recasting. The Commission stated its position with regard to the amendments of the European Parliament in its communication on the action taken on opinions and resolutions adopted by Parliament at the December 2011 part-session.

In accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, the Commission’s proposal and the first reading position of the European Parliament are currently under consideration by the Council. The next step in this procedure is thus the adoption of a common position by the Council. In 2012 the Danish Presidency sought to achieve an early second reading agreement. The Commission supported the efforts of the Presidency. However, in the Commission’s view, insufficient time was devoted to in-depth trialogue discussions between the institutions. The lack of sufficient time for discussion did not make reaching an agreement possible at that time.

The Commission remains open to a genuine discussion with both branches of the EU legislature on the review of the regulation. However, the Commission insists on the need to strike the right balance between the fundamental right of access to EU documents, as set out by Article 42 of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights, and the need to adequately protect other legitimate interests. This includes the need to protect other important public and private interests and to weigh other fundamental rights that may be affected.

  Renate Sommer, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Die Revision der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1049/2001 über den Zugang der Öffentlichkeit zu Dokumenten hat sich ja zu einer regelrechten unendlichen Geschichte entwickelt.

Warum geht es mit diesem Dossier nicht voran? Das liegt daran, dass der Berichterstatter einfach nicht bereit ist einzulenken. Wie ein trotziges Kind beharrt er auf seiner Position, verlangt von allen anderen Kompromisse, er selbst ist aber nicht kompromissbereit.

Dabei weiß er sehr genau, dass seine Forderungen gegen geltende Regeln und gegen Gesetze verstoßen. Und natürlich ist das für Rat und Kommission nicht akzeptabel – für mich im Übrigen auch nicht.

Auch die weltfremden Vorstellungen einer ausufernden, alles umfassenden Flut von Veröffentlichungen jeglicher Vorgänge in allen Institutionen – das würde doch genau das Gegenteil von dem bewirken, was wir eigentlich erreichen wollen. Es würde letztendlich die Intransparenz erhöhen. Denn so gehen doch die wirklich wichtigen Dokumente völlig unter. Wenn man die wesentlichen Informationen nicht mehr herausfiltern kann, dann werden unsere Bürgerinnen und Bürger Europa und seine Institutionen schließlich gar nicht mehr verstehen. Wollen wir das?

Und gleichzeitig würde zum Beispiel auch unsere Arbeit hier im Europäischen Parlament unmöglich gemacht. Wenn wir jedes Gespräch, das im EP geführt wird, protokollieren und veröffentlichen müssten, würden dann die wirklichen Gespräche noch innerhalb des Parlaments geführt? Natürlich nicht! Ist das im Sinne unserer Bürger?

Meine Fraktion hat sich immer dafür eingesetzt, dass die Entscheidungsmechanismen und die Gesetzgebung auf der europäischen Ebene durchsichtiger, transparenter sein müssen. Natürlich wollen auch wir einen sehr weit gehenden Zugang der Bürger zu Dokumenten. Wir wissen aber auch, dass wir diesen Zugang in eine vernünftige Balance bringen müssen, einerseits mit den Erfordernissen des Datenschutzes und andererseits mit dem im Entscheidungsprozess so dringend benötigten space to think. Dies liegt letztendlich im Interesse aller Beteiligten. Und dies haben wir in den schwierigen Verhandlungen mit der Kommission und dem Rat immer wieder zum Ausdruck gebracht.

Der Berichterstatter aber geht auf gar nichts ein. Und zusätzlich geht sein Bericht weit über das Ziel von mehr Transprenz durch einen besseren Zugang der Bürger zu Dokumenten hinaus. Er greift Punkte auf, die gar nicht Gegenstand einer solchen Verordnung sein können – wie die Veröffentlichung von Informationen aus laufenden interinstitutionellen Verfahren, zum Beispiel wären auch informelle Trilogverhandlungen davon betroffen. Damit aber würde der Weg für einen Zugang zum gesamten Verfahren geebnet, was den Zugang zu Dokumenten weitestgehend überschreitet und zum Beispiel der öffentlichen Einflussnahme durch Lobbyisten Tür und Tor öffnen würde. Das können wir doch nicht wirklich wollen!

Auch der Schutz von geistigem Eigentum, von sensiblen und persönlichen Daten wird missachtet. Es sollen Verwaltungsvorgänge und Entscheidungen – auch zu Personalfragen – veröffentlicht werden. Aber wir dürfen doch die Privatsphäre nicht der Öffentlichkeit preisgeben. Auch ist es wichtig, den Schutz von Geschäftsgeheimnissen und sensiblen Informationen zu sichern im Rahmen von Zulassungsverfahren, Gerichtsverhandlungen und Wettbewerbsverfahren.

Wir müssen endlich einen Mehrwert für unsere Bürger schaffen und damit den Vorschlag der Kommission akzeptieren! Ich fordere den Berichterstatter auf, das zu tun.

  Michael Cashman, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, I would just like to say that Ms Sommer once again completely misrepresents the position of the rapporteur and indeed the majority of this House. To the Commissioner I would say that I welcome what he says. He is not in charge of the dossier, but actually the recasting agreement was not followed by the Commission, and this was pointed out by our Committee.

It was stated that efforts were supported in order for us to try and reach an agreement. I have to say that the efforts of the Presidency and ourselves were completely undermined by the Commission in their backstage workings, which misrepresented the position of Parliament. I deeply regret that Commissioner Šefcovic is not present. He was also invited to the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE). He refused. I have to say that I begin to wonder whether he is actually in charge of the dossier or whether it has been passed to Ms Catherine Day.

But let us look at the reality. The Commission has never presented any proposals, amendments or compromises during our trialogues, and its position was to simply sit and say ‘No’. So therefore I say to the Commission: if this is not accurate, please publish and present the proposals you made. I am ready to publish Parliament’s proposals and I am sure the Danish Presidency will do likewise, and I want to ask the Commission what next steps they envisage should this deadlock continue. Will they withdraw the regulation and allow the Court of Justice to do the work that we legislators should be doing for our citizens? The Court of Justice has reached several far-reaching and important judgments for the understanding of the new legal framework on access to documents created by the Lisbon Treaty, and even recently in its conclusions on the appeal on access information, the Advocate-General brilliantly stated that legislating is by definition a law-making activity and that a democratic society can only function through the use of procedure.

So we have the Advocate-General siding with Parliament: openness and transparency. Of course we need to reach a compromise, but there are certain minimums that I cannot trade off. For instance, we need to extend the scope of the regulation to all institutions, offices, agencies and bodies. We need clarification that no Member State veto exists. We need legislative transparency – no exceptions for certain kinds of legal advice. But for the rest, Parliament is ready to find a compromise. We are ready to sit down.

This House will draft a resolution for the June plenary, despite the efforts of Ms Sommer in opposing the debate that we are having tonight. We will put down what we believe is the way forward. Let us work together to break this deadlock. But Parliament cannot do it without the Commission or the Council, and should this deadlock remain, I tell you now that citizens will further disconnect from the European project. At a crucial time you will have failed Europe and its founders. Parliament will not be a part of such a damaging or reprehensible strategy.

  Judith Sargentini, namens de Verts/ALE-Fractie. – Wij hadden eerder hier vanavond een debat over het Stockholmprogramma, over de samenwerking in Europa op het gebied van vrijheid, veiligheid en recht. Ook daar spraken wij over hoe de burger Europa percipieert. Ook hier moeten wij het daar over hebben.

Want hoe is het nu toch mogelijk dat de Europese Commissie in samenwerking met de schaduwrapporteur van de PPE-Fractie, constant blijft zeggen dat geheimhouding primair is en dat wij eventueel stukjes openbaar willen maken? De uitgangspunten van democratie horen toch te zijn dat alles open is, behalve als het echt niet anders kan voor bijvoorbeeld de volksgezondheid of onrust in de samenleving. En dat is hier niet het geval.

Het uitgangspunt van de Commissie blijkt telkens weer 'geheimhouden, geheimhouden, geheimhouden'. En ik moet het onze rapporteur nageven, hij heeft gelijk, dat leidt tot wantrouwen. Het wantrouwen van de Europese burgers over het werk van de Europese Commissie en ook van dit Parlement en de Raad, is al behoorlijk groot. Dat zou niet nodig hoeven zijn als wij gewoon laten zien wat wij doen en onze documenten openbaar willen maken.

Er zijn een heleboel lidstaten die daar hele keurige gewoontes in handhaven. Ik noem Denemarken, ik noem mijn eigen land Nederland. Het zou de Europese Commissie sieren dat voorbeeld te volgen. Het Europees Parlement is al enkele jaren aan het trekken aan een dood paard, zoals wij dat in Nederland noemen, en dat is zonde. Het laat zien dat u eigenlijk niet vertrouwt in ons, noch in onze burgers.

  Γεώργιος Παπανικολάου (PPE). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, στην προηγούμενη συζήτηση σχετικά με την εφαρμογή του προγράμματος της Στοκχόλμης έγινε λόγος για το ζήτημα της αναθεώρησης του κανονισμού για την πρόσβαση στα έγγραφα. Όλοι συμφωνήσαμε ότι έχουμε μείνει πίσω στο θέμα αυτό και ότι πρέπει να προχωρήσουμε. Είναι πράγματι μια δημοκρατική υποχρέωση που πηγάζει από τη Συνθήκη της Λισαβόνας, όπως ειπώθηκε ήδη, η διευκόλυνση της πρόσβασης των πολιτών στα έγγραφα των ευρωπαϊκών θεσμικών οργάνων. Είναι επίσης θέμα που άπτεται της δημοκρατικής λογοδοσίας και κανείς δεν το αρνείται. Είναι όμως εξίσου σαφές ότι δεν μπορεί να αποβαίνει εις βάρος του δημοσίου συμφέροντος, πολύ δε περισσότερο εις βάρος του δημόσιου βίου και των προσωπικών δεδομένων. Συμφωνώ με την σημερινή τοποθέτηση του Επιτρόπου Borg. Τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα δεν μπορούν να μπαίνουν σε ζυγαριά. Δεν μπορούμε επίσης να αποδεχόμαστε τη θυσία κάποιων από αυτά τα δικαιώματα προς όφελος κάποιων άλλων. Με δύο λόγια, αντισταθμίζεται πλήρως η προσβολή του δημόσιου συμφέροντος από την ανάγκη πλήρους δημοσιοποίησης όλων των εγγράφων; Αντισταθμίζεται η έκθεση στη δημοσιότητα των προσωπικών στοιχείων των πολιτών, ιδίως αν πρόκειται για ανήλικους, από την ανάγκη για διαφάνεια; Προφανώς δεν είναι πάντα εύκολη η διατήρηση αυτής της ισορροπίας. Τόσο ο εισηγητής όσο και οι σκιώδεις εισηγητές το γνωρίζουν πολύ καλά αυτό. Η πορεία μέχρι σήμερα δεν ήταν καθόλου εύκολη - πολλές ήταν οι διαφωνίες, πολλές ήταν και οι προστριβές. Αυτό μαρτυρούν άλλωστε και τα γεγονότα των πέντε ετών από την αρχική ανακοίνωση της Επιτροπής για την αναθεώρηση του κανονισμού. Παρακολουθώντας, ωστόσο, την εξέλιξη των διαπραγματεύσεων, διαπιστώνω μία σχετική έλλειψη των προβλέψεων καταγραφής στο μητρώο των ευαίσθητων εγγράφων και θα ήθελα, με την ευκαιρία της σημερινής συζήτησης και της παρουσίας του Επιτρόπου, να ρωτήσω και να λάβω απάντηση, αν αυτό είναι δυνατόν. Για ποιο λόγο, κύριε Επίτροπε, ορισμένα έγγραφα δεν είναι καν καταγεγραμμένα στο σχετικό μητρώο, ανεξάρτητα από το αν παρέχεται ή όχι η πρόσβαση σε αυτά;

  Claude Moraes (S&D). - Mr President, I would like first of all to fully support our rapporteur Michael Cashman in his disappointment that the Commissioner refused to come to the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. It is for that reason we have asked for tonight’s debate so that we can get some answers as to how we can realistically progress with this dossier.

Tonight’s debate gives us the opportunity to once again publicly state our commitment to reaching an agreement on access to documents. Despite continued disappointing setbacks, Parliament adopted its first reading agreement in 2011. This dossier remains a priority for our group and we will continue to reiterate our insistence that the file be adopted before the end of this mandate in 2014. Now, more than ever, we need to send a message that we believe in increased transparency, accountability and democracy for EU citizens. We are seeing a growing distrust in mainstream political parties and public institutions across Europe. The continued delay with this legislative procedure has led to growing negative perceptions in relation to EU transparency rules. Let us be reminded again that this file has been pending since 2008.

Our group wants clarification from both the Commission and the Council on the main obstacles that are preventing substantial progress. We want fresh information and any possible compromise or common denominators that are envisaged while at the same time taking into account the fact that we will not support any watering-down of key legislative areas. We want answers as to whether the Commission is confident that we can achieve a compromise and, if not, what it intends to do in order to progress.

I want to echo what my colleague Michael Cashman has said: that citizens have the right to make sure this Parliament, as a democratically-elected institution, is held accountable for what we do in their name. The same goes for actions carried out by both the Commission and Council on their behalf. We are in a different age – an age of social media – where people demand to see what is going on. We are lagging behind with the delay on this file. The delay that we are seeing is something that needs to penetrate the minds of the Commission and Council, and they need to be aware of what is going on. For this reason, we fully support what our rapporteur is doing.

  Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE). - Mr President, I would like to congratulate Ms Sommer, who just did the most perfect impersonation of Sir Humphrey from the ‘Yes, Prime Minister’ series that I have ever seen in my life. I cannot believe that I have heard someone say in this Hemicycle: ‘well, we should not give too much information to the citizens because they would only get confused’.

I mean, come on, that is something from a farce on television. It cannot be real, not in this House, because the EU, Ms Sommer – who has disappeared – is no longer the old project of diplomats where the culture of this question of secrecy prevails. It is rapidly evolving into a mature political union of citizens, and the citizens, Ms Sommer and dear Commissioner, are clamouring for transparency, because transparency is essential for accountability, which in turn is indispensable for a mature democracy.

We talk a lot, the Commission talks a lot, the Council talks a lot – I can see that the Commissioner is fascinated (not) – the Commission talks a lot about getting the trust – Mr President, maybe you could point out to the Commissioner that we are having a debate here.

We are actually addressing the Commission here...

(The Chair interrupts the speaker in order to gain the attention of the Commissioner)

...if you care to hear. We talk – the Commission talks – a lot about winning the trust of the citizens, yet there is no culture of transparency in the Commission. I can testify to that, because I actually took the Commission to court in a case where they refused access to documents. I took the Council to court and I am very ready to take the Commission to court again, and I am pretty sure that this will happen. If I do not do so, dear Commissioner, the citizens will do it themselves.

Have you ever heard of Wikileaks? Have you ever heard of ACTA? If you want a demonstration of how secrecy will actually sink your own plans, ACTA is perfect. I think it is regrettable that the Commission and the Council take a minimalist approach to transparency and disclose as little as they can possibly get away with. So, Commissioner, do everything in your power to unblock this dossier.

  Margrete Auken (Verts/ALE). - Hr. formand! Jamen lad mig føje til: Vi står i en situation med stigende mistillid blandt borgerne til EU i almindelighed og til Kommissionen i særdeleshed, og det er som om, at Kommissionen ikke bekymrer sig om dette. Et af de vigtigste principper at få indført i forvaltningen er jo serviceprincippet, hvor man altid har borgerne i centrum, og dertil hører fuld åbenhed. Da vi var rundt i medlemsstaterne og agitere for Lissabontraktaten, var et af de gode argumenter, at der ville komme mere åbenhed og god forvaltning! Vi kunne sige til borgerne: Se her, det bliver jeres Europa! Og hvad oplever vi så? Jeg husker fra det danske formandskab og bliver fortalt, at man var blevet advaret mod at prøve at pille ved forordning 1049, for så ville det blive værre! Det var det råd, Kommissionen gav det danske formandskab – at så ville det blive værre! Kommissionen havde da ikke taget højde for, at der var et flertal her i Parlamentet, som ikke ville tillade, at det blev værre! Men det er altså meget alvorligt, at Kommissionen bliver ved med at tro, at man bare kan skubbe det fra sig og lade som om, at nye tider ikke har indfundet sig! Lad mig sige én ting: Jeg tror, at meget få af os ønsker, at vi i Kommissionen får en nulfejlskultur, det kvæler alting, det kan ikke nytte noget, at man siger, at man ikke kan rådgive, at man ikke har tid til eftertanke, for så kan man jo risikere at lave fejl, men det kan alle mennesker. Det er med til at øge tilliden, at vi har åbenhed og borgerne i centrum, så vi skal have gjort noget ved 1049, ligesom jeg også synes, at Kommissionen skal komme med et forslag om god forvaltningsskik, sådan som Kommissionen og vi andre lovede borgerne.

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (PPE). - Mr President, public access to documents is important in order to increase openness and involve citizens in our legislative process. After years of work to revise the regulation, the time has come to break the deadlock. Parliament is ready, and I call on the Commission, the Council and the Presidency to sit down at the table and relaunch negotiations on the outstanding issues in a constructive spirit. The new regulation should be adopted by the end of the mandate. It is not about shortcuts or compromises at any cost: it is about enhancing transparency with a responsible and clear commitment.

At a time when Brussels seems far away from our homes, the European institutions need to join forces to rebuild trust in them – or are we treating transparency with secrecy? What are we afraid of? We have nothing to hide. Of course exceptions should be made, and it is a complex issue. Data protection and personal integrity should be respected. But, dear Sophia, public access does not mean Wikileaks.

I myself will continue to be committed to transparency and accountability for my own activities as a Member of Parliament, publishing my calendar and the list of lobbyists that I meet, and standing and arguing against any secret ballot. Citizens have the right to know how we take decisions on their behalf which affect their lives. Let us open our doors and encourage them not only to follow, but also to participate. Let us make them feel that they are part of a community where decisions are taken democratically. Let us show them that they are truly represented. Please let us move together and adopt this regulation.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), blue-card question. – First of all, to eliminate one misunderstanding: I did not say that WikiLeaks should stand in place of the transparency regulation; I just said that citizens take it into their own hands.

I very much subscribe to your statement just now, and I think other colleagues do too, but it rather contradicts the statement that was made by Ms Sommer just before. I think it would be very useful if we knew what the position of the EPP Group will be in the end. I hope it will be yours.

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (PPE), blue-card answer. – Thank you, Sophia, for clarifying that it is not about WikiLeaks, because personal integrity and fighting defamation are very important – but that is not what we want to achieve in opening up our files to the citizens of Europe.

I do think that there is a broad consensus within the EPP family that we want to have increased transparency and increased openness, and that we want to bridge the democratic gap with citizens. There are ways of looking at exceptions when it comes to the legal basis, when it comes to informal trialogues, when we meet in the corridors and exchange a piece of paper and when it comes to protecting some of the businesses in the Commission’s dealings on competition; that needs to be discussed. I think we all agree that negotiations have to start again and that we have to break the deadlock.

  Cecilia Wikström (ALDE). - Herr talman! Den här debatten den hör egentligen inte hemma i ett öppet och modernt EU 2013. Det känns som om den här debatten borde ha ägt rum för flera decennier sedan. Den första frågan vi måste ställa oss är: Vem äger dokumenten och informationen? Är det EU:s institutioner, är det kommissionen, är det vi ledamöter i Europaparlamentet? Nej, för mig är det självklart att dokumenten tillhör medborgarna, och de har självklart rätt att ta del av dessa.

Vilka är vi att styra över det? Det är beklagligt att kommissionen inte har visat ett bättre och tydligare ledarskap och framåtanda i den här frågan. Hemlighetsmakeri hör inte framtiden till. I Lissabonfördraget slås det fast att EU:s institutioner ska fungera med större öppenhet, och därför beklagar jag att kommissionens förslag är så bakåtsträvande och inskränker öppenheten. Det rimmar illa med det öppna, moderna och medborgartillvända EU som jag vill se och som jag tror på.

Catch-the-eye-Verfahren

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). - Accesul la documentele instituţiilor europene reprezintă o formă importantă prin care cetăţenii pot controla activitatea Uniunii, iar o transparenţă mai mare ar creşte şi încrederea cetăţenilor, contribuind la o mai bună înţelegere a procesului decizional european.

De aceea consider şi eu că trebuie să se depăşească actualul impas şi să se adopte un regulament adaptat realităţii. Deşi Parlamentul a adoptat poziţia sa asupra modificării actului legislativ, în prezent această procedură este blocată. Este important să se acorde un acces mai mare cetăţenilor europeni la documentele instituţiilor, indiferent dacă este vorba de agenţii sau oficii. Termenul de 15 zile lucrătoare în care se furnizează documentele trebuie menţinut. De asemenea, consider că şi pentru soluţionarea cererilor de confirmare trebuie impus un termen similar.

  Tonio Borg, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, let me start by saying very clearly that the Commission is committed to having the existing regulation reformed and improved. I think the Commission’s proposal makes this regulation compatible with the Lisbon Treaty and the European Union Charter. I would like to remind everyone that, in order to have an agreement, it is of course important that the two co-legislators negotiate and agree. I would also like to remind this Chamber that an attempt by the Danish Presidency to reach a compromise agreement did not succeed.

A majority of Member States largely shares the Commission’s view and did not support Parliament’s amendments. The Cypriot Presidency explored the possibility of finding common ground but concluded that the conditions for a compromise were not met. The current Irish Presidency has not, as far as I know, taken any further initiatives.

But that is in the past. I think we have to look to the future, and I believe that the Commission can commit to raising the matter with the upcoming Lithuanian Presidency in order to have the matter revisited by the Council and to organise the necessary trialogues for a successful negotiation.

  Michael Cashman (S&D). - Mr President, it is an extremely important point of order.

Given that Parliament takes a completely different view of the role played by the Commission in the negotiations under the Danish Presidency and the Cypriot Presidency, and that we are prepared to bring forward and publish our amendments and our proposals, will the Commission publish its amendments and its proposals on drafting that it brought to the negotiations? They brought none, but if they wish to prove that the rapporteur has suddenly amnesia, will they publish them? The reason we are in an impasse is because the Council needs to have its first reading. Without its first reading we need the Commission to either agree with us or withdraw its proposal. So the Commission, I am afraid, is the problem.

(Ende des Catch-the-eye-Verfahrens)

  Tonio Borg, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I think my appeal to Mr Cashman is to look ahead. There is a commitment on the part of the Commission to raise this matter with the Lithuanian Presidency. The Commission has already stated its position with regard to Parliament’s amendments in its communication on the action taken on opinions and resolutions adopted by Parliament at the part-session of December 2011.

But I repeat: let us look forward. We will raise this matter with the Lithuanian Presidency, and I am convinced that the necessary trialogues can start again.

  Der Präsident. − Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

Die Abstimmung findet während der nächsten Tagung im Juni statt.

Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 149 GO)

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE), kirjallinen. – On helppo olla samaa mieltä hyvän kollegani Michael Cashmanin kanssa. Lissabonin sopimuksen astuttua voimaan komission olisi pitänyt päivittää 2008 vuoden esityksensä. Tällä hetkellä esitys ei vastaa Lissabonin sopimuksen vaatimuksia avoimemmasta ja läpinäkyvämmästä Euroopan unionista. Päinvastoin, komission esitystä on laajasti kritisoitu askeleeksi taaksepäin. On valitettavaa, että parlamentti, neuvosto ja komissio eivät ole päässeet EU:n asiakirjojen avoimuusasetuksen päivittämisestä viimeisen viiden vuoden aikana sopuun. Nyt olisi jo korkea aika panna täytäntöön ainakin komission tekninen esitys maaliskuulta 2011.

Avoimuus on yksi demokratian perusedellytys. Kansalaisilla on oikeus saada tietoa ja vaikuttaa, samoin meillä päättäjillä. Tietoa onkin tänä päivänä paljon tarjolla, kiitos uusien teknologioiden ja sosiaalisen median. Kehitys menee hurjaa vauhtia eteenpäin, mutta EU ei tunnu pysyvän sen perässä. Haluaisin kysyä miksi? Mitä salattavaa EU-instituutioilla kansalaisiltaan oikein on? Miksi komissio ja neuvosto eivät halua julkistaa esimerkiksi oikeudellisten yksikköjen lausuntoja? Niissä otetaan kantaa tärkeisiin periaatteellisiin kysymyksiin, kuten kuuluuko tietty asia EU:n vai jäsenvaltioiden vallan piiriin. Myös tuomioistuin on todennut, että nämä lausunnot on julkistettava, jos ne koskevat lainsäädäntöasiakirjaa. Päätelmissään se toteaa, että ”avoimuus ... myötävaikuttaa toimielinten suurempaan legitimiteettiin suhteessa kansalaisiin ja lisää kansalaisten luottamusta”. Voiko asian enää paremmin ilmaista? Kuulisin mielelläni komission ja neuvoston vastaukset näihin kysymyksiin.