Stenograma dezbaterilor

Joi, 10 martie 2022 - Strasbourg

3. Transparență și standarde administrative - tratarea cererilor de acces public pe baza Regulamentului (CE) Nr. 1049/2001 (dezbatere)

  Sēdes vadītājs. – Nākamais darba kārtības jautājums: Komisijas paziņojums — Pārredzamība un administratīvie standarti — pamatojoties uz Regulu (EK) Nr. 1049/2001 iesniegtu publiskas piekļuves pieprasījumu apstrāde (2022/0578(RSP)).

Vēlos atgādināt deputātiem, ka nevienās šīs sesijas debatēs nebūs brīvā mikrofona procedūras un netiks pieņemtas zilās kartītes.

Turklāt tāpat kā nesenajās sesijās ir paredzēts organizēt attālinātas uzstāšanās no Parlamenta vietējiem birojiem dalībvalstīs.

Vēlos arī atgādināt, ka sēžu zālē arī turpmāk būs jāuzstājas no centrālās tribīnes. Tāpēc aicinu jūs sekot līdzi runātāju sarakstam un doties pie centrālās tribīnes, kad tuvojas jūsu uzstāšanās laiks.

  Věra Jourová, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, thank you for the possibility to speak on transparency and administrative standards. As you know, transparency is one of the underlying principles of this Commission.

The transparency obligation embraces several areas. One is public access to documents, but there is also legislative transparency and transparency of relations of the Commissioners, members of Cabinets and Directors General with interest representatives. The interinstitutional agreement on a mandatory transparency register ensures greater transparency of the relations of institutions with interest representatives. The Commission proactively publishes a wide variety of legal, policy, administrative and other documents on different websites and registers. Many are available on the register of Commission documents, the register of delegated and implementing acts, and other corporate registers on EUR—Lex.

Last year, the Commission released a new version of the register of Commission documents featuring additional search functionalities, an improved user interface and the proactive publication of new document types. In the second phase of this project, the Commission will integrate the register of Commission documents with other Commission registers, thus gradually transforming it into a single entry point for Commission documents. The regulation concerning public access to documents lays down the general principles and limits to the right to public access to documents, and provides the means of redress available against the final decision of the institution, a complaint to the European Ombudsman or an action before the Court.

I would like to draw your attention to the two legislative proposals for recast of this regulation tabled by the Commission and which have been pending for a long period. The Commission does not see, for the moment, a willingness on the part of the co-legislators to engage in a revision process on the basis of these proposals, and we remain fully ready to support further legislative and political discussions. If there is no prospect for any further progress on these files, the Commission is also ready to propose their withdrawal again and come with a new, updated and holistic proposal adapted to the developing realities of the 21st century, also considering the case law and the Ombudsman’s recommendations.

In the meantime, the Commission is regularly analysing its administrative practice. For example, currently we are working to develop a new portal and new IT tools. With this new portal and IT systems for submitting and handling requests for access to Commission documents – Electronic Access to European Commission Documents, that’s the name of the system – citizens will be able to submit their initial and confirmatory requests, see their ongoing and closed requests, receive replies electronically with no need for notification, search for documents disclosed to other applicants, manage their personal data, and so on. The system is expected to go live by mid—2022 – so, very soon.

The statistical data for access to documents show a high level of transparency, as full or partial access is granted to a vast majority of the requested documents. The Commission receives a high number of requests for access to documents. Concretely, 8 001 initial and 309 confirmatory applications were received in 2020, more than for any other institution. Transparency is thus part of the daily business of all Commission departments.

The statistics from 2020 show that requests for documents by citizens were fully or partially granted in 81% of the initial cases. Wider, or even full, access was further granted in more than 37% of the cases reviewed at the confirmatory stage. This proves that the Commission takes transparency very seriously.

The preliminary data from 2021 that will be presented in the forthcoming Commission Annual Report on Public Access to Documents confirm this positive trend, as well as the high interest on the part of the general public to obtain access to documents held by the Commission in the areas related to the pandemic and the Recovery and Resilience programmes. This data shows the commitment of the Commission to the right of access to documents as part of its overall transparency policy, including in the unprecedented pandemic situation. With regard to the transparency of the purchase of the vaccines against COVID—19, the Commission proactively published the advance purchase agreements with pharmaceutical companies. We are also preparing a response to the European Ombudsman recommendation on the European Commission’s refusal to grant public access to the text messages exchanged between the Commission President and the CEO of a pharmaceutical company on the purchase of a COVID—19 vaccine. The Commission will provide a response by the deadline of 26 April 2022.

  Tomislav Sokol, u ime kluba PPE. – Poštovani predsjedavajući, povjerenice, kolegice i kolege, transparentnost demokratskog sustava od ključnog je značaja jer omogućuje građanima sudjelovanje u donošenju odluka. Transparentnost čini okosnicu svih europskih politika, a među njezinim najvažnijim elementima je pravo građana da zatraže i dobiju pristup dokumentima kojima raspolažu europske institucije.

U načelu, svi dokumenti institucija trebali bi biti dostupni javnosti. No s druge strane, s određenim dokumentima bi zbog njihova veoma osjetljivog sadržaja trebalo postupati na poseban način. U tom kontekstu, određene javne i privatne interese treba posebno zaštititi putem izuzeća, što je i predviđeno u sklopu Uredbe o javnom pristupu dokumentima institucija EU-a.

Institucije imaju pravo, kad je to potrebno, zaštititi svoja savjetovanja i konzultacije da bi osigurale provođenje svojih zadaća. Trenutni pravni okvir Uredbe o javnom pristupu dokumentima institucija je generalno zadovoljavajući, ali moramo se dodatno pobrinuti da se odluke donose na što otvoreniji način i na razini što je moguće bližoj građanima.

Otvorenost omogućuje da građani još aktivnije sudjeluju u procesu odlučivanja i jamči da administracija uzima veću legitimnost te da je učinkovitija i odgovornija prema građanima EU-a. U tom smislu mislim da treba pohvaliti Komisiju generalno za transparentnost nakon svih ovih brojki koje smo čuli danas.

Naravno, kad je riječ o transparentnosti, puno se govorilo o zajedničkoj nabavi cjepiva. Istaknuo bih da se tim postupkom ubrzao proces razvoja i dostupnosti cjepiva, a Unija je ostvarila bolji pregovarački položaj te smo dobili više cjepiva pod boljim uvjetima i za bolju cijenu. Također, zajedničkom nabavom izbjegnuto je nadmetanje među državama članicama čime je manjim i slabije razvijenim državama omogućen jednak pristup cjepivu i mislim da se doista taj cijeli postupak može okarakterizirati kao uspjeh.

Naravno, u slučaju bilo kakvih nejasnoća i sumnji - sve što postoji treba razjasniti, ali bez dovođenja u pitanje cijelog postupka i ja doista željno iščekujem da Komisija pruži odgovor na ove dileme vezane uz SMEs-ove.

Na kraju, istaknuo bih da je Europska unija na čelu s Komisijom napravila ono najvažnije: uspješno odgovorila na ovu pandemiju. Osiguran je jednak pristup cjepivu svim europskim građanima te je time poslana snažna poruka zajedništva i solidarnosti na razini Europe.

  Evin Incir, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, at the heart of democracy lies transparency, because without transparency, there is no accountability. Let me quote the President of the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, herself, back in 2019: ‘If Europeans are to have faith in our Union, its institutions should be open and beyond reproach on ethics, transparency and integrity’. Yet in 2020, the words seem to still be just words, because if the true will would have been there, we wouldn’t have needed to call for a debate to demand access to what should have been an obvious thing to do. Be open with the Commission President’s conversation with Pfizer’s Chief Executive, regardless of if they are done via text message, email, letter or even pigeons.

The Commission President could have transformed her words from 2019 into actions in 2020 in order to pave the way for all our Union’s institutions and constituted a role model for the Member States, but instead, she chose the opposite.

Being an advocate for rule of law and democracy means understanding the importance of public access to documents. This is because in a functioning democracy, the public power requires the trust of the people. Public access enables the citizens to exercise control over the administration. Public access allows for civil society and journalists to exercise their fully-fledged scrutiny over society and its functions.

By allowing transparency, we build citizens’ trust and confidence, and we combat undemocratic ideas and powers. There is a clear link between a high degree of transparency and a low level of corruption. This is because transparency allows us to detect corrupt practices and prevent it.

Public access to information means preventing corruption and creating trust. To achieve trust is truly a challenge for a Union with approximately 450 million citizens in 27 Member States. This is important and something we must be mindful of because transparency is only resisted when governments see it as a threat and transparency is only a threat when we have something to hide.

The Lisbon Treaty clearly demands more transparency in the EU, and especially so in legislative procedures. Transparency is what citizens have the right to demand and what the EU has a duty to deliver.

The time is now to update the Union’s legislation on access to documents. The current legislation is two decades old and needs a thorough makeover to provide our citizens with their fundamental rights.

  Sophia in ‘t Veld, on behalf of the Renew Group. – Mr President, transparency is essential for accountability, and accountability is the cornerstone of democracy.

Now, the Commission pledges allegiance to transparency and indeed we have laws in place, but we all know that the practice is an entirely different one. And I happen to be a veteran of access to document requests, and I can tell you the Commission and the Council are actually not practicing a culture of transparency. They go out of their way to avoid transparency.

And it’s not only the Commission and the Council. If you look at Frontex, which is not only refusing access to documents but then making applicants pay for expensive external lawyers that they’ve hired. And then we also see that the European Council is taking over more and more of the legislative work of the Council so that a growing chunk of decision—making is moving back into the black box.

Now, let’s get to the case at hand here. The European Commission has its own wrong interpretation of the transparency regulation, and this is not me considering that, this is considered maladministration by the European Ombudsman, and the European Ombudsman knows a thing or two about transparency. Yesterday, a Dutch newspaper called Follow the Money disclosed internal papers from the Commission Legal Service and other services that show that the Legal Service had already warned against the Commission interpretation of the transparency regulation, saying that the definitions were insufficiently precise. So the Commission knew, but it chose to ignore those warnings. If we cannot trust the guardian of the treaties to be open to scrutiny, if the guardian of the treaties is deliberately, knowingly misinterpreting the transparency rules, how can we trust them?

There’s been the case of the text messages exchanged between President von der Leyen and Mr Bourla. And I think it is high time that President von der Leyen confirms if they have been deleted, yes or no. And to those who start to hyperventilate about the confidentiality of commercial negotiations, you should know the Transparency Regulation, OK? I recommend everybody reads it because the fact that those messages are considered a document officially, doesn’t mean that they will automatically have to be published, but they must be open to requests for access.

If the President doesn’t feel that she is accountable to the public and to this House, I would like to know how we can trust the Commission to manage the spending of EUR 450 million on weapons in the near future. I’m all in favour of the military support to Ukraine, but I also think that strict scrutiny is in order. President von der Leyen also happens to have a past as Defence Minister, where she ran into the same trouble with an exchange of messages that she deleted, so she should have known better.

Incidentally, I think President von der Leyen should have been here. There seems to be a pattern of avoiding debates where awkward questions may be asked. I think that is a contempt for democracy, it’s a contempt for Parliament.

But one last remark. We should do also more as a Parliament. We cannot outsource parliamentary scrutiny to the European Court of Justice or to the Ombudsman or the Court of Auditors. We have to hold the Commission to account.

  Daniel Freund, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Sehr geehrte Frau Kommissarin Jourová, ich sehe, Sie haben Ihr Handy griffbereit und wahrscheinlich heute schon Dutzende Nachrichten geschrieben. Wie bei uns allen ist das Handy 24 Stunden mit dabei. Ich hoffe, es ist auch bei der Kommissionspräsidentin 24 Stunden am Tag griffbereit, denn schließlich muss sie ja erreichbar sein.

Wie wir alle hier im Haus, jeder Einzelne von uns, nutzt die Kommissionspräsidentin ihr Handy, um ihr Team zu kontaktieren, wichtige Gedanken auszutauschen, um Politik zu machen. Und wir wissen ja schon, dass sie es auch benutzt hat, um den Kauf von Impfstoffen für 450 Millionen Europäerinnen und Europäer zu organisieren und damit deren Leben zu verbessern.

Das, was auf dem Telefon von Frau von der Leyen passiert, ist Politik, und gleichzeitig behauptet jetzt der Juristische Dienst der Kommission, dass Kurznachrichten „prinzipiell keine wichtigen Informationen über die Politik, die Aktivitäten oder Entscheidungen der Kommission“ enthalten. Dann kann ich also nur davon ausgehen, dass das Handy ausschließlich für Candy Crush benutzt wird.

Ich glaube das nicht. Der Zugang zu Dokumenten ist eines der zentralen Grundrechte jedes demokratischen Systems. Es kann nicht sein, dass Journalistinnen und Journalisten fadenscheinige Begründungen bekommen und abgewimmelt werden. Es kann nicht sein, dass die Kommission selbst die Empfehlung der Bürgerbeauftragten ignoriert. Und es kann nicht sein, dass der Zugang zu zentralen Dokumenten schon wieder dadurch verhindert wird, dass Ursula von der Leyen SMS löscht.

Lassen Sie uns endlich Transparenz schaffen darüber, was auf den Telefonen der Kommissare passiert.

  Alessandro Panza, a nome del gruppo ID. – Signor Presidente, signora Commissaria, signora Presidente della Commissione europea, onorevoli colleghi, la trasparenza per chi ricopre un ruolo istituzionale di così alto livello non solo è un dovere amministrativo e soprattutto etico, ma anche la garanzia del proprio buon operato, che può essere così sgombro da illazioni, dubbi o fraintendimenti. Se poi l'oggetto di questa scarsa trasparenza fosse la più grossa crisi che l'Europa e le sue istituzioni si sono trovate ad affrontare, la chiarezza diventa un imperativo irrinunciabile. Forse è proprio questo lo spirito con cui il Mediatore europeo che, interpellata sull'accesso al testo di alcuni SMS che lei avrebbe scambiato con il CEO di Pfizer, ha ribadito, cito: "l'accesso ai documenti UE è un diritto fondamentale".

Purtroppo dall'inizio dell'emergenza Covid ci sono stati diversi momenti in cui la Commissione ha mancato di trasparenza e ogni volta che ciò accade la sua credibilità viene incrinata. Pensiamo a quando si scoprì per caso, grazie a Wikileaks, che la Commissione finanziava il laboratorio di Wuhan e solo grazie a un'interrogazione del nostro gruppo la stessa Commissione ha dovuto ammettere che quel laboratorio non era ottemperante alla documentazione richiesta, oppure quando quest'Aula ha chiesto fortemente di poter vedere i contratti di acquisto dei vaccini anti-Covid con le principali case farmaceutiche mondiali, salvo poi vedersi consegnare dei documenti in larga parte censurati.

Presidente, noi siamo convinti della sua buona fede nell'affrontare una crisi politica e sociale mai vista e che ha richiesto uno sforzo politico incredibile, ma non possiamo lasciare spazio a dubbi, ed è per questo che la questione dei cosiddetti SMS non è solo per sapere se ci sono o cosa contengono, ma devono essere lo strumento per dimostrare che la Commissione è al di sopra di ogni sospetto, affinché nessuno possa speculare, travisare sulla mancanza di trasparenza oppure, peggio, pensare che qualcuno anteponga gli interessi commerciali, magari con la Cina, agli interessi dei cittadini europei.

Signora Presidente, lo dobbiamo alle vittime del Covid, lo dobbiamo alle famiglie che hanno subito e stanno subendo le conseguenze sanitarie ed economiche della pandemia, lo dobbiamo a tutti i cittadini europei.

Concludo, Presidente: si dice sempre che questa è la casa dei cittadini europei, ebbene, allora che sia una casa di vetro e inondata di luce, dove non ci sia mai spazio per nessuna ombra.

  Marc Botenga, au nom du groupe The Left. – Monsieur le Président, nous avons tous entendu la médiatrice parler de mauvaise gouvernance. Et nous avons découvert autre chose: non seulement pendant les négociations entre «Big Pharma», Pfizer et la Commission européenne, la présidente de la Commission européenne envoyait des petits SMS au PDG de Pfizer, mais en plus, plus elle envoyait des SMS, plus le prix augmentait. En effet, on paye maintenant plus cher la troisième dose que la première dose. Ça, c’est quand même louche. Vous envoyez des SMS pendant les négociations et le prix augmente. L’objectif devrait quand même être le contraire.

On s’est donc demandé est-ce que, potentiellement, la Commission européenne n’était pas en train de nous arnaquer, est-ce qu’elle n’était pas en train d’organiser un hold-up sur la sécurité sociale en filant ses sous à des amis de Big Pharma, de Pfizer, etc. Des citoyens se sont alors souvenus – effectivement, cela a été dit –, de ce règlement qui permet de demander l’accès public aux documents (c’est-à-dire que chacun des citoyens que vous êtes censés représenter peut demander l’accès à des documents, quel qu’en soit le support, qu’ils soient sur papier ou stockés sous forme électronique), et c’est ce que des citoyens ont fait. Et vous, vous avez répondu. Et vous avez répondu quoi? Non, désolé, on a effacé peut-être, parce que cet accès du public ne vaut pas pour des messages qui sont éphémères ou de courte durée.

Je le concède, c’est bien trouvé. C’est cyniquement brillant: en effaçant une information, elle devient éphémère, et puisqu’elle est éphémère, vous avez le droit de l’effacer. Écoutez, c’est bien trouvé. C’est, quelque part, une master class de mauvaise foi que vous avez donnée. Nous ne saurons probablement jamais ce qu’il y a dedans. Nous devons revoir les règles, bien sûr, mais les meilleures règles ne servent à rien si vous n’avez pas l’intention de les appliquer, d’en respecter l’âme et la finalité.

En fait, ce que vous dites aux gens – et je trouve que c’est grave –, c’est qu’on ne peut peut-être pas vous faire confiance et que les institutions européennes vont finalement trouver l’entourloupe pour éviter toute transparence. Et ça, ça va se payer cash.

  Ivan Vilibor Sinčić (NI). – Mr President, transparency and public access to documents is at a low level in Europe. The Corona crisis, unfortunately, showed us that very clearly. It failed with regard to the purchase agreements for COVID vaccines.

Why cannot we, as MEPs, have access to the purchase agreements? First, it was in a committee: we in the ENVI Committee had a chance to see the agreements but were not allowed to scan, copy, take a photo or tell anybody about it. This is ridiculous and was a humiliation of Members of the European Parliament.

Then it was really published, but it was published in a redacted version, leaving everything important covered in black ink. At the end there were text messages between the CEO of Pfizer and the President of the Commission, and even the European Ombudsman had to take action on this.

One could get the impression, from the media, that they are more in a friendly relationship than in a professional one. Instead of being a role model, the Commission is clearly mocking the citizens.

  Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Pane předsedající, dámy a pánové, dovolte mi několik slov k tomuto tématu. Od obecné debaty o transparentnosti dokumentů Evropské komise jsme přešli ke konkrétní kauze. Já chci nejprve poděkovat paní místopředsedkyni za úvod, kdy jasně popsala snahu Komise o to, aby některé procesy byly transparentní, zavedení a posílení veřejného portálu atd. Ale to téma nakonec stejně sklouzlo k dojednávání smluv o vakcínách proti COVID-19 a o případných SMS zprávách zástupce Komise s výrobci. Za mě to není tak o transparentnosti tento problém, ale vůbec o politické kultuře. Já si myslím, že debata nemá být o tom, jestli SMS zprávy vysokého politika, který dojednává kontrakt s nějakým výrobcem, mají či nemají být veřejné. Já si myslím, že takové SMS zprávy vůbec nemají být, pokud tedy byly. Takové kontrakty se mají dojednávat transparentně v jasných dokumentech při oficiálních jednáních a ne skrze nějaké SMS zprávy.

Osobně si nemyslím, že je nutné uvažovat o nějaké změně právní úpravy, to nařízení z roku 2001 i s vymezením výjimek je podle mě dostatečné. Otázka je opět v aplikaci. Já si myslím, že pokud jsou výjimky z transparentnosti, pak je Komise má vykládat restriktivně, nikoliv extenzivně. V tom vidím možná ten rozdílný přístup. Vedle kauzy, která zde byla zmiňována, mě jako zástupce České republiky se týká kauza našeho bývalého premiéra, kde probíhal audit, který právě nebyl zveřejněn s odkazem na tyto výjimky, byť část odborníků si myslela, že ten audit má být právě ve veřejném zájmu zveřejněn. Takže opět je zde otázka oné restrikce výkladu výjimek. Myslím si, že v kauze českého premiéra právě byl extenzivní výklad výjimek a že to zkrátka nebylo správně využito. Říkám to takhle obecně, nechci z toho dělat politiku, ale bavíme se o tom, jak je v praxi nařízení z roku 2001 aplikováno.

  Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D). – Voorzitter, commissaris, laat me eerst zeggen dat het halverwege dit debat duidelijk mag zijn dat een grote meerderheid in het Parlement de interpretatie van de Commissie over de toepassing van de transparantie niet volgt, dat we er op een heel andere manier naar kijken en dat het duidelijk moet zijn dat we daar verandering in willen zien. En ik wil de case die voor ons ligt toch nog even duiden, omdat die heel erg goed aantoont waar het hier over gaat.

We weten – in de pandemie – dat er voor de Commissie geen bevoegdheid is op het gebied van publieke gezondheid, en tóch heeft zij gehandeld. En dat heeft de volle steun van dit Parlement gekregen. Als zij niet had opgetreden rond de vaccinaankopen, dan hadden we vaccinongelijkheid binnen de Europese Unie gezien, en dat zou bijzonder slecht geweest zijn.

Het nadeel van het feit dat we die bevoegdheid niet hebben, is dat er te weinig parlementaire controle geweest is op het onderhandelen van die contracten. En dan – en dat maakt het extra pijnlijk – is er iets gebeurd, met name dat het beleid verpersoonlijkt is. Er waren heel erg veel persoonlijke contacten, onder meer met Commissievoorzitter Von der Leyen en de CEO van Pfizer.

En ik heb al heel lang een heel ongemakkelijk gevoel, want we hebben dan wel geen vaccinongelijkheid gehad binnen de Europese Unie, maar we hebben immens grote vaccinongelijkheid in de wereld gehad. En de Pfizers van Europa en de grote big pharma, ook in de Verenigde Staten, hebben zich echt achter die brede rug van de Europese Commissie kunnen verschuilen in de patentendiscussie. Ik heb het ongemakkelijke gevoel dat er daar dingen beloofd zijn die de buitenwereld niet mag weten. Maar misschien vergis ik mij. Misschien vergis ik mij, en daarom is het zo ontzettend belangrijk dat alle documenten, inclusief het sms-verkeer, worden blootgegeven.

En u weet, deze week is er ook een speciale commissie goedgekeurd om te evalueren wat er tijdens het coronabeleid gebeurd is: de goede dingen, de minder goede dingen. En we gaan – ik beloof u dat – als Parlement tot op de bodem van dit verhaal. Wat is er daar afgesproken tijdens die onderhandeling?

  Tilly Metz (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, voilà plus de 20 ans que le règlement sur la transparence est entré en vigueur. Deux décennies plus tard, la pratique de garantir l’accès du public à des documents est désormais, certes, a priori établie, mais ce règlement doit être révisé et adapté à la réalité d’aujourd’hui, où la communication se fait à travers des canaux multiples, sans nécessairement laisser de trace.

Ainsi, il convient de responsabiliser l’administration européenne en ce qui concerne ces nouveaux supports, afin de garantir des pratiques et des procédures transparentes, élément clé de la démocratie. Ce règlement doit s’appliquer sans exception à tous les organes de l’Union européenne. Aussi aura-t-on besoin d’une nouvelle définition, beaucoup plus large, de ce qu’est un «document», pour s’adapter à l’air du temps.

Il s’agit ici d’une question de gouvernance et de confiance, surtout quand l’argent du contribuable est en jeu. Et cette pratique ne doit pas être négligée en temps de crise, lorsque la Commission signe des contrats avec des entreprises pharmaceutiques où l’intérêt supérieur des citoyens et des citoyennes doit prévaloir sur des intérêts purement commerciaux.

  Virginie Joron (ID). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, Madame la Présidente de la Commission, je regrette tout d’abord l’absence de la présidente von der Leyen. Mais je suis heureuse de pouvoir vous transmettre, de la part de mes concitoyens français, des questions autour de la transparence, ou plutôt de l’opacité, qui entoure vos actions.

La COVID-19 a créé un univers hors droits sous couvert d’urgence. La transparence, surtout quand on touche à la santé de nos enfants, c’est fondamental. Et jusqu’à présent, on ne peut pas dire que cela soit la vertu de la Commission. Des milliards d’euros pour des milliards de doses de vaccins commandées aux «Big Pharma» alors qu’ils sont encore au stade de l’étude clinique et que leur efficacité est remise en question. Le scandale de l’achat du médicament remdesivir – que je n’oublie pas – par votre Commission, aurait pourtant dû vous alerter. Un milliard d’euros pour le laboratoire Gilead, pour 500 000 doses de ce traitement, alors qu’en même temps des résultats négatifs étaient publiés pour celui-ci. Dans votre stratégie de vaccination mondiale, vous avez envoyé des vaccins AstraZeneca rejetés ou périmés, dont des milliers de doses ont dû être détruites par le Nigeria.

Ferez-vous toute la lumière sur ces échecs? Pourquoi des pages entières de ces contrats d’achat de vaccins sont-elles cachées? Ces clauses grisées portent notamment sur l’absence de responsabilité des labos en cas d’effets secondaires indésirables. Pourquoi de telles clauses d’irresponsabilité? Pourquoi avoir caché le prix des doses? Qui va payer les effets secondaires indésirables? Pourquoi la Commission européenne s’entête à ne pas transmettre au médiateur européen les échanges de SMS entre le PDG de Pfizer et la présidente de la Commission européenne?

À Mme la présidente von der Leyen, qui est absente: ne demandez pas aujourd’hui aux États membres de réfléchir à une obligation vaccinale, quand on est incapable de répondre à toutes ces questions.

  Miapetra Kumpula-Natri (S&D). – Mr President, we are discussing today a very important topic that concerns a very fundamental general principle of the EU institutions, namely transparency.

Trust between citizens and the institutions depends on transparency and how it’s practiced. It is central that all institutions function in a transparent manner, according to the regulation that embodies the rules on public access to the documents of the institutions. That ruling is called Regulation (EC) 1049/2001.

Of course, means of communications have changed since then. There is an urgent call to look if that is still unclear, and I think the strong message from the Ombudsman, who accused the Commission of maladministration, is a need to change the situation. So, important content can be a text message and can be something else.

But of course, in real life, there are situations when information cannot be disclosed, but even then, these situations need to be well justified and based on EU law, not wrong predictions.

  Eleonora Evi (Verts/ALE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, quando si parla di soldi pubblici la trasparenza è un dovere, eppure siamo nel 2022 e abbiamo un regolamento vecchio di vent'anni, a causa soprattutto del blocco opposto dai governi europei in Consiglio, e ancora in UE persistono casi di grave mancanza di trasparenza.

Io parlo del progetto ferroviario ad alta velocità Torino-Lione e degli 813 milioni di euro di soldi pubblici per finanziarlo. CINEA, che è l'agenzia incaricata, continua a negare l'accesso alle informazioni sul finanziamento, richiamando l'eccezione prevista dal regolamento sulla sicurezza pubblica, senza dare però valide motivazioni. Oltre al danno quindi la beffa, perché oltre al devastante impatto ambientale di un progetto scellerato, ai cittadini viene negato il legittimo diritto a verificare che i beneficiari dei soldi pubblici li impieghino rispettando gli obblighi previsti.

Io, quindi, chiedo alla Commissione di far luce su questa inaccettabile situazione, perché il diritto all'accesso ai documenti costituisce uno dei pilastri fondanti dell'assetto democratico della nostra società.

(Debates tika pārtrauktas.)