Pełne sprawozdanie z obrad

Czwartek, 10 marca 2022 r. - Strasburg

5. Przejrzystość i normy administracyjne - rozpatrywanie wniosków o udzielenie publicznego dostępu na podstawie rozporządzenia (WE) nr 1049/2001 (ciąg dalszy debaty)

  Sēdes vadītājs. – Turpinām debates par Komisijas paziņojumu — Pārredzamība un administratīvie standarti — pamatojoties uz Regulu (EK) Nr. 1049/2001 iesniegtu publiskas piekļuves pieprasījumu apstrāde (2022/0578(RSP)).

  Joachim Kuhs (ID). – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, werte Kollegen! Wir reden heute über ein zentrales und wichtiges Thema: die Transparenz allen Verwaltungshandelns innerhalb der EU-Institutionen. Da finde ich es wirklich beschämend, dass Ihre Chefin, Frau von der Leyen, nicht anwesend ist.

Denn der Elefant im Raum sind nicht die Transparenzregeln, über die wir uns sicher einigen könnten. Der Elefant im Raum ist das Verhalten von Frau von der Leyen im Rahmen ihrer Pflichten bei der Impfstoffbeschaffung, und da möchte ich doch darum bitten, dass Sie ihr ausrichten, dass es wirklich nicht so gehen kann. Wir brauchen hier die absolute Transparenz über dieses Verhalten und über das, was tatsächlich passiert ist.

Denn es geht nicht nur um die Impfstoffbeschaffung. Es geht darum, was sie über die gefährlichen Impfstoffe wusste, über die Gefährlichkeit, über die Impf-Nebenwirkungen, die schon in den Versuchen bei der Erprobung von Pfizer selbst festgestellt worden sind. Es gibt dort zigtausende Impfschäden, und deshalb muss das auf den Tisch.

Hier brauchen wir absolute Transparenz, und es ist meine Bitte, dass Sie Frau von der Leyen einen Brief, den ich ihr vorhin übergeben wollte, mitgeben und ihr dann sagen, dass es mir leidtut, dass sie heute nicht hier war.

  Milan Brglez (S&D). – Gospod predsednik! Predsedujoči, hvala za besedo, spoštovana komisarka, kolegice in kolegi. Transparentnost ali preglednost je temelj evropske demokracije. Iz tega načela izhaja pravica evropskih državljank in državljanov do dostopa do dokumentov evropskih institucij, ki je utemeljena tako v Pogodbi o delovanju Evropske unije kot v listini temeljnih pravic.

Znotraj tega bi izpostavil zlasti dostop do okoljskih migracij. Ker je Evropska unija dolžna po mednarodnem pravu to zagotavljati, ker je pogodbenica Aarhuške konvencije. Tudi zaradi vojne v Ukrajini danes bistvena elementa človekove varnosti predstavljata okoljska in podnebna varnost, zato je krepitev demokratizacije in preglednosti v okoljskih zadevah tudi naš prispevek k spoštovanju človekovih pravic.

Zato močno podpiram revizijo uredbe o dostopu javnosti in s tem tudi priporočilo evropske varuhinje človekovih pravic, ker nam to predstavlja možno zapolnitev vrzeli v naši demokratični ureditvi in vladavini prava. Če se je kdaj, se je tukaj in zdaj potrebno boriti za naše vrednote znotraj in navzven. Če z njimi, bomo kot Evropska unija skupaj obstali, ali pa nas več ne bo.

  Gerolf Annemans (ID). – Voorzitter, collega’s, u zal zich herinneren hoe Hillary Clinton destijds met haar e-mailwanbeheer serieus in de problemen kwam. Wat toen als conclusie naar voren kwam, is het volgende: iedereen met grote verantwoordelijkheden – zeker politieke verantwoordelijkheden met belastinggeld – is verplicht zorgvuldig en zonder geheimdoenerij te handelen.

De Europese Commissie beseft te weinig wat voor diepgaand effect is uitgegaan van de coronacrisis op de burgers. Een van de vele als schandaal aangevoelde effecten is – naast de laattijdige en daarna nutteloze vrijheidsbeperkingen – dat de vaccincontracten eens ze openbaar werden, onleesbaar bleken te zijn gemaakt omwille van een zogenaamde geheimhoudingsplicht.

Gelukkig, door een vergissing van een Belgische staatssecretaris die de prijzen van de vaccins in een Twitterberichtje plaatste, kennen we de prijsverhoudingen tussen de vaccins. Pfizer, waarmee de voorzitster van de Commissie naar een verklaring van Pfizerbaas Bourla zelf “een diepe vertrouwensband had gecreëerd”, blijkt de op een na hoogste prijs te hebben.

Dat de persoonlijke berichtjes tussen die beiden, zoals de Commissie nu als verweer aanvoert, slechts “efemeer” van aard zijn, overtuigt natuurlijk niet. In uw hooggeplaatste bubbel en in uw elektrische limousines beseft u de woede niet van de mensen die nog het liefst van al zouden willen dat de Europese Commissie zélf efemeer, van voorbijgaande aard, zou blijken te zijn.

  Annalisa Tardino (ID). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, siamo qui oggi per un motivo semplice quanto importante: i cittadini meritano di conoscere la verità sull'ingente trattativa che pare essere avvenuta tramite uno scambio di messaggi tra la Presidente von der Leyen e l'amministratore delegato della Pfizer, relativa alla fornitura all'UE del vaccino anti-Covid.

La risposta delle istituzioni all'indomani del diffondersi del virus è stata forte nella lotta allo stesso e oggi possiamo parlare di un quasi ritorno alla normalità, nonostante siano stati commessi molti errori a tutti i livelli.

Ma una cosa è certa, l'emergenza non può giustificare zone d'ombra né il mancato rispetto delle regole. Non può nemmeno giustificare il dubbio. Il dubbio che il diniego della Commissione dinanzi alla richiesta di accesso agli atti possa nascondere altro. Siamo quindi qui per fare luce su quanto accaduto, seguendo anche le indicazioni del Mediatore europeo, che ha deciso di aprire un'indagine.

Vedete, non c'è potere senza responsabilità e non ci può essere responsabilità senza potere.

Oggi non si parla solo di uno scambio di messaggi, ma della violazione di un principio, quello della trasparenza dell'azione della Commissione. E la replica della Commissione, secondo cui questo tipo di comunicazione non sarebbe rilevante, è tanto debole quanto sospetta. Come ha ricordato il Mediatore, è il contenuto che conta e non la forma utilizzata.

Per questo chiediamo alla Commissione di rispondere del proprio operato: lo deve a noi ma lo deve in primis ai cittadini che hanno affrontato questa pandemia con sacrifici e il loro rispetto delle regole.

  Věra Jourová, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, I am sure that President von der Leyen is following this debate, but on the other hand, I think I am the right person to address it here today because I am paid to work on the transparency of the Commission. So that’s why I am glad to be here and to be allowed to listen to your debate and also to be able to answer, which I want to do now.

I agree with Ms Incir, who said that without transparency there is no accountability. I myself used this sentence so many times when we were discussing and negotiating the transparency register. And, believe me, the Commission was the one that was pushing for as strong transparency as possible because, from what I heard, it was the other two institutions that were saying how we should be more careful, not be so open, that we have to be operational, not publish documents during trilogues, and so on. So I don’t agree with Sophia in ‘t Veld when she says that the Commission is not trustworthy enough. I have been working in this institution for many years now, and I can see that there is a high level of support for the maximum possible transparency. So we will work with the Parliament and the Council to do better, because I agree with those of you who said that there is a lot of room for improvement. I will come to this because this is the debate about one case, and also systemic matters relating to the way in which we communicate and enable access to documents.

On the ad-hoc case, the text messages, I have to say that in times of crisis, indeed, when you are an executive body and you have the burden of responsibility on your shoulders, you have to be operational; you sometimes have to engage in personal communication; you have to be fast. As for the burden of responsibility, well, we can discuss it, whether we should have done what we did: we invested in vaccine research; we invested a lot in having common procurement and, as you said, the EU has very little competence in the field of health care. In spite of that, President von der Leyen took the risks and she engaged heavily, days and nights, in guaranteeing the early delivery of the vaccines to the European people, and I admire her for this work. I think that in this case, she is the role model, not the other way around. You may not see her as a role model of transparency but I see her as a role model for taking her responsibility seriously and acting quickly and in an efficient way.

As for what Mr Annemans said, that the Commission acted in an ephemeral way, well if that had been the case we would not have had the people vaccinated in Europe. So I’m sorry but I have to look at this case also in context and the real nature of the situation, and this was at the peak of the COVID-19 crisis. But this case is not closed, and I said before that we are preparing an answer to the Ombudsman with a deadline of 26 April, and we will give all of the information necessary to reply to the Ombudsman’s requests.

On the systemic side, so let’s make an agreement to increase the system, or improve the system, of access to documents in all three institutions – in the Commission, Parliament and Council. You know well that we have the legislation from 2001 and you said it here many times that the rules need to be modernised. I agree 100%. When we started in COVID times with purely online communication, not face to face, and with a lot of telephone diplomacy, I felt myself that this was a new way of communicating and was something which should be reflected also in how transparent we are. So I agree that we need to reflect in new rules that there are modern channels and modern ways of communication, and that should be our new interpretation of the exemptions which Mr Pospíšil called for. There should be a new, precise definition of what constitutes a document. I agree with all that.

So, my question to you is whether you will unblock the situation around the directives, which were prepared to update the rules from 2001, and whether we will be able to withdraw the legislation which is pending and prepare new rules. We are working on them. And if this will not be possible for all the institutions, we are determined to come with new internal rules for the Commission. And as I said many times before, I don’t want to wait because I am really convinced that we have to modernise the rules and reflect also the new technological reality.

So this is my call for cooperation with the Parliament to push things forward where they should be pushed, in the interest of higher transparency and better access to documents.

So I wanted to be concrete in my answer, also to confirm that I am aware that we should do better, and I am ready to cooperate.

  Sēdes vadītājs. – Debates ir slēgtas.