International

Negotiations on the European law governing access to documents at EU institutions – a European Freedom of Information Act - are fully under way. The European Parliament is fighting a lonely battle in regard to these negotiations. Neither the European Commission, nor the member states, which are directly represented in the Council, are willing to reveal too much. You might have expected a different attitude, at least from the Commission, which spends millions on giving out ‘information’. But it is clearly not their intention to aid the critical member of the public. The SP takes people seriously. We don’t see them as a target group whom we must ‘inform’, but as individuals who have the right to honest and comprehensive information. That’s what we will continue to fight for in the EP.

Things can develop in odd ways. In 2001 a directive was adopted which extended numerous rights to people who were looking for specific information from the European institutions. This law was then strengthened somewhat via European Court of Justice (ECJ) precedents, which consistently took the side of those seeking information. The Treaty of Lisbon contains many fine words about ‘transparency’: the EU agencies would from then on have to exhibit openness over their affairs, as would the European Investment Bank (EIB). No small thing, as these were the very organisations which were used to operating in secrecy. Instead of following this trend, however, the Commission then came out with a legislative proposal which would reduce the citizens’ rights of access. So you can forget all of those PR stories about the ‘open’ European Union. The Commission would rather there weren’t any prying eyes. The member states in the meantime have let it be known that they are even more reticent than the Commission. And so the European Parliament is the only institution which is fighting for real progress in this matter.

Openness is essential for the European Union. The more that remains hidden, the greater the power of the corporate lobby and the greater the space for bureaucrats to skulk behind the ‘confidentiality’ of their work. Yet the European Commission stubbornly refuses to recognise the value of openness. This makes you think, because if you’ve nothing to hide, why should you be bothered about being asked for information by the public? If the Commission instead exhibited the same fears in relation to the gulf between the people and ‘Brussels’, and were to ask itself why all of its information campaigns have achieved so little, then it might adopt for once a more constructive attitude and give out information to the public and to journalists in a more generous spirit and on demand. As long as it refuses to do so, it should not be astonished that many concerned citizens continue to see Brussels as an impregnable fortress away from which in the end they turn. A consolation is that in the EP there is a big majority in favour of openness. If the Commission and Council don’t come round to our way of thinking, we have already agreed that the EP will simply reject the Commission’s proposals and everything will remain as it is. The existing legislation and jurisprudence will then at last ensure that the public gain their rights.