Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-16-Speech-4-029"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-11-16"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Public access to documents of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20001116.2.4-029"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-11-16-Speech-4-0302
lpv:speaker	lp:Daniela Raschhofer2
lpv:spokenAs	member; NA (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with Switzerland, Iceland and Norway (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, transparency ensures greater participation by the citizens in the decision-making process together with greater legitimacy, efficiency and responsibility on the part of the administration in a democratic system. It is essential and fundamental to the system for the citizens to have the broadest possible access to the EU's documents. In principle this regulation is positive, especially the clarification that it covers all areas of activity and all the institutions of the Union. But one serious cause for regret remains. If it is applied extensively, the list of exceptions in Article 4 could totally destroy the object of this regulation. The regulation is marked by imprecision, which will produce legal uncertainty for the citizens. I consider it extremely questionable to deny access to documents where – and I quote from Article 4 – disclosure could undermine "the effective functioning of the institutions". That provision could open the door wide to arbitrariness. The concept of the "effective functioning of the institutions" is vague and inconsistent with the case law of the European Court of Justice. According to that court, the decision on whether to grant access to a document must take account of the relative interests of the institutions, the confidentiality of the document and the interest of the applicant. The argument that it could undermine the effective functioning of the institutions is not sufficient grounds for the denial of access to documents. This provision must be deleted or at least supplemented by the obligation to weigh up the various interests. The purpose of this regulation is to optimise access to documents while adhering as far as possible to the principle of openness. The proposed regulation can only achieve that aim if the list of exceptions in Article 4 is toned down, to say the least."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph