Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-16-Speech-4-021"

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	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20001116.2.4-021"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-11-16-Speech-4-0222
lpv:speaker	lp:Charlotte Cederschiöld2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2002-03-07)3 member; Temporary committee on the Echelon interception system (2000-07-06--2001-09-05)3 member; Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with the United States (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Moderata samlingspartiet (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, the Cashman report can be summarised in four words: citizens' power over bureaucracy. The general public's right of access to the EU institutions' documents is one of the mainstays in the establishment of an open and democratic EU. Access to information also stimulates increased efficiency. This is a significant step towards a more open and more democratic EU. It is gratifying that Parliament has succeeded in producing a large majority in favour of more openness. I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Cashman and also Mrs Maij-Weggen for an excellent collaboration, which has in fact created a good basis for the continued negotiations. There are no block exemptions relating to foreign affairs or security, and neither must there be any block exemptions in these areas in the future. The principle of access to documents must of course include all the institutions and bodies of the EU. It is therefore extremely important that we keep a record, a register, so that citizens have a reasonable chance of seeing what documents exist. Public access to documents must be all-embracing and the main and basic principle, but it must naturally be supplemented with certain well-defined exceptions. Citizens must of course be protected. The Commission suggested 16 exceptions, which we felt was far too many. We have therefore reduced them to six. Justification for a document being classified as confidential must be required in each individual case. Furthermore, confidentiality may not be assigned permanently. As soon as confidentiality is no longer justified, the document must naturally be made publicly accessible. There may, of course, be negotiation strategies whereby a document may need to be kept secret before a meeting, but once decisions have been taken there may no longer be a need to maintain confidentiality. The document should then be made available. In addition, it must be possible to appeal against all decisions relating to confidentiality. It must be possible to appeal to the European Court of Justice, the Ombudsman or the relevant EU authority, and Parliament must always be able to question the grounds for confidentiality. Another important principle, which has been one of my hobbyhorses since the debate on openness began, is that, as far as possible, documents must be made available in electronic form on the Internet. This is something that Parliament has supported and will probably also emphasise again today, which is important. I regard this as a very good example of Swedish and Nordic influence on the system of the EU."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph