scholarly journals The Revision of Regulation 1049/2001: Public Access Deadlocked for a Decade

MaRBLe ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mehmet Aktas

Regulation 1049/2001 on access to Commission, European Parliament and Council documents was due to be revised a decade ago. The revision process started with a proposal by the Commission in 2008. However, the negative response of the European Parliament signalled what came to be deadlocked process. This chapter aims to unearth the reasons underlying this deadlock by comparing the proposal of the Commission and the resolution adopted by the European Parliament in response to it. The resulting differences in both institutions’ positions are going to be used to clarify their underlying motives for rejecting each other’s proposals. The ultimate objective of this chapter is thus to shed light on the Commission and the European Parliament’s attitudes towards transparency and the right to public access to documents within the European Union.

Author(s):  
Marios Papandreou

This chapter examines the relationship between Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) and transparency in the public sphere. The link between the two is rather easy to conceive: ICTs facilitate flow and management of information, which is crucial to achieve openness and accountability and advance public debate. In this chapter, the issue is examined in the context of the European Union (EU), from the point of view of public access to documents and the role of the European Ombudsman (EO). The author presents the applicable legislative framework and discusses the role of the EO in facilitating and promoting public access to documents, with emphasis on the EO's mandate, the procedure followed, and its possible outcomes. The last part of the chapter examines the decision of the EO on a recent case concerning public access to documents of interest to a wide public, whereby it is illustrated that ICTs, by facilitating access to documents and information, advance openness, transparency, good governance, and accountability.


2015 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 94-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Araceli Rojo Chacón

Resumen: En el contexto de la globalización, el número de procesos penales multilingües en la Unión Europea ha aumentado. Para afrontar este reto, el 20 de octubre de 2010, el Parlamento Europeo aprobó la Directiva 2010/64/UE sobre el derecho a la interpretación y traducción en los proceso penales. Agotado el plazo de transcripción, en este estudio se analizan las medidas adoptadas en España, Bélgica, Francia y Luxemburgo, centrándose en la principal novedad introducida por la Directiva: la creación de un registro de traductores e interpretes independientes. Para extraer mejores conclusiones, se compara la situación en estos cuatro países con el caso de Austria, donde los requisitos para actuar como traductor e interprete judicial fueron establecidos antes de la publicación de la Directiva. El objetivo principal de este articulo es destacar casos de buenas y malas prácticas y proponer nuevas iniciativas que puedan contribuir a mejorar la calidad de la traducción e interpretación en los procesos penales.Abstract: In a context of globalization, the number of multilingual criminal proceedings in the European Union is increasing. To deal with this challenge, on the 20th of October 2010, the European Parliament published the Directive 2010/64/UE on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings. Once the transposition deadline ended, the current study aims at analyzing the measures taken in Spain, Belgium, France and Luxemburg, focusing on the main innovation presented by the Directive: the creation of a register of independent translators and interpreters. For a better analysis, the situation in these four countries is compared to the case of Austria, where the requirements to act as judicial translator and interpreter had been established before the Directive. The main goal of the paper is to highlight cases of good and bad practices and to suggest new initiatives in order to improve the overall quality of translation and interpreting in criminal proceedings. 


2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 39-58
Author(s):  
Kim Fyhr

This paper looks at the various forms of the functioning of the Presidency of Council of the European Union in the European Parliament. This interaction stems from EU legislation and practical inter-institutional arrangements. The overarching aim is to tackle the myriad of interaction in an analytical-descriptive way and shed light on the implications of these practices. The conclusion of this paper suggests that the internal rules of the European Parliament, most notably the rules of procedure, have had an impact on power relations at the expense of the Council although there is no EU primary law legal basis for Council accountability to the European Parliament. These mainly internally driven rules of the European Parliament have contributed to the practical environment for the functioning of the rotating Presidency in the European Parliament hence triggering spillover of tasks for the Presidency. The changes in the power relations may also have repercussions on the competence dimension in the longer term.


Author(s):  
Kieran Bradley

The European Parliament is the first of the Union institutions listed in Article 13(1) TEU. As an ‘institution’, it enjoys a certain number of rights, prerogatives, and privileges, and is subject to a certain number of obligations. Thus, for example, in its decision-making, Parliament must ‘promote the Union’s values, advance its objectives, serve its interests and those of its citizens and … Member States’; it must also ‘ensure constant respect for the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality’, ‘act within the limits of the powers conferred on it in the Treaties’, and comply with any international agreements concluded by the Union. It must maintain a dialogue with civil society, conduct its work as openly as possible, grant citizens a right of access to documents it holds, and protect the personal data of individuals in its procession. Parliament may participate as of right in most types of proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and enjoys legal capacity in the Member States in respect of matters concerning its own functioning. It is also subject to the auditing authority of the Court of Auditors and the jurisdiction of the European Ombudsman as regards allegations or investigations of maladministration. More


Author(s):  
Blanca Ballester Martínez

Regulation 1049/2001 establishes and shapes the right of access to documents in the European Union. This right is limited by a series of colliding principles and rights, such as privacy of personal data, ‘ordre public’ or commercial interests. The European Court of Justice, through rulings by each one of its two Courts (the General Court and the European Court), has shaped and generally extended the scope of Regulation 1049/2001, increasing transparency in the institutions. However, there is no clear case-law trend as regards access to documents, since rulings often contradict each other and precedents are of relatively little value. Recent rulings, such as those given to the Borax and Bavarian Lager cases, seem to restrict public access to documents in the institutions by placing access to documents under other values such as privacy and data protection. This trend seems again to contradict what the Lisbon Treaty and the European Charter of Fundamental Rights have just introduced: a higher consideration of access to documents and a clear commitment with institutional transparency. This paper aims at giving a clear overview of the evolution and state of play of the right of public access to documents in the European legislation and case law. By analyzing the latest legal and jurisprudential developments, it can be concluded that law and case law do not seem to go hand in hand yet and seem to contradict each other. Immediate and further developments should be watched with a careful eye, as these will shape the post-Lisbon concept of access to documents. Consequently, essential principles such as transparency and data protection might undergo as well important changes.El Reglamento 1049/2001 consagra y configure el derecho de acceso público a documentos en la Unión Europea. Este derecho está limitado por ciertos bienes jurídicos en conflicto, como la privacidad de los datos personales, el orden público o los intereses comerciales. El Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea, a través de las sentencias emanadas de sus dos instancias, ha pulido y en general extendido el campo de aplicación del Reglamento 1049/2001, aumentando la transparencia en las instituciones. Sin embargo, no hay una línea jurisprudencial clara al respecto, dado que las sentencias a menudo se contradicen entre sí y los precedentes jurisprudenciales parecen tener escaso valor en los asuntos posteriores. Algunas sentencias recientes, como las recaídas en los asuntos Borax y Bavarian Lager, parecen por el contrario restringir el derecho de acceso a documentos, dado que hacen prevalecer otros bienes jurídicos como la privacidad o la protección de datos. Esta última tendencia parece contradecir al Tratado de Lisboa y a la Carta Europea de Derechos Fundamentales, puesto que éstos han introducido una mayor consideración al derecho de acceso a documentos con el fin de aumentar la transparencia institucional. Este artículo busca procurar una panorámica general de la evolución y el estado actual del derecho de acceso público a los documentos tanto en la legislación como en la jurisprudencia europeas. Del análisis tanto de las novedades legislativas y jurisprudenciales al respecto se deduce que ambas no parecen ir a la par, sino que llegan incluso a contradecirse. El desarrollo futuro tanto de la ley como de la jurisprudencia deberán ser objeto de estudio detallado, dado que serán determinantes en la configuración del derecho de acceso a documentos tras el Tratado de Lisboa. Como consecuencia de esto, puede que ciertos principios también fundamentales, como la transparencia o la protección de datos, sufran importantes cambios en un futuro inmediato.


2021 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 221-236
Author(s):  
Piotr Świerczyński ◽  

The institutionalization of civil society in European Union law is a mechanism created as a result of various political, historical and cultural events. Civic society is the result of a specific historical process, but nevertheless it is constantly subjected to various changes, therefore it can be said that it is constantly being created “before our eyes”. Europe of citizens, understood as a postulate to identify the citizens of the European Union with European structures, is manifested, inter alia, in the institutions of European civil society shaped by these structures. These institutions include, for example, citizenship of the European Union and the rights constituting its constituent element, such as the right to petition the European Parliament, the right to lodge a complaint to the European Ombudsman, and the European Citizens’ Initiative. Therefore, these institutions of EU law are undoubtedly a legislative attempt to implement the idea of a European civil society. The citizens of the European Union are more and more willing to use from the institutions concerned, which to some extent proves their effectiveness. However, a hindrance the ubiquitous EU bureaucracy and far-reaching formalism, which results in, inter alia, declare many complaints, petitions and initiatives inadmissible. The assessment of the institutionalization of the European civil society, based on the analysis of the intensity of use and usefulness of the above-mentioned institutions by the citizens of the European Union, is therefore rather positive, although the European Union still has a long way to go to a state that could be considered satisfactory.


2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 147-162
Author(s):  
Stefan Marek Grochalski

Parliament – an institution of a democratic state – a member of the Union – is not only an authority but also, as in the case of the European Union, the only directly and universally elected representative body of the European Union. The article presents questions related to the essence of parliament and that of a supranational parliament which are vital while dealing with the subject matter. It proves that the growth of the European Parliament’s powers was the direct reason for departing from the system of delegating representatives to the Parliament for the benefit of direct elections. It presents direct and universal elections to the European Parliament in the context of presenting legal regulations applicable in this respect. It describes a new legal category – citizenship of the European Union – primarily in terms of active and passive suffrage to the European Parliament, as a political entitlement of a citizen of the European Union.


2016 ◽  
pp. 107-122
Author(s):  
Agata Michalska-Olek

The article aims to show the possible ways of judicial redress for claims resulting from sales of goods especially including the issue of jurisdiction and application of the provisions of national law or the provisions of Community law. In the article the provisions of the Convention of 30 October 2007 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters as well as the provisions of regulations of the European Parliament and of the Council were widely discussed. The author discusses in particular the issue related to cross-border contracts for the sales-of-goods within the European Union. Part of the deliberations concerns judicial rulings, in particular judicial decisions issued in cases in which the court shall consider the issue of jurisdiction of its own motion. In the conclusion of the article it is stated that the choice between the national jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of other states will depend on the terms of agreement between the parties as well as the documents related to the transaction, in particular consignment notes (CMR), and the EXW clauses – such a formulation means that the parties agreed to the way of delivery of goods according to the commercial (Incoterms) clauses, determining in such a way the issue of jurisdiction.


Author(s):  
Panagiotis Delimatsis

Secrecy and informality rather than transparency traditionally reign trade negotiations at the bilateral, regional, and multilateral levels. Yet, transparency ranks among the most basic desiderata in the grammar of global governance and has been regarded as positively related to legitimacy. In the EU’s case, transparent trade diplomacy is quintessential for constitutional—but also for broader political—reasons. First, even if trade matters fall within the EU’s exclusive competence, the EU executive is bound by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) to inform the European Parliament, the EU co-legislator, in regular intervals. Second, transparency at an early stage is important to address public reluctance, suspicion, or even opposition regarding a particular trade deal. This chapter chronicles the quest for and turning moments relating to transparency during the EU trade negotiations with Canada (CETA); the US (TTIP), and various WTO members on services (TiSA).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document