合法博彩网站

听听President. 鈥� The next item is the debate on the Commission statement on the time the European Commission takes to deal with requests for public access to documents (.

听听Elisa Ferreira, Member of the Commission. 鈥� Mr听President, I鈥檒l be speaking on behalf of Commissioner V臅ra Jourov谩. And I鈥檒l start by thanking you for the possibility to speak about the time the European Commission takes to deal with requests for public access to documents in accordance with Regulation 1049/2001, in view of the vote on the motion for a resolution submitted by the LIBE Committee at the plenary session.

As you know, transparency is one of the objectives of the von听der听Leyen听Commission and underpins any action that the Commission undertakes. With respect to statistics and delays, the Commission provided detailed elements in response to the European Ombudsman鈥檚 strategic inquiry on this matter.

The Commission indeed receives the highest number of applications for public access to documents among all the institutions. This trend is confirmed in the latest annual report for the year 2022. The number of initial applications received by the Commission in 2022 reached 7听410. As regards confirmatory applications requesting a review by the Commission of the initial replies fully or partially refusing access, their number reached 418 in 2022, which reflects an increase of almost 17.8% in comparison with 2021.

The Commission welcomed most of the Ombudsman鈥檚 recommendations, which largely correspond to its current practices. The Commission acknowledges the importance of the timely handling of requests for access to documents. It is striving to ensure that requests are processed within statutory deadlines, and notes that most requests for access to documents are handled effectively within the deadlines provided for by Regulation听1049/2001.

In this respect, the Commission would like to reiterate that the European Ombudsman鈥檚 findings of maladministration concern the confirmatory stage of the access to documents procedure, which represents only a limited part of the total applications received by the Commission: 4% in 2021 and 5% in 2022. Moreover, the statistics confirm the strict interpretation of the exceptions by the Commission, as the requested documents are fully or partially disclosed in more than 77% of cases at the initial stage, and that wider or even full access was granted in more than half of the cases reviewed at the confirmatory stage in 2022. This data not only confirmed the openness of the Commission, but also the commitment of the institution to the right of access to documents as part of its overall transparency policy.

In any event, the Commission has taken action in this matter. Firstly, the Commission has reinforced the team in charge of confirmatory applications, which should bring tangible results in the medium term. Secondly, the Commission proactively publishes a wide variety of legal, policy, administrative and other documents on different websites and registers.

The Commission has taken additional steps in improving its systems for proactive publication and request handling, such as the updated version of the Register of Commission Documents, which became operational on 17听May 2021. Also, the EASE portal was launched in September 2022 to facilitate public access to documents and interaction with requesters. It is part of the Commission鈥檚 effort to improve its systems for proactive publication and request handling, and allows citizens to submit initial and confirmatory applications, see their ongoing and closed requests, receive replies electronically, and search for documents disclosed to other applicants. It additionally constitutes a new case management system, allowing Commission staff to handle the applications for access to documents.

Finally, the Commission duly notifies the applicants regarding the available remedies. It is noteworthy that in 2022, the European Ombudsman found instances of maladministration in only two of the 44 inspected cases. In the same vein, in 2022, the General Court handed down 26 judgments or orders in proceedings to which the Commission was a party in relation to decisions concerning access to documents, and it ordered the full or partial annulment in only three cases. This further confirms the high standards of the Commission鈥檚 implementation of Regulation 1049/2001, in all circumstances, including in the unprecedented pandemic and geopolitical situation which characterised the past years.

听听Ioan-Rare艧 Bogdan, 卯n numele grupului PPE. 鈥� Domnule pre葯edinte, Excelen葲ele Voastre, dezbaterile pro 葯i contra transparen葲ei 卯ndrept膬葲esc cet膬葲enii s膬 se 卯ntrebe 鈥� oare ce au unii de ascuns? De ce trebuie reglementat bunul sim葲? De ce avem 卯n fiecare an aceast膬 discu葲ie la nivelul Europei? Poate sunt eu idealist, dar am fost jurnalist 葯i nu unul comod, unul important 葯i dur, iar atunci c芒nd o institu葲ie ezita s膬 spun膬 cum a stabilit planul de investi葲ii sau r膬spunsul venea dup膬 c芒teva luni, intram la b膬nuieli. Este regretabil faptul c膬 卯n 85 dintre cazurile analizate de Ombudsman, Comisia nu a r膬spuns 卯n termen legal, majoritatea 卯nt芒rzierilor fiind mai mari de dou膬 luni 葯i ne mai mir膬m c膬 unii oameni, cet膬葲eni europeni, 卯葯i pierd 卯ncrederea 卯n eurosistem.

Doamnelor 葯i domnilor comisari, face葲i, v膬 rog, un pas 卯n spate 葯i privi葲i toat膬 fotografia momentului. Ve葲i constata c膬 Uniunea European膬 se afl膬 sub asediu 鈥� asediul celor care o dinamiteaz膬 din interior cu ajutor de la Moscova, iar 卯ngrijorarea privind tendin葲a de vot este real膬. Nu-i p膬cat de construc葲ia noastr膬 european膬? Avem un vecin care vrea s膬 ne dea foc la cas膬, iar noi o stropim cu benzin膬 葯i arunc膬m un trabuc? Apropo de trabuc, Winston Churchill a spus a葯a: 鈥濶u ve葲i ajunge niciodat膬 la destina葲ie dac膬 arunca葲i cu pietre 卯n fiecare c芒ine care v膬 latr膬鈥�. C芒inele de paz膬 al democra葲iei este 卯ntotdeauna, a fost, este 葯i va fi presa, presa liber膬.

Fi葲i convin葯i de buna-credin葲膬 a celor care v膬 solicit膬 anumite chestiuni 葯i vede葲i dac膬 nu cumva au dreptate. Accesul public la documente este prev膬zut 卯n tratate 葯i 卯n Carta drepturilor fundamentale. Acesta nu este un fleac. Cet膬葲eanul nu este un detaliu m膬runt. Cet膬葲eanul european pl膬te葯te impozite 葯i taxe. Cet膬葲eanul european voteaz膬 葯i uneori ne semnaleaz膬 葯i nou膬, eurodeputa葲ilor, probleme grave. Noi interpel膬m, iar r膬spunsurile vin cu mare 卯nt芒rziere 鈥� prea mare 卯nt芒rziere, iar uneori sunt f膬r膬 noim膬, lipsite de con葲inut sau r膬spund la altceva.

Doamnelor 葯i domnilor comisari, vreau s膬 v膬 spun c膬 respect 卯n mod deosebit munca pe care o desf膬葯ura葲i. V膬 cer 卯ns膬 s膬 lua葲i m膬suri urgente 葯i s膬 le dovedi葲i cet膬葲enilor europeni c膬 pot avea 卯ncredere 卯n institu葲iile europene. V膬 solicit s膬 respecta葲i dreptul stabilit prin lege, acela de a avea acces 葯i de a fi informa葲i c芒t mai repede.

听听Juan Fernando L贸pez Aguilar, en nombre del Grupo S&D. 鈥� Se帽or presidente, se帽ora comisaria, el derecho al buen gobierno, a la buena administraci贸n, a la transparencia y al acceso a los documentos son derechos fundamentales protegidos por los art铆culos 40 y 41 de la Carta. Y a煤n m谩s, resulta que hay un Reglamento 鈥攙inculante, por tanto, para los Estados miembros鈥� de 2001 que este Parlamento ha intentado actualizar en consonancia con la Carta durante a帽os y que lleva nada menos que trece a帽os bloqueado por el Consejo.

Pero, afortunadamente, tambi茅n es un derecho fundamental acceder al Defensor del Pueblo y, de manera todav铆a m谩s afortunada, resulta que tenemos una defensora del pueblo europea elegida por este Parlamento, Emily O鈥橰eilly, que ha puesto en marcha una investigaci贸n de iniciativa que pone de manifiesto que hay un retraso sist茅mico e inaceptable en el acceso a los documentos de las administraciones e instituciones europeas que debe ser corregido.

Deben proporcionarse, por tanto, los recursos necesarios y el personal necesario para corregir este inaceptable nivel de retraso sist茅mico y generalizado en el acceso a los documentos, para que se cumpla de una vez ese derecho fundamental protegido por la Carta que es el acceso a los documentos y, ojal谩, en la pr贸xima legislatura veamos desbloqueado el Reglamento relativo al acceso del p煤blico a los documentos de las instituciones europeas, para que podamos de una vez actualizar tambi茅n ese Reglamento europeo.

听听Sophia in 鈥榯 Veld, on behalf of the Renew Group. 鈥� Mr President, Madam Commissioner colleagues, I very much welcome the special report by the European Ombudsman, but it is unfortunate that it had to come to this. I don鈥檛 know about you, but I have been here for 20 years now. I鈥檓 probably one of the MEPs doing most access to documents requests, and I think never once did I get my documents on time. Never once! If you can find me one instance where I got them on time, I鈥檓 going to buy you a drink. But that says everything, apart from all the official figures.

The problem here is not just 鈥� as the European Ombudsman has flagged up 鈥� a lack of capacity, but there is a lack of political will. It is clear that the current Commission is not just disinterested, but actively reluctant to provide more transparency. But without transparency, there is no scrutiny. Without scrutiny, there are no checks on power. Without checks on power, there is no democracy. The Commission will have to do better, and this House will have to do better in holding the Commission to account. Soon there will be elections and we will get a new chance, and this should be one of our key issues.

听听Tineke Strik, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. 鈥� Mr President, Commissioner, this is an election year. How can citizens judge the performance of Commissioners in charge if their right to access to information is denied? Unjustified secrecy hampers to address corruption, violation of fundamental rights and simply hurts democratic scrutiny of the EU.

The Ombudsman鈥檚 examples of delayed access to information in its special report relate to issues that are of extremely high public concern: human rights violations at the borders; the spending of billions of euros from the Recovery Fund; COVID vaccines; sanctions against Russia. I want to ask the Commission, are you satisfied with the status quo? Are you alarmed by the Ombudsman鈥檚 findings? And most importantly, what are you going to change in order to make substantial progress on transparency in the next five years? Will you commit to: proactive transparency; disclosure of all documents unless there are real justified grounds not to do so; more staff and resources to treat applications; and preventing Commission and agencies from charging legal fees to civil society or journalists trying to access documents in the public interest?

If you are serious in bringing Europe closer to the citizens, practise what you preach.

听听Dorien Rookmaker, namens de ECR-Fractie. 鈥� Voorzitter, dank voor uw toelichting. Ik pas mijn toespraak daar een beetje op aan, want dit verslag is natuurlijk gebaseerd op cijfers uit 2021. Ik begrijp dat er al heel veel gebeurt om de situatie te verbeteren. Al neem ik ook in overweging dat mevrouw In 鈥檛 Veld, die hier al jaren rondloopt, slechte ervaringen heeft met de situatie zoals die is. De Commissie dus moet van ver komen. Ik hoop dat dit absolute prioriteit krijgt.

Waarom? Een voorbeeld: Ursula von der Leyen gaf in Davos bij het Wereld Economisch Forum al aan dat het risico op nepinformatie een van de belangrijkste risico鈥檚 is waar we tegenwoordig mee te dealen hebben. Als je nepinformatie wil tegengaan, dan moet je zorgen dat je transparantie heel goed op orde is. Want als je daar niet goed mee omgaat en mensen moeten wachten op het openbaar maken van documenten, dan krijgen mensen die nepnieuws willen verspreiden, het veel te makkelijk. Dus ik hoop, dat in ogenschouw nemend, dat dit voldoende prioriteit krijgt (de Voorzitter onderbreekt de spreker) in het verkiezingsjaar.

听听Gunnar Beck, on behalf of the ID Group. 鈥� Mr President, Max Weber 100 years ago wrote, 鈥楨very bureaucracy seeks to increase the superiority of the professionally informed by keeping their knowledge secret and by hiding its action from criticism鈥�.

One year ago, I asked the European Commission to grant me access to EIOPA鈥檚 report into the revocation of Euroins鈥檚 business licence in Romania. The Commission stated it never received the report. EIOPA eventually sent me a heavily redacted version, citing commercially sensitive information as a doubtful reason. Why did EIOPA really withhold information? Might it be the fact that Superbet, the company standing to profit from the liquidation of Romania鈥檚 last motor insurer, is chaired by the Commission President鈥檚 own brother? The Euroins Romania case is a shocking reminder of Weber鈥檚 words and of the Commission鈥檚 colonisation by private and business interests. A reminder because the proof was delivered by the Pfizer contracts three years ago.

听听Ji艡铆 Posp铆拧il (PPE). 鈥� Pane p艡edsedaj铆c铆, je sice pokro膷il谩 hodina, ale j谩 tuto debatu pova啪uji za mimo艡谩dn臎 d暖le啪itou, proto啪e to, jak org谩ny ve艡ejn茅 moci, v tomto p艡铆pad臎 Evropsk谩 komise, poskytuj铆 informace ob膷an暖m, je d暖le啪it谩 zpr谩va o tom, nakolik ve艡ejn谩 moc v听Evropsk茅 unii funguje, nakolik tedy ob膷an je partnerem org谩n暖 ve艡ejn茅 moci, v tomto p艡铆pad臎 Komise, nakolik m谩 pr谩vo z铆sk谩vat v膷as dokumenty, kter茅 po啪aduje, nebo nakolik zkr谩tka si ve艡ejn谩 spr谩va d臎l谩 trochu, co chce, a z谩konn茅 lh暖ty nerespektuje. A ob膷an, kter媒 je partnerem, se st谩v谩 t铆m, kdo 膷ek谩 a kdo se zkr谩tka nem暖啪e br谩nit. J谩 se velmi omlouv谩m, pan铆 komisa艡ko, je to velmi d暖le啪it茅 a nadm铆ru symbolick茅, to, 啪e v mnoha p艡铆padech Komise nedodr啪uje z谩konn茅 lh暖ty. A je to hlavn臎 pro m臎 naprosto nep艡ijateln茅. Je to nep艡ijateln茅, pokud 啪ijeme v demokracii, pokud 啪ijeme v pr谩vn铆m st谩t臎, kde ve艡ejn茅 org谩ny, org谩ny ve艡ejn茅 moci, tedy i Komise, poskytuj铆 slu啪bu ob膷an暖m, poskytuj铆 slu啪bu t臎m, kte艡铆 je ze sv媒ch dan铆 plat铆.

J谩 opravdu moc pros铆m, ud臎lejte v拧e pro to, aby tato zpr谩va, kterou zde projedn谩v谩me, byla minulost铆, aby do budoucna nic takov茅ho nenastalo. Ur膷it媒m 艡e拧en铆m je, 啪e maxim谩ln铆 mno啪stv铆 dokument暖 bude prim谩rn臎 zve艡ej艌ov谩no a ob膷an茅 tedy o n臎 nebudou muset 啪谩dat. Moc pros铆m, ta symbolika t臎ch 拧patn媒ch statistik je mimo艡谩dn臎 alarmuj铆c铆.

听听Cyrus Engerer (S&D). 鈥� Mr President, I鈥檝e taken transparency quite strongly here since I鈥檝e been a Member of this House and I must say, I鈥檓 very disappointed in the failure of the Commission to provide timely access to documents. Everything is delayed, everything is late, sometimes they don鈥檛 even arrive these documents.

This transparency is very crucial for public scrutiny and it is very crucial also for trust that our citizens must have in our European institutions. But it is not only the Commission. I must urge also governments in the different Member States to take transparency seriously. It is unacceptable to have journalists being denied freedom of information requests and then needing to go in front of the courts to get public documents that should be everyone鈥檚.

I would like to highlight the wonderful job of the European Ombudsman O鈥橰eilly for keeping the pressure on the Commission and for providing us with figures, but also for the introduction of a fast-track procedure by the Ombudsman to deal with so many complaints in this field.

It is crucial for citizens, but also for journalists to be provided quickly those accesses and this is important for the well-functioning of our democracy. So Commission, Member State governments, delaying so much public access to documents is not only unacceptable, we need to make sure that transparency...

(The President cut off the speaker)

听听Elisa Ferreira, Member of the Commission. 鈥� Mr听President, I鈥檝e been listening carefully to what you have been saying, but the Commission would like to underline that it has already taken the necessary steps in order to address most of the recommendations in the European Ombudsman鈥檚 special report. The Commission regularly revises existing administrative practices and is developing new IT tools in order to adapt to the reality of the 21st century, also taking into account the relevant case-law of the European Union courts.

While the Commission notes that certain delays occur at the confirmatory stage due to the increasing number, complexity and sensitivity of the requests, it would like to reiterate that the overall numbers indeed confirm the timely handling and high standards of the Commission鈥檚 implementation of Regulation 1049/2001.

While Regulation 1049/2001 on public access to documents remains the legal instrument for the handling of applications for access to documents, I would like to reiterate that two legislative proposals to recast this regulation have been pending for quite a long time. The Commission does not see, for the moment, the willingness from co-legislators to engage in a revision process, but it stands ready to support further legislative and political discussions.

Thank you again for your attention and for the possibility to speak on behalf of the Commission on this point.

听听President. 鈥� The debate is closed.

I have received one motion for a resolution1 to wind up this debate. The vote will be held tomorrow.

_______________

1 See minutes.