The European Commission will today adopt a proposal that amends the regulation for public access to EU documents (1049/2001) and which will further restrict the public’s right to know.
The regulation is the same law invoked by MaltaToday on its request for the disclosure of the full accounts of how MEPs spend the money granted to them by the European Parliament, and which was subsequently upheld by the European Ombudsman. The parliament has resisted the Ombudsman’s recommendation and denied MaltaToday access.
The main retrogressive proposals are: the amendment concerning the right of public access to the full text of documents, which currently covers all documents, to be restricted to legislative ones only; the definition of a document, which would mean that if a document is not registered as a “document” by an official, then it does not exist; and the period for responding to confirmatory applications (appeals against refusal) is increased from 15 to 30 days.
At present, the law gives public access to all documents, whether legislative or not. Article 11 says all documents produced should be listed on the public register without delay, and Article 12 says that in principle all these documents should be “as far as possible” directly accessible to the public in electronic form.
The Commission’s new amendment now removes this principle, and limits the commitment to give direct access to legislative “acts”. But as to the thousands of other documents such as policy and strategy documents, there is a vague commitment as to whether these are to be made available.
Even more outrageous is that the amendment allows each institution to decide for itself “which other categories of documents are directly accessible to the public”.
The proposal also seeks to define a “document” as existing only if it has been sent to recipients or circulated within the institution and entered in the institutions’ records. The amendment is deemed dangerous as it would mean that documents can be left deliberately unregistered by officials so as to put them outside the scope of the law.
The amendment however lift the restriction on disclosure on documents that harm commercial interests, solely on information on emissions “relevant for the protection of the environment.”
Tony Bunyan, editor of the civil rights watchdog Statewatch, said the scope of the amendments had not taken into consideration many of the fundamental questions posed during the civil society consultation process. “The Amsterdam Treaty was agreed 11 years ago and was meant to herald a new ear of openness and transparency – we are still waiting for this to happen.

mvella@mediatoday.com.mt