Openness and transparency in the EU Institutions: Access to documents, May 2001

The European Parliament approved on the 3 May 2001 the compromise agreement made a week earlier between the European Commission, the Council of the European Union and representatives of the European Parliament on the proposed Regulation on public access to documents. The proposal will now be formally adopted by the Council and enter into force in six months time (although the Institutions will have another six months to set up document registers as required by the Regulation).

By the agreement EU citizens will have a right of access to all the documents of the EU Institutions with certain exceptions in the fields of public security, defence and military matters, international relations and financial, monetary or economic policy.

Some hailed the agreement as an important step forward in opening up the EU to greater transparency, while others said the agreement was a betrayal of the commitment in the Treaty of Amsterdam to enshrine the right of citizens to documents of the EU Institutions.

Background

The last decade has seen much high-level discussion of questions relating to information and communication, openness and transparency in the European Union, arising, in particular, from the difficulties associated with the ratification of the Treaty on European Union (the 'Maastricht Treaty') in 1992 and 1993. The issue of how effectively the EU informs and communicates has become a significant political question, discussed at the highest levels of the Union.

Whilst there are those who argue that the EU is a relatively open organisation, nevertheless, the last few years has seen increasing criticism from civil liberties', consumer and environmental groups about a lack of openness in EU policy-making.

The accession of Sweden and Finland, along with Austria in 1995, was also important as the Scandinavian countries, in particular, have alternative traditions of public policy-making and administration which challenge traditional EU policy styles, particularly in the question of 'access to documents'. See, for example, a paper from Finland's Ministry of Justice on the Act on the Openness of Government Activities, which entered into force on 1 December 1999 (and a accompanying brochure). Finland was part of Sweden when the first Act on the Freedom of Publishing and the Right of Access to Official Documents was enacted in 1776. It was the first Act of its kind in the world. The right of access to information in official documents is now a basic right protected by the Constitutions of these countries (the current situation in all Member States can be seen on a Commission website)

The European Ombudsman has also involved himself with the question of access to documents extensively. See, in particular, the Special Report by the European Ombudsman on access to documents issued in December 1997 and the ensuing draft Recommendations. and a speech given by the European Ombudsman, Jacob Söderman, 'Access to official documents and archives - the democratic aspect' in Lund, April 2001.

The second report of the Committee of Independent Experts on the reform of the Commission issued on 10 September 1999 says in Chapter Seven that one of the features which most concerns it is:

'the tradition of secretiveness', which characterises both the Commission and the other EU Institutions, above all the Council (15). Secretiveness must not be confused with the need for confidentiality in certain instances. Secretiveness means a lack of openness in matters where no real justification for confidentiality exists. Confidentiality must be the exception, not the rule. Openness is not in the first place a question of legal texts(16) or codes of conduct, but a question of mentalities and attitudes, arising from the basic principle that the public has a right to know how public institutions use the powers and resources entrusted to them...

The report goes on to recommend:

... it falls to the new Commission, and above all its President, to give an example by their own behaviour of a move away from the present mentality of secretiveness into one of openness

The role of information in the European Union

It is a fairly obvious but fundamental point to make that in a democratic society any organisation, be it at a local, regional, national or international level, which takes decisions which affect individuals and organisations within its jurisdiction has a duty to inform those affected by the decisions.

The nature of the European Union makes it a unique organisation in international law: it is an independent association with its own sovereign rights and a legal system independent of the Member States. The European Union goes further than any other international organisation in the direct impact its policies and laws have on its Member States, on organisations and individuals within the Member States and, indeed, on other countries as well.

For this reason the EU has always recognised that it has a responsibility, and in some cases, a legal duty, to make known and explain its laws, actions and policies. In a historical perspective the European Union is a fairly new actor on the political stage and thus it has, perhaps, an extra need to explain why it was created and what it is doing in order to gain legitimacy.

In short, the EU has a 'duty' to inform (and to listen) and the citizen has a 'right' to know.

A further feature to note is that the number of people who need to know about the policies of the European Union has increased substantially in the last fifteen years. This is largely in connection with the Single Market Programme and the impact of the Single European Act, which resulted in a significant expansion in legislative action across an increasing number of policy areas. The Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties further increased the policy competences of the EU. More people and more organisations are now directly affected by EU laws and thus need information about those laws. Whether you are in business, the law, accountancy, planning, the voluntary sector or in government, there will be an increasing European dimension to what you need to know to do your job. Similarly, the European dimension has increased in prominence at most levels of education. In addition, the EU has expanded to include new countries, and has a long list of applicant countries and others who maintain or are developing closer economic and political links with the EU.

Thus, it is clear that there is a big increase in the number of people, in the EU and elsewhere, who have a real need to know of the activities of the EU. This has an impact on issues relating to the information and communication policy of the European Union.

The debate about openness and transparency

The late President Mitterand is quoted as saying “We forgot to talk to the people” when asked to explain why very nearly a majority of the electorate in France who voted in the referendum in 1992 voted to reject ratification of the Maastricht Treaty. That event, combined with the shock of the Danish 'No' in their first referendum in June 1992, the long-drawn discussions in the UK Parliament on ratifying the Maastricht Treaty, and the challenge to the ratification in the German Constitutional Court, brought home to European politicians and officials alike the scepticism of the newly 'Unionised' citizens of Europe about further moves towards European union.

The United Kingdom Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said in May 1997:

The elites of Europe have paid insufficient attention to the people of Europe. That cannot continue.... Europe has to explain better what it is doing

Thus, the question of how effectively the citizens of Europe are informed about what is happening in the European Union has been placed firmly on the political agenda. As a result the EU Institutions and the Member States made a commitment and set a programme to ensure greater openness and transparency of EU activities. Since 1992 there has been a whole series of statements and declarations on this subject, reorganisation of departments responsible for information and communications policies and User Groups and Interinstitutional Committees established. This culminated in the insertion in the treaty agreed at Amsterdam in June 1997 of an amendment to Article A of the TEU (now Article 1)

This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer Union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen.

In addition, the Treaty of Amsterdam introduced a new Article 255 into the EC Treaty which laid down:

1. Any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State, shall have a right of access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, subject to the principles and the conditions to be defined in accordance with paragraphs 2. and 3.
2. General principles and limits on grounds of public or private interest governing this right of access to documents shall be determined by the Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 189b within two years of the entry into force of this Article.
3. Each institution referred to above shall elaborate in its own rules of procedure specific provisions regarding access to its documents.

The European Commission's proposal for a Regulation launched on 26 January 2000 was its response to the instruction in Paragraph 2 above to introduce 'general principles and limits on grounds of public or private interest governing this right of access to documents' (further details below). As the Treaty of Amsterdam came into force on 1 May 1999 the legislation regarding access to documents was legally due to come into force on 1 May 2001 (paragraph 2 above)

Is the EU an open and transparent organisation?

The question of access to documents is not the only yardstick of how open the EU is. The traditional opacity of the Comitology process and the increasing complexity of the EU policy-making process are also often cited as criticisms.

Commission President Prodi has recognised the wider challenges facing the EU in ensuring its democratic legitimacy and launched a debate in 1999 with Member States, stakeholders and civil society on the issue of 'European governance' - the rules, processes and practices that affect how powers are exercised at European level. A White Paper on European Governance is due to be published in the summer of 2001.

In a speech (SPEECH/01/31) in January 2001 the Commission President said:

...I want the European public to see that the European institutions are doing a useful job and doing it well. We need to review and renew the European Union's communication and information policy. I believe we need a clear and coherent inter-institutional strategy, and we must implement it in partnership with civil society.

The Commission will present a Communication on this subject in the middle of this year. If we are to regain strong public support for the European project, we must radically rethink the way we run Europe. We need a decentralised, open and democratic system of governance. Civil society and local government must be more closely and actively involved in shaping and monitoring European policies.

One of my Commission's four strategic objectives is precisely to promote new forms of European Governance. In July, our White Paper will launch the public debate on this issue, and we want all interested parties to take part in it: national, regional and local authorities, business and trade unions, universities, the media and citizens' associations.

In a 'Declaration on the Future of the Union', annexed to the Treaty of Nice, February 2001, there is a call for a deeper and wider debate on the future of the European Union. Four topics in particular have already been identified: the division of competences between European and national authorities, 'reflecting the principle of Subsidiarity'; the status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights; the simplification of the Treaties; and the role of National parliaments. The Declaration acknowledges 'the need to improve and to monitor the democratic legitimacy and Transparency of the Union and its institutions, to bring them closer to the citizens of the Member States'. All these issues are to be addressed in a further Intergovernmental Conference to be convened in 2004. A website devoted to the issues of the debate 'Futurum' has been launched.

Access to documents

The question of 'access to documents' has become the key focal issue in the openness debate. There have been a number of legal challenges in the past few years in the European Union relating, in particular, to questions of access to documents from the Council of the European Union and the European Commission. Details of cases brought by The Guardian against the Council in the European Court of Justice and complaints brought to the European Ombudsman by the civil liberties group Statewatch against the Council, plus further related information, can be seen in the Statewatch database.

Examples of recent European Court of First Instance judgments in cases relating to access to documents can be seen in the judgments to:

• Case T-92/98 Interporc Im- und Export GmbH v Commission
• Case T-14/98 Heidi Hautala v Council
• Case T-188/97 Rothmans International v Commission

There is now a growing academic literature about the question of access to documents. Contrasting viewpoints can be seen in two papers that have appeared in the series European Integration online Papers. The first by Ulf Öberg is called 'Public access to documents after the entry into force of the Amsterdam treaty: Much ado about nothing?'. The second by Roy W. Davis is called 'Public access to Community documents: a fundamental human right?'

The real challenge in the debate about openness and transparency is to reconcile the needs for democratic openness with the need for operational efficiency in a unique international organisation comprising (at present) fifteen sovereign Member States (and in the future maybe over twenty five). Within these countries there are very different traditions relating to these questions. At the centre of the Scandinavian tradition of transparency (transparency through public access) are rules concerning extensive public access to official documents, files and registers which is perceived as an important means of holding public policy-makers accountable. There are other Member States who do not feel comfortable with that tradition, while the EU approach to transparency (transparency through communication) so far has been primarily directed at keeping the public informed of on-going activities by providing 'processed' information.

In an article in European Voice during 1999 there were two quotations which clearly show the tension between these principles of democratic accountability and operational efficiency:

• Transparency is vital for the democratic health and accountability of the European Union (Romano Prodi, September 1999)
• Transparency without control can be to the detriment of the functioning of the institution (Commission official, September 1999)

The existing legislative provisions regarding the access to documents

Before going onto look at the proposal for a Regulation adopted by the European Commission in January 2001, and its subsequent progress, it should be noted that during the 1990s the European Commission, Council, European Parliament, plus the majority of other EU Institutions and agencies, had adopted rules on access to documents. The key texts are:

• Council of the European Union
• European Commission + Amendment
• European Parliament
• European Court of Justice
• European Court of Auditors
• Economic and Social Committee
• Committee of the Regions
• European Investment Bank
• European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions
• European Central Bank
• European Environment Agency
• European Training Foundation

A big step forward, in principle, occurred in January 1999 when the Council of the European Union launched its 'Public Register of Council Documents' on the Internet. The Swedish Government called in March 1999 for the European Commission to also set up a register whereby all Commission documents, departmental minutes and papers, invoices and mail would be recorded on a public register, which would be available for public scrutiny. Sweden also proposed that officials who leaked information that failed to appear on these registers should not be threatened with suspension or dismissal ('whistleblowing'). The Committee of Independent Experts' report on reform in the Commission also said it was important to protect those officials who felt it was their duty to expose wrongdoing.

The proposed Regulation launched in January 2000

Once the Treaty of Amsterdam formally came into force in the spring of 1999 it had been expected that the European Commission would launch a consultation exercise on the legislative proposals it intended to introduce on new legislative guidelines on access to documents, as required by the Treaty. In the event this did not happen, partly because of the turmoil within the European Commission during 1999 and partly, it is suggested, by divisions within the European Commission on the details of the proposals. In particular, the questions of how to define which documents should remain secret and whether papers sent to the Commission from outside bodies should be brought within the coverage of the access rules.

In the event the Commission missed out the formal consultation exercise and adopted a proposed regulation on public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents on 26 January 2000 (COM (2000)30 final) . This is summarised in a European Commission Press Release (IP/00/75).

Commission President Prodi also dealt with the proposals in a speech he made to an European Parliament Conference of President in a speech he gave to the European Parliament on 26 January 2000 (SPEECH/00/20).

The proposal was to be adopted by the Council and the European Parliament by the Co-decision procedure.

The Commission argued that the proposals represented a significant advance on the existing codes of access to documents operating in the three Institutions. The legislation would cover all documents drawn up by the three Institutions or emanating from third parties and in the possession of the Institutions. This was regarded as a major step forward as the current system only covered documents produced by the Institutions.

The explanatory memorandum to the proposal attempted to define what the term 'document' meant. It excluded documents expressing the individual opinions of officials within the Institutions or documents reflecting 'free and frank discussions'. This was in order to allow the Commission (and other Institutions) the 'space to think'. The draft legislation also included a number of exceptions to the rights of access to documents, intended to safeguard the public interest, respect for personal privacy, commercial, economic or industrial confidentiality, and confidentiality where it is requested by a third party providing information or documents.

As a symbolic gesture, Commission President Prodi announced on the 25 January 2000 the creation of a public register of his correspondence, which is now available on the Internet.

The formal progress of the proposal can be traced through:

• PreLex
• Legislative Observatory (OEIL)

A complication to the discussions within the EU Institutions regarding the proposed Regulation occurred when during the summer of 2000 the Council unilaterally adopted significant changes to its 1993 Decision on access to documents. The Committee of Permanent Representatives (COREPER) adopted a proposal from Javier Solana, the Secretary General of the Council of the European Union, which was designed to adapt the existing rules on access to documents in the light of the increased EU role in security and defence matters. By an unusual written procedure method for such a controversial measure the Council adopted the amended Decision 300D0527 on 14 August 2000 with no consultation with the other EU Institutions. Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden issued a statement opposing the Decision, while the European Commission also announced that it might need to amend the text of the proposed Regulation in the light of the Decision.

At the first opportunity after the summer break the Members of the European Parliament protested at the unilateral action taken by the Council. At a meeting on the 13 September 2000 the Legal Affairs and Internal Market Committee of the European Parliament voted in favour of an opinion to appeal to the Court of Justice against the 'Solana/NATO Decision' of 26 July 2000 (as it was popularly called). In addition, the Dutch government decided on the 22 September 2000 to take the Council of the European Union to the European Court of Justice over the decision, and they were subsequently joined by Finland and Sweden.

Further details on the Council Decision of August 2000 and a European Parliament seminar on the issue of access to documents can be seen in a separate European Sources Online: In Focus feature. At the seminar a representative of the Council siad that the August 2000 Decision was a temporary measure which would be subject to modification when the proposed Regulation was adopted. Many participants at the seminar were very critical of both the proposed Regulation and the unilaterally adopted Decision, saying that there was a danger of retreating from the existing rules on access to documents.

The European Parliament debated the proposal at the plenary session in November 2000 and voted on substantial amendments to the Commission proposal. However, a formal vote on the first reading opinion was not taken and the Parliament decided to refer the issue back to the Committee on Citizen's Rights, Justice and Home Affairs to see if informal discussions with the European Commission and the Council of the European Union could produce an agreed text. Otherwise, it was foreseen that the positions of the three Institutions were too far apart to secure the necessary adoption of the Regulation by the 1 May 2001.

These discussions took place during 2001 outside of the formal decision-making procedures of the EU in a format called 'Trilogue' (European Parliament) or 'Trialogue' (Council), which was heavily criticised. For example, the European Federation of Journalists said in a statement issued in March 2001:

The EFJ ... deplores the fact that the legal process is being carried out in secrecy, giving citizens little opportunity to take part or to influence the process.

Nevertheless, under the pressure of all the Institutions wanting a settlement by May (as required by the Treaty of Amsterdam) and the strong encouragement of the Swedish EU Presidency, which had a particular commitment to finding a solution to the disagreements between the Institutions on an issue that it believed strongly in, an agreement was reached. On the 25 April 2001 at a meeting of the European Parliament's Committee on Citizen's Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs a revised compromise text that had been agreed during the Trialogue meetings was adopted by a large majority. The European Commission and COREPER agreed to the text on the same day. Subsequently, the text was adopted by a large majority of the whole European Parliament on the 3 May 2001 (following a debate on the 2 May 2001).

Formally, the vote on the 3 May 2001 was the adoption by the European Parliament of the first reading of the proposal. Normally, this would then lead to the adoption of a 'common position' by the Council and a second reading in the European Parliament, with the possibility of conciliation, if agreement could not be agreed. However, as the informal method of 'trialogue' had produced a text that all three Institutions had negotiated, there would be no need for further action, apart from a formal adoption by the Council of the Regulation (Details of this can be found on PreLex, which will also provide a link to the authoritative text of the adopted Regulation). The Regulation will come into force six months after its adoption, although the European Commission, European Parliament and the Council of the European Union will have a further six months to create Registers of their documents, as required by the Regulation.

The European Commission welcomed the vote in the European Parliament on 3 May 2001. European Commissioner Michel Barnier said:

The establishment of clear rules for the citizen's access to documents is essential not only for the good functioning of the European institutions but also for reinforcing the institutions' democratic legitimacy

The text is probably not perfect from everybody's point of view. But the Commission considers it a fair balance between the varying traditions that different Member States hold on this topic... [IP/01/639]

The Swedish EU Presidency also welcomed the development. Speaking on 26 April 2001 Sweden's Minister for Democratic Issues, Britta Lejon, said:

I am very happy about this breakthrough, and very satisfied. This is a great victory for the citizens' Europe and for democracy. The new rules will significantly improve citizens' access to EU documents. Europe has become a more open society...

Others were not so happy. The 'deal' was condemned by civil society groups and some academic commentators as taking away existing rights and betraying the commitment given in the Amsterdam Treaty to 'enshrine' the citizens' right of access to EU documents. These groups and individual sent a 'Open Letter' from civil society on the new code of access to documents of the EU institutions' to all MEPS before the vote of 3 May 2001. Following the vote Tony Bunyan of Statewatch, one of the leading proponents of an Open Europe said:

It shows that on this issue the majority in the European Parliament are closer to the governments in the Council than they are to the people who they represent.

Citizens and civil society were promised that the commitment in the Amsterdam Treaty would 'enshrine' their rights of access to EU documents. Instead all three Brussels institutions have colluded, through secret negotiations rather than open procedures, to reach a deal that suits them.

The campaign for an 'Open Europe', which has gathered in strength over the past two years, will have to continue its work. The call from civil society for an open, accountable and democratic Europe may have been ignored on this occasion but its case stands, unanswered.

For further information on the background and the details of the agreement see the Swedish EU Presidency website, and for links to all the key texts relating to the adoption of the Regulation see Statewatch's Observatory on public access to EU documents.

The key details of the agreement as presented on Sweden's EU Presidency website are:

• All documents submitted to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission and all documents drawn up by these institutions are covered by the new regulations. This is in contrast to the existing regulations which only cover the documents produced by the institutions.
• For the first time, citizens have a right of access to official documents with the support of the EC Treaty. Non-EU citizens - e.g. in the candidate countries - will also be given the same right of access to official documents as EU citizens.
• The new regulations cover all sectors within the Union. To be able to deny access to a document an institution must be able to show that one of the classification exemptions applies. If an application is refused, the applicant has the right to appeal to the European ombudsman or to the Court of Justice.
• The Member States can still apply their own rules on public access to documents. In unclear cases the Member States should consult the EU institution concerned when a country receives a request to provide a document from an EU institution.
• The EU institutions will be obliged to establish a public register, in principle of all official documents. The institutions are also to publish electronic versions of documents on the Internet to make the information readily accessible.
• A rule is also being introduced obliging the institutions to mask off documents. This means that all unclassified sections of a document must be made available.
• Applications are to be administered promptly. The EU institution must approve or refuse an application within 15 working days.

Separate to the negotiations on the Regulation the Council of the European Union adopted on 9 April 2001 Decision 2001/320/EC on making certain categories of Council documents available to the public. The purpose of this Decision is to put on the Internet as many Council documents as possible without waiting for requests from the public for access to those documents, and came into force on 1 May 2001.

Further information within European Sources Online:

European Sources Online: European Voice:
	26.10.95:	Council may appeal over transparency
	9.11.95:	Clamour for openness
	23.11.95:	Sweden calls for increased openness
	8.2.96:	Nordic press takes openness to court
	15.2.96:	Union puts on a user-friendly face
	15.2.96:	Bridging the familiarity gap
	15.2.96:	Reaping the awards of transparency
	14.3.96:	Commission in the dock over secrecy
	18.4.96:	Exposing Europe's decision-makers to public scrutiny
	2.5.96:	Court rules against Dutch demand for greater access to EU information
	2.5.96:	Secrecy that undermines the right of self-defence
	9.5.96:	Turning a trickle into a torrent
	16.5.96:	Magazine leak inflames battle over openness
	4.7.96:	IGC negotiators fail the transparency test
	4.7.96:	Let citizens look before their leaders leap
	11.7.96:	Openness case to go ahead
	5.9.96:	MEP widens debate on openness
	12.9.96:	Legal test of openness code begins
	3.10.96:	Secrecy report? Sorry, it's secret
	24.10.96:	Confidential report now open to all
	12.12.96:	Putting forward a case for openness and transparency
	9.1.97:	Ombudsman calls for right of access
	30.1.97:	UK citizens prove most inquisitive about policies
	6.3.97:	WWF wins judgement on access to information
	3.4.97:	Ombudsman joins battle over openness
	15.5.97:	Voicing Sweden's strong feelings
	5.6.97:	See EU in court
	16.6.97:	Council to open up for secrecy probe
	19.6.97:	But what does it all mean
	19.6.97:	Transparency
	11.7.96:	Openness case to go ahead
	24.7.97:	Campaigner rejects case for secrecy
	4.9.97:	Parliament papers made more accessible
	25.9.97:	Magazine case highlights degrees of EU openness
	23.10.97:	Ease of access improving
	18.12.97:	Ombudsman turns up the heat
	18.12.97:	UK plan for public register of documents
	15.1.98:	New codes on public access to documents
	29.1.98:	MEP launches new challenge in access to documents campaign
	28.1.99:	Ombudsman wins victory for public in openness battle
	18.2.99:	Ombudsman calls for more power
	29.4.99:	EU accused of 'stitch-up' over secrecy
	13.5.99:	Finns seek thaw in law-making freeze
	3.6.99:	Freedom of information plan delayed
	16.9.99:	Prodi moves to lift EU's veil of secrecy
	16.9.99:	Kinnock hails 'charter for change'
	2.12.99:	Commission bids to lift veil of secrecy
	20.1.00:	Proposals on access to documents attacked
	3.2.00:	More mailbag secrets could soon be revealed
	27.4.00:	Commission accused of excessive secrecy
	18.5.00:	Prodi under fire over access to documents
	15.6.00:	Party leaders accept Prodi's openness plan
	27.7.00:	Europol bows to Ombudman's calls for more openness
	28.9.00:	No sign of deal to end military secrets row
	26.10.00:	MEPs refuse to back down in fight over top-secret files
	9.11.00:	Why transparency is vital in battle for hearts and minds (article by Keith Vaz, MP, the UK's Minister for Europe)
	8.2.01:	EU must not deny people's right to know
	22.2.01:	Acting like a political pro
	19.4.01:	Swedes scent victory in access to documents fight
Further information can be seen in these external links: (long-term access cannot be guaranteed)
Council of the European Union:
	Access to documents
European Commission: Secretariat General:
	General overview on openness and information
	Current practice
	New legislative proposal
	Member States legislation
	Useful links (includes links to relevant national government departments and national provision on freedom of information)
European Parliament: Committee on Citizens's Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs:
	Working seminar: Access to documents of the EU Institutions: the key to a more democratic and efficient union, September 2000
	Further EP documentation cam be traced through the Legislative Observatory
Sweden: EU Presidency:
	Important decision on regulations on public access to EU official documents
	Work Programme
European Ombudsman:
	Draft recommendation of the European Ombudsman on the own initiative inquiry into public access to documents, 1997
	Special Report: On public access to documents, December 1997
	Speech: Access to documents of the EU Institutions: the key to a more democratic and efficient Europe, 18.9.00
	Speech: The struggle for openness in the European Union, 21.3.01
	Speech: Access to official documents and archives - the democratic aspect, 5.4.01
United Kingdom: House of Lords: Select Committee on the European Union:
	16th Report(1999-2000)HL102: Public access to EU documents, August 2000
	8th Report(2000-01)HL31: Access to documents: the Council Decision of 14 August 2000, February 2001
Statewatch:
	Homepage
	News online
	Secret Europe
	Observatory on public access to EU documents (probably the fullest source of links on this subject)
European Citizen Action Service (ECAS):
	Homepage
	Transparency and access to documents
European Environmental Bureau:
	Homepage
	Transparency and public participation
	EEB Comments on the proposed Regulation on access to documents, March 2000
	EEB Statement on the proposed Regulation on access to documents, September 2000
European Federation of Journalists:
	Homepage
	Access to information
FT.com:
	4.5.01:	Brussels agrees information compromise
The Guardian:
	26.4.01:	EU strikes new deal on freedom of information
	4.5.01:	Parliament cracks EU secrecy, but new access rules have big catches
The Independent:
	26.4.01:	EU agrees new rules on public access to documents

Further and subsequent information on the subject of this In Focus can be found by an 'Advanced Search' in European Sources Online by inserting 'access to documents' in the keyword field.

Ian Thomson
Executive Editor, European Sources Online
Compiled: 5 May 2001

The European Parliament approved on the 3 May 2001 the compromise agreement made a week earlier between the European Commission, the Council of the European Union and representatives of the European Parliament on the proposed Regulation on public access to documents.