WRITTEN QUESTION P-0392/00 by Inger Schörling (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Public access to information and protection of source.
C 374 E/64 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28. 12. 2000 (2000/C 374 E/074) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0387/00 by Camilo Nogueira RomÆn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission Subject: Seizure of Galician boats by Irish naval vessels (15 February 2000) There have been various incidents in recent days in which Galician boats fishing in the Sole area have been seized by vessels belonging to the Irish navy, on the grounds that the Galician boats had committed technical irregularities. The boats were released following payment of a symbolic fine, but the halting of fishing activity during the seizures caused serious economic damage. Is the Commission aware of these incidents, which have been recurring constantly, and is it aware of the pressure under which the Galician fleet is operating? Does it consider such behaviour on the part of the Irish authorities to be appropriate? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (13 March 2000) The Commission was not aware of the facts referred to by the Honourable Member. The Commission would ask the Honourable Member to provide precise details so that it can carry out the investigations required. (2000/C 374 E/075) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0392/00 by Inger Schörling (Verts/ALE) to the Commission Subject: Public access to information and protection of source (8 February 2000) Commissioner Neil Kinnock has maintained in the Swedish press that the Swedish model of public access to information and protection of the source of information is not appropriate for the Commission. In Kinnockís view, apparently, important decisions would be taken informally if public access were introduced and protection of the source of information would result in more secretiveness. Kinnock also claimed that Paul van Buitenen had changed from being a worthy informant exposing irregularities within the Commission into an unworthy informant aiming to blacken the name of the Commission as an institution. Can Commissioner Kinnock elaborate on the reasons why he has concluded that public access to information and protection of the source of information would have the opposite effect from that intended if applied in the EU? Can the Commissioner describe in more detail what it is in Paul van Buitenenís conduct which has transformed him from a worthy into an unworthy informant? Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (24 March 2000) The Commission recently published its proposal for a regulation concerning public access to documents of the European Institutions (1). It sets out the principles and rules, which are in the Commissionís opinion necessary in order to guarantee transparency for the European citizens with regard to information held by the Institutions. In drawing up its proposal the Commission has taken account of the positive experience it has acquired in connection with the code of conduct (2), Member Statesí legislation on access to documents, the Communities. in particular good practice in the Nordic countries, and the specific situation of The Parliament and Council will discuss this text and finally lay down the binding rules on this topic. 28. 12. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/65 In Parliament and elsewhere, the Vice-President responsible for Personnel and administrative reform has given particular recognition to the fact that Sweden has a long and positive tradition of public access to information and, consequently, standards which are worthy of aspiration but, realistically, not likely to be completely replicated in the European Institutions in the very near future. In public statements, the Vice President also noted the fact that, in Sweden, the informal exchanges that take place before a document is given the status of being official are not accessible to the public. In the proposal put forward by the Commission, the definition of a document excludes átexts for internal use such as discussion documents, opinions of departments and informal messagesí. If there was no such exclusion which ü in the view of the Committee of Independent Experts was necessary because áthe Commission needs the space to think to formulate policy before it enters the public domainí ü people might be reluctant to produce and exchange those documents and that could lead to greater secrecy whilst not adding to the effectiveness of work. the references in the question misquote the Vice President. He has repeated that Meanwhile, the irregularities disclosed by a Commission official were all the subject of disciplinary or legal proceedings before that disclosure. He has also referred to allegations reported in the Swedish press that fraud was continuing among thousands of officials within the organisation. Patently this is not true and it is the sort of generalised allegation that unfairly defames the Commission and its staff and provokes unjustified distrust of citizens. (1) COM(2000) 30 final. (2) Code of conduct concerning public access to Council and Commission documents, adopted by the Council on 20. 12. 1993 (OJ L 340, 31. 12. 1993, p. 43), and by the Commission on 8 February 1994 (OJ L 46, 18. 2. 1994, p. 58). The European Parliament adopted a decision on public access to its documents on 10 July 1997 (OJ L 263, 25. 9. 1997, p. 27). (2000/C 374 E/076) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0399/00 by Ioannis Averoff (PPE-DE) and Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission (15 February 2000) Subject: Implementation of Community legislation and Community funding for Greece for the protection of forestry Community regulations 3528/86 (1) and 2158/92 (2) on the protection of forestry from atmospheric pollution and fires impose specific obligations on the Member States, such as the provision of fire prevention schemes. The regulations also enable Member States to finance actions falling with the scope of the provisions of these regulations. Will the Commission say in respect of the implementation of the above regulations in Greece: 1. Have the Greek authorities forwarded to the Commission, in accordance with Article 10 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, the information specially referred to in regulation 2158/92? 2. Can it give a breakdown of the amounts received by Greece under these two funding regulations since 1995 and say what percentage they represent compared with the other Mediterranean Member States? 3. Has Greece benefited from any other Community financial means for the protection of its forestry? If so, what sums are involved and what percentage do they represent compared with the other Mediterranean Member States? (1) OJ L 326, 21. 11. 1986, p. 2. (2) OJ L 217, 31. 7. 1992, p. 3