No compromise on citizens’ right of access to EU documents

The document is a statement from a coalition of NGOs expressing serious concerns over the 'trialogues' negotiations regarding the revision of Regulation 1049/2001. While welcoming the extension of rules to all EU bodies and proactive publication of legislative documents, the authors argue that the Council's proposal would severely limit the right of access in ways inconsistent with international standards. They specifically oppose the introduction of 'block exceptions', a restrictive definition of 'document', and new exceptions for staff selection and contract awards, which they claim increase the risk of corruption. The coalition calls for the European Parliament to maintain its first reading position to ensure transparency and accountability within EU institutions.

• The authors welcome certain aspects of the proposal, specifically that access rules would be "extended to apply to all institutions, bodies and agencies" and that "relevant legislative documents would be proactively published", both of which are requirements of the Treaty of Lisbon.
• The coalition opposes the proposed definition of a 'document' and the introduction of 'block exceptions' for entire classes of documents, such as those submitted to Courts by non-institutional parties or those in administrative files of investigations, arguing these violate the Aarhus Convention and the Council of Europe Convention on Access to Official Documents.
• The proposal to insert Article 4(a) is criticized for creating a presumption that transparency undermines the protection of legal advice, which the authors claim "directly contradicts the case law of the Court of Justice" and unfairly burdens applicants to prove an overriding public interest.
• The authors argue that new exceptions for the awarding of contracts, grants, and staff selection are unnecessary and could lead to a situation where citizens cannot hold institutions accountable, thereby increasing the "risk of corruption and conflicts of interest".
• Concerns are raised regarding excessive time limits for third party consultations and appeals, which could result in requesters waiting "as much as 80 working days, or almost four months", potentially undermining the right to participate in decision making.

APA

ClientEarth (2012). No compromise on citizens’ right of access to EU documents. https://www.clientearth.org/media/bsjkhxpl/no-compromise-on-citizens-right-of-access-to-eu-documents-coll-en.pdf

Chicago

ClientEarth. No compromise on citizens’ right of access to EU documents. 2012. https://www.clientearth.org/media/bsjkhxpl/no-compromise-on-citizens-right-of-access-to-eu-documents-coll-en.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |author=ClientEarth |title=No compromise on citizens’ right of access to EU documents |date=4 June 2012 |url=https://www.clientearth.org/media/bsjkhxpl/no-compromise-on-citizens-right-of-access-to-eu-documents-coll-en.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{clientearth2012compromise, author = {{ClientEarth}}, title = {{No compromise on citizens’ right of access to EU documents}}, publisher = {ClientEarth}, year = {2012}, month = jun, url = {https://www.clientearth.org/media/bsjkhxpl/no-compromise-on-citizens-right-of-access-to-eu-documents-coll-en.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }