13 February 2018
Support our work: become a Friend of Statewatch from as little as £1/€1 per month.
Ombudsman says Member States must open up their opaque negotiations on EU laws
Follow us: | | Tweet
"Following a detailed inquiry, the European Ombudsman, Emily O'Reilly, has found that the Council of the EU - through practices that inhibit the scrutiny of draft EU legislation - undermines citizens right to hold their elected representatives to account. This constitutes maladministration.
The Ombudsman specifically criticises the Councils failure systematically to record the identity of Member States taking positions during discussions on draft legislation, and the widespread practice of disproportionately marking documents as not for circulation, or LIMITE.
The approach falls short of what is expected of the Council in terms of legislative transparency.
The Ombudsman is now asking the Council systematically to record Member State positions in Council working parties and in COREPER ambassador meetings and, in principle, to make these documents proactively available to the public in a timely manner. Ms OReilly is also calling for clear criteria for using the LIMITE status and that the status be reviewed before a law is adopted.
Its almost impossible for citizens to follow the legislative discussions in the Council between national government representatives. This behind-closed-doors approach risks alienating citizens and feeding negative sentiment, said Ms OReilly.
National government representatives involved in legislative work are EU legislators and should be accountable as such. If citizens do not know what decisions their governments are taking, and have taken, while shaping EU laws, the blame Brussels culture will continue. EU citizens have a right to participate in the making of laws which affect them, but to do so, they need more openness from their governments in Brussels.
Making the EU legislative process more accountable to the public, by being more open, would send an important signal ahead of the European elections in 2019, said the Ombudsman."
The Ombudsman expects the Council to reply by 9 May 2018.
The Council is co-legislator along with the European Parliament. Before the national Ministers meeting in the Council reach a formal position on a draft law, preparatory discussions take place in the Councils meetings of national ambassadors and in the over 150 Council working parties attended by national civil servants.
During the course of her inquiry, the Ombudsman put 14 specific questions to the Council and her office inspected the documents of three Council files to get an insight into how documents are produced, circulated and published.
The office also organised a public consultation, which received 21 submissions including from members of the public, national parliaments, civil society and academics.
The Ombudsmans inquiry also showed, for example, that in order to get a full picture of all documentation concerning one piece of legislation, four different searches in the Council document register are needed for negotiations in preparatory bodies and two searches in other sections of the website for discussions at Council level."
See: Statewatch Observatory on FOI in the EU (from 1992 onwards)
Spotted an error? If you've spotted a problem with this page, just click once to let us know.
Statewatch does not have a corporate view, nor does it seek to create one, the views expressed are those of the author. Statewatch is not responsible for the content of external websites and inclusion of a link does not constitute an endorsement. Registered UK charity number: 1154784. Registered UK company number: 08480724. Registered company name: The Libertarian Research & Education Trust. Registered office: MayDay Rooms, 88 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1DH. © Statewatch ISSN 1756-851X. Personal usage as private individuals "fair dealing" is allowed. We also welcome links to material on our site. Usage by those working for organisations is allowed only if the organisation holds an appropriate licence from the relevant reprographic rights organisation (eg: Copyright Licensing Agency in the UK) with such usage being subject to the terms and conditions of that licence and to local copyright law.