link to page 1
LEGISLATIVE TRANSPARENCY - Milestone documents - Current Practice (3rd column) vs. Options (4th column)
Milestones
Documents
Current Practice1
Options
Receipt of
Commission proposal
COM adopts its proposal and makes it public.
Maintenance of current practice (no other
proposal
CONS receives the proposal and publishes it as a
options deemed feasible).
public ST document.
Discussion in
Agendas
WP agendas are issued as public CM documents.
Maintenance of current practice (no other
Working
option deemed feasible).
Party/COREPER
State of Play/Progress
Progress Reports are generally LIMITE documents
- Progress Reports / State-of-Play to Coreper
report
when they go to Coreper, though this is not always
the case (e.g. 10519/17).
(1) all LIMITE
Other reports submit ed to the WP are generally
Therefore, it would be eventually released
LIMITE.
after adoption of the act. However, in case a
report would then go to Council, it becomes
public upon inscription on the Council agenda.
(2) all PUBLIC
Either since its creation or released after
consideration by Coreper.
(3) case-by-case - this is the current practice
which leads to different practices and
incoherence across sectors, files and working
parties.
NB in all options, in case of an access
request, at least partial access would likely be
granted.
1 N.b.: This table covers only documents relating to legislative files. The handling of documents relating to non-legislative files may differ.
1
- Reports at the Working Party level: similar to
the above.
Debate in
Report / Note to
Al documents placed on a Council agenda are
- Council documents: full publicity [no other
Council
Council/COREPER
public documents.
feasible option].
Documents going to COREPER are generally
- Coreper documents then going to Council:
LIMITE documents. They are public documents if
they are destined for Coreper and Council together
(1) LIMITE until Coreper, public afterwards.
i.e. no changes are expected at Coreper e.g. I/A
NB in case of an access request, access
item notes.
would likely be granted.
(2) PUBLIC documents since their creation.
Council mandate (General Generally speaking, the Council mandate can take
General Approach: public once placed on a
approach)(basis for
two forms:
Council agenda [no other feasible option].
starting trilogues)
(1)
GA: public once placed on a Council agenda.
(2)
CRP mandate: since it is a document destined
Coreper Mandate:
for CRP it is generally LIMITE, but there are cases in
which it is already public at Coreper. Example of the (1) all LIMITE
latter: document 10345/18.
Therefore, it would be eventually released
However, there are also some cases in which it is
after adoption of the act.
the
WP which gives the negotiating mandate
NB the mandate is informally transmitted to
(example: Macro-Financial Assistance to Ukraine
the EP as wel . In case of an access request,
2018/0058 COD, see doc. 9228/18 LIMITE).
access would likely be granted.
(2) all PUBLIC
Either since its creation or released after
consideration by Coreper.
(3) case-by-case - this is the current practice
which leads to different practices and
incoherence across sectors, files and working
parties.
(4) no longer having recourse to Coreper-level
mandates in the future.
2
WP Mandate:
(1) all LIMITE
Therefore, it would be eventually released
after adoption of the act.
NB the mandate is informally transmitted to
the EP as well. In case of an access request,
access would likely be granted.
(2) all PUBLIC
Either since its creation or released after
consideration by Coreper.
(3) case-by-case - this leads to different
practices and incoherence across sectors,
files and working parties.
(4) no longer having recourse to WP-level
mandates in the future.
Trilogues
Agenda & calendar
The
agenda is generally not considered by the
Agenda
Council as an official document. It is only circulated
via email to participants in the trilogue meeting, but
(1) keep undisclosed i.e. keep current
not to delegations.
practice.
As regards the
calendar and scheduling of trilogues, NB not possible to control handling
the forthcoming trilogue dates (next 2-3-4 trilogues)
(formalisation/disclosure) of the agenda by EP
for a given file are usually pre-agreed between the
and COM.
Secretariats (upon confirmation of availability at the
(2) disclose - the agenda could be circulated
political level). There may not however be a concrete to all delegations, either as an email or as an
document specifying these dates, and if there is one official document, which could be LIMITE or
it is not considered an official one.
PUBLIC.
Within the Council, delegations are informed orally of NB possible divergence with EP and COM.
forthcoming trilogue dates via the WP and Coreper
(the CRP1 practice recently having been started in
CRP2 as well). This is not formalised in any
3
document.
Calendar
(1) keep restricted access i.e. current practice.
(2) disclose - trilogue dates could be circulated
to all delegations, either as an email or as an
official document, which could be LIMITE or
PUBLIC.
NB trilogue dates often have last-minute
changes.
NB2 possible divergence with EP and COM.
List of participants (name
The
list of participants of a trilogue is not
List of Participants
of Ministers & Perm Reps) considered a document by the Council. It is not
made public. It is circulated to participants via email, (1) keep undisclosed i.e. - current practice.
but not to delegations.
(2) disclose - wherever they exist (which the
There is no rule as to whether such a list of
Council cannot control), lists of participants
participants has to exist. The Secretariat of the
could be circulated to all delegations, either as
hosting institution (EP or GSC) may or may not
email or as an official document, which could
elaborate such a list. Some EP commit ees do not
be LIMITE or PUBLIC.
systematically send lists of participants.
NB the actual participants in a trilogue may
Furthermore, the actual participants may yet vary
not be those on the list.
slightly from those listed.
NB2 in case of an access request, possible
So they are not always made, they don't necessarily divergence with EP and COM.
reflect the attendance, they are not circulated and
they are not formalised in any document.
NB3 disclosing the list of participants would
also have data protection considerations that
would need to be taken into account - see in
particular Article 9 of the proposal repealing
Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No
1247/2002/EC on the Protection of individuals
with regard to the processing of personal data
by the Union institutions (first reading adopted
by the European Parliament on 13
September).
4
4 Column-Table or basis
See also below 'outcome of trilogues'.
for trilogue
The
practice here is extremely varied, depending (1) leave things as they are i.e. different
on the file and policy field (as well as the negotiating practices across files/policies
strategy).
The 4 Column-Table can be distributed to
delegations as an ST LIMITE document (e.g. ST
(2) decide on applying a systematic practice
8143/18), a WK document (e.g. WK 13846/17) or via
email (simple Word document).
Such systematic practice would require
The document distributed may contain the full 4
deciding:
Column-Table or only the relevant parts.
(a) distribution as ST or WK
It should be noted that within the EP, the (latest) 4-
column table is not made generally available to all
(b) distribution in full or in part or case-by-case
MEPs.
(c) distribution as LIMITE or as PUBLIC, and if
LIMITE, then the moment from which it would
become public.
NB if marking as LIMITE, in case of an access
request, possible divergence with EP and
COM (c.f. De Capitani).
4 Column-Table or (partial) The
practice here is extremely varied, depending Similar to the above.
outcome of trilogue
on the file and policy field (as well as the negotiating
strategy).
The 4 Column-Table can be distributed to
delegations as an ST LIMITE document (e.g. ST
8143/18), a WK document (e.g. WK 13846/17) or via
email (simple Word document).
The document distributed may contain the full 4
Column-Table or only the relevant parts
It should be noted that within the EP, the (latest) 4-
column table is not made general y available to all
MEPs.
Final trilogue
Consolidated text (4th
The 'analysis/confirmation of the final compromise
(1) all LIMITE
5
column)
text' is generally an ST LIMITE document sent to
Therefore, it would be eventually released
Coreper. But there are also examples of it being
after adoption of the act.
public (14846/17, 15849/17, 9296/18).
(2) all PUBLIC
It should be however noted that once it comes on
the agenda of a meeting of the responsible EP
Either since its creation or released after
committee for a vote, it becomes public.
consideration by Coreper.
NB: the fact that the EP committee makes it
public shortly afterwards means that the
LIMITE marking wil only restrict the document
for some days/weeks.
Offer letter to EP
The Offer Letter is not an ST document, it is a PCY
(1) maintain current practice
letter following endorsement by Coreper of the
provisional agreement.
(2) turn it into an ST document, in which case
need to determine whether to make it LIMITE
or PUBLIC
NOTE: The Offer Letter is a relatively standard
document, publicity would have few practical
effects, what really matters is the consolidated
text.
Adoption
PE-CONS document
The PE-CONS document is a public document.
Maintenance of current practice [no other
feasible option].
Approval or non-approval
The text adopted by the EP is public.
Maintenance of current practice [no other
of EP position at 1st
feasible option].
reading
The corresponding Council document taking up that
text for transmission to the Council for adoption is
public.
Council position at first
This document is public.
Maintenance of current practice [no other
reading
feasible option].
Statement of reasons
This is a public document.
Maintenance of current practice [no other
feasible option].
Approval or non-approval
This is a public document.
Maintenance of current practice [no other
of EP amendments at
6
second reading
feasible option].
7