Dies ist eine HTML Version eines Anhanges der Informationsfreiheitsanfrage 'Document 9319/19'.


 
  
 
 
 

Council of the 
 
 

 European Union 
   
 
Brussels, 15 May 2019 
(OR. en) 
    9319/19 
 
 
 
 
LIMITE 

 
INF 140 

API 52 
OMBUDS 6 
 
 
JUR 251 
INST 135 
POLGEN 100 
CODEC 1083 
ANTICI 5 
 
NOTE 
From: 
General Secretariat of the Council 
To: 
Delegations 
Subject: 
Legislative transparency - examination of options 
 
 
 
Delegations will find in Annex a note on legislative transparency following the discussion in 
Coreper on 2 May. 
 
 
 
9319/19  
 
 

 
GIP-JUR-COMM 
LIMITE 
EN 
 

 
ANNEX 
 
Legislative transparency - examination of options 
1. 
On 2 May, Coreper held an exchange of views on the basis of a note (doc. 7888/19) and 
tasked the Antici group (Anticis + 1, legal advisers) to take work forward on the basis of the 
guidance provided.  
2. 
This note aims to provide options to focus the discussion in the Antici+1, with the aim of 
identifying the approach meeting the broadest support. 
A. 
Use of General Approach 
3. 
During the Coreper discussion, there was broad support for the principle of adopting initial 
mandates for legislative files as General Approach at Council level, as a general rule. Several 
delegations called for the possibility of exceptions to be foreseen in order to prevent 
hampering the efficiency of the legislative process. One delegation called for examination of 
the legal and political implications of the level of decision-making by either of the co-
legislators with regard to the interpretation of Article 294 TFEU. 
4. 
Therefore, it is proposed to have recourse to General Approaches at Council level 
systematically for all initial mandates, either as B item at a Council session in the relevant 
configuration for the substance of the file or as A item at the first available Council session (in 
any configuration) or in written procedure. The exception to the rule would be an adoption of 
the initial mandate at the level of Coreper; an agreement reached at the level of the working 
party could not constitute an initial mandate for negotiations unless it is validated by Coreper. 
5. 
It is proposed to define the exceptions to this general rule as applying when all the following 
circumstances are met. An initial mandate can be granted at Coreper level: 
a.  upon the initiative of the Presidency; 
b.  when the calendar of planned negotiations so requires; 
c.  with the agreement of Coreper; and 
d.  making the mandate public after its examination in Coreper. 
 
9319/19  
 
 

ANNEX 
GIP-JUR-COMM 
LIMITE 
EN 
 

 
6. 
In practice, this would cover situations where either the calendar of planned Council meetings 
or logistical requirements for the processing of the documents (including translations) would 
entail, in the opinion of the Presidency, a detrimental delay to the start of negotiations, for 
instance due to the need for entry into force of the act before a certain date. A note to Coreper 
would be prepared, inviting explicitly to agree (by simple majority) to grant the mandate at 
Coreper level and noting that the document would be made public after its examination by 
Coreper.  
7. 
The proposed approach would only apply for initial mandates; it would not have an impact on 
the practice applicable for revising mandates during the negotiations. 
B. 
Targeted publication approach 
8. 
During the Coreper discussion, while there was no consensus on a specific option, there was 
broad support for pursuing reflection on the third option presented in the note to Coreper, a 
targeted publication approach.  
9. 
This note aims to identify concrete elements which could be included in such a targeted 
approach, starting from the elements mentioned by delegations during the Coreper discussion 
and taking as a reference the milestones table in annex to the GSC policy paper of July 2018 
(doc. 11099/18). 
10.  No objections were expressed in Coreper to the inclusion in a possible targeted approach of:  
a. 
the initial Council mandate (in line with above); 
b. 
the final position (the "fourth column" of the last 4-column table reflecting the final 
outcome of negotiations), after examination by Coreper; and 
c. 
progress reports submitted to Coreper, after examination by Coreper and if no objection 
has been raised in Coreper to their publication. 
 
9319/19  
 
 

ANNEX 
GIP-JUR-COMM 
LIMITE 
EN 
 

 
11.  For 10b above, it should be noted that what is meant is only the agreed text, rather than the 
whole 4-column table representing the outcome of the last trilogue; therefore, such an element 
could be included in a targeted approach without prejudice to any decision on 4-column 
tables. 
12.  For 10c above, it is proposed that an objection could be raised by a single delegation and no 
specific grounds would be required. The objection would only reverse the presumption of 
proactive disclosure while the relevant rules will apply as concerns making public a document 
(simple majority, Art 6(1) RoP) and access to documents rules would continue to apply in 
case of a request for access. It is understood that the current practice for progress reports 
submitted to Council would continue to apply, in line with the applicable rules; the new 
process would concern progress reports submitted to Coreper only. 
13.  With reference to the milestone table in annex to doc. 11099/18, it can be noted that the 
general practice for several of the documents mentioned therein is to issue these as public. 
Among the documents in the table, some documents reproduce contents already issued as 
public, or about to be issued as public, by other parties; some do not concern specifically the 
substance of the file, thus their public or non-public nature would not have any consequence 
on the protection of the negotiation process. 
14.  It is thus proposed to issue as public documents the following: 
a. 
ST document with the Commission proposal (already generally issued as public in 
practice, in light of its otherwise public content); 
b. 
documents relating to the adoption stage of a legislative file - PE-CONS document, 
approval or non-approval of EP position at first reading, Council position at first 
reading, statement of reasons, approval or non-approval of EP amendments at second 
reading (already generally issued as public in practice, in line with applicable rules 
given their submission to Council); 
c. 
working party agendas on which legislative files feature as items (already generally 
issued as public in practice in line with the Council's Rules of Procedure, annex II); 
 
9319/19  
 
 

ANNEX 
GIP-JUR-COMM 
LIMITE 
EN 
 

 
d. 
the offer letter once sent to the EP (given that its contents would not have any 
consequence on the protection of the negotiation process). The annex to this letter 
would correspond to 10b above and would thus be also public in the proposed approach. 
15.  For the case of documents produced in the context of trilogues, the following could be 
envisaged:  
a. 
trilogue agendas, where applicable, would not be considered for proactive publication; 
b. 
lists of participants for trilogues, where applicable, would not be considered for 
proactive publication (including in light of data protection requirements); 
c. 
4-column tables established in preparation for a trilogue or as outcome for a trilogue 
could be made public, in coordination with EP and Commission if they are co-authors 
of the document, upon initiative of the Presidency, after examination by Coreper and if 
no objection has been raised in Coreper to their publication (an objection could be 
raised by a single delegation and no specific grounds would be required since the 
objection would only reverse the presumption of proactive disclosure while the relevant 
rules would apply as concerns making public a document (simple majority, Art 6(1) 
RoP) and access to documents rules would continue to apply in case of a request for 
access). 
16.  It could be envisaged to consider the approach in point 15 above as a position of the Council 
in view of discussions with the other institutions involved in the trilogue process, in order to 
allow for a common approach to be agreed on the handling of these jointly-held documents. 
The Antici group is invited to: 

confirm the proposal in point 4 and 5; 

confirm the elements in point 10 and examine which of the elements in points 14 and 15 meet 
the broadest support. 
Following the discussion, an orientation note would be prepared by the GSC in view of 
endorsement by Coreper. 
 
 
 
9319/19  
 
 

ANNEX 
GIP-JUR-COMM 
LIMITE 
EN