Legislative transparency - Questionnaire
This questionnaire comes as a follow-up to the options paper distributed to delegations prior to the
11 October Antici +1 meeting and to the case study distributed prior to the 4 December meeting.
It should help the GSC to have a better understanding of MS views on accessibility of the various
documents produced during the legislative process.
Pending agreement on a new approach, in part or in whole, the GSC wil continue to apply existing
legislation including applicable case-law, as well as its internal guidelines, both in the production of
documents and the handling of requests for access to documents.
The GSC wil also maintain the status quo for documents relating to a legislative file, other than
those specifically covered by the questions below.
This questionnaire, as well as the whole exercise, is without prejudice to the rules on producing
and handling of EUCI as wel as to technical or legal developments. The GSC may come back to
the Permanent Representatives Committee, whenever required by such developments.
Member states are kindly requested to confirm (or not) the following affirmations:
Working party examination
1) For documents reflecting discussions at the level of the working party on a legislative
file, the status quo should continue to apply. It is for the GSC to apply existing rules and
guidelines.
In practice, this would mean that the GSC would continue to assess, for each document, whether it
should be issued as ST or WK, and whether or not it should bear the LIMITE marking. For
example, a document with compromise proposals which identifies positions of Member States
would be issued as ST LIMITE; contributions by other institutions and bodies which are sent as
public documents by their authors would be issued as public documents; non-papers presented by
a delegation would be issued as WK LIMITE etc.
□ YES
□ NO
COMMENTS:
Progress reports to Coreper
2) As not all Progress Reports need to be addressed to Council,
Progress Reports addressed to
COREPER should become public after examination in COREPER provided no exception
against their release is raised.
In practice, this would entail submitting a LIMITE document to Coreper and the issuing of a COR
removing the LIMITE marking immediately after the document has been examined by Coreper
(and provided the content of the document is not covered by a specific exception that would argue
against release), or issuing a revised (REV) public document including changes agreed in Coreper.
In cases where the progress report would also be addressed to the Council, this entails no change,
as the document would then become public once on the Council agenda.
□ YES
□ NO
COMMENTS:
Mandates
3a)
The initial Council position which serves as a basis for negotiations with the European
Parliament, should, as far as possible and practical, be adopted as a "General Approach" by
the Council and thus it should be a public document.
In practice, for those files for which currently a mandate is agreed in Coreper on the basis of a
LIMITE document, the formalisation as General Approach would then take place by inscribing the
same text in a public document as A item at the next available Council.
□ YES
□ NO
COMMENTS:
3b)
In exceptional circumstances where constraints related to the timing of Council
meetings do not allow use to be made of the option proposed in the previous question, or
in case of a negative answer to the previous question, initial negotiating mandates agreed
in COREPER become public after consideration by Coreper provided no specific objection
to publication was raised in Coreper.
In practice, this would entail submitting a LIMITE document to Coreper and issuing of a COR
removing the LIMITE marking immediately after the agreement is reached in COREPER and
provided no objection was raised.. The constraints mentioned could concern for instance the timing
of the next available Council meeting or logistical constraints such as the timing required for the
production of language versions.
□ YES
□ NO
COMMENTS:
3c)
For revised mandates, as a general rule, these should be agreed in COREPER and they
should become public after consideration by COREPER provided no specific objection to
publication was raised in COREPER.
In practice, this would entail submitting a LIMITE document to Coreper and issuing of a COR
removing the LIMITE marking immediately after the agreement is reached in COREPER and
provided no objection was raised.
□ YES
□ NO
COMMENTS:
Initial and final trilogues
4a)
The 4-column-table representing the basis for the initial trilogue, as a general rule,
should be issued as a public ST document.
The only part of the table which could potentially not yet be public is the Council's position, should
this one be a Coreper mandate that stil bears the LIMITE marking (e.g. following objections raised
as indicated under question 3b above). Distributing this initial 4-column-table as a public ST
document could be done automatically by the GSC (provided that no objection was raised as
indicated under question 3b above).
□ YES
□ NO
COMMENTS:
4b)
The text of the provisional agreement (outcome of the final trilogue) should be made
public after consideration by COREPER and provided no specific objection to publication
was raised in COREPER; the Offer Letter from the COREPER Chair to the EP Committee
Chair should be made public once sent.
This would mean that in relation to (i), after the Coreper meeting and in relation to (i ) after the
letter is sent, the LIMITE marking would be removed. The effects are in fact quite small, since the
Offer Letter is in essence procedural, and the provisional agreement wil in any case be made
public by the corresponding EP committee shortly after.
□ YES
□ NO
COMMENTS:
Intermediate trilogues
5)
The GSC should try to identify a common approach with the services of the other
Institutions regarding the key moments during the trilogue process at which the 4-column
tables could be made public.
The GSC would aim to report back to delegations on the progress of such discussions in spring
2019.
□ YES
□ NO
COMMENTS:
