Commissioner Wallströms hits back at critics: ”They can’t have read the text”

STOCKHOLM – 10th of June 2008 – Commissioner Margot Wallström, responsible for the proposed revision of EU transparency rules, says criticism of her proposal is based on misunderstandings, and an inability to read the text.

At a meeting with Swedish journalists in Stockholm commissioner Wallström harshly denied that the Commission would want to limit access to documents:

”All documents available today will be available with our new proposal, plus it will improve access to electronically stored information,” she said.

She also denied that references to laws on data protection would overrule the proposed rules of transparency:

”In the future will be given access to names, titles and positions of persons taking part in meetings. If then someone asks for further information this should be checked with the data legislation. But it is not like that the data legislation in anyway subordinates transparency rules.”

A third misunderstanding Margot Wallström wanted to correct was accusations of trying to hold back documents related to court cases, and investigations in competition matters.

”The situation will be the same as it is today, only we make the rules more clear and easy to understand. After all, it is not like that legal proceedings get public after an investigation in the member countries either.”

Asked how the European Ombudsman could have come to such a different understanding of the proposal Margot Wallström answered:

” I’ll say they seem to have read it badly when they claim that registration is a condition to get access to a document. Anyone who reads the text can see this is not correct. It says a document should be ”registered or in another way have been passed to the institution”. The existing rules only mentions ”documents”. It’s no like that you can eliminate anything (with the new rules –ed.). This must be seen in connection with the rules on registration already in force. We (the Commission – ed.) can’t just do what we want. Everything shall be registered. These are the same rules as in Sweden where we have memos (not being registered - ed.) But as soon as a document is drawn up, or sent to someone, or has been signed, it is a document and shall be registered.”

Apparently there are many misunderstandings coming from such different sources as the Ombudsman, the Swedish Ministry of Justice, Statewatch, and...

”I think it was someone who started and then the rest followed. Now we have had a chance in the hearing in the Parliament to clarify our proposal. It can’t be read in any other way.”

To avoid these misunderstandings couldn’t the easiest solution be to keep the present definition?

”But there is no definition today! The present rules only say ”documents”, but we mean that documents should also cover the content of electronic databases. We believe this is an improvement. Actually it gives a clearer understanding of what citizens can ask for. I only whish anyone could give an example of what could be withhold (with the new rules – ed.). So far no one has been able to do that.

On competition matters the rules today say there can be an overriding interest of transparency in spite of reasons for confidentiality?

”There is practically nothing. It could be a report from the UN and that would anyway be accessible in other ways. There is nothing that you can get access to today which you will not get by the help of the new rules. We believe this gives improved clarity on how the rules work, and it means we can use our resources better. Clearly if a flight company wants access to information on Alitalias routes to South America, this was not the aim of the transparency rules. But these claims occupy a lot of our resources. Instead of using our resources to go through demands for access like these ending with a no, we can use them to spread information and making it available for the general public.”

Shortly on the access to legal documents and documents to courts: Why should it not be possible to get access even after a case has...?

”Oh yes, after a case is finished, documents will be available.”

Will they, really?

”Yes, when a case is settled documents will be available, unless there are other reasons not to, such as the interest to protect personal data,” Margot Wallström said.