Thursday

21st Mar 2019

Opinion

Are judges destroying transparency in EU institutions?

  • The main chamber of the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg (Photo: Court of Justice of the European Union)

In 2015, a team of journalists requested various documents about the expenses of European Parliament members paid by the EU budget.

In 2016, this author requested various documents about the expenses of the European Court of Justice, concerning among other things the possible use of cars and chauffeurs for private trips paid by the EU budget.

Read and decide

Join EUobserver today

Support quality EU news

Get instant access to all articles — and 18 year's of archives. 30 days free trial.

... or join as a group

The parliament refused all journalists' requests for various reasons (no documents, excessive workload, and especially private data).

The journalists introduced a legal action.

The Court of Justice refused more or less all the author's requests, though they cited both his quality as a member of the institution, and later as a citizen.

The author then made a complaint to the Ombudsman, and later a legal action about three decisions.

In September 2018, the EU General Court approved totally the parliament's refusal, invoking essentially the protection of personal data (the concept is mentioned 43 times in a judgment of 140 points!).

It considered that more or less all documents contained personal data.

Consequently, for each document, the journalists had to produce a very concrete reason to disclose the personal data, with each time concrete evidence.

The general need to control concrete expenses financed by the European taxpayer was never considered as a valid justification.

In November 2018, in a letter to the ombudsman the president of the Court of Justice adopted exactly the same reasoning.

It covered any document written or signed by a judge on any administrative or legislative matter (car, chauffeurs, budget, ICT, appointment, official missions, legislative debate, etc), with the additional motive that all these topics are considered as directly linked to the judicial activity.

Again, the general need to control expenses financed by the European taxpayer is never considered as a valid justification. The judgment is invoked four times (though the appeal period was not over).

Transparency slowing dying

This approach leads to a very paradoxical result.

As the definition and protection of personal data are broadened, the EU institutions communicate less and less, and transparency is slowly dying.

Obtaining official documents becomes a new sequel of Mission Impossible (but without the happy ending).

Finding a concrete and precise justification for each document is extremely cumbersome. It also often requires precise information, which was precisely the reason why the Amsterdam Treaty enshrined the right to obtain it in the first place (the author was among the negotiators).

Furthermore, the required level of legal acumen makes this largely impossible for non lawyers.

Consequently, judgments often begin by affirming the theoretical principle of access and finish by concluding that concrete access is refused.

More fundamentally, many more requests are made, by journalists for example, and are refused. Financing a legal action is simply not possible.

There are reasons to doubt the validity of such a restrictive approach.

"Data protection was more important than the costs aspects" is the jurisprudence's synthesis given by the General Court's president.

The synthesis is alas good, but the court's legal interpretation is not.

Not 'absolute'

Data protection is not at all an absolute right, and should be combined with other rights similarly protected by the charter of fundamental rights, such as the right of access to documents (Article 42), the right to information (Article 11), and the right to a good administration (Article 41).

The jurisprudence's very restrictive approach has revealed a complete opposition between the Court of Justice and the commission.

As an example (there are many others), the court refuses to communicate any concrete element linked to the use of chauffeurs and cars by judges, while the commission, following the ombudsman's invitation, does precisely the opposite with commissioners.

This is an essential improvement.

For the first time, citizens and control organs can know exactly what is publicly financed, and the Juncker commission must be strongly commended for this.

It is very hard to understand how the trips of the institutions' members can be considered simultaneously so public that they must be financed by the taxpayer and so private that nobody can know anything about them.

Whatever one thinks about Martin Selmayr's appointment, the commission has also been very transparent with the documents (here too, the Court of Justice follows completely the opposite approach).

This context explains why the author introduced a legal action against the Court of Justice (with a hearing on 11 January 2019).

If the ECJ restrictive approach is confirmed, it will mean that the other institutions' openness (beginning with the commission's) will be strongly reduced.

In a period of strong contestation of the EU by various circles, this could become very dangerous.

This restricts strongly control by the press (which has a huge stake here), the institutions, and finally the citizens.

Furthermore, nothing infuriates more the public than the feeling that opacity protects the interests of the European institution's members (or top bureaucrats).

Transparency remains an essential instrument to remedy the present crisis of trust in the institutions. Accepting its fading away will be extremely damaging.

Franklin Dehousse is a professor at Liege University, and a former judge at the Court of Justice of the EU

Leading MEP defends expenses secrecy

The man tasked with making the EP more transparent has said there are more important issues than making MEP monthly expenses public.

EU parliament will not budge on office expenses

Hungarian centre-right MEP Livia Jaroka sticks to earlier decision: documents related to the minor reform of the expenses system, requested by EUobserver, should remain secret.

New 'EU presidents' strangling free press

Romania's press freedom is "in free fall" as it takes over its EU presidency, Reporters Without Borders has warned, amid wider EU concern on judicial meddling and corruption.

Macron is confusing rigidity with strength

Jan Zahradil, EU Commission president Spitzenkandidat for the European Conservatives and Reformists Group, responds to Emmaneul Macron's European vision ahead of the May elections.

Italy should capitalise on Brexit

Now that the UK is leaving, Italy can, and should, step up. It is the third largest country and economy in the EU. Spain and Poland follow, but they are significantly smaller economically and population-wise.

The Magnitsky Act - and its name

It is disappointing that so many MEPs in the Socialist and Green group caved in to Russian interests, in fear of challenging a plutocratic regime, by saying 'no' to naming the Magnitsky legislation by its rightful name: Magnitsky.

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. Nordic Council of MinistersLeading Nordic candidates go head-to-head in EU election debate
  2. Nordic Council of MinistersNew Secretary General: Nordic co-operation must benefit everybody
  3. Platform for Peace and JusticeMEP Kati Piri: “Our red line on Turkey has been crossed”
  4. UNICEF2018 deadliest year yet for children in Syria as war enters 9th year
  5. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic commitment to driving global gender equality
  6. International Partnership for Human RightsMeet your defender: Rasul Jafarov leading human rights defender from Azerbaijan
  7. UNICEFUNICEF Hosts MEPs in Jordan Ahead of Brussels Conference on the Future of Syria
  8. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic talks on parental leave at the UN
  9. International Partnership for Human RightsTrial of Chechen prisoner of conscience and human rights activist Oyub Titiev continues.
  10. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic food policy inspires India to be a sustainable superpower
  11. Nordic Council of MinistersMilestone for Nordic-Baltic e-ID
  12. Counter BalanceEU bank urged to free itself from fossil fuels and take climate leadership

Latest News

  1. EPP suspends Orban's Fidesz party
  2. Macron is confusing rigidity with strength
  3. May tosses Brexit spanner into EU machinery
  4. Centre-right EPP faces showdown with Orban
  5. A compromise proposal for the Article 50 extension
  6. US glyphosate verdict gives ammunition to EU activists
  7. Have a good reason for Brexit extension, Barnier tells UK
  8. EU countries push for new rule of law surveillance

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. Intercultural Dialogue PlatformRoundtable: Muslim Heresy and the Politics of Human Rights, Dr. Matthew J. Nelson
  2. Platform for Peace and JusticeTurkey suffering from the lack of the rule of law
  3. UNESDASoft Drinks Europe welcomes Tim Brett as its new president
  4. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic ministers take the lead in combatting climate change
  5. Counter BalanceEuropean Parliament takes incoherent steps on climate in future EU investments
  6. International Partnership For Human RightsKyrgyz authorities have to immediately release human rights defender Azimjon Askarov
  7. Nordic Council of MinistersSeminar on disability and user involvement
  8. Nordic Council of MinistersInternational appetite for Nordic food policies
  9. Nordic Council of MinistersNew Nordic Innovation House in Hong Kong
  10. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic Region has chance to become world leader when it comes to start-ups
  11. Nordic Council of MinistersTheresa May: “We will not be turning our backs on the Nordic region”
  12. International Partnership for Human RightsOpen letter to Emmanuel Macron ahead of Uzbek president's visit

Join EUobserver

Support quality EU news

Join us