The European Ombudsman, P. Nikiforos Diamandouros, has called on the European Commission to release documents concerning the construction of an industrial port in Granadilla, Tenerife. This follows a complaint from the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), a federation of environmental citizens' organisations, whose request for access to the documents was rejected by the Commission.
According to the Commission, the Spanish authorities objected to the disclosure of those documents which originated from them. The other documents in question were internal Commission documents related to its approval of the Granadilla project. The Commission argued that disclosing them would seriously undermine its decision-making process.
After inspecting the documents, the Ombudsman considered that, with one exception, the internal documents should be released. He also recommended that the Commission should contact the Spanish authorities again and release the documents that originate from them, unless it gives valid reasons for denying access that meet the standards laid down by the Court of Justice.
Controversial construction of industrial port in Granadilla, Tenerife
In 2006, the European Commission approved the Spanish authorities' plans to construct an industrial port in Granadilla, Tenerife. The project is currently on hold because of court proceedings concerning the protection of a seaweed species.
In July 2006, the EEB asked the Commission for access to a number of documents related to the Commission's decision to approve the port project. The Commission refused to disclose some of the requested documents because the Spanish authorities, from whom the documents originated, did not agree to their disclosure. Access to a number of internal Commission documents was also refused, on the grounds that their disclosure would seriously undermine the institution's decision-making process.
During his investigation, the Ombudsman inspected the relevant documents. As regards the documents that originated from the Spanish authorities, he concluded that the Commission cannot refuse disclosure, unless it gives reasons that meet the standards laid down by the Court of Justice. He advised the Commission to enter into a dialogue with the Spanish authorities to make sure that there are indeed valid arguments against disclosure. If no such reasons exist, the Ombudsman said, the Commission should release the documents.
The Ombudsman found no evidence that disclosure of most of the internal documents would undermine the Commission's decision-making process. On the contrary, their disclosure would, in his view, help improve the Commission's internal deliberations. However, the Ombudsman did agree with the Commission that one of the documents in dispute should not be disclosed. He asked the Commission to submit a detailed opinion by 31 October 2009.
According to the Commission, the Spanish authorities objected to the disclosure of those documents which originated from them. The other documents in question were internal Commission documents related to its approval of the Granadilla project. The Commission argued that disclosing them would seriously undermine its decision-making process.
After inspecting the documents, the Ombudsman considered that, with one exception, the internal documents should be released. He also recommended that the Commission should contact the Spanish authorities again and release the documents that originate from them, unless it gives valid reasons for denying access that meet the standards laid down by the Court of Justice.
Controversial construction of industrial port in Granadilla, Tenerife
In 2006, the European Commission approved the Spanish authorities' plans to construct an industrial port in Granadilla, Tenerife. The project is currently on hold because of court proceedings concerning the protection of a seaweed species.
In July 2006, the EEB asked the Commission for access to a number of documents related to the Commission's decision to approve the port project. The Commission refused to disclose some of the requested documents because the Spanish authorities, from whom the documents originated, did not agree to their disclosure. Access to a number of internal Commission documents was also refused, on the grounds that their disclosure would seriously undermine the institution's decision-making process.
During his investigation, the Ombudsman inspected the relevant documents. As regards the documents that originated from the Spanish authorities, he concluded that the Commission cannot refuse disclosure, unless it gives reasons that meet the standards laid down by the Court of Justice. He advised the Commission to enter into a dialogue with the Spanish authorities to make sure that there are indeed valid arguments against disclosure. If no such reasons exist, the Ombudsman said, the Commission should release the documents.
The Ombudsman found no evidence that disclosure of most of the internal documents would undermine the Commission's decision-making process. On the contrary, their disclosure would, in his view, help improve the Commission's internal deliberations. However, the Ombudsman did agree with the Commission that one of the documents in dispute should not be disclosed. He asked the Commission to submit a detailed opinion by 31 October 2009.
No comments:
Post a Comment