Article: EU Document Registers: Empirical Gaps Limiting the Right of Access to Documents in Europe

IF 1.7 2区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Matthias Haller, Domenico Rosani
{"title":"Article: EU Document Registers: Empirical Gaps Limiting the Right of Access to Documents in Europe","authors":"Matthias Haller, Domenico Rosani","doi":"10.54648/cola2024028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the instrument of document registers as a pivotal medium for ensuring the right of access to EU documents and public accountability. While the general right of access to documents has been extensively analysed, document registers and especially their practice are still under-examined. This article specifically focuses on the registers of the Parliament, the Council and the Commission, highlighting two striking gaps. The first gap exists between the strict rules of the Access Regulation and the softer rules of the institutions, the second between what is provided on the abstract level by these rules and the practical level. As shown by an empirical study of the user-friendliness, completeness and proactivity of the registers, their current design and limited content severely limit people’s right of access. In light of these shortcomings, this article recommends different practical approaches to increase the effectiveness of document registers. This would significantly improve the actual implementation of the right of public access to documents, while at the same time reducing the administrative burden on EU public institutions.\nDocument registers, right of access to documents, Parliament, Council, Commission, EU Access Regulation","PeriodicalId":47406,"journal":{"name":"Common Market Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Common Market Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/cola2024028","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article examines the instrument of document registers as a pivotal medium for ensuring the right of access to EU documents and public accountability. While the general right of access to documents has been extensively analysed, document registers and especially their practice are still under-examined. This article specifically focuses on the registers of the Parliament, the Council and the Commission, highlighting two striking gaps. The first gap exists between the strict rules of the Access Regulation and the softer rules of the institutions, the second between what is provided on the abstract level by these rules and the practical level. As shown by an empirical study of the user-friendliness, completeness and proactivity of the registers, their current design and limited content severely limit people’s right of access. In light of these shortcomings, this article recommends different practical approaches to increase the effectiveness of document registers. This would significantly improve the actual implementation of the right of public access to documents, while at the same time reducing the administrative burden on EU public institutions. Document registers, right of access to documents, Parliament, Council, Commission, EU Access Regulation
文章:欧盟文件登记册:限制欧洲文件获取权的经验差距
本文探讨了文件登记这一确保欧盟文件获取权和公共问责制的关键手段。虽然对获取文件的一般权利进行了广泛的分析,但文件登记册,尤其是其实践仍未得到充分的研究。本文特别关注议会、理事会和欧盟委员会的文件登记册,强调了两个显著的差距。第一个差距存在于《获取条例》的严格规定与各机构的软性规定之间,第二个差距存在于这些规定的抽象层面与实际层面之间。对登记册的用户友好性、完整性和主动性的实证研究表明,登记册目前的设计和有限的内容严重限制了人们的使用权。鉴于这些缺陷,本文建议采取不同的实用方法来提高文件登记册的有效性。这将大大改善公众获取文件权利的实际落实情况,同时减轻欧盟公共机构的行政负担。 文件登记册、获取文件的权利、议会、理事会、委员会、欧盟获取条例
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
30.40%
发文量
111
期刊介绍: The Common Market Law Review has provided a forum for the keenest legal minds in the fields for more than 40 years. Because of the international composition of its Editorial Board, and in view of the fact that it is able to attract contributions from all over Europe, and from the United States, the Review is able to adopt a unique approach to capitilize Community issues. Each issue contains articles dealing with matters of current interest; the authoritative treatment given to each topic ensures lasting juridical value. This pre-eminent journal brings you detailed, in-depth examination of the most pressing and far-reaching issues on Community Law.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信