Comments

to the following article:

Public access to community documents: a fundamental human right?

Roy W. Davis

European Integration online Papers (EIoP) Vol. 3 (1999) N° 8; http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/1999-008a.htm

Date of Publication in : 27.7.1999

| Abstract | Back to homepage | SEND A COMMENT TO A COMMENT!

If you wish to quote the following comments, please use the following format:
[Author of comment], Comment no. X to [author(s) of commented paper], [Subject ], [title of commented paper] (European Integration online Papers (EIoP) Vol. x (199y) N° z); http://eiop.or.at/eiop/comment/199y-zzzc.htm.

May I draw your attention to the related paper by Ulf Öberg, published as no. 8 in Vol. 2 of the EIoP with the following title: Public Access to Documents after the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty: Much Ado About Nothing?.

This article has not attracted quite the volume of feedback hoped for, as evidenced by this lone comment submitted by the author himself. However, it has generated some response via E-mail correspondence with Messrs. Ulf Öberg and Christoph Sobotta. Following this discussion I should like to clarify one point:

The right of public access to government-held documents may indeed be regarded as fundamental in a democratic society, (such as the EU is, after all, supposed to be – in theory). I am not prepared to dispute that point. It does not, however, substantially affect my reservations in respect of the universality of the right, whilst it remains true to say that not all societies are democratic as Europeans are supposed to understand the term. I should also like to concede that, although I sincerely hope the dispute concerning the 'fundamental' status of the right has not been wholly without interest to the readers of EIoP, it does not substantially affect this reality: the source and status of the right is not actually as important an issue as the scope and content of the rules governing the provision of the right, in purely practical terms. Thus, a fundamental right of access enshrined in the Treaty itself would surely be of less use, if unduly limited by exceptions and narrow definitions of key terms such as 'document', than a truly liberal right conferred (however dubiously in terms of legal basis) by a mere Commission Decision.

I should very much like to thank Ulf and Christoph for giving me further food for thought, although I must stress at this point that they would not necessarily agree with either my interpretation of their arguments or the conclusions that I have drawn from those arguments. Further feedback will of course be most appreciated.