REPORT on public access to documents – report covering the years 2022 - 2024

Wording as published by the EP, in English.

1. Amendment 1Rejected

   Citation 13 a (new)

   Tabled by András László, Petra Steger, Marieke Ehlers +4 · PfE

   Added: – having regard to the reports and recommendations of the European Court of Auditors (ECA), in particular its special report 11/2025, entitled ‘Transparency of EU funding granted to NGOs’, published in April 2025;

2. Amendment 2Rejected

   Recital E a (new)

   Tabled by András László, Petra Steger, Marieke Ehlers +4 · PfE

   Added: Ea. Whereas in its special report 11/2025, the ECA found that while non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have a strong influence on the EU’s decision-making processes, there is a lack of transparency regarding the EU funding granted to these entities; whereas the report found that important aspects of an NGO’s status were systematically not checked, leading to entities having an incorrect NGO classification in the Financial Transparency System;

3. Amendment 3Rejected

   Recital E b (new)

   Tabled by András László, Petra Steger, Marieke Ehlers +4 · PfE

   Added: Eb. Whereas although the ECA report stressed that it is permitted for NGOs to receive grants to support their operating costs, including advocacy, in its audit, the ECA clearly states that the Commission does not disclose information on the advocacy activities financed; whereas private citizens and MEPs have repeatedly requested access to Commission contracts with NGOs without success;

4. Amendment 4Rejected

   Recital E c (new)

   Tabled by András László, Petra Steger, Marieke Ehlers +4 · PfE

   Added: Ec. Whereas according to the ECA, the Commission did not conduct proper checks on NGOs’ financial dependency and funding sources, ignoring the real stakeholders behind entities that benefit from millions of euro in EU funding;

5. Amendment 5Rejected

   Recital E d (new)

   Tabled by András László, Petra Steger, Marieke Ehlers +4 · PfE

   Added: Ed. Whereas the Commission has been evading responsibility for years and has failed to properly handle public access to documents; whereas the subsidies granted to NGOs are essentially non-transparent, even though this concerns EU taxpayers’ money; whereas the scandals of recent years have shown that the EU, including Parliament, has been funding NGOs for political lobbying;

6. Amendment 6Rejected

   Recital E e (new)

   Tabled by András László, Petra Steger, Marieke Ehlers +4 · PfE

   Added: Ee. whereas following repeated requests, the Commission published a list of NGO grants for the period 2019-2023 and their total value amounts to EUR 17 billion, with over 37 000 contracts available at www.ngotransparency.eu; whereas neither the grant agreements nor the financial reports are publicly accessible;

7. Amendment 7Rejected

   Paragraph 12 a (new)

   Tabled by András László, Petra Steger, Marieke Ehlers +4 · PfE

   Added: 12a. Notes with great concern the general lack of transparency and proper scrutiny in relations between the EU institutions and NGOs;

8. Amendment 8Rejected

   Paragraph 32 a (new)

   Tabled by András László, Petra Steger, Marieke Ehlers +4 · PfE

   Added: 32a. Calls on the Commission to publish all grants, contracts and documents automatically, without any need for request, on a central online platform that is easily accessible, searchable and transparent;

9. Amendment 9Rejected

   Paragraph 32 b (new)

   Tabled by András László, Petra Steger, Marieke Ehlers +4 · PfE

   Added: 32b. Urges the Commission to publish all documents relating to NGO funding under the 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework;

10. Amendment 10Rejected

    Paragraph 10 a (new)

    Tabled by Milan Uhrík, Christine Anderson · ESN

    Added: 10a. Firmly believes that the Commission should lead by example as regards transparency, good governance, not spreading disinformation and not interfering with electoral integrity;

11. Amendment 11Rejected

    Paragraph 26

    Tabled by Mary Khan, Christine Anderson, Milan Uhrík · ESN

    … retain documentation to ensure the effective exercise of the right of access; Added: calls for full clarification regarding the existence, preservation, deletion or recoverability of the requested messages; insists that internal record management rules cannot limit obligations under Article 15 TFEU and Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001;

12. Amendment 12Rejected

    Paragraph 27 a (new)

    Tabled by Mary Khan, Christine Anderson, Milan Uhrík · ESN

    Added: 27a. Notes that the existence of a document within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 is independent of its registration; stresses that documents relating to EU policies or significant financial commitments cannot be deemed non-existent solely because they were not registered or were categorised as ‘short-lived’, and that any unjustified destruction, non-registration or loss of such documents constitutes a serious breach of the principles of transparency and good administration, as well as of the duties of integrity and loyalty binding EU officials and office-holders under the applicable legal framework;

13. Amendment 13Rejected

    Paragraph 32 a (new)

    Tabled by Mary Khan, Christine Anderson, Milan Uhrík · ESN

    Added: 32a. Calls for a thorough and independent review of the conduct of the President of the Commission in relation to the preservation and handling of documents requested under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001; stresses that members of the Commission are bound by the principles of transparency, integrity and good administration laid down in Article 17 TEU and Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter; considers that, where serious breaches of document preservation or transparency obligations are established, appropriate disciplinary or institutional measures must be examined in order to uphold the rule of law, safeguard the credibility of the EU’s legal order and restore public trust;

14. Amendment 14Rejected

    Paragraph 37 a (new)

    Tabled by Mary Khan, Christine Anderson, Milan Uhrík · ESN

    Added: 37a. Notes that systemic delays and inadequate record preservation practices identified in Ombudsman inquiries and case-law demonstrate structural shortcomings in the current framework; calls for the revised transparency rules to include enforceable consequences where institutions fail to preserve documents or repeatedly disregard statutory deadlines, including proportionate administrative and disciplinary measures; stresses that transparency obligations must be effective in practice and not merely declaratory;