What changed between the plenary report and the adopted text

Changed:A. whereas the EU Treaties guarantee every citizen the right to democratic participation and transparent decision-making, requiring EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies to grant the public access to documents; whereas this fundamental right of access to documents, protected by the Treaties and the Charter, enables effective citizen scrutiny15,scrutiny, and should therefore be exercised proactively;

Changed:L. whereas in May 2021, a journalist requested access to documents, including text messages between the Commission President and Pfizer, but the Commission stated that it held no such records on the basis of internal registration rules; whereas the way in which the Commission handled the case is a matter of concern; whereas the European Ombudsman concluded that this response from the Commission constituted maladministration and presented several recommendations as a follow-up of the case, including on how to record text messages, and recommended a renewed search, in line with the public access obligations under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001; whereas on 14 May 2025, the General Court annulled the Commission decision to withhold the text messages; whereas, according to the Court, the Commission failed to provide a plausible explanation to justify not possessing the messages16;messages;

Changed:N. whereas on 6 October 2025, the Commission published in the Official Journal (C/2025/5423) a formal withdrawal of legislative proposals, in particular COM(2011)0137 and COM(2008)0229 ,COM(2008)0229, both aimed at amending Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 on public access to documents, in the light of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, citing the absence of any foreseeable agreement, following years of legislative deadlock since 2011; whereas this continued impasse raises concerns that reliance on the 2001 framework alone may no longer suffice to effectively reinforce the right of public access to EU documents in a modern institutional and technological context;

Changed:P. whereas in Case C-588/21 P17,P, concerning an application by non-profit organisations requesting access to technical standards on the safety of toys, the Court of Justice held that the Commission should have recognised an overriding public interest under Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, justifying the disclosure of such harmonised standards;

Changed:3. Observes that in 2024, the Commission received 6 938 initial access to document requests and 641 confirmatory applications, marking a 7 % increase in confirmatory applications compared to 202318;2023; observes that in 2023, the Commission received 7 274 initial access to document requests and 599 confirmatory applications, marking a 43 % increase in confirmatory applications compared to 202219;2022; observes that in 2022, the Commission received 7 410 initial access to document requests and 418 confirmatory applications, marking a 17.817,8 % increase in confirmatory applications compared to 202120;2021;

Changed:5. Highlights the fact that, by 31 December 2024, Parliament’s Public Register of Documents contained 918 803 references (up from 898 267 at the end of 2023); notes that the overall positive response rate remained high at 91 %, with applications handled within approximately nine working days on average21;average;

Changed:7. Observes that in 2024 the Commission issued 5 542 initial-stage replies and 305 confirmatory replies, while the other EU institutions have also made progress in their efforts to improve transparency: the Council’s register contained over 527 000 documents by the end of 2024, with more than 72 % of them publicly available, and it processed over 2 800 access requests, mainly from civil society and academia, granting full or partial access in 85 % of cases22;cases;

Changed:15. Calls on the Commission to ensure transparency of decisions taken in comitology; recalls that in the comitology procedure, the CJEU considered that revealing Member States’ positions does not as such undermine the decision-making process23;process;

Changed:16. Expresses concern about the difficulties in accessing documents from some EU agencies, and these agencies’ prevention of public access to documents and proper scrutiny; stresses the need for greater transparency and proactive access to documents from EU agencies; calls, furthermore, for the EU agencies to implement Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in their policies on access to documents; calls, in particular, on the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA) to grant the European Parliament timely access to its documents, in particular information and analysis on safe countries of origin and safe non-EU countries, in line with Regulation (EU) 2021/2303 on the European Union Agency for Asylum24,Asylum, in order to strengthen democratic oversight; calls for the obligation imposed by Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 to report annually on the implementation of the Regulation to be extended to all other EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies covered by Article 15 TFEU;

Changed:28. Is concerned by the lack of transparency the Commission has displayed in the publication of COVID-19 purchase agreements; highlights that the CJEU considered that the Commission did not give the public sufficiently broad access to the purchase agreements for COVID-19 vaccines25;vaccines;

Changed:44. Calls on the Commission to be more transparent regarding contracts with third parties; calls on the Commission to be more proactive in publishing as much information as possible on tender procedures in line with Parliament’s previous calls26;calls;

Changed:50. Calls for the EU institutions to fully comply with the judgment of the General Court in Case T-540/1527T-540/15 concerning access to four-column documents; further calls for the EU institutions to proactively publish other trilogue documents, such as agendas, summaries of outcomes and minutes of trilogues;