The chair man of the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) Klaus-Heiner Lehne (CDU) defend their decision to publish the legal opinions documents. It’s a letter to the Trade committee INTA. Keep in mind that the JURI committee is usually the most qualified in judicial aspects and an kind of authorative source in Parliament. Lehne’s argument for transparency is straightforward and common sense. I could not agree more. Erik explained:
The letter references RoP 103 (see below) and the Turco case and concludes that “JURI was merely applying the general rule, which is that there is an obligation to disclose the opinions of the legal service relating to a legislative process”.
1. Parliament shall ensure that its activities are conducted with the utmost transparency, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 15 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
You may remember my popular blog post where I published the “confirmatory reply” from Mr. Wieland to my document access request to this Legal Opinion. When my initial request to the INTA document was denied, it had already been disclosed by the JURI committee. You could even find it on the internet. I filed a confirmatory application to the document. What suprised me is that in the rejection it got affirmed, see the letter of Wieland to me. I didn’t link to the documents disseminated on grounds of the JURI decision, some press persons did and considered it a “leak” (which it was not).