Essays for an Open Europe

8/14/2019 Essays for an Open Europe

1/21

E s s a y s f o r a n O p e n E u r o p e 1

Essays for an

Open Europe

Tony BunyanDeirdre Curtin

Aidan White

European Federation of JournalistsNovember 2000


2/21


A new code on the citizens' right of access to documents in the European Union is

currently being discussed by the European Commission, the Council of the European

Union and the European Parliament. The three EU institutions have to agree a new

code by May 2001 to meet the commitment in Article 255 of the Amsterdam Treatyto "enshrine" the right of access to documents.

In the "corridors of power" in Brussels the positions of these institutions indicate that

they are heading for more secrecy and less openness. Indeed they seem more

concerned with establishing rights for themselves (through so-called

interinstitutional "deals") than for the citizen.

These essays have therefore been written to encourage a much wider debate

throughout the whole of civil society so that its voice can be heard in a way that

cannot be ignored. Access to documents in the EU is not a "gift" from on high to be

packaged, sanitised and manipulated, it is a "right" which is fundamental in a

democracy.

The reproduction of these essays is positively encouraged.

Tony Bunyan, Deirdre Curtin and Aidan White

Introduction


3/21


Tony Bunyan,

Statewatch, PO Box 1516, London N16 0EW, Uk

tel: 00 44 208 802 1882 fax: 00 44 208 880 1727

[email protected]

Deirdre Curtin,

Faculty of Law, University of Utrecht, Achter Sint Pieter 200, 3512 HT Utrecht,

Netherlands

tel: 00 31 30 253 7065

[email protected]

Aidan White, General Secretary,

European Federation of Journalists (EFJ), rue Royale 266, B-1210 Brussels, Belgium

tel: 00 32 2 223 2265 mobile: 00 478 258 669

[email protected]

For full and updated documentation on the new code of access see:

http://www.statewatch.org/observatory.htm

For the latest news on the code see: http://www.statewatch.org/news

For information from the European Federation of Journalists see: http://www.ifj.org

Contacts


4/21E s s a y s f o r a n O p e n E u r o p e 4

When Statewatch applied for a document setting out far-reaching changes to the 1993

code of public access to EU documents in July (the "Solana Decision") the Council said

its release "could fuel public discussion on the subject". It is hard to think of a more

undemocratic argument. Access documents is fundamental to a healthy, critical and

thriving democracy, it enables civil society to understand, analyse and participate in

discussion. Access to documents does indeed "fuel public discussion" and so it should.

Civil society should be able to get access to all documents, including those from non-

EU governments and international organisations (including ad-hoc, and often secret,

intergovernmental meetings of officials and officers), subject only to narrow and

specific exceptions. People have a right to know all the views considered and rejected,all the influences brought to bear, on policymaking. They have a right to see these

documents as they are produced or received - not after a new policy is adopted, but

before.

Similarly there has to be access to all documents concerning the implementation of

the policies adopted - reports, mission reports, surveys and their results, and studies -

which flow from decision-making (again as they are produced).

This kind of access would allow EU citizens and those outside the EU who are affected

by its policies and practices - refugees, asylum-seekers and third world countries - to

take part in decision-making and to monitor ongoing practices.

Without documents and debate democracy is devalued and diminished and finally itwithers away leaving democracy without content, without meaning.

Access to

documentscould fuel public

discussionBy Tony Bunyan, Editor Statewatch


5/21


The EU Council (governments), the European Commission and the European Parliament

are currently discussing a new code of public access to EU documents. This is meant to

"enshrine" the commitment in the Amsterdam Treaty (Article 255) to ensure openness

is truly put into practice, but will it?

In its proposed new code of access to EU documents the Commission wants to create

the so-called "space to think" for officials (public servants) and permanently deny

access to innumerable documents. The "space to think" for officials is apparently more

important than the peoples' right to know.

But there is another problem with the "space to think" for officials, it would also givethem the "space to act". Many of the documents hidden by this rule would concern the

implementation of measures - the practice that flows from the policies. Officials would

be unaccountable for their actions. Democracy is not just about information and

participation in policymaking, it is crucially about the ways policies are put into

practice. For example, police powers over the citizen are judged not just by formal

laws but by how they treat people on the streets and in detention. In policing

terminology the "space to act" is called "self-regulation" where officers are given so

much discretion that they are "free" from direct lines of accountability for their

actions, often with disastrous results.

We are seeing an increasing number of "gaps" in EU accountability even at the formal

level. Since 1994 there have been annual reports on the work of the Europol Drugs

Unit but now that Europol is a fully-fledged operational agency there is a "public"glossy version heavy on "spin" and low on content. Since 1995 there have been annual

reports on the implementation of the Schengen Convention (up to 1998). Now we are

being told that because the Amsterdam Treaty split Schengen between the "first" (TEC)

and "third" (TEU) pillars there are to be no annual reports in future. Who made this

decision, officials or governments?

Space to think also meansspace to act


6/21


Thus we will no longer know how many checks have been carried out on the Schengen

Information System (SIS) database to exclude people from entering the EU or how

many cross-border surveillance operations have been requested. And all this happens

when the Council is discussing major extensions in the data to be held on the SIS.

The huge gap in knowledge which would result from the "space to think/act" is

compounded by the proposal that non-EU states, agencies and international

organisations, like the USA or NATO, would have the right to veto access to documents

for EU citizens. At a time when ad-hoc, secret, international working parties abound

in the field of "law enforcement" and globalisation marches on unfettered the idea

that whole areas of policymaking and practice should be removed from public viewshould be abhorrent to any democrat.

The demand for the "space to think" and the "space to act" must not be allowed to

contaminate the code of access to documents. It is only legislatures which have the

right to ask for the space to think, not the executive and its officials. The people have

"freedoms" and "rights", government and officials have "responsibilities" and "duties".

It is simple, democracy needs a culture of accountability.


7/21


The principle of freedom of information (access to documents) is in the first Article of

the current code of access. Citizens have the right to request any document subject

only to very specific and narrow exceptions.

At the end of July when Brussels was empty for the holiday season the Council adopted

(by 12 votes to 3) the "Solana Decision" to satisfy NATO. The Decision permanently

excludes from public access whole categories of documents covering foreign policy,

military and "non-military crisis management" - and any other document whether

classified or not which refers to these issues (the Commission is in negotiations with

NATO to reach a similar agreement). Nor does it make any distinction between policy-

making (which should be in the public domain) and operational details. It is notpossible to equate this Decision by the Council to change the 1993 Decision taken

without consulting anyone, certainly not parliaments or people-with any conceivable

understanding of democratic decision-making. It was arrogant and contemptuous of

democratic standards.

When Statewatch was told that access to a document "could fuel public discussion" we

were also told that access could offend "the Council's partners". We cannot have a

situation where non-EU states (eg: USA) or international organisations (eg: NATO) have

a veto over the EU citizen's right of access to documents. What is the meaning of a

defence and security policy, what is it defending and securing if it requires the denial

of citizens' rights and is adopted in a way that a totalitarian state would be proud of?

There is a public register but none of the documents excluded under the "solanaDecision" will be included, nor will the thousands of documents produced every year

which are called "SN" (sans numero) documents (even though they are numbered).

Undermining the principle of accessto all documents


8/21


On top of all this the Council and Commission want to have wide powers of discretion

over what can be released. If a diligent researcher asks for too many documents they

can be refused or sent only some of them. If they ask for documents on their special

interest/expertise (environment, policing, immigration, trade and aid) on a regular

basis they can also be refused access.

Will the new code be better that the existing code and practice? Will the new code, as

intended by the Amsterdam Treaty commitment, "enshrine" the citizens' right of access

to documents? The answer from the Commission and Council is a clear no. Public

knowledge is to be sanitised and controlled.

EU governments do not seemed to have learnt the lessons of just a short time ago,

that freedom of information is the best defence against corruption, fraud and the

abuse of power. While the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Finland are trying to

ensure the commitment in the Amsterdam Treaty is met, France and Germany are

pushing strongly for changes which will mean even less access to documents than at

present.


9/21


As long as I can remember there has been a "democratic deficit" in the EU and there

still is even as the EU prepares for enlargement.

The "democratic deficit" is not just about the powers of parliaments - national or

European - it is much deeper than that. It is about changing the democratic culture

into a culture of openness, of an informed public and responsible and accountable

institutions.

When the Commission put out the draft for the new code of access many suspected the

"dinosaurs" would come out of hiding, that officials and entrenched interests would try

and use the commitment in Article 255 of the Amsterdam Treaty not to "enshrine" theright of public access but to limit and shackle it - to end up not with a code of access

for citizens but "A Regulation for the Protection of the Efficient Workings of the

Institutions".

The resolution of this issue will be a defining moment for democracy in the EU. The

argument is really very simple:

In a democratic system, it should be quite easy to understand - citizens have a

right to know how and why decisions are made and implemented. Without

freedom of information, access to documents, there is no accountability and

without accountability there is no democracy.

Is there a future for democracy in

the EU?


10/21

E s s a y s f o r a n O p e n E u r o p e 1 0

Listening to the speeches of Europe's political leaders in recent months it is difficult to

suppress the sentiment that they are not being quite serious. Many "grand" visions of

the future of Europe have been launched (Joshua Fischer, German Foreign Minister,

Jacques Chirac, French President, Guy Verhofstadt, the Prime Minister of Belgium and

Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister). The rather pedestrian preoccupation of the

current IGC process to ensure that the European institutions operate in an efficient

manner after the next rounds of enlargement ( a new Europe of 25 to 30 members) is

for many European political leaders too meagre a diet. A European Union with very

imperfect democratic legitimacy and ill functioning cannot be the end station of what

they have in mind, no matter how many new members it acquires. The politicians

horizons have these past months shifted not so subtly away from the size of the EU tothe ultimate goal of the European unification process.

How must a European Union with so many members be conceptualised, in which areas

must a common European policy be pursued together and what should the renewed

EU's role in the world be? Progress in each of these regards is said to be possible only if

the ultimate goal to be achieved is formulated first. According to the Belgian prime

minister: "any process comes to a standstill when we lose sight of the objective. That

is how it works. It is the dynamics caused by the debate about the ultimate goal that

is the strength of the European integration. If these dynamics are no longer there, the

European unification is threatened by stagnation. Actually, the European Union may

be compared to a bicycle. It must move forward, otherwise it falls."

But the fundamental question is surely in what kind of Europe do we want to live? TheBelgium Prime Minister claims that "we all would like to live in a Europe that is built on

European values of democracy, respect for human rights, rule of law and the cultural

and political diversity which is our richness. In short, a Europe that attaches great

importance to the values,

Authoritarian

temptationseduces EU

decision-makersBy Deirdre Curtin, Professor of the Law

of International Organizations,

University of Utrecht and member of

the Standing Committee of Experts on

International Immigration, Asylum and

Criminal Law, Utrecht.


11/21


which result from the French revolution. A Europe that knows how to ensure these

values without giving up its diversity and its future." Few will disagree with this, Euro

sceptics included. The problem is that it sounds marvellous phrased in these terms but

the operationalisation in practice is severely lacking.

A Europe that attaches great importance to the value of democracy is not what we are

currently living in. Transparency in decision-making and freedom of information are

key elements in the democratisation process of the EU. Without an informed citizenry

no real accountability is possible. Yet what is presently happening is that the Member

States acting together in Council as well as the Commission (and even in certain

respects the European Parliament) seem almost to be conspiring together to ensurethat the gradual and hotly contested steps towards achieving more openness in

decision-making processes at the EU level are stopped in their tracks and in some

respects reversed.

Over the course of the past five or so years, many EU institutions and organs have

themselves adopted on a voluntary basis self-regulatory measures granting citizens

access to their documents. Moreover the Court of Justice in Luxembourg has laid downsome general principles in case law. However it was the Treaty of Amsterdam which

explicitly gave the citizens' right to access to documents a fundamental treaty status.

It also required that secondary legislation (Euro-Freedom of Information Act, FOIA)

had to be adopted by May 2001.

The current EU rules give access to all categories of documents produced by theinstitutions in question, subject to a limited number of exemptions. The Commission

drew up a draft Euro-FOIA earlier this year which excluded a very substantial category

of documents from its scope on the ground that the institutions need a (unlimited)

space to think. Excluded are "texts for internal use such as discussion documents,

opinions of departments and

An informed citizenry

Draft Freedom of Information Act


12/21


informal messages". Such excessive defensiveness has been the subject of quite

extensive criticism. Also it is quite extraordinary that the Commission in its new draft

directive on public access to environmental information includes such internal

documents within the scope of access of the directive only enabling Member States to

refuse access where they can show that a specific exemption applies, subject to anoverall public interest test. This much more restrictive and narrowly tailored approach

to Member States environmental information stands in sharp contrast to the

Commissions approach to its own internal documents.

The Commission's draft Euro-FOIA is now being considered both by the European

Parliament and the Council . In the meantime, the Council this summer explicitlychallenged the Parliament's role in the EU legislative process by unilaterally amending

its own decision on access to its documents. This can be described as an act of bad

faith by the Council given that the Euro-FOIA will replace this internal decision as soon

as it is adopted. Moreover, it can be argued that the provisions of the Treaty of

Amsterdam create a standstill obligation for the Community institutions as regards

access to documents. In other words the institutions must not act in a manner which

makes access to documents more difficult than before the entry into force of theTreaty of Amsterdam. Instead what is now happening is that both the Commission and

the Council are attacking what has already been achieved.

The Council decision in question was adopted on 14 August while the European

Parliament, its legislative partner, was in recess. National parliaments and civil society

were also not informed. Some of the press dubbed this incident "Solana's militarycoup". Mr. Solana, ex-Secretary General of NATO, is Secretary-General of the European

Union and High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy. As well as that

he is Secretary-General of the Western European Union (WEU). The amendment he

prepared severely restricted public access to "all documents classified as

The Solana decision


13/21


top secret, secret and confidential in the fields of foreign policy, military and non-

military crisis management". It did so by excluding such documents from the scope of

access entirely.

Sensitive security information is protected by every administration. There is nothingextraordinary or undesirable about that. That aim could have been achieved by the

exemptions included in the existing rules on access. What is undesirable and is

explicitly contrary to the existing case law of the Court of Justice is to exempt broad

categories of documents without subjecting individual documents to explicit scrutiny

as to the applicability or otherwise of one of the grounds of exception (protecting

justified interests such as privacy, defence, etc). Moreover the case law requiresinstitutions to grant partial access to documents where non confidential information is

included and to respect general principles such as the principle of proportionality. This

was ignored.

There are a few other aspects to the Solana decision which are worrisome. First, the

phrase "non-military crisis management" refers to civilian aspects of crisis

management, such as police and judicial co-operation. This would exclude, forexample, access to all documents relating to the new EU rapid-reaction paramilitary

police force, even with regard to policy-making matters. Second, the Solana decision

allows international organisations such as NATO and third countries such as the US to

veto a citizens access to documents if the documents have been drawn up by or in

conjunction with them. For all the rhetoric of the EU on the need for greater

transparency only the Netherlands, Sweden, and Finland voted against adoption of theCouncil's Solana decision.

The Dutch decision to challenge the legality of the Council's Solana decision before the

Court of Justice in Luxembourg has been greeted with surprise by some of the other

Member States. But the Netherlands has also strong allies on the matter. Sweden and

Finland have announced that they will support


14/21


the Netherlands in its case and the European Parliament has too. Though this firm

stance in favour of more openness is very welcome it must be recalled that it will raise

the rather technical legal question of the validity of the legal basis employed in the

light of the changed legal context of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Moreover by the time

the Court delivers its judgment the outcome will be of largely historic interest.

The more immediate issue for the future of open government in the EU is the question

of the relationship of the Solana decision to the draft Euro-FOIA now going through co-

decision. The Commission has issued a statement, promising to adjust its own rules to

bring them into line with the Solana decision. This is explained by the fact that the

Commission is itself negotiating security arrangements with NATO at present. Moreoverthe Commission has stated that it might also have to amend the draft Euro-FOIA to

incorporate the Solana provisions. If the Commission does this then the Netherlands

may again be overruled in the co-decision procedure which is governed by majority

voting. The UK government has informed the House of Lords that it is likely that the

Solana decision "will form the basis for the Council's common position on the

Regulation".

The battle lines are in any event clearly drawn and the outcome uncertain. At the end

of the day it might only be an outright veto by the European Parliament which could

stop an unsatisfactory Euro-FOIA being adopted. In these circumstances all three

institutions in the legislative procedure would fail to comply with their treaty

obligation to adopt a Euro-FOIA by May 2001. It is in this troubled perspective that

Europe's leaders need to ensure that their grandiose plans on Europe's future turn outnot to have feet of clay. Their own credibility vis a vis the citizens of the EU are at

stake. They need to first take the issue of more transparency and openness seriously.

This means ensuring that the European Freedom of Information Act which is in the

process of being finalised does not constitute a step backwards compared to the status

quo. In other words it should build on what has

The future of

EU open government


15/21


already been achieved both at the EU level itself as well as at the national

constitutional level. The aim of formulating such rules at the EU level can never be to

deprive Europe's citizens of rights which they have already acquired either at the

European level or at the national level.

The forces for secrecy cannot be allowed to argue that the EU institutions need a

virtually unlimited space to think : these institutions do not operate as islands where

fortifications need to be firmly secured around them. Rather these institutions and

organs operate within a democratic culture and are subject to its restraints. Moreover

at the very time when the EU is planning to adopt an EU Charter of Fundamental

Rights enshrining both the right to information, to access to documents and to goodadministration it must be ensured by all the various actors that the fundamental status

of such rights is taken seriously in practice, in deeds as well as words. Only when this

is assured should the debate on Europe's future and the means of increasing its

democratic legitimacy pursue its course.


16/21


Next year European Union leaders face a deadline set by the Treaty of Amsterdam in

1997 to put in place a procedure and policy to guarantee citizens' rights of access to

documents of the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers and the Commission.

But the co-decision process to agree a new code strengthening peoples' right to know is

in chaos.

There have been allegations of skullduggery, court actions and a range of proposals

now before the Parliament reflect a failure to reach any sensible consensus on how to

break the culture of secrecy that still rules in Brussels.

The security chiefs of Europe (and NATO) have, belatedly, plunged into thetransparency debate with an uncompromising approach that threatens to halt the

march towards open government and may even signal a retreat from an openness

policy first agreed seven years ago. But NATO's attempts to shut the door on the

peoples' right to know are likely to fail.

The security establishment began their campaign with a "summertime coup" on 14

August, while parliaments and journalists were on holiday, when the Council ofMinisters unilaterally amended its own rules of procedure to deny access to certain

documents under a new system of classification. For good measure they also excluded

access to any category of other documents that might allow someone to deduce the

fact a classified document exists.

This approach not only torpedoes the freedom of information traditions of a number ofMember States, it undermines the core principles of transparency and makes a mockery

of efforts to agree a new procedure, by May 2001, which is meant to "enshrine" the

citizen's right of access to documents under Article 255 of the Amsterdam Treaty.

The arrogance of the Council, led by Foreign Policy Chief and former NATO Secretary

How Journalists

Have SpikedNATO's Secrecy

GunsBy Aidan White, General Secretary of

the European Federation of

Journalists


17/21


General Javier Solana, is touched with farce given the response to a request by the

magazine Statewatch who asked for the papers upon which the decision was taken.

They were refused and, as Tony Bunyan explains in his essay, were told that access to

a document "could fuel public discussion". Another request for documents, by the

European Citizens Advice Service, received a blanket refusal, even though the papersconcerned were already in the public domain.

But the reality is that NATO's actions are likely to founder following the action taken

by journalists in Sweden a few years ago who demonstrated that national laws

guaranteeing access to documents take precedence over privileged access to

information by political insiders in Brussels.

The Journalists Union of Sweden in May 1995 challenged the Council of Ministers over

access to Council documents relating to Europol activities. At that time the Swedish

Union asked for 20 documents from the Council and, under Swedish Law, requested

the same documents from the Swedish Government.

The Council handed over just two documents, but in Sweden some 18 documents werereleased in line with the country's long-standing legal commitment to make access the

rule of government rather than the exception. The Swedish Union mounted a legal

challenge to the Council's action and won their case at the Court of First Instance in

Luxembourg.

Why national standards

counter Brussels secrecy?


18/21


In its judgement on June 17th 1998 the Court set out the important principles:

First, that according to the 1993 European Union code, access to documents must be

the rule;

Second, any restrictions on access must be narrowly interpreted;

Third, every document should be tried or examined on its own when deciding if it

should be released;

Fourth, if a document is refused there should be real harm to the interests concerned.

All of these principles are, under NATO's guiding hand, being challenged by the

European Union Council of Ministers.

Meanwhile, in the United States security chiefs put before the Senate a proposal to

enact an "official secrets act" that make it a criminal offence to leak classified

information to the press. Although Congress has struck down such proposals in thepast as unconstitutional, the latest effort, like the action by the Council of Ministers,

has taken place without any public debate or review of the proposal.

At the beginning of November President Clinton bowed to widespread protests by US

civil liberty and journalists' groups and said he would not support this move. But the

fact that it slipped on to the legislative agenda in the first place raises concerns aboutfuture attempts to undermine freedom of information policy.

The issue at stake, both in Europe and the United States, is one that concerns the

fundamental rights of all citizens and is not just in the interests of working journalists

indeed, if the truth we know well that the press corps in Brussels and Strasbourg can

generally get their hands on information through leaks and off-the-record briefings.


19/21


Journalists in membership of the European Federation of Journalists and particularly

those in Sweden, the Netherlands and Finland have expressed outrage over the actions

by the Council of Ministers. They are supporting a legal challenge over the Solana

decision by these governments and the European Parliament.

They do so knowing how journalism has benefited greatly from moves towards freedom

of information within member states. Any security service worthy of the name knows,

therefore, that secrecy rules within the European Union are constantly under threat

from ambush at national level.

As the Swedish case proves, national legal traditions can subvert Codes drawn up inBrussels. The benchmark for openness in Europe is not what Brussels can enforce, but

the limits of transparency as defined by those countries with the highest levels of

access to documents.

The Council of Ministers, and NATO, will have to recognise, sooner or later, that there

are different traditions at work here and, in line with the Amsterdam Treaty

commitments, it only makes sense to harmonise openness rules up to the levels ofaccess that operate at the highest level nationally.

The alternative will be to attack the current openness rules that apply in a number of

national states, such as the Netherlands and the Nordic countries, in particular. That

may happen, but if it does, journalists, like those in Sweden, or John Carvel at The

Guardian or Tony Bunyan at Statewatch, who have also challenged secrecy in Europe,will be among the first to take to the barricades.

Europe must take the high ground

to open government


20/21


EFJ Member UnionsK M f B S e k t i o n J o u r n a l i s t e n ,

O e s t e r r e i c h i s c h e J o u r n a l i s t e n

G e w e r k s c h a f t

B a n k g a s s e , 8 , 1 0 1 0 W i e n , A u s t r i a

T e l . : 4 3 - 1 - 5 3 3 . 1 4 . 0 2

F a x : 4 3 - 1 - 5 3 5 . 4 3 . 5 5

C o n t a c t : A l e x a n d e r B a r a t s i t s -

A l t e m p e r g e n , V i c e P r e s i d e n t

A G J P B - A s s o c i a t i o n g n r a l e d e s

j o u r n a l i s t e s p r o f e s s i o n n e l s d e

B e l g i q u e

Q u a i l a H o u i l l e 9 B , 1 0 0 0

B r u x e l l e s , B e l g i u m

T e l . : 3 2 - 2 - 2 2 9 . 1 4 . 6 0

F a x : 3 2 - 2 - 2 2 3 . 0 2 . 7 2

E m a i l : a g j p b @ b e l g i a n -

j o u r n a l i s t . b e

C o n t a c t : M m e M a r t i n e S i m o n i s

( m a r t i n e . s i m o n i s @ b e l g i a n -

j o u r n a l i s t . b e )

I n d e p e n d a n t U n i o n o f

P r o f e s s i o n a l J o u r n a l i s t s o f t h e

R e p u b l i c o f B - H

O b a l a K u l i n a B a n a 2 / I I I ,

S a r a j e v o , B o s n i a - H e r z e g o v i n a

T e l . : 3 8 7 - 7 1 - 6 7 . 0 8 . 1 3 / 6 7 . 0 8 . 1 4

F a x : 3 8 7 - 7 1 - 5 3 . 4 4 . 9 5

C o n t a c t : Z o r a n L l i e , G e n e r a l

S e c r e t a r y

C J A - C r o a t i a n J o u r n a l i s t s '

A s s o c i a t i o n

P e r k o v c e v a 2 / I , 1 0 0 0 0 Z a g r e b ,

C r o a t i a

T e l . : 3 8 5 - 1 - 4 8 . 2 8 . 3 3 3

F a x : 3 8 5 - 1 - 4 8 . 2 8 . 3 3 3

E m a i l : h n d @ h n d . h r

C o n t a c t : M s J a g o d a V u k u s i c ,

P r e s i d e n t

( j a g o d a . v u k u s i c @ h n d . h r )

U n i o n o f C y p r u s J o u r n a l i s t s

K r a t i n o u 2 , P O B 3 4 9 5 , N i c o s i a ,

C y p r u s

T e l . : 3 5 7 - 2 - 6 6 . 4 6 . 8 0

F a x : 3 5 7 - 2 - 6 6 . 4 5 . 9 8

E m a i l :

c y j o u r u n @ l o g o s n e t . c y . n e t

C o n t a c t : M s E l l i K o d j a m a n i

( e l l i . k o t z a m a n i @ p o l i t i s -

n e w s . c o m )

C z e c h U n i o n o f J o u r n a l i s t s

P a r i z s k a 9 , 1 1 6 3 0 P r a h a 1 , C z e c h

R e p u b l i c

T e l . : 4 2 0 - 2 - 2 3 2 . 5 1 . 0 9 F a x : 4 2 0 -

2 - 2 3 2 . 7 7 . 8 2

E m a i l : s y n d i k . s n c r @ m b o x . v o l . c z

C o n t a c t : M s I r e n a V a l o v a ,

P r e s i d e n t

D a n s k J o u r n a l i s t f o r b u n d

J o u r n a l i s t e r n e s H u s , G a m m e l

S t r a n d 4 6 , 1 2 0 2 C o p e n h a g e n K ,

D e n m a r k

T e l . : 4 5 - 3 3 - 4 2 . 8 0 . 0 0

F a x : 4 5 - 3 3 - 4 2 . 8 0 . 0 3

E m a i l :

d j @ j o u r n a l i s t f o r b u n d e t . d k

C o n t a c t : M r S o r e n W o r m s l e v

( S o r e n _ W o r m s l e v @ o n l i n e . p o l . d k )

D J V - D e u t s c h e r J o u r n a l i s t e n -

V e r b a n d

B e n n a u e r s t r a s s e 6 0 , 5 3 1 1 5 B o n n

I , G e r m a n y

T e l . : 4 9 - 2 2 8 - 2 0 1 . 7 2 0

F a x : 4 9 - 2 2 8 - 2 0 1 . 7 2 . 3 2

E m a i l : D J V @ D J V . D E

C o n t a c t : M r M i c h a e l K l e h m

( k l e @ d j v . d e )

I G M e d i e n

P o s t f a c h 1 0 2 4 5 1 ( F r i e d r i c h s t r .

1 5 , 7 0 1 7 4 S . ) , 7 0 0 2 0 S t u t t g a r t ,

G e r m a n y T e l . : 4 9 - 7 1 1 - 2 0 1 . 8 2 . 3 8

F a x : 4 9 - 7 1 1 - 2 0 1 . 8 3 . 0 0

E m a i l : i g m e d i e n h v m m m @ t -

o n l i n e . d e

C o n t a c t : M r R u d i M u n z

( m u n z @ i g m e d i e n . d e )

J o u r n a l i s t s ' U n i o n o f A t h e n s D a i l y

N e w p a p e r s

2 0 , A c a d e m y S t r e e t , 1 0 6 7 1

A t h e n s 1 3 4 , G r e e c e

T e l . : 3 0 - 1 - 3 6 3 . 2 6 . 0 1 / 3 6 2 . 8 8 . 0 3

F a x : 3 0 - 1 - 3 6 3 . 2 6 . 0 8

E m a i l : i n f o @ e s i e a . g r

C o n t a c t s : N i k o s K i a o s ,

P r e s i d e n t , M s F a n i P e t r a l i a

P F J U - P a n h e l l e n i c F e d e r a t i o n o f

J o u r n a l i s t s ' U n i o n

2 0 , A k a d e m i a s S t r e e t , 1 0 6 7 1

A t h e n s , G r e e c e

T e l . : 3 0 - 1 - 3 6 3 . 9 8 . 8 1

F a x : 3 0 - 1 - 3 6 2 . 5 7 . 6 9

E m a i l : p r e s s @ p o e s y . g r

C o n t a c t : M r D e m e t r i o s G l a v a s ,

P r e s i d e n t

U n i o n o f P e r i o d i c a l P r e s s

J o u r n a l i s t s

V a l a o r i t o u s t r e e t 9 , 1 0 6 7 1

A t h e n s , G r e e c e T e l . : 3 0 - 1 -

3 6 3 . 6 0 . 3 9 / 3 6 3 . 3 4 . 2 7

F a x : 3 0 - 1 - 3 6 4 . 4 9 . 6 7

E m a i l : e s p t @ o t e n e t . g r

C o n t a c t : M s S a i a M i n a s s i d o u ,

G e n e r a l S e c r e t a r y

F A P E - F e d e r a c i n d e

A s o c i a c i o n e s d e l a P r e n s a

E s p a o l a

P l a z a d e l C a l l a o , 4 , 7 C , 2 8 0 1 3

M a d r i d , S p a i n

T e l . : 3 4 - 9 1 - 5 2 2 . 1 9 . 5 0

F a x : 3 4 - 9 1 - 5 2 1 . 1 5 . 7 3

E m a i l : f a p e . s @ a p m a d r i d . e s

C o n t a c t : M . J u a n A n t o n i o P r i e t o

R o d r i g u e z ( j a p r i e t o @ c t v . e s )

F e d e r a c i n d e C o m u n i c a c i n y

T r a n s p o r t e d e C C . O O

P l a z a C r i s t i n o M a r t o s 4 , 6

P l a n t a , 2 8 0 1 5 M a d r i d , S p a i n

T e l . : 3 4 - 9 1 - 5 4 0 . 9 2 . 9 5

F a x : 3 4 - 9 1 - 5 4 8 . 1 6 . 1 3

C o n t a c t s : M . J u l i n J i m n e z

J i m n e z , G e n e r a l S e c r e t a r y ; M .

R o m u l o S i l v a D o c a s a r

F e d e r a c i n d e C o m u n i c a c i n ,

P a p e l y A r t e s G r f i c o s E L A I g e k o

B a r r a i n k u a 1 3 , 4 8 0 0 9 B i l b a o ,

S p a i n

T e l . : 3 4 - 9 4 - 4 2 4 . 3 3 . 0 0

F a x : 3 4 - 9 4 - 4 2 4 . 3 6 . 5 4

E m a i l : f u n d m 0 0 1 @ s a r e n e t . e s

C o n t a c t : M . K o l d o S a n S e b a s t i a n

( k o l d o . s e b a s t i a n @ h e g a z t v . c o m )

S N J - S y n d i c a t n a t i o n a l d e s

j o u r n a l i s t e s

3 3 r u e d u L o u v r e , 7 5 0 0 2 P a r i s ,

F r a n c e

T e l . : 3 3 - 1 - 4 2 . 3 6 . 8 4 . 2 3

F a x : 3 3 - 1 - 4 5 . 0 8 . 8 0 . 3 3

E m a i l : s n j @ s n j . f r

C o n t a c t : M . M a r i o G u a s t o n i

S y n d i c a t g n r a l d e s j o u r n a l i s t e s

F O

6 , r u e A l b e r t B a y e t , 7 5 0 1 3 P a r i s ,

F r a n c e

T e l . : 3 3 - 1 - 4 4 . 2 4 . 2 8 . 2 4

F a x : 3 3 - 1 - 4 5 . 8 6 . 2 9 . 9 4

C o n t a c t : M . T r i s t a n M a l l e ,

P r e s i d e n t

S y n d i c a t n a t i o n a l d e s

j o u r n a l i s t e s C G T ( S N J - C G T )

2 6 3 , r u e d e P a r i s , C a s e 5 7 0 ,

9 3 5 1 4 M o n t r e u i l c d e x , F r a n c e

T e l . : 3 3 - 1 - 4 8 . 1 8 . 8 1 . 7 8

F a x : 3 3 - 1 - 4 8 . 5 1 . 5 8 . 0 8

E m a i l : s n j @ c g t . f r

C o n t a c t : M . M i c h e l D i a r d ,


U n i o n s y n d i c a l e d e s j o u r n a l i s t e s

f r a n a i s C F D T

4 7 - 4 9 a v e n u e S i m o n B o l i v a r ,

7 5 0 1 9 P a r i s , F r a n c e T e l . : 3 3 - 1 -

4 4 . 5 2 . 5 2 . 7 0

F a x : 3 3 - 1 - 4 2 . 0 2 . 5 9 . 7 4

E m a i l :

j o u r n a l i s t e s . c f d t @ w a n a d o o . f r

Contact : M. Alain Goguey,


N U J - N a t i o n a l U n i o n o f

J o u r n a l i s t s

A c o r n H o u s e , 3 1 4 - 3 2 0 G r a y ' s I n n

R o a d , W C 1 X 8 D P L o n d o n , U n i t e d

K i n g d o m


21/21


T e l . : 4 4 - 1 7 1 - 2 7 8 . 7 9 . 1 6

F a x : 4 4 - 1 7 1 - 8 3 7 . 8 1 . 4 3

E m a i l : A c o r n . h o u s e @ n u j . o r g . u k

C o n t a c t : M r M a r k T u r n b u l l

A s s o c i a t i o n o f H u n g a r i a n

J o u r n a l i s t s , A n d r a s s y u t 1 0 1 ,

1 3 6 8 B p . 2 4 6 p f . , 1 0 6 2

B u d a p e s t , H u n g a r y

T e l . : 3 6 - 1 - 4 7 8 . 9 0 . 4 0

F a x : 3 6 - 1 - 3 2 2 . 1 8 . 8 1

C o n t a c t : M r I s t v a n W i s i n g e r ,

P r e s i d e n t

C o m m u n i t y o f H u n g a r i a n

J o u r n a l i s t s , K a n i z s a i u . 6 , 1 1 1 4

B u d a p e s t , H u n g a r y

T e l . : 3 6 - 1 - 2 0 9 . 3 4 . 9 4

F a x : 3 6 - 1 - 3 7 1 . 0 8 . 6 9

C o n t a c t : M s T r e z i a K a t o n a -

E n d r o d y

N a t i o n a l U n i o n o f J o u r n a l i s t s ,

L i b e r t y H a l l , D u b l i n 1 , I r e l a n d

T e l . : 3 5 3 - 1 - 8 0 5 . 3 2 . 5 8

F a x : 3 5 3 - 1 - 8 7 4 . 9 2 . 5 0

E m a i l : l i b e r t y . h a l l @ n u j . i e

C o n t a c t s : E o i n R o n a y n e ,

P r e s i d e n t , S e a m u s D o o l e y

U n i o n o f I c e l a n d i c J o u r n a l i s t s ,

S i d u m u l a 2 3 , 1 0 8 R e y k j a v i k ,

I c e l a n d

T e l . : 3 5 4 - 5 5 - 3 9 1 . 5 5

F a x : 3 5 4 - 5 5 - 3 9 1 . 7 7

E m a i l : b i @ p r e s s . i s

C o n t a c t : M s F r i d a B j o r n s d o t t i r

F N S I - F e d e r a z i o n e N a z i o n a l e

d e l l a S t a m p a I t a l i a n a , 3 4 9 C o r s o

V i t t o r i o E m a n u e l e , 0 0 1 8 6 R o m a ,

I t a l y

T e l . : 3 9 - 0 6 - 6 8 3 . 3 8 . 7 9

F a x : 3 9 - 0 6 - 6 8 7 . 1 4 . 4 4

E m a i l : i n f o f n s i @ t i n . i t

C o n t a c t : M . A n t o n i o V e l l u t o

L a t v i a U n i o n o f J o u r n a l i s t s , 2

M a r s t a j u S t r . , 1 0 5 0 R i g a , L a t v i a

T e l . : 3 7 1 - 7 2 1 . 1 4 . 3 3

F a x : 3 7 1 - - 7 8 2 . 0 2 . 3 3

C o n t a c t s : L i g i t a A z o v s k a ,

P r e s i d e n t , L e o n a r d s P a v i l s ,


L i t h u a n i a n U n i o n o f J o u r n a l i s t s ,

V i l n i a u s S t r e e t 3 5 , 2 3 2 6 0 0

V i l n i u s , L i t h u a n i a

T e l . : 3 7 0 - 2 - 6 1 . 1 7 . 9 0

F a x : 3 7 0 - 2 - 2 2 . 1 5 . 7 1

E m a i l : l z s @ t a k a s . l t

C o n t a c t : V i l i u s K a v a l i a u s k a s

( k a v a l i a u s k a s @ a i v a . l t )

A L J - A s s o c i a t i o n

l u x e m b o u r g e o i s e d e s

j o u r n a l i s t e s , B P 1 7 3 2 , 1 0 2 7

L u x e m b o u r g , L u x e m b u r g

T e l . : 3 5 2 - 5 1 . 8 2 . 3 6

F a x : 3 5 2 - 3 9 . 5 1 . 0 4

E m a i l : s e c r @ a l j . l u

C o n t a c t : M . J e a n - C l a u d e W o l f f ,

P r e s i d e n t

( j c w o l f f @ 1 0 0 k o m m a 7 . l u )

N V J - N e d e r l a n d s e V e r e n i g i n g

v a n J o u r n a l i s t e n , J o h .

V e r m e e r s t r . 2 2 , P o s t b u s 7 5 9 9 7 ,

1 0 7 0 A Z A m s t e r d a m , T h e

N e t h e r l a n d s

T e l . : 3 1 - 2 0 - 6 7 6 . 6 7 . 7 1

F a x : 3 1 - 2 0 - 6 6 2 . 4 9 . 0 1

E - m a i l : v e r e n i g i n g @ n v j . n l

C o n t a c t : H a n s V e r p l o e g ,

S e c r e t a r y G e n e r a l

N o r s k J o u r n a l i s t l a g , B o k s 8 7 9 3 ,

Y o u n g s t o r g e t , T o r g g a t a 5 , 4 .

e t a s j e , 0 0 2 8 O s l o 1 , N o r w a y

T e l . : 4 7 - 2 2 - 0 5 . 3 9 . 5 0

F a x : 4 7 - 2 2 - 4 1 . 3 3 . 7 0

E m a i l : n j p o s t @ n j . n o

C o n t a c t : M s A n n - M a g r i t

A u s t e n a , V i c e P r e s i d e n t

( a m a @ n j . n o )

S i n d i c a t o d o s J o r n a l i s t a s ,

r u a d o s D u q u e s d e B r a g a n a , 7 - 2

, 1 2 0 0 L i s b o a 2 , P o r t u g a l

T e l . : 3 5 1 - 2 1 - 3 4 6 . 4 3 . 5 4

F a x : 3 5 1 - 2 1 - 3 4 2 . 2 5 . 8 3

E m a i l : s i n j o r @ m a i l . t e l e p a c . p t

C o n t a c t : M . J o a o I s i d r o ,

P r e s i d e n t

S Z D R - S o c i e t a t e a Z i a r i s t i l o r d i n

R o m a n i a , P i a t a P r e s e i L i b e r e 1 ,

O f i c i a l P o s t a l 3 3 , C o d . 7 1 3 4 1

B u c u r e s t i , R o m a n i a

T e l . : 4 0 - 1 - 2 2 2 . 8 3 . 5 1

F a x : 4 0 - 1 - 2 2 2 . 4 2 . 6 6

C o n t a c t : M s V a l e r i a F i l i m o n

S l o v e n s k y S y n d i k a t N o v i n a r o v ,

Z u p n n m 7 , 8 1 5 6 8 B r a t i s l a v a ,

S l o v a k i a

T e l . : 4 2 1 - 7 -

4 . 4 3 . 5 0 . 7 1 / 5 4 . 4 1 . 2 2 . 0 6

F a x : 4 2 1 - 7 - 5 4 . 4 3 . 4 5 . 3 4

E m a i l : s s n @ i n t e r n e t . s k

C o n t a c t : M r P e t e r Z e m a n ,


S l o v e n i a n J o u r n a l i s t i c S o c i e t y ,

V o s n j a k o v a 8 , 1 0 0 0 L j u b l j a n a ,

S l o v e n i a

T e l . : 3 8 6 - 6 1 - 1 3 2 . 7 0 . 3 4

F a x : 3 8 6 - 6 1 - 1 3 2 . 7 0 . 3 4

E m a i l : d . n . s - s l o @ s i o l . n e t

C o n t a c t : B r a n k o M a k s i m o v i c ,

P r e s i d e n t

S J L - F i n n i s h U n i o n o f

J o u r n a l i s t s , H i e t a l a h d e n k a t u 2

B 2 2 , 0 0 1 8 0 H e l s i n k i , F i n l a n d

T e l . : 3 5 8 - 9 - 6 1 2 . 2 3 . 3 0

F a x : 3 5 8 - 9 - 6 4 . 4 1 . 2 0

C o n t a c t : L e e n a P a u k k u

( l e e n a . p a u k k u @ j o u r n a l i s t i l i i t t o . f

i )

S J F - S w e d i s h U n i o n o f

J o u r n a l i s t s , B o x 1 1 1 6 , 1 1 1 8 1

S t o c k h o l m , S w e d e n

T e l . : 4 6 - 8 - 6 1 3 . 7 5 . 0 0

F a x : 4 6 - 8 - 2 1 . 2 6 . 8 0

E m a i l : k a n s l i e t @ s j f . s e

C o n t a c t : M r M a g n u s L i n d s t r o m

( M a g n u s . L i n d s t r o m @ s j f . s e )

F e d e r a t i o n s u i s s e d e s

j o u r n a l i s t e s , G r a n d ' P l a c e s 1 4 A ,

C a s e p o s t a l e 3 1 6 , 1 7 0 1

F r i b o u r g , S w i t z e r l a n d

T e l . : 4 1 - 2 6 - 3 4 7 . 1 5 . 0 0

F a x : 4 1 - 2 6 - 3 4 7 . 1 5 . 0 9

C o M e d i a , M o n b i j o u s t r a s s e 3 3 ,

P o s t f a c h 6 3 3 6 , 3 0 0 1 B e r n ,

S w i t z e r l a n d

T e l . : 4 1 - 3 1 - 3 9 0 . 6 6 . 1 1

F a x : 4 1 - 3 1 - 3 9 0 . 6 6 . 9 1

E m a i l : s e k r e t a r i a t @ c o m e d i a . c h

C o n t a c t : T h o m a s B e r n h a r d ,


( b e r n h a r d @ c o m e d i a . c h )

I J A S - I n d e p e n d e n t J o u r n a l i s t s '

A s s o c i a t i o n o f S e r b i a ,

M a k e d o n s k a S t r e e t 5 / I I , 1 1 0 0 0

B e l g r a d e , Y u g o s l a v i a

T e l . : 3 8 1 - 1 1 - 3 3 . 4 3 . 8 1 0

F a x : 3 8 1 - 1 1 - 3 3 . 4 3 . 8 1 0

E m a i l : i j a s @ e u n e t . y u

C o n t a c t : H a r i S t a j n e r

I n d e p e n d e n t A s s o c i a t i o n o f

P r o f e s s i o n a l J o u r n a l i s t s o f

M o n t e n e g r o , 1 3 t h J u l y , 2 5 ,

8 1 0 0 0 P o d g o r i c a , M o n t e n e g r o ,

Y u g o s l a v i a

T e l . : 3 8 1 - 8 1 - 2 4 . 4 3 . 0 7

F a x : 3 8 1 - 8 1 - 2 4 . 4 3 . 0 7

E m a i l : u p n c g @ c g . y u

C o n t a c t : V e s n a P e j o v i c ,

P r e s i d e n t

Essays for an Open Europe

Documents

Transcript of Essays for an Open Europe