—

having regard to Article 225 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to Article 298 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which provides that the right to good administration is a fundamental right,

—

having regard to the joint declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on European Declaration on Digital Rights and Principles for the Digital Decade of 15 December 2022,

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (1),

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (2),

—

having regard to the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on information security in the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union (2022/0084(COD)),

—

having regard to the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down measures for a high common level of cybersecurity at the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union (2022/0085(COD)),

—

having regard to Directive (EU) 2022/2555 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 on measures for a high common level of cybersecurity across the Union (3),

—

having regard to the extensive case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which has recognised a set of general principles of administrative law based on the constitutional traditions of the Member States,

—

having regard to Commission Communication of 26 January 2022 on Establishing a European Declaration on Digital rights and principles for the Digital Decade (COM(2022)0027) and its accompanying Commission Staff Working Document containing a report on the stakeholder consultation and engagement activities (SWD(2022)0014),

—

having regard to the Commission digital strategy: Next generation digital Commission of 30 June 2022 (C(2022)4388),

—

having regard to its resolution of 6 September 2001 on the European Ombudsman's Special Report to the European Parliament following the own-initiative inquiry into the existence and the public accessibility, in the different Community institutions and bodies, of a Code of Good Administrative Behaviour (4),

—

having regard to Commission Decision 2000/633/EC, ECSC, Euratom of 17 October 2000 amending its Rules of Procedure by annexing a Code of Good Administrative behaviour for staff of the European Commission in their relations with the Public (5),

—

having regard to the Decision of the Secretary-General of the Council/High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy of 25 June 2001 on a code of good administrative behaviour for the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union and its staff in their professional relations with the public (6),

—

having regard to the Council of Europe's Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)7 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on good administration, dated 20 June 2007,

—

having regard to the 'Public service principles for the EU civil service' published by the European Ombudsman on 19 June 2012,

—

having regard to successive Digital Public Administration factsheets concerning Member States, published online by the Commission,

—

having regard to the existence in the Member States of both general administrative procedure acts, laying down the basic principles of administrative law, and of domain- specific or sector-specific legislation,

—

having regard to 2022 report of the European Law Institute on Model Rules on Impact Assessment of Algorithmic Decision-Making Systems Used by Public Administration (7),

—

having regard to the briefing notes presented at the Conference on EU administrative law organised by the Policy Department of Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs and the University of León (León, 27-28 April 2011) (8),

—

having regard to the recommendations included in the working document on the state of play and future prospects for EU administrative law presented by the Working Group on EU Administrative Law to the Committee of Legal Affairs on 22 November 2011  (9),

—

having regard to the European Added Value Assessment on a Law of Administrative Procedure of the European Union, presented by the European Added Value Unit to the Committee of Legal Affairs on 6 November 2012  (10),

—

having regard to public consultation on general rules for an open, independent and efficient European administration and its summary report on July 2018 presented by the European Added Value Unit, European Parliamentary Research Service to the Committee on Legal Affairs on 10 July 2018  (11),

—

having regard to an impact assessment of possible action at EU level for an open, efficient and independent EU administration concluded in July 2018 by Ex-Ante Impact Assessment Unit of the European Parliamentary Research Service and presented to the Committee on Legal Affairs on 10 July 2018  (12),

—

having regard to the 2022 European Added Value Assessment on Digitalisation and Administrative Law, presented by the European Added Value Unit to the Committee of Legal Affairs on 30 May 2023  (13),

—

having regard to its resolution of 15 January 2013 with recommendations to the Commission on a Law of Administrative Procedure of the European Union (14),

—

having regard to its resolution of 9 June 2016 for an open, efficient and independent European Union administration and the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council for an open, efficient and independent European Union administration (15),

—

having regard to its resolution of 26 October 2017 on monitoring the application of EU law 2015 (2017/2011(INI)) (16),

—

having regard to its resolution of 7 July 2022 on Better regulation: Joining forces to make better laws (2021/2166(INI)) (17),

—

having regard to its resolution of 20 May 2021 on shaping the digital future of Europe: removing barriers to the functioning of the digital single market and improving the use of AI for European consumers (2020/2216(INI)) (18),

—

having regard to the Commission follow-up to the European Parliament resolution with recommendations to the Commission on a Law of Administrative Procedure of the European Union, adopted by the Commission on 24 April 2013,

—

having regard to the Commission follow-up to the European Parliament resolution for an open, efficient and independent European Union administration, adopted by the Commission on 4 October 2016,

—

having regard to the Commission follow-up to the European Parliament resolution on Better regulation: Joining forces to make better laws, adopted by the Commission on 22 October 2022,

—

having regard to Rules 47 and 54 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A9-0309/2023),

A.

whereas the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon has provided the Union with an appropriate legal basis for the adoption of a European law on administrative procedure;

B.

whereas the fundamental right to good administration enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as a corollary of which every person is entitled to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable timescale by the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union, has become legally binding as primary law;

C.

whereas in a Union under the rule of law it is necessary to ensure that procedural rights and obligations are always adequately defined, updated, harmonised and complied with; whereas citizens are entitled to expect a high level of transparency, fair treatment, efficiency, responsiveness and swift execution from the Union’s institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, and they are also entitled to information on the options that exist for them to take further action in matters that they refer to those institutions, bodies, offices and agencies;

D.

whereas a transparent, efficient and independent Union administration is essential for the public interest and an excess as well as a lack of rules and procedures can lead to maladministration, failure to respect human rights, the applicable legislation or the principles of good administration, which may also result from the existence of contradictory, flawed, inconsistent or unclear rules and procedures; whereas this may hamper citizens' trust in public institutions; whereas properly structured and consistent administrative procedures support both a transparent, efficient and independent administration and a proper enforcement of the fundamental right to good administration and have the added value of promoting transparency and accountability, thereby enhancing the Union’s legitimacy and increasing the confidence of citizens in the Union’s administration;

E.

whereas it is necessary to simplify the Union’s cumbersome administrative rules and procedures and to prioritise measures to improve the efficiency, transparency and accessibility of administration at European level in order to ensure proper observance of the public’s right to good administration;

F.

whereas the lack of confidence on the part of citizens has for the last several years been a pressing problem faced by the Union, which can affect its legitimacy; whereas the Union needs to provide swift, clear and visible answers to Union citizens in order to respond to their concerns;

G.

whereas the Union must be transparent and accountable to its citizens in its actions; whereas digital technologies can be used as a tool to make information in the Union available to citizens in a more accessible manner, as exemplified by the use of artificial intelligence to provide answers to citizens’ questions;

H.

whereas, according to statistics for Europe as a whole, citizens often face problems of operational inconsistency and administrative burden costs in relation to the European institutions (19);

I.

whereas the general perception of European citizens on the functioning of the Union administration and the evaluation of their direct experiences shows there is room for improvement; whereas a considerable percentage of Europeans consider that lengthy procedures, the difficulty of identifying and accessing information and the quality of responses received in their interaction with the institutions are problematic issues (20);

J.

whereas the Union's existing rules and principles on good administration are scattered across a wide variety of sources: primary law, case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, secondary legislation, soft law and unilateral commitments by the Union's institutions;

K.

whereas the existing internal codes of conduct of the different institutions have a limited effect, differ from one another and are not legally binding;

L.

whereas, taking into account the recommendations of the Group of States against corruption (GRECO) of the Council of Europe, a clear, reliable, accessible and binding set of rules for the Union’s administration would be a positive signal in the fight against corruption in public administrations;

M.

whereas since 2001 Parliament has consistently requested, in its resolutions and annexes thereto, legislative action from the Commission in that area; whereas in 2013 Parliament called for a Law of Administrative Procedure of the European Union, and in 2016 it called in particular for a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council for an open, efficient and independent European Union administration; whereas, in essence, Parliament’s calls repeatedly aim to have a regulation on European Union administrative procedure adopted that would lay down general procedural rules governing the administrative activities of the Union’s administration, that is the Union’s institutions, bodies, offices and agencies (European law on administrative procedure);

N.

whereas that call is based on detailed impact assessments inter alia quantifying the cost of administrative procedures; whereas the 2018 impact assessment found that fragmentation in administrative procedures across Union institutions and bodies negatively impacts Union openness, efficiency and independence and concluded that negative impacts are likely to worsen with the transition towards digitalised administration; whereas when presenting the proposal the Commission should also present an impact assessment taking into account the needs of European citizens and European businesses, and particularly small and medium-sized enterprises;

O.

whereas Parliament engaged in public consultation with regard to the need to establish the European law on administrative procedure, whereby 76% of respondents supported taking additional measures at Union level to enhance and simplify Union administrative procedures, noted improving efficiency and transparency among the top reasons for Union intervention and identified operational incoherence and the administrative burden costs among the most problematic issues;

P.

whereas consultations with academia, practitioners and the legal community were undertaken by Parliament in preparation of its 2016 resolution for an open, efficient and independent European Union administration; whereas, in its follow-up adopted on 24 April 2013 to Parliament’s resolution of 15 January 2013, the Commission stated that it would launch a detailed stocktaking of the existing body of Union administrative law and of possible shortcomings across all of the institutions, that it would assess the approaches taken to these issues in the Member States and would consult academia, practitioners and the legal community in order to carry out an in-depth analysis of all aspects of the issue; whereas ten years later, the Commission has yet to inform Parliament about the results of the announced stocktaking and in-depth analysis;

Q.

whereas, in the same 2013 follow-up, the Commission stated also that any future initiative would have to take account of the existing framework of administrative rules and the complex relationship between horizontal and sector-specific rules; the multiple causes of possible maladministration and the many possible ways in which this can be addressed; and the limits to the use of Article 298 TFEU; whereas no such assessment has been presented by the Commission to date;

R.

whereas in 2022 the Commission presented, acting for the first time on the basis of Article 298 TFEU, two proposals regarding, on the one hand, information security and, on the other hand, cybersecurity in the Union’s administration, that is its institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, to address the lack of a common approach in those areas and the fact that each of them either has its own rules in those areas, based on rules of procedure or founding acts, or has no rules at all;

S.

whereas the existence of horizontal and sector-specific rules cannot constitute an excuse not to lay down a European law on administrative procedure, or an obstacle to laying down such a law, which would constitute a basic and general reference framework of law on administrative procedure that should be applied by any Union administration irrespective of its sector of operations; whereas such general enacting terms exist in many Member States of the Union irrespective of their structure, domain or sector and in parallel with sector-specific rules;

T.

whereas the fragmentation of the relevant legal frameworks between the Union’s administration leads to significant duplication of efforts as regards establishing and maintaining internal rules as well as non-interoperable administrative practices; whereas, for Union citizens, the diversity of these rules increases the risks of misunderstanding, misinterpreting and non-compliance; while implying higher costs for people, businesses and Union institutions in the form of lost time and resources; whereas the negative consequences of the current regulatory gaps are likely to worsen over time due to increased digitalisation and the growing number of Union agencies; whereas establishing a basic and general reference framework of European law on administrative procedure for the Union’s administration would create an administrative environment with uniform principles, standardised rules and implemented best practices, whereas that does not preclude the existence of sector-specific rules as it is also known at national level; whereas, moreover, laying down European law on administrative procedure is consistent with the requirement to act with due respect for the autonomy or competences of each Union institution and body, which will remain fully in place;

U.

whereas ensuring open, accountable European administrations at the service of citizens, has both costs and benefits; whereas the benefits outweigh the costs;

V.

whereas with the advance of technology and the digitalisation efforts required on the part of the Member States, including with regard to their public administration and services, similar digitalisation efforts have been undertaken by Union’s administration; whereas the Union’s administration increasingly does not operate as a separate entity but interconnects with national public administrations in order to serve citizens; whereas the lack of interoperability between public services can increase bureaucracy and create additional burdens for citizens;

W.

whereas various Member States are trying new ways to modernise their public administrations; whereas there is a need for stronger coordination of these efforts, notably by sharing of best practices and scaling up at Union level;

X.

whereas the 2022 European value added assessment study stressed, as did the 2018 impact assessment study, the fact that with digitalisation, the need for centralisation and harmonisation is greater and that the ongoing digitalisation raises new issues and challenges;

Y.

whereas the case law of the Court of Justice has developed well-established procedural principles which apply to Member States' procedures in Union matters and which should a fortiori apply to direct administration by the Union; whereas it can be expected that the case law of the Court of Justice will soon develop further to cover phenomena related to the development of digitalisation in administrative procedures, and in judicial procedures having administrative effects;

Z.

whereas, the European Declaration on Digital Rights and Principles for the Digital Decade proclaims digital principles for the purpose of serving all Europeans and whereas that Declaration responds to calls from Parliament for the Union’s approach to digital transformation to fully respect fundamental rights, including data protection rules and equal treatment, as well as principles such as technological and network neutrality and inclusiveness, but also to strengthen digital skills and competences and promote a high-performing digital education ecosystem;

AA.

whereas, in the 2030 Digital Compass, the Commission set for the Union a vision for a digitally transformed Europe of 2030 in line with European values; whereas the “Path to the Digital Decade” is aimed at further reinforcing digital leadership and empowering citizens and businesses, thus making the digital transformation the engine of sustainable economic growth, and social well-being in Europe, which should be achieved, inter alia, by building up digital skills and competences for the workforce to enable them to fully participate in the digital economy and by digitalising public services, and by making them more efficient and easy to use to the benefit of everyone in our society; whereas there is a need to invest at Union and national level in ensuring that all citizens have the necessary digital skills and literacy to take advantage of the digital public services available;

AB.

whereas all digital solutions should take into consideration the needs of all citizens, with a particular focus on those who face additional barriers to accessing digital solutions;

AC.

whereas the 2022 Commission digital strategy: ‘Next generation digital Commission’ outlines objectives to enable the Commission administration’s support for the delivery of the Union’s strategic priorities and lead by example, and it advances, among others, the following elements: empowering its staff, enabling digital-ready policymaking through guidelines and support across the entire Union policy cycle and harnessing the benefits of data and innovative technologies to redesign its administrative processes; whereas the strategy shows the intention of how digitalisation of administrative processes and the Union’s administration interaction with citizens will evolve in the years to come; whereas this evolution should be accompanied by a set of rules governing administrative procedures and should be harmonised across the Union’s administration;

AD.

whereas the development of new technologies, such as artificial intelligence and automated decision making systems (ADMSs), can play an important role in the modernisation and improvement of the functioning of public administration provided that the technologies used are human-centred and have a high degree of reliability and of trustworthiness; whereas the possibility of recourse to such new technologies by public administration, including the Union’s administration, should, however, be limited by the principle of legality and the need to ensure the respect for citizens’ rights; whereas use of new technologies, such as AI and ADMSs have the potential to improve the efficiency of public administration and contribute to improvements in terms of the quality and quickness of the services provided to citizens, however, if incorrectly implemented, may pose specific problems for the principle of good administration and right to legal review and therefore requires particular analysis with regard to elements such as transparency, accountability, compliance and non-discrimination, by addressing the risk of algorithmic bias;

AE.

whereas the risks of using artificial intelligence and machine learning, in particular in the context of the Union’s administration where a significant power gap can exist between citizens and the administration, should be addressed so that the use of machine learning by the Union’s administration contributes to improving the efficiency of administrative services and at alleviating the workload of the administration staff; whereas machine learning systems used in the context of the Union’s public administration should be subject to human oversight, and should be limited to the collection, organisation, structuring, conversion, combination and adaptation of data, such as optical character recognition, object recognition or speech-to-text;

AF.

whereas in 2022 the European Law Insitute presented a report with Model Rules on Impact Assessment of Algorithmic Decision-Making Systems Used by Public Administration, where the model rules are proposed when such algorithmic decision making systems make a decision or support human decision-making - that is a determination by a human-led public authority (including at Union level) to take or not to take action - that is likely to have significant impacts on the public (21);

AG.

whereas in the past, software developed for the purposes of public administration has often been closed-source, meaning that despite paying for it, citizens cannot audit or reuse the code; whereas it is worth recognising that the Commission committed in its 2014 – 2017 Open Source Strategy (22) to publishing the source code of the software it develops, a commitment that it continues to uphold, and that the Union’s administration develops, publishes and uses open-source code for software, which contributes to the fulfilment of the ‘public money - public code’ principle; whereas this principle promotes reuse and improvement of existing code to bring down the costs of developing software and hence the cost of digitalisation; whereas therefore the use of open-source software by the Union’s administration should be continuously encouraged; whereas the Union should, on the basis of its competences, strongly encourage Member States to follow this principle, for example, by making it a precondition for the use and granting of Union funds to develop digital solutions in the Member States, so that these solutions can be reused by all Member States, amplifying the impact of the funding;

AH.

whereas access to digital administration services for Union citizens is or may be affected by factors such as disability, economic situation, geographical location, digital skills, gender, literacy, age, confidence or willingness to embrace or having the resources to access technological solutions; whereas therefore the Union’s administration should take this into consideration when developing digital solutions for services it provides in order not to lose citizens’ trust, not to create a digital divide, and to allow citizens to adjust to the existence of the digital service; whereas online and offline assistance to citizens in the use of digital public services should be available;

AI.

whereas experimentation through pilot projects should be promoted as a way to safely test innovations as well as to check for potential issues before implementation as well as to enable interested citizens to experiment in a secure manner with more innovative digital solutions;

AJ.

whereas the following principles for digital public services and administration have already been identified: (i) human-centric and accessible digital public services at all levels, (ii) the possibility for every person to engage in the creation and improvement of digital public services that are tailored to their needs and preferences, (iii) the ‘once only’ principle, namely that every person should submit their data or information only once when they are digitally interacting with public administrations across the Union, (iv) interoperability of digital services offered by the public sector such as digital identity solutions with data portability allowed across the Union, (v) wide-ranging engagement of and with people enabled by digital technologies and solutions and stimulation of the development of participatory initiatives at all levels, (vi) contribution of digital technologies and solutions to better levels of legal certainty, public security and safety;

AK.

whereas the European Commission announces its priorities at the beginning of each legislative term; whereas Parliament has repeatedly called for the issue of administrative law to be addressed, therefore Parliament expects it to be included in the upcoming European Commission priorities for 2024-2029;