This appears to have been the question vexing Members of the European Parliament (MEP's), the European Union (EU) Ombudsman, Members of the European Parliament's Civil Liberties Committee and the author of a recent report which proposes to give the public better access to EU documents.
Fortunately, despite this diversion,
the Committee voted, by 26 to 5, to support the proposal by the Report's author, MEP Michael Cashman. However, 15 members abstained, which has been attributed either to the apparent lack of agreement about the definition of a document or, in some quarters, to continued question marks over the Union's true commitment to openness.
Cashman and the Committee call for a broad definition of most files as "documents", and therefore available for disclosure, to include
"any data or content [that concerns] a matter relating to the policies, activities and decisions falling within the institutions' spheres of responsibility"
and to include files in storage.
However, the European Commission argue that "
documents" should only include files "
formally transmitted to one or more recipients". Transparency advocates maintain that the latter is a restrictive definition that could allow the Commission to keep important papers secret.
Furthermore, the Committee and Commission appear to disagree about documents received by the EU from member nations (which might become available via the EU, when they are not available locally) and how to classify such documents: "EU Secret" and "EU Top Secret" have been suggested, should their disclosure be considered harmful to EU or national interests.
An initial vote is imminent, but even Cashman himself is considering trying to have a final decision delayed until the EU Presidency (which rotates between member states) moves to Sweden, which strongly supports transparency, in October.
Sounds like they need the pragmatic advice of some records or information management specialists!