45 Amendments of Iñaki IRAZABALBEITIA FERNÁNDEZ
Amendment 1 #
2014/2008(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. considering that even though such a figure remains modest by comparison with the population of the European Union, it nevertheless denotes a marked increase in the awareness of the right of petition and the legitimate expectations on the usefulness of the petitions process as a means of securing the attention of the European Institutions and the Member States for the concerns of individual citizens, local communities, NGOs and voluntary associations, private businesses;
Amendment 5 #
2014/2008(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. bearing in mind that the right of petition enhances the responsiveness of the European Parliament towards the citizens and residents of the union, while at the same time provides people with an open, democratic and transparent mechanism for obtaining, where legitimate and justified, a non-judicial remedy for their complaints, notably when this relates to problems with the implementation of European legislation; whereas the petitions do provide valuable feedback to the legislators and executive bodies both at EU and national level;
Amendment 8 #
2014/2008(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the petitions process also constitutes a means to establish a reality check regarding the tensions which exist within European societies, particularly during times of economic crisis and social unrest, such as have resulted from the impact of the collapse of the world financial markets and banking systems on the people of Europe; recalling that the Committee on Petitions organised a public hearing involving petitioners on this subject in September 2013; whereas many petitions on financial malpractices and abuses towards consumers' rights in the banking sector have drawn the attention of the committee, and particularly the dramatic consequences of household evictions for entire families as a result of abusive mortgage clauses;
Amendment 9 #
2014/2008(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas such petitions as have been addressed to the Committee on Petitions have often provided useful inputs to other committees of the European Parliament which have the responsibility of formulating legislation which is designed to establish a socioeconomically and environmentally more secure, sound, fair and prosperous basis for the future of all European citizens and residents;
Amendment 10 #
2014/2008(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas each petition is assessed and treated on its merit, even when brought forth by only one EU citizen or resident, and each petitioner has a right to receive a reply in their own language, or the language they used to submit the petition, as long as it is an official language of the Union; whereas regarding the spirit of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, and more particularly the Council conclusions adopted on13th June 2005, bigger efforts should be made on fostering where necessary administrative agreements between concerned Member States and the European Parliament, in order to ensure that EU citizens are able to effectively submit petitions and receive a response in their mother tongue, even if not an official language of the Union;
Amendment 11 #
2014/2008(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. bearing in mind that, depending on the nature and complexity of a petition received, its processing and response time will vary, but that every effort is to be made to duly respond to the concerns of petitioners within a reasonable time-frame; and in an appropriate manner, not only in terms of procedure but also of substance;
Amendment 12 #
2014/2008(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. bearing in mind that the activities of the Committee on Petitions are based entirely on the input and contributions received from petitioners, along with the results of its own investigations into each case as supplemented where necessary with additional expertise from the European Commission, Member States or other bodies; and that its agendas are prioritised and organised on the basis of decisions taken democratically by its members;
Amendment 13 #
2014/2008(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital Ja (new)
Recital Ja (new)
Ja. . whereas the petition right is a key tool for participation and democratic control by the citizens, and its proper implementation must be ensured from the beginning to the end of the process; whereas such right must remain fully guaranteed, independently of governmental interests; whereas this principle must be exemplary at the EU level in the handling of petitions within this Parliament and by the Commission;
Amendment 15 #
2014/2008(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas in addition to petitions received related to the impact of the crisis on European citizens and residents, other key issues of concern to petitioners relate to environmental law - notably issues concerning waste management, fundamental rights - notably regarding the rights of the child, the rights of the disabled and health- related issues, right to personal and real property, matters concerning free movement of persons, different forms of discrimination and in particular on ethnic, cultural or language grounds, visas, immigration and employment, and petitions on the application of justice, alleged corruption, delays in legal processes and many other areas of activity;
Amendment 16 #
2014/2008(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital M
Recital M
M. bearing in mind that because many petitioners, especially among the younger sectors of the population, make great use of the social media as a channel for communication, the Committee on Petitions has developed its own network under the auspices of the European Parliament and is regularly followed by a growing number of persons on Facebook and Twittermainstream social media, which are especially active and found useful around the times of Committee meetings,; and thatwhereas it has also developed a significant number of regular subscribers, currently 1,500, to the Committee's newsletter, the Péti Journal;
Amendment 17 #
2014/2008(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
Recital N
N. whereas, in this same context, the Committee on Petitions has been working in conjunction with the relevant services of the European Parliament to develop a new multi-lingual web-portal which replaces the former, more limited, electronic facility for petition submission contained on the Europarl web-site; and whereas the new portal is designed to increase administrative efficiency while enhancing the transparency of the petitions process for the benefit of petitioners and members of the European Parliament as well as for the public at large; and whereas upon its launch in this legislative term is certainly a notable contribution to fostering European citizenship, in alignment with the institutional objectives of 2013 as 'the Year of the European Citizen';
Amendment 19 #
2014/2008(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
Recital O
Amendment 20 #
2014/2008(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital R
Recital R
R. bearing in mind the valuable role of fact-finding visits regarding petitions under investigation, which may be organised from time to timeregularly organised by the Committee on issues to which it has given specific priority, and the need for reports of such visits to be of the highest level of quality, credibility and in faithful cooperation leading to a desirable consensus among participants; recalls the visits undertaken in 2013 to Spain - twice, to Poland, to Denmark, and to Greece; whereas more flexibility in the practical arrangements of these missions, mainly as regards the eligible weeks, would contribute to an even higher success of these visits particularly as regards the availability of members and reducing the risk of cancellation;
Amendment 25 #
2014/2008(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Is determined to make the petition procedure more efficient, transparent, and impartial, while preserving the participatory rights of the Members of the Committee on Petitions,; so that the handling of petitions will stand up to judtresses that in light of the significantly ever-increasing amount of petitions received yearly, more human and technicial review even at a procedural levelsources in the secretariat are urgently needed in order to ensure a smooth handling of petitions;
Amendment 26 #
2014/2008(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Emphasises that the Committee on Petitions, along with other institutions and bodies, such as the committees of inquiry, the European Citizens’ Initiative and the European Ombudsman, play an independent and clearly defined role as points of contact for each individual citizens; highlights that these bodies, together with the European Citizens’ Initiative are fundamental tools for a democratic EU and the creation of a European demos, and as such a proper access and their reliable functioning must be guaranteed;
Amendment 29 #
2014/2008(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Regrets the absence of a proactive monitoring and timely preventive corrective action by the Commission, even when there are well-founded evidences that certain planned and published projects may breach EU legislation; disagrees with the recurrent suggestions to close many files related to petitions without a proper outcome of the examinations and believes that this is not in line with the spirit of its ultimate role of guardian of the treaties; calls for an even more scrupulous attention and consequent action in those cases presented by the petitioners particularly involving possible breaches of EU legislation by the Commission itself, such as in the field of public access to documents as guaranteed by the Aarhus convention;
Amendment 30 #
2014/2008(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Observes the variety of thematic key areas concerned in the citizens’ petitions, such as fundamental rights, internal market, environmental law, public health issues, child welfare, transport and constructions, Spanish Coastal Law, new Regulation on good administration, persons with disabilities, public access to documents, European Schools, Fiscal Union, and the Steel Industry, animal rights and many more;
Amendment 32 #
2014/2008(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Considers that petitions which fall under said thematic areas lends proof to the issue that the frequencies of widespread situations of transposiunsatisfactory transposition of EU legislation or misapplication of the law are still occurring;
Amendment 33 #
2014/2008(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Considers it important to enhance cooperation with Member States' parliaments and governments, based on reciprocity, and, where necessary, to encourage Member States' authorities to transpose and apply EU legislation with full transparency; stresses the importance of the Commission's cooperation with the Member States and deplores the negligence of some Member States with regard to fully transposing and enforcing European environmental legislation;
Amendment 35 #
2014/2008(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Notes the amount of attention which was given to some major petitions received regarding the proposed development of a new airport at Notre Dame-des-Landes, near Nantes; acknowledges that significant contributions were received from petitioners which opposed the scheme on environmental grounds and that a substantial petition was also received from those who favoured the project which gave rise to an intensive debate in Committee at which the French authorities and the Director General for Environment at the Commission participated alongside the main petitioners; considers that such serious discussions not only improve public awareness and allow citizens to become actively and legitimately involved, but they also permit several controversial features associated with the project presumably conflicting with the EU law to be clarified and remedies identified which allow for the proper respect of European legislation as it should apply in such circumstances;
Amendment 39 #
2014/2008(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Recalls the investigations conducted on the basis of petitions received concerning the consequences resulting from the lack of implementation of the Waste Framework Directive, and the report adopted on this subject; notes the conclusions and the recommendations adopted in 2013 resulting from visits to Italy - to Campania and Lazio where a number of proposals were made concerning the lack of proper decision- making as regards landfills and the effect of this on local populations, and also notes the intensive fact-finding visit to Greece conducted in the autumn of 2013 on this subject which has drawn attention to the shortcomings in the application of this important Directive as well as to the impact on the health of populations in certain areas of Greece; notes that several other petitions on waste management deficiencies have been recently submitted concerning other member states, and in particularly in the Valencia region in Spain;
Amendment 42 #
2014/2008(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Welcomes the fact that the fact- finding visit to Galicia, which took place in February 2013, was able to hold extensive discussions with petitioners and the regional authorities on issues related to the lack of proper waste-water treatment facilities in the region which has had an impact on the health of local people and on economic activity in certain areas which are contaminated by sludge and residues which contain substances which endanger the public health, the environment and potentially the on- going production of sea- food in certain areas; recogniseexpects that the authorities havedefinitely committed themselves to act more diligently to resolve these issues and that a newn integrated plan for waste water treatment facility is being constructed in Vigoand the necessary facilities for that purposeare effectively set into function all the concerned rías; regrets the lengthy and abnormal procedure in drafting the conclusions of the visit;
Amendment 46 #
2014/2008(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Considers it essential to its work on particular subjects to use other forms of activity such as parliamentary questions for oral answer dealt with during plenary sittings; recalls they are a direct form of parliamentary scrutiny of other EU institutions and bodies; points out that it has used its right 9 times in 2013 tabling questions concerning, for instance, disabilities, animal welfare, waste management and European citizens' initiative; regrets deeply that some of the proposed initiatives from the committee, are kept in the pipeline for plenary debate after several months, therefore preventing giving voice and a direct answer from the Commission to recurrent concerns of EU citizens;
Amendment 47 #
2014/2008(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Acknowledges that environmental issues remain a priority for petitioners, thus highlighting the fact that Member States continue to fall short in this area; observes that many of the petitions focus on public health e.g. waste management, water safety, nuclear energy, and protected animals; points out that many petitions are concerned with new and upcoming projects which increase the dangers of effecting the aforementioned areas; recalls that asstresses the importance of Member States implementing the Environmental Impact Assessment properly in all its provisions, both in letter and spirit and recalls that when Member States strive to address these situations it is clear that finding a the most sustainable solution is still a hindrancimperative;
Amendment 48 #
2014/2008(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19 a. Calls on the Committee on Petitions to continue examining the effects of the ERT case law on the interpretation of Article 51 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and its consequences concerning petitions and to investigate the question of what actual obstacles lie in the way of EU citizens applying for a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice in order to obtain reliable interpretations of central issues under European legislation in cases before the national courts;
Amendment 50 #
2014/2008(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Welcomes the implementation of the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) on 1 April 2012, as well as the registration of the first ECI, dedicated to policies for Europe’s Youth - Fraternity 2020, and the recently successful ECI dedicated to the Right to Water; believes that the ECI constitutes the first instrument of transnational participatory democracy and will enable citizens to become actively involved in the framing of European policies and legislation; reconfirms its commitment to participate in the organisation of public hearings for successful European Citizens’ Initiatives with the active involvements of all concerned parliamentary committees; underlines the need for regular review of the state of play with the European Citizens’ Initiatives, with the aim of improving the procedure while limiting the red tape and other obstacles; is aware that the outcome of the first parliamentary hearings of the first successful ECIs taking place in 2014 are crucial in setting high procedural standards and the citizens' expectations on the exercise of this right in the future, and commits to give institutional priority to ensuring effectiveness in the participatory process.
Amendment 51 #
2014/2008(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Appreciates the Commission’s decision to declare 2013 the ‘European Year of Citizenship’ providing valuable information and insight for EU citizens regarding their rights and of the democratic instruments available to them to assert those rights; considers that the ‘European Year of Citizenship’ should be used for the broad dissemination of information on the new ‘European Citizens’ Initiative’, therefore providing clear and understandable guidelines in order to curtail the high rate of inadmissibility comparable to the rate that is still to be found in the ‘petitions’ field; is convinced that the Petitions webportal is concrete valuable contribution of the European Parliament to the European citizenship;
Amendment 56 #
2014/2008(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading before paragraph 25
Subheading before paragraph 25
Amendment 57 #
2014/2008(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Points out that this final non- legislative resolution could bring forward new suggestions toe importance of makeing theis Committee work more substantial inside the House by raising its profile as a scrutiny Committee; invites the newly elected Petitions Committee to nominate internal Annual Rapporteurs on the major policies, which are of concern of European petitioners; invites the other parliamentary committees to involve the Petitions Committee more as an opinion giving committee on implementation reports and other instruments to monitor the correct transposition and implementation of the European legislation in the Member States, as well as to take into account the input of this committee, given the practical expertise gained over years of handling concrete cases in many fields of the EU law, when undertaking a revision of the existing acquis; stresses the importance, also in view of the ever-increasing amount of petitions received and their related undertakings, of enjoying a de-neutralised status in the Parliament's committee portfolio; invites the Plenary Session of the European Parliament to dedicate more time to debates on the petitions of the European citizens and the work of the Petitions Committees;
Amendment 60 #
2014/2008(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Calls on the Commission to duly recognise the role of petitions in monitoring the effective implementation of EU law, since petitions are usually the earliest indications that Member States are lagging behind in implementing legal measures; invites the European Parliament to recommend in its Interinstitutional Agreement with the Commission to reduce the time it takes to respond to the Committee’s requests and to also keep the Petitions Committee informed of developments in infringement proceedings directly linked to petitions; whereas in general terms the European institutions ought to supply more information and be more transparent with regard to EU citizens, in order to combat the increasing perception of democratic deficits;
Amendment 26 #
2013/2186(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
Ga. whereas the European Parliament approved last September 11th the report on Endangered European Languages and Linguistic Diversity in the European Union, which proposed policies to protect and revitalize endangered and minority languages and among them asks the Member States to ratify the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.
Amendment 84 #
2013/2186(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)
Paragraph 13 b (new)
13b. Calls on the Member States that did not already ratify the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages to follow the recommendation of the European Parliament to ratify and implement it; underlines the importance of multilingualism for the promotion of the EU citizenship;
Amendment 5 #
2013/2119(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls on the European Commission to acknowledge the role of petitions in monitoring the effective application of European Union law and points out that petitions are among the first indicators of problems related to bad implementation of EU legislation;
Amendment 14 #
2013/2119(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers that, in light of the current economic situation, the EU legislation, needs to be even more effective and efficient, bringing benefits at minimum costs and paying full attention to, when it comes to ensuring citizens’ rights and social cohesion, while respecting the principles of subsidiary and proportionality, also at the regional level;
Amendment 19 #
2013/2119(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Underlines that due to the poor management of acorruption in the public sector, the burden on the citizens is constantly rising; therefore urges the Commission and Member States to put more efforts in this sphere in order to improve the management of this sector and reduce costregain trust among the citizens in the national and European institutions;
Amendment 22 #
2013/2119(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses that citizens, businesses and other stakeholders expect a simple and predictablefair regulatory framework; indicates that excessive regulation disrupts competitiveness andausterity measures have severe social impact, shrink the productive activity and internal demand, and hence retards the growth of economy; points, therefore, to the need of a reduction in bureaucracy and administrative burdens and calls on the Commission to identify the pieces of legislation where regulatory costs can be reducedstop this univoque approach;
Amendment 27 #
2013/2119(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 30 #
2013/2119(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Considers thatInvites Member States while transposing EU law to the national system should either quantitatively precisely transpose provisions of the directive or explain why it considers that it is necessary to expand transferable provisions more than it is required by the determined minimum requirements of EU law;
Amendment 31 #
2013/2119(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Stresses that the higher standards of genuine public participation are crucial in ensuring a proper application of EU law, both in letter and spirit; underlines the timely access to full relevant information and the existence of proper legal redress mechanisms as basic pillars of citizens’ participation;
Amendment 33 #
2013/2119(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9b. Is concerned with assuring the maximum guarantees in the correct implementation of the EU law on the environmental field; considers that the precautionary approach should apply when authorising projects that have an impact that might be in breach of EU environmental legislation, and that injunction mechanisms can be an effective tool for this;
Amendment 34 #
2013/2119(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Points out that one of the main problems faced by Member States are formal legal requirements in the stages of drafting, legislation, planning or adoption of legislative acts; notes that process of EU law transposition may protract even more if during the term of these stages the composition of the government changes; besides, problems also arise from the lack of coordination or cooperation between departments of administrative institutions, responsible for transposition of directives’ provisions; deplores that the delays in the effective transposition of EU legislation into national legislation become often an important source of bad application of community law;
Amendment 36 #
2013/2119(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Requests a detailed assessment of the actual benefits and costeffectiveness of the complaint mechanisms (EU Pilot, Solvit, etc.); reminds that the Commission is the ultimate responsible body for the compliance with EU legislation in Member States, both in terms of legal transposition and in enforcement;
Amendment 38 #
2013/2119(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Urges the Commission to help competitiveent national institutions to ensure appropriate transposition and application of EU rules and to determine the main risk factors tofor a timely and appropriate implementation of new (or partly amended) pieces of legislation, as well as to recommend, what risk reduction factors have to be foreseen in the implementation plans; also, to pay more attention to the development of bilateral communication of bilateralbetween national administrations and the Commission as well as to other forms of support to Member States and regional governments;
Amendment 41 #
2013/2119(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Calls on the Commission to provide public access to information on infringement cases through a user-friendly database, providing comprehensive information on the infringements related to specific EU legislative acts or to a Member State, and particularly to update punctually the Petitions committee on the state of play of infringement procedures related to petitions;
Amendment 44 #
2013/2119(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Points out that the infringement procedure capacity by the Commission remains an important driver for a proper implementation of EU law in Member States. Considers that the Commission should propose a Regulation governing the rules of the pre-infringement and the infringement procedures, based on clear, comprehensive criteria and procedures. The development of these rules should go through a consultation process prior to the legislative decision making procedure;