11 Amendments of Laura AGEA related to 2014/2257(INI)
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Highlights, therefore, the need for uniform personal data requirements for the statements of support as provided for by the original Commission proposal 1 a ; stresses that, at present, 18 Member states require the provision of a personal ID number, despite the fact that the European Data Protection Supervisor had advised against it; calls for the establishment of a permanent server, hosted by the Commission, which would provide a certified Online Collection System working as an online ECI tool thus avoiding unnecessary regulatory burdens; __________________ 1a COM(2010)119 final
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Calls on the Commission to urge Member states to use the ECI Validation Tool for Statements of Support, developed under the Interoperability Solutions for European Public Administrations programme;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Stresses that, within the scope of the instruments available to enhance participatory democracy across the Union, IT tools should be made available also to regions, thus allowing for greater involvement of citizens in public affairs;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Expresses its concern about the low percentage of successful initiatives and the dramatic decrease in the number of new initiativefact that, since 2012, out of 31 registered ECIs only 3 reached the last phase; highlights how the dramatic decrease in the number of new initiatives is direct consequence of a cumbersome and unnecessarily complex system as well as discouraging Commission response to successful ECIs; stresses that the European institutions and the Member States must take all necessary steps to promote the ECI and to foster citizens’ confidence in this tool; believes that the instrument still has the potential to engage the public and to promote dialogue among citizens and between citizens and EU institutions; welcomes the fact that some ECIs have managed to have an impact at local level;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Regrets the lack of clear information on the ECI instrument at the early stages, which led to a general misconception about its nature and generated some frustration when the first ECIs were rejected by the Commission; recalls that the instrument should be simple, clear and user-friendly;
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls for enhanced inter-institutional cooperation when dealing with ECIs in providing information and support to ECI organisers; calls for the future establishment of a physical and online ‘one-stop shop’ providing information, legal advice, and translation services and funding, which couldmay use the resources of the point of contact based in the Europe Direct Contact Centre and the Commission’s representations and Parliament’s information offices in the Member States; considers that such a set- up would bring the ECI project closer to citizens;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Calls on the Commission to consider uniformly lowering the minimum age to support an ECI to 16, to encourage civic participation of the younger generation in EU affairs;
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission to ensure transparency in the decision-making process and clarify the procedure for legal admissibility; invites the Commission to respond to successful ECIs wihighlights how, among submitted and registered ECIs, a handful of organisers have brought the Commission before the Court of Justice over the more concrete actionsisapplication of proper legal test of regulation No 211/2011;
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Urges the Commission to respond to successful ECIs with more concrete actions, unless the ECI will lose credibility as a democratic mechanism in the eyes of citizens, especially since its stated aim is to enhance the democratic legitimacy of the Union; reiterates that in order to provide proper follow-up to a successful ECI, a parliamentary debate in plenary followed by a vote on the ECI should be allowed; calls therefore on the Commission to modify regulation 211/2011 accordingly;
Amendment 74 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls on the Commission to improve and simplify the oOnline cCollection sSystem (OCS) software and make it accessible to persons with disabilities, allow for electronic signatures and for the collection of e-mail addresses, and include the most up-to-date online campaigning features, following the example of other successful online campaigning platforms; calls on the Commission to support the creation of a public ECI applicationdevelopment of an open source dedicated ECI software for mobile devices;
Amendment 92 #
Draft opinion
Point 12
Point 12
12. Recalls that hearings concerning successful ECIs are currently organised by the competent committee, according to the subject of the ECI, with the Committee on Petitions associated; proposes that the Committee on Petitions should take over the role of organising hearings, as a neutral forum with the greatest experience in dealing with citizens; notes that the ECI citizens' committee should receive reimbursement to participate in the hearings for all its members (i.e. one for each Member state represented instead of currently three).