Activities of Julia REDA related to 2014/2253(INI)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on the 30th and 31st Annual Reports on monitoring the application of EU Law (2012 - 2013)
Amendments (8)
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that the right to petition the European Parliament is one of the building blocks of European citizenship, as laid down in Article 44 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 227 of The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU); points out that this right provides the necessary tools for increasing public participation in the European Union’s decision-making process and contributes to the identification and assessment of possible loopholes in the actual implementation of EU legislation; underlines, in the light of the above, the Committee on Petitions’ crucial role as the effective juncture between EU citizens, Parliament and the Commission;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Points out that petitions submitted by EU citizens refer to violations of EU law, particularly in the fields of fundamental rights and the environment; considers that petitions give evidence of the fact that there are still frequent and widespread instances of incomplete transposition or lack of appropriate enforcement leading effectively to a misapplication of EU law;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that a total of 731 infringement cases were closed because the Member State in question had demonstrated its compliance with EU law; points out that the Court of Justice delivered 52 judgments under Article 258 TFEU in 2013, of which 31 (59.6 %) were in favour of the Commission; asks the Commission to pay special attention to the actual enforcement of all these judgements;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes the number of infringement cases closed in 2013 before reaching the Court of Justice (200 out of 484); considers it essential, therefore, to continue to carefully monitor Member State actions, taking into consideration the fact that some of the petitions refer to problems that persist even after the matter has been closed in first instance by the Petitions committee of the Parliament itself;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Notes that the EU Pilot procedure is fully operational in all Member States and has produced impressive results so far, in particular with regard to the gathering of information and the improvement of the specific situation causing concern to citizens, as indicated by the reduced number of infringement procedures; invites the Commission to involve the petitioners in the process of EU Pilot cases deriving from petitions, in order to facilitate also the dialogue between those and the national authorities concerned; suggests that shorter periods should be established for these cases which are deemed of urgency and where the Commission might need to act soon;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 – point b
Paragraph 8 – point b
(b) efforts to be made to give all the relevant information to the Committee on Petitions within a reasonable timeframe, allowing the committee to respond to citizens’ requests more effectively,
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Underlines that given its gathered expertise in misapplications and loopholes in EU legislation, the Petitions committee is by default suitable to engage in the revision of current pieces of EU legislation;
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9b. Asks the Commission and the Court of Justice of the EU to apply proactively the precautionary principle foreseen in the article 191 TFEU, establishing injunction measures when necessary , particularly in cases deriving from petitions concerning projects where a breach of the EU legislation in the environmental field can be foreseen;