Activities of Ana MIRANDA related to 2023/2047(INI)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on the outcome of the Committee on Petitions’ deliberations during 2022
Amendments (20)
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 3
Citation 3
– having regard to Articles 20, 24 and 227 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which reflect the importance the Treaty attaches to the right of EU citizens and residents to bring their concerns to the attention of Parliament,
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the criteria for the admissibility of petitions are laid down in Article 227 TFEU and Rule 226 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, which require that petitions must be submitted by an EU citizen or by a natural or legal person whothat is resident or has a registered office in a Member State and is directly affected by, either individually or in association with others, on matters which falling within the EU’s fields of activity and which affect the petitioners directly, with the latter condition having a very broad interpretation;
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas the right to petition offers Parliament the opportunity to address and respond to complaints and concerns relating to issues in the EU’s fields of activity; whereas the right to petition enables Parliament and the other EU institutions, in particular the Commission as guardian of the Treaties, to enhance their responsiveness to alleged non- compliance with EU legislation in the Member States; whereas petitions are therefore a useful source of information on instances of misapplication or breaches of EU law as well as on shortcomings and loopholes in the current EU law and, thus, enable Parliament and the other EU institutions to assess the transposition and application of EU law and its impact on the rights of EU citizens and residents;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital M
Recital M
M. whereas the Committee on Petitions carefully examines and deals with each petition submitted to Parliament; whereas each petitioner receives a reply informing them about the decision on admissibility and follow-up actions taken by the committee within a reasonable period of time, in their own language or in the language used in the petition; whereas each petitioner ishas the right to have his or her petition handled impartially and fairly in full compliance with the right to good administration enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; whereas petitioners are entitled to request that their petition be reopened on the basis of any relevant new development; whereas the Commission has reiterated its refusal to take action on issues raised in individual petitions when it considered that they doid not reflect structural problems and in these cases refer to theor issues of wider principle and in these cases referred back petitioners at national level, notably to national courts, to applyseek solutions in order to effectively address the denounced violations of Union law;
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital M a (new)
Recital M a (new)
Ma. whereas according to article 17 TEU the Commission must ensure the correct application of the Treaties and of measures adopted pursuant to them; whereas the Commission's strategic approach in addressing issues raised in petitions must be fully consistent with the Treaties in order to guarantee their effective follow-up;
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital Q
Recital Q
Q. whereas the main subjects of concern raised in petitions submitted in 2022 related to the environment,number of petitions received in 2022 asking for full compliance with the EU environmental law as well as effective and rapid measures, in line with the precautionary principle, in order to protect ecosystems and habitats of Union concern amounted to a total of 258 (21.2%), thus representing the main theme of concern for petitioners; whereas the other main subjects of concern raised in petitions related to fundamental rights (17.4%), justice (15.6%) and external relations (10.4%);
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Underlines the strategic relevance of addressing individual petition issues in order to, inter alia, early detect systemic shortcomings undermining the correct application of EU law; considers of paramount importance that the Commission put in place a more timely and proactive dialogue with national authorities with a view to rapidly ending EU law’s violations denounced by petitioners, thus guaranteeing full protection of citizens’ rights and preventing irreversible damages from occurring;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Calls on the Commission to provide legal clarification on key concepts, which are regularly used in its follow-up given to petitions, like “issue of wider principle” and “systemic failure to enforce EU law” laid down in its strategic approach enshrined in its October 2022 Commission’s Communication titled "Enforcing EU law for a Europe that delivers", which builds on earlier Communications, notably the 2016 Communication “EU law: Better results through better application”;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3c. Stresses that in order to fully exploit the potential of the right to petition is key having timely and proactive Commission's investigations on all the very well drafted petitions, with a particular focus on those denouncing breaches of rights for a large number of citizens and residents in the EU or further violations of EU law linked to systemic shortcomings, which are investigated under ongoing infringement procedures; regrets that the Commission declined to act on the vast majority of petitions received, referring petitioners back at national level, notably to national courts, thus leaving the concerned persons no other option than pursuing lengthy and expensive administrative and judicial procedures, also in cases concerning those Member States, in which the Commission had already found serious flaws undermining the independence, quality and efficiency of their judiciary;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recalls the European dimension of the Committee on Petitions, which can be addressed by citizens from all 27 Member States on issues that fall within the scope of the EU Treaties and EU law; believes that the Committee has a special responsibility to uphold this European dimension and to demonstrate the added value of European unity and integration to citizens; is of the opinion that the treatment of petitions during Committee Meetings should be more geographically balanced and proportionate to the size of each Member State; believes, in this respect, that the European Parliament should increase its efforts to promote the role and work of its Committee on Petitions and raise awareness among all EU citizens of the possibility to address a petition to the European Parliament; urges the political groups represented in the Committee on Petitions to seek consensus and balance with regard to selecting and treating petitions;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Finds it worryiRegrets that both the infringement and the EU Pilot procedures are extremely leng that the Commission does not provide updated iny and opaque; notes with concern that a vast amount of ongoing infringement procedures, including those related to issues raised in many petitions, are kept stalled for mation on petitions related to infringement procedures and on their state of play; deplores, in this regard, the lack of systematic follow-up in the communication with the Committee on Petitions; reiterates its call on the Commission to regularly update the Committee on Petitions on developments in infringement proceedings and to ensureny years in the pre- contentious phase by the Commission, with no referral to the CJEU for the concerned Member States, despite their persistent failure to uphold the related EU law or to correctly transpose EU law's provisions within their respective national legal system; finds it worrying that, with the exception of a short press release, the Commission does not provide citizens and MEPs, as citizens' elected representatives, with any access to documents and information on the actions undertaken in the framework of infringement procedures; deplores, in this regard, the lack of systematic follow-up in the communication with the Committee on Petitions; reiterates its call on the Commission to regularly update the Committee on Petitions on developments in infringement proceedings; asks the Commission to engage with the Parliament and with Member States to revise all relevant provisions, including the ones of the Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission, in order to ensure full transparency on the handling of infringement procedures as well as on all their related documents; firmly believes that the Committee on Petitions must gets access to the relevant Commission documents ondocuments and detailed information on the exchanges between the Commission’s services and Member States’ authorities concerning infringement procedures which were launched based on the petitions received, and on EU Pilot procedures; is of the opinion that increasedfull transparency and regular feedback on the handling of ongoing infringement procedures by the Commission would be beneficial for the Committee’s follow-up of open petitions;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Considers it as a best practice the Commission’s approach to set a target of 12 months to refer infringement cases to the CJEU if the failure by a Member State to transpose a legislative directive persists; believes that this approach can be the main benchmark to substantially improve the overall strategic approach on the enforcement of EU Law, given that a much shorter and well-defined timeframe and strengthening legal rules on infringement procedures as well as on the deferral of a matter to the Court of Justice of the EU in case of persistent violation of EU law are paramount for an effective and rapid response of the EU's institutions aimed at safeguarding the integrity of EU law and protecting adequately citizens’ rights;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8b. Considers paramount to set-up a joint mechanism between the Commission and the Parliament in order to better address Member States’ violations of EU law in pre-infringement cases; believes that this mechanism must be based on sincere mutual cooperation as well as full transparency and be built by revising the existing EU Pilot procedure;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Highlights that the CJEU's judgments must be implemented to the fullest extent by the Member States, as also pointed out in petitions received concerning denounced violations of Rule of Law and citizens' fundamental rights; considers that inadequate reforms put in place through the introduction of new laws and policies suffering the same deficits as identified earlier by the CJEU must be rejected and sanctioned; highlights that in assessing the degree of compliance of Member States with judgments of the CJEU, the Commission must refuse attempts by Member States to only partially implement the CJEU's judgments and refrain from negotiating compromise solutions implying their poor or incomplete implementation;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Welcomes the Commission’s commitment to create an interinstitutional IT tool with Parliament, as a means of increasing the transparency and efficiency of the petitions’ treatment which, in a wider context, would contribute to increasing citizens’ trust in the EU institutions and European projectsharing, in a cooperative way, information and documents on all follow- up actions taken on petitions, including EU Pilot and infringement procedures, legislative proposals, recordings of relevant meetings, replies by national authorities and Parliament's standing committees, and on any other related non- legislative action, thus enhancing the transparency and efficiency of the petitions’ treatment which, in a wider context, would contribute to increasing citizens’ trust in the EU institutions and European project; urges the Commission to speed up its work with the Parliament in order to adopt the necessary technical and budgetary solutions with a view to swiftly finalising the implementation of this key digital tool;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Underlines the need to revise the Parliament's rules of procedure in order to enhance the strategic relevance of the Committee on Petitions, including in the Plenary's activities and in the framework of the legislative initiatives of the European Parliament pursuant article 225 TFEU, thus strengthening the overall follow-up action on petitions received as well as their use as an additional paramount tool to better address shortcomings in the current EU law detrimental for citizens' rights;
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 b (new)
Paragraph 11 b (new)
11b. Regrets that the Commission is still failing to provide comprehensive information to the Committee on Petitions on legislative and non-legislative measures taken following petitions received; urges the Commission to improve its action by, inter alia, including in its annual report on monitoring the application of EU law an exhaustive analysis of the link between petitions and infringement and EU Pilot procedures, EU legislative acts as well as any other EU legal act;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Believes that the petitions network is a useful tool for facilitating the follow- up of petitions in parliamentary and legislative work; trusts that moregular meetings of the petitions network are crucial in order to ensure more visibility for the Committee on Petition’s activities and better understanding of its work and mission and to strengthen cooperation with the other parliamentary committestrengthen cooperation with the other parliamentary committees and ensure an improved and comprehensive action on addressing persistent lack of transposition and incorrect application of EU law by Member States; believes that the use and the exchange of information aboutconcerning specific petitions relevant to ongoing legislative work could be improved;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Notes that environmental issues remained an area of serious concern for petitioners in 2022; regrets that environmental rules are not always correctly implemented in the Member States, as described in numerous petitions raising complaints about air quality, noise pollution, waste management and the deterioration of natural ecosystems, among other things; points to the work the Committee on Petitions continued to carry out in 2022 on the impact of mining activities on the environment, putting a number of petitions received on this topic on the agenda; draws attention to citizens’ concerns about the environmental impacts of renewable energy, especially relating to wind farms, and to the public hearing of 15 June 2022 on the social and environmental impacts of renewable energy;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Acknowledges the European Ombudsman’s regular contributions to the work of the Committee on Petitions throughout the year; firmly believes that the Union’s institutions, bodies and agencies must ensure full, consistent and effective follow-up to theall recommendations of the Ombudsman;