11 Amendments of Tatjana ŽDANOKA related to 2019/2132(INI)
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that the right to petition the European Parliament is one of the fundamental rights of EU citizens, 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; underlines the importance of petitions as one of the most accessible ways for citizens to address the EU institutions in order to express their concerns about possible violations of their rights and about instances of misapplication or breaches of EU law; recalls that petitions are the cornerstone of participatory democracy and that as such, in due respect also of the spirit of article 11 TEU, they contribute to bridging the gap between citizens and political institutions by promoting citizens’ active participation and engagement in the EU political debate;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that the right to petition the European Parliament is one of the fundamental rights of EU citizens, 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; underlines the importance of petitions as one of the most accessible ways for citizens to address the EU institutions in order to express their concerns about possible violations of their rights and about instances of misapplication or breaches of EU law, as well as loopholes within the acquis; recalls that petitions are the cornerstone of participatory democracy and that as such, they contribute to bridging the gap between citizens and political institutions by promoting citizens’ active participation and engagement in the EU political debate;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. WelcomeRecalls the Commission’s commitment, as clearly set out in its 2017 annual report on monitoring the application of EU law (COM(2018)0540), to placing great value on the contributions of citizens, businesses and other stakeholders in detecting breaches of EU law; notes, in this regard, the Commission’s efforts to illustrate the impact of petitions on its enforcement action in a number of policy areas such as the environment, migration, taxation and the internal market; deplores, however, the lack of figures on the number of petitions handled by the Commission and the number that lead to the initiation of EU Pilots and infringement procedures;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes, in this regard, theRequests increased transparency and the disclosure of more information in the 2018 report about the number of petitions dealt with by the Commission and about its follow-up actions; notes, however,regrets that in the large majority of cases the Commission did not open an investigation and did not take any further action; is particularly concerned, in this respect, about the practice of referring a significant number of petitioners to other bodies at national, regional or local level; acknowledgnotes that this practice reflects the Commission’s new enforcement policy announced in its 2016 communication entitled ‘EU Law: Better Results through Better Application’ (C(2016)8600), which essentially aims to direct citizens to the national level when complaints or petitions do not raise issues of wider principle or systematic failure to comply with EU law and can satisfactorily be dealt with by other mechanisms; instensifies, however, the Parliament’s repeatedly expressed opposition to the approach established therein and urges for its withdrawal;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Stresses that the Commission must prevent the situations where its services or staff refuse to act presuming that protection of the EU is a primary duty of member states’ authorities, especially if these authorities act apparently ineffectively in a concrete case; considers that if national institutions do not provide effective protection of EU law the Commission has to proactively and timely come into play with all its prerogatives, tools and powers; suggests that Commission should also provide the possibility for petitioners, after receiving a negative answer, to get a review from another Commission’s competent person, ideally with a nationality different than the concerned Member State of the petition;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. Suggests that concerning concrete petitions, the Commission should by default evaluate the willingness and ability shown by national authorities to solve the stated problem of implementation of the EU law; reminds that for this purpose the Commission enjoys a wide array of sources: the European Commission’s Annual report on monitoring the application of EU law itself, its EU Justice Scoreboard and the European Semester’s information, the decisions of the Court of Justice and other sources, such as the forthcoming annual Rule of Law report;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses that, despite its efforts over recent years to enhance the transparency of its monitoring and enforcement activities (e.g. through a centralised platform providing infringement-related information), the Commission has not yet responded to Parliament’s repeated calls to be regularly informed about every EU Pilot opened and infringement procedure initiated, especially when they result from petitions; stresses the importance of receiving regular updates on developments in infringement procedures related to open petitions, while respecting the confidentiality requirements laid down in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU); reminds the Commission about citizens’ high expectations of transparency with respect to its oversight activities; urges the Commission, therefore, to share this information with Parliament on a timely manner and in a spirit of sincere cooperation, in order to enable Parliament to exercise its scrutiny over the executive under Article 14 of the TEU and, ultimately, to enhance the legitimacy and accountability of the Commission’s enforcement action;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Stresses the importance of finally deploying within the EU law the access to justice pillar of the Aarhus convention, in order to ensure individual citizens’ and civil society organisations’ right to bring before the CJEU cases of possible breach of environmental legislation, as a means of effective redress;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Points out that those citizens directing their petitions and complaints to the Parliament and Commission, respectively, have in principle a positive opinion towards the Union, and are thus doing so in full conviction that the EU level will reveal itself as a fruitful political space to resolve their concerns effectively; underlines that a manifest failure to properly handle their cases at this level is likely to disappoint their initial expectations and perceptions towards the usefulness of the Union; considers hence that the current trend concerning the treatment of petitions is rather likely to increase the disaffection already existing in some Member States;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8b. Points to the existence of the provision within the article 265 TFEU whereby the Commission or other EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies could be brought before the CJEU if it is considered that they failed to act;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Recalls the European Parliament resolution of 15 January 2013 with recommendations to the Commission on a Law of Administrative Procedure of the European Union (2012/2024(INL)), particularly its request to the Commission to submit a proposal for a regulation on a European Law of Administrative Procedure.