28 Amendments of Igor ŠOLTES related to 2018/2104(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 7
Citation 7
— having regard to Rules 52, 215 and 216(7) of its Rules of Procedure,
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas 1 271 petitions were received in 2017 – compared to 1 569 in 2016 – of which 776 petitions (60.2 %) were considered admissible; whereas this represents one year more a significant decrease in the number of petitions received;
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the number of petitions received was very modest in relation to the total population of the EU; whereas this indicates that aonly a small portion of EU citizens make use of the right to petition, taking into account the many actual and potential concerns or expectations within different fields of activity of the Union and in relation to its total population;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
E a. whereas petitioners wait some months for the petition to be adequately treated and to be given feedback, often including the response by the Commission following its first inquiry; whereas often this institutional response becomes disappointing to petitioners, and this eventually can cast some doubts on them about the real usefulness of the EU legislation and the institutions intended to ultimately ensure its implementation, particularly the Commission; whereas it is reasonable to assume that such dissatisfaction is experienced by citizens that initially have a positive image and trust in the Union, given that they decided to make use of the petition mechanism at the EU level;
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas even though a portion of EU citizens are aware of the petition process, there is still a widespread lack of clarity about the EU’s field of activity, as demonstrated by the large number of inadmissible petitions (39 %); whereas the root causes of such a persisting figure over time need to be identified and deserve due attention aiming at its reduction;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas Parliament has long been at the forefront of the development of the petitions process internationally and has the most open and transparent petitions process in Europe, allowing petitioners to participate fulactively in its activities;
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas active participation is only possible provided there is a democratic and transparent process that enables Parliament and the Committee on Petitions to render its work citizen-friendly and comprehensible; whereas this requires an aim of continuous improvement in the interaction with petitioners, keeping track and taking advantage, among others, of the implementation of new technological developments, as well as with other concerned citizens and residents, such as supporters of petitions through the Petitions web portal;
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas petitions are a useful source of information with regard to detecting breaches of EU law, as well as its possible loopholes, and enable Parliament and other EU institutions to assess the transposition and application of EU law and its impact on EU citizens and residentsthe actual impact of its improper implementation on EU citizens and residents; whereas they can also provide insight on the absence of regulatory provisions in fields of activity where the EU could legislate;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K a (new)
Recital K a (new)
K a. whereas petitions represent an extra guarantee for EU citizens and residents compared to complaints directly to the Commission, as it involves the Parliament into the process and allows to better scrutinise the performance of the inquiry duties by the Commission, as well as provide transparent debates on the matter, with the presence of petitioners, Members of the European Parliament and the Commission, as well as any other concerned authority where appropriate;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas petitions often provide useful information in various EU policy areas to other parliamentary committees; whereas in return it is expected that the committees competent on subject matters of a petition will provide their expertise, with the aim of a due treatment of the petition that allows a meaningful response to it from the Parliament itself;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
Recital O
O. whereas the information provided by citizens in petitions and during committee meetings – complemented by expertise provided by the Commission, the Member States and other bodies – is pivotal to the work of the committee; whereas in order to avoid any socio- economic discrimination, petitioners whose petition is to be debated in a public committee meeting and who are willing to participate in the discussion, should be entitled to a reimbursement of the related costs, under reasonable limits;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital R
Recital R
R. whereas 69.1 % of the petitions received (878 petitions) in 2017 were submitted via the Parliament’s Petitions Web Portal, as compared to 68 % (1 067 petitions) in 2016; whereas the predominance of this format and its expected increase over time could allow a quicker initial treatment of these petitions, provided they would be handled, from the beginning, by the Secretariat of the Committee on Petitions;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital S
Recital S
S. whereas petition summaries can now be uploaded on the Portal sooner – approximately one week after the Committee on Petitions reaches a decision on admissibility; whereas the automatic uploading of meeting agendas, minutes and Commission communications relating to petitions was introduced at the end of 2017, which has made these documents publicly available and increased the transparency of the work of the Committee on Petitions; whereas all these features strive towards the aim of providing a more interactive experience and real-time communication with the petitioners; whereas the frequently asked questions (FAQs) and privacy statement features were revised to reflect changes in the confidentiality provisions of the Rules of Procedure; whereas there have also been technical improvements, including further improvements to the search function and the introduction of a ‘read first’ page before a petition can be submitted, which contains information and advice for petitioners; whereas a large number of individual support requests have been handled successfully;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital T
Recital T
T. whereas the Committee on Petitions considers the European Citizens’ Initiative an important instrument of direct and participatory democracy, that, if taken seriously, should enablinge citizens to become actively involved in the framing of European policies and legislation;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital V
Recital V
V. whereas pursuant to the Rules of Procedure, the Committee on Petitions is responsible for relations with the European Ombudsman, who investigates complaints about maladministration within the institutions and bodies of the European Union; whereas the current European Ombudsman, Emily O’Reilly, presented her Annual Report for 2016 to the Committee on Petitions at its meeting on 30 May 2017, and the annual report of the Committee on Petitions is, in turn, partly based on the Ombudsman’s annual report, or the submission of Special Reports to the Parliament, the latest being on the Transparency of the decision-making of the Council;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Is concerned with the ongoing trend of decrease in the total number of petitions received yearly and the possible cause being that citizens and residents may not be perceiving a tangible outcome of the treatment of submitted petitions; considers that this would be harmful for the public perception of the Union as such and that the matter needs to be addressed by all the insitutions involved;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses the importance of raising awareness through a continuous public debate about the actual competences of the EU, its limits and its futurefunctioning and its need for future improvements, in order to ensure that citizens are well informed about the levels at which decisions are taken and so that they can be also involved in discussions about possible reforms; considers that a broader public debate about the EU and everyday media reporting would reduce the number of inadmissible petitions, as citizens would be better aware of the competences of the EU; emphasises that the subject matter of an inadmissible petition can play an important role for policymaking even though it falls outside the scope of the Committee;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Considers that admissibility should be determined on technical basis grounded strictly by clear legal criteria according to Article 227 TFEU; opposes any politically driven decisions concerning inadmissibility, as this is contrary to the current primary law provisions and eventually creates confusion and disaffection from citizens; stresses that more pedagogy needs to be made on the actual fields of activity of the Union;
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Points to the successful launch of the petitions network on 21 March 2017, attendconformed by members from all parliamentary committees, at which the network’s guidelines were presented and its purpose and the role of its members outlined; points out that a second meeting of the petitions network took place on 10 October 2017; is convinced that, if taken duly seriously, the petitions network is a useful tool for a better follow-up of petitions in parliamentary and legislative work; regrets the low attendance by Members of different committees in its latest meetings, and considers it important to use the meetings to discuss possible procedural improvements and share best practices of interaction between committees, in order to encourage them and rise the standards; looks forward to the publication by the Policy Department of the Study on the current functioning of the cooperation of the different committees with the Committee on Petitions; underlines the fact that enhanced cooperation with parliamentary committees on issues raised by petitioners shall enables Parliament to provide a better and individualised follow- up to petitions and respond much more swiftly, concretely and efficientectively to citizens’ concerns, delivering added value to the lives of EU citizens, and to the activities of Parliament and Europe as a whole;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Welcomes the fact that the petitions that the Committee on Petitions receives are handled swiftly and with great care by its SecretariatConsiders that in order to ensure full consistency between the treatment of different petitions the petitions received should be entirely handled by the Committee on Petitions, and that, to this effect, its Secretariat be allocated more resources; underlines the fact that the Committee’s guidelines, adopted in January 2016, make the treatment of petitions and the decision- making process transparent and clear;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Suggests that the Petitions Committee should be provided with the technical and administrative capacity to provide its own particular reply to each petition, as well as to perform own inquiries on petitions on behalf of the Parliament, particularly concerning relevant petitions and where Members have discrepancies with the conclusions of the Commission's own inquiries;
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9 a. Expects the Commission to be always duly represented during the public debates within the Committee on Petitions, namely by high-ranked officials who can provide additional information and respond to the requests of petitioners and Members of the European Parliament, beyond the scope of the previously provided written reply if necessary;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. DWelcomes the increasing trend of the Committee on Petitions to raise issues to the plenary, by means of oral questions, resolutions or short motions for resolutions in accordance with Rule 261(2) of its Rules of Procedure; draws attention to its resolutions that were adopted following the publication of the Annual Report on the Committee on Petitions’ activities in 20162 , the Annual Report on the European Ombudsman’s work in 20163 and the EU Citizenship report 20174 ; _________________draws attention to its resolution on obstacles to EU citizens’ freedom to move and work in the internal market adopted on 15 March 20171a; _________________ 1a Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0083 2 Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0502. 3 Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0449. 4 Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0487.
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10 a. Notes the hearings on multiple and diverse topics organised by the Committee on Petitions during 2017, alone or in cooperation with other committees, namely on "Fighting against discrimination and protecting minorities" on 4th May, on "The situation and rights of EU Citizens in the UK" following the Brexit, on 11th May together with EMPL and LIBE committees, on "Restoring citizens' confidence and trust in the European Project" on 22nd June, on "Statelessness" on 29th May together with LIBE committee, and on the "Protection of the rights of workers in temporary or precarious employment" on 22nd November; welcomes as well that the yearly workshop on the Protection of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities took place on 12th October 2017;
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12 a. Reiterates its disagreement to the unilateral approach adopted by the Commission since its communication 'EU law: Better results through better application'1a, whereby it essentially leaves to the national courts the bulk of the responsibility to monitor possible breaches of EU legislation except in systemic breaches; finds too much ambiguity in the interpretation of this notion and considers particularly nocive such an approach within the domain of environmental legislation; considers it a regression from the previous approach to EU environmental legislation implementation and an overall inhibition from its duties of Guardian of the Treaties; _________________ 1a OJ C 18, 19.1.2017, p. 10
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Reiterates its opinion that a too narrow and incoherent interpretation of Article 51 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights alienates citizens from the EU; asks the Commission to come forward with measures that will ensure a coherent and extensive application of the scope of Article 51; considers that this article should be abolished in the next treaty reform;
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Emphasises that the European Citizens’ Initiative should be both transparent and effective in order to serve as an important instrument for active citizenship and public participation; welcomregrets that this has not been the case in the past and that no tangible legislative outcome of previously successful initiatives has taken place; notes the Commission’s proposal for the revision of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 on the European citizens’ initiative15 , published on 13 September 2017; highlights the most recent successful citizens’ initiative to be submitted, entitled ‘Ban glyphosate and protect people and the environment from toxic pesticides’; points to the public hearing on this initiative in Parliament on 20 November 2017; expects a consequent reaction by the Commission in regard to its content; _________________ 15 OJ L 65, 11.3.2011, p. 1.
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Underlines the importance of further developing the Petitions Portal and the need to make it an easily accessible two-way communication gateway for petitioners and to further minimise the administrative burden in how petitions are processed; reminds that the portal also serves the function of a public register of petitions; reiterates that an enhanced technical capacity of the Portal is essential for a smooth petition process; stresses the need to improve communication with petitioners by sending them notifications on the progress of their petition in their own language; considers that supporters having expressed their endorsement and interest in petitions are entitled to receive the same feedback and information than petitioners, particularly when it comes to debates in the Parliament or replies by the Commission or other authorities;