3 Amendments of Cristina MAESTRE related to 2019/2132(INI)
Amendment 10 #
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, they contribute to bridging the gap between citizens and political institutions by promoting citizens’ active participation and engagement in the EU political debate; considers that the conference on the future of Europe should lead to increased public involvement;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes, in this regard, the 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, 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 and urges the Commission to initiate inquiries in a larger number of cases; acknowledges that this increased transparency 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 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;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Reiterates its concern that this approach may cause citizens to believe that their voice goes unheard by the EU institutions and may ultimately deprive them of legal protection should a remedy at EU level prove more effective due to the national circumstances or the nature of the interests involved; calls onregards this as inadmissible and urges the Commission to clarify how it intends to address the gap between citizens’ expectations and reality regarding the possibility of obtaining a remedy at EU level, and to explain how its approach fits with its role as a guardian of the Treaties and its oversight responsibilities under Article 17(1) of the TEU;