15 Amendments of Margrete AUKEN related to 2017/2222(INI)
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas those who submit and support petitions are engaged citizens, which in turn expect the EU institutions to bring forward an added value in the resolution of their concerns; whereas failure to act adequately upon them is likely to result into frustration and consequently disaffection towards the Union;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas petitions provide information in various areas of use to other parliamentary committees, also in relation to their legislative activities; whereas fulfilling the fundamental right to petition through an adequate treatment of petitions is a responsibility of the Parliament as a whole;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas each petition is carefully assessed and dealt with, and whereas each petitioner has the right to receive a first reply from the Committee of Petitions within a reasonable period of time; whereas subsequent exchanges and replies are often needed as a result of the initial examination of petitions or the interaction with the Commission and national authorities as further follow- up to seek for solutions;
Amendment 27 #
Ka. whereas the particular, interactive nature of the petition process itself and the core role citizens play therein renders each case unique and does exclude a pre- established time frame; whereas such procedures require particular flexibility and public relations skills from the administration side;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
Recital N
N. whereas Parliament’s Petitions Web Portal website, launched at the end of 2014, is operational; whereas 1 067 petitions (68 % of those received) were submitted via the web portal in 2016, as compared to 992 in 2015; whereas technical improvements have been made, including improvements to the search function, benefitting both users and portal administrators; whereas petition summaries are uploaded shortly after adoption; whereas the confidentiality settings and privacy statements have been revised, and a set of frequently asked questions (FAQs) have been introduced; whereas petition summaries from 2015 and 2016 were uploaded with the help of a new migration tool; whereas a search engine optimisation (SEO) process has been conducted; whereas a high number of individual support requests by users has been handled successfully; whereas further stages of the project are under way, enabling features such as the automatic electronic notification of the inclusion of each petition concerned in committee agendas together with its upcoming web- streaming link and also of the subsequent uploading of related minutes and videos of their debates, both for petitioners and supporters concerned;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
Recital O
O. whereas the European Citizen’s Initiative is potentially an important tool for strengthening citizens’ participation in the EU political decision-making process and should be exploited fully; whereas the legislative proposal put forward by the Commission on 13th September 2017 to review the current Regulation 211/2011 on the ECI represents a kick-off of a very necessary process of revision in order to render this tool more accessible and useful for the EU citizens;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital P
Recital P
P. whereas four fact-finding visits pursuant to Rule 216a of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure were planned; whereas fact-finding visits represent a core tool for the Petitions' committee, both in terms of being a unique opportunity to gather information from different stakeholders in complex issues, and at the same time to help visibilizing concretely the work of the Parliament to citizens in different corners of Europe; whereas two fact-finding visits took place, one to Spain following the reception of several petitions from EU citizens regarding possible infringements of the Water Framework Directive, and one to Slovakia on the use of EU structural funds in long- term residential centres for persons with disabilities; whereas two other planned fact-finding visits, one to Ireland and one to Italy, were cancelled;
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Considers the fact that national courts have primary responsibility to ensure a proper implementation of EU legislation in the Member States should by no means preclude a more proactive role by the Commission, in its capacity as guardian of the Treaties, when it comes to ensuring compliance with EU law, particularly in cases relating to environmental and public health protection where precautionary principle should prevail;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Disagrees with the Commission’s recurrent self-interpretation in reference to the twenty-seventh annual report on monitoring the application of European Union law (2009), on the basis of which it would be entitled to close files on which no formal step towards infringement proceedings has yet been taken, or to suspend active infringement proceedings in cases in progress before a national court; reminds that in paragraph 11 of its annual resolution on the activities of the Committee on Petitions adopted in plenary on 15th December 2016, the Parliament reaffirmed its disagreement with the Commission’s original approach in the aforementioned report, as expressed already in its own parliamentary resolution1bof 14 September 2011, where particularly in paragraphs 1, 23 and 32 the Commission was requested to step up its efforts to ensure consistent implementation of EU legislation, within its capacities, and to make use of infringement mechanisms independently of the existence of judicial proceedings at national level; _________________ 1b OJ C 51E, 22.2.2013, p. 66.
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Deplores the fact that the Charter of Fundamental Rights only applies in Member States when implementing EU law; reiterates the fact that many citizens have found its implementation to be unclear; regrets that the Court of Justice of the EU has interpreted Article 51 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in a cautious way, yet allowing for the scope of application of the Charter to be expanded to include national provisions that implement EU law, as well as those that ensure effective application of EU provisions; considers that the expectations of most of EU citizens in relation to the rights conferred in the Charter go much beyond their current scope of application; stresses that a too narrow or incoherent interpretation of Article 51 alienates citizens from the EU; urges the Commission to take measures to ensure that the interpretation of the scope of Article 51 is as coherent and wide as possible; believes that as part of the efforts needed to revamp the Union following Brexit, and as a path to regain credibility after the economic crisis' severe social consequences, Article 51 should be deleted from the Charter at the earliest possible treaty reform; welcomes the introduction by the Fundamental Rights Agency of an interactive tool providing easy access to information on which authority to address in each of Member State with inquiries regarding fundamental rights;
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Reiterates the committee’s work to support the ratification and swift implementation of the 2013 Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled; stresses the relevance in this regard of its short resolution adopted in plenary on 3 February 2016 on the Ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty, which called for a swift reaction from all concerned parties in order to unblock the previously long-standing situation in order to facilitate the ratification at EU level; notes that Parliament and the Council have reached an agreement on the Commission’s legislative proposals on the implementation of the Marrakesh Treaty, which have become binding1 ; _________________ 1 OJ L 242, 20.9.17, p. 1 and p. 6. OJ L 242, 20.9.17, p. 1 and p. 6.
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Points to the committee’s support of the European Citizens’ Initiative as a core instrument to foster EU citizenship; notes the Commission’s proposal for a revision of the regulation with a view to maintaining its relevance as a tool for democratic participation; invites the Commission to considerthe expectation that the outcome of the legislative process will finally ensure its relevance as a tool for democratic participation; regrets the fact that by submitting its proposal before the conclusion of the Parliament’'s substanown- initiative legislative procedure on the European Citizens’ Initiative, input,cluding in particular the already adopted opinion of the Committee on Petitions on the European Citizens’ initiativ, the Commission failed to duly take into account the former and considers that such an approach is in breach of the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making1; calls on the Commission to consider further the Parliament’s substantive input during the upcoming legislative procedure;
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Emphasises Parliament’s strong collaboration with the European Ombudsman, as well as its involvement in the European Network of Ombudsmen; underlines the excellent relations within the institutional framework between the Ombudsman and the Committee on Petitions; appreciates in particular the Ombudsman’s regular contributions to the work of the committee throughout the year; supports the current Ombudsman's work in the different fields of her competence, including her own-initiative and strategic inquiries to the benefit not only of good administration but also of a better democratic functioning of the Union; welcomes the initiatives taken by the European Ombudsman to better benefit from the network’s potential and to strengthen its visibility;
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Welcomes the Award for Good Administration launched by the office of the European Ombudsman in 2016 as a way to recognise staff members, agencies and bodies of EU institutions engaged in promoting good administration while performing their everyday duties; calls for the current Code of Good Administrative Behaviour to be upgraded into a binding Regulation, including among other aspects concrete provisions to prevent conflicts of interest at all levels within EU institutions, agencies and bodies;
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Points to the improvements made to the Petitions Web Portal; underlines the need for further technical improvements to the web portal to ensure that the committee on Petitions is fully prepared to deal with unexpected situations, such as a sudden increase in the number of petitions submitted; considers the ongoing technical development, and enhanced technical capacity, of the portal as essential for a smooth petition process; underlines the importance of the portal as an easily accessible communication gateway for citizens and petitioners, also for users of mobile devices and for persons with disabilities; looks forward to the prompt implementation of the remaining phases of the project, which will allow for an enhanced interactive experience and increased real-time information by petitioners and those supporting petitions;