# EUR-Lex - 52006IP0255 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52006IP0255

**European Parliament resolution on the deliberations of the Committee on Petitions during the parliamentary year March 2004 - December 2005 (2005/2135(INI)) **

*
Official Journal 300 E , 09/12/2006 P. 0138 - 0142 *

P6_TA(2006)0255

Deliberations of the Committee on Petitions (2004-2005)

European Parliament resolution on the deliberations of the Committee on Petitions during the parliamentary year March 2004 — December 2005 (2005/2135(INI))

The European Parliament,

- having regard to its previous resolutions on the deliberations of the Committee on Petitions,

- having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of April 1989 on strengthening the right of petition [1],

- having regard to Articles 21 and 194 of the EC Treaty,

- having regard to Rules 45 and 192(6) of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Petitions (A6-0178/2006),

A. whereas the right to petition is a fundamental right inextricably linked with citizenship of the European Union,

B. whereas the right to petition has been enshrined in the EC Treaty since 1992 and is confirmed in the Article 44 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in Rule 191 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament,

C. whereas Parliament, the Council and the Commission have formally confirmed the right to petition and have provided a guarantee regarding inter-institutional follow-up on petitions,

D. whereas the exercise of this right is important for EU citizens in particular, but also for the European institutions, because it allows them to benefit from a direct source of information regarding the concerns and difficulties encountered by ordinary citizens following the application of EU legislation,

E. whereas Parliament regards petitions as a means by which it may improve its political oversight and control over the actions of the EU and the way in which the EU's policies are transposed and implemented by EU, national, regional and local authorities,

F. whereas, following enlargement of the EU in May 2004, citizens from ten new Member States acquired the right to petition Parliament in their national languages and a considerable logistical effort has been necessary to enable them to benefit from that right,

G. whereas there is always a need to ensure that EU citizens are properly informed of their legitimate right to petition Parliament about matters of concern falling within the fields of activity of the EU,

H. whereas almost one-third of the petitions received by Parliament are declared inadmissible, partly as a result of insufficient information about the different competences of, respectively, Parliament, the European Ombudsman, the European Court of Human Rights, and the various national means of redress available,

I. whereas Parliament has improved the procedure for examining petitions in order to be able to deal with petitions more effectively and transparently, but considers that more could be done to integrate and consolidate administrative structures with responsibility for the petitions process, in particular to further ensure a balanced and just treatment of petitioners, as well as to ensure the confidentiality of the process when requested by petitioners,

J. whereas cooperation between Parliament, the Ombudsman and the Commission remains a prerequisite when they address the matters raised by citizens in their petitions and their complaints, and some streamlining of procedures between the three bodies, such as combining investigations with the petitions procedure when complaints and petitions are tabled on the same subject, might bring about greater efficiency,

K. whereas, under Article 230 of the EC Treaty, Parliament has the right to bring actions before the Court of Justice of the European Communities under the same conditions as the Council and the Commission, and thus has at its disposal both the legal and the political instruments to respond more effectively to citizens' legitimate concerns,

L. whereas Parliament, nevertheless, has constantly promoted loyal cooperation, notably with the Commission, as the guardian of the Treaties, as an effective means of remedying problems that have led citizens to seek its assistance,

M. whereas, according to the Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the Commission of 26 May 2005 [2], "the Commission shall not make public any legislative proposal or any significant initiative or decision before notifying Parliament thereof in writing",

N. whereas the Member States and the Council have a particular duty to guarantee to EU citizens that EU legislation is observed and properly applied by national, regional and local administrations, including by agencies acting under their authority,

O. whereas it must be recorded that, naturally, not all admissible petitions received and investigated provide EU citizens with satisfaction, but that a reasonable proportion of petitions do lead to the resolution of a particular problem, or highlight a particular concern which may later serve Parliament when negotiating new Community legislation,

1. Reaffirms the vital role of its Committee on Petitions in reconnecting with the citizens of the EU, and in reinforcing the democratic legitimacy and accountability of the EU decision-making process in the eyes of European public opinion;

2. Recalls that petitions also alert the EU institutions to what individual citizens expect of EU policies and the extent to which those expectations are fulfilled;

3. Believes that its Committee on Petitions offers citizens an important conduit for providing their feedback concerning EU acts and policies, thus contributing to a strengthening of democratic control over Community legislation and its implementation at EU, national, regional and local levels;

4. Emphasises the fact that the petitions process offers Parliament the possibility to assess and, when necessary, to act in order to overcome ambiguities in the political objectives of the EU, as well as loopholes in, or the misapplication of, Community legislation by Member States;

5. Reinforces the view that, in principle, the petitions process should be a right which is targeted as EU citizens who do not have any other means of recourse to action by the European Parliament; recalls that Members of Parliament can avail themselves of this right through the rules of Parliament; reminds Members that they have other Parliamentary procedures at their disposal;

6. Underlines the significant role played by the Commission in providing preliminary analyses of petitions which helps the Committee to find appropriate solutions to the concerns and problems with which citizens are confronted during their everyday lives;

7. Stresses that further cooperation between Parliament, the Ombudsman and the Commission is mutually beneficial in fulfilling their common objectives to improve EU administration and developing better quality and more citizen-inspired legislation; emphasises the fact that common rules of conduct for all Community institutions must be established along the lines of the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour drawn up by the European Ombudsman and endorsed by Parliament;

8. Expresses its concern and surprise that, in this context, the Commission's 22nd annual report on monitoring the application of Community law (2004) (COM(2005)0570) fails to recognise the important role of the petitions procedure in identifying infringements because there is no reference to petitions in the body of the report, the only reference being in a table of Annex 1;

9. Considers that the Commission should notify decisions on opening infringement proceedings before the service of a letter of formal notice, in particular when Parliament has been petitioned on the issue in question;

10. Recommends that, whenever citizens file, on the same subject, both a petition to Parliament and a complaint to the Commission, both procedures should be properly coordinated when dealing with the issues raised, given that the right to petition is a fundamental right, safeguarded by the Treaty, and because Parliament provides a transparent framework for debates, which is a prerequisite for improved openness and enhanced public accountability;

11. Expresses its growing concern at the unreasonable and excessive amount of time — often spanning several years — which the Commission takes to pursue and conclude infringement proceedings after they are eventually launched, and its dissatisfaction with the frequent examples of Member States' non-compliance with decisions of the Court of Justice; considers that this undermines the credibility of the formulation and coherent application of EC law, and that it brings discredit on the objectives of the EU;

12. Furthermore draws attention to the importance of the quick implementation by Member States of judgments of the Court of Justice in infringement proceedings; welcomes the stronger policy adopted by the Commission in December 2005 on bringing Member States before the Court of Justice in order that lump sums and penalty payments be imposed; believes that this policy needs to be applied with vigour to ensure EU authority and to meet the legitimate expectations of EU citizens;

13. Believes that this unacceptable situation should be further investigated by the competent committees of Parliament with a view to recommendations being made about more distinct parliamentary involvement in infringement proceedings and a more effective means of redress for citizens;

14. Underlines the importance of nationally-led information campaigns to facilitate a better knowledge of the substance of EC legislation, policies and objectives by citizens; which could also help to reduce the number of unfounded petitions and complaints while, at the same time, improve the ability of Parliament and the Commission to ensure the correct application of EU law and policy in cooperation with the Member States;

15. Recalls the key role that Member States play in correctly implementing the EC legislation and in making the EU more relevant to citizens; stresses the need for a better coordinated participation of the representatives of the Member States and their parliaments in the debates of the Committee on Petitions;

16. Encourages fact-finding missions pursuant to Rule 192 of its Rules of Procedure, with clear aims and objectives, which are occasionally despatched to various Member States of the EU to investigate issues raised by petitioners, and continues to support such missions when the situation fully warrants it, as they offer a clearer view of often complex problems on the ground and help raise awareness among the competent authorities, which also increases the pressure to find effective and pragmatic solutions in the interests of citizens;

17. Calls for the reports that are approved as a result of such missions to be forwarded to the Bureau of Parliament and, where required, to other committees with an interest in the issues raised, for their information;

18. Emphasises the frequent need for a greater involvement of the Council, as an institution, in the Committee's activities and encourages its participation at the meetings of the Committee at the appropriate level, as stated in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-making, adopted on 16 December 2003 by the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission [3];

19. Reiterates the proposal for the Council to designate a senior official to coordinate matters related to petitions, as many of the petitions may touch upon sensitive political issues related to the transposition by Member States of EC legislation and the EU's objectives;

20. Notes that during the first year since the enlargement of the EU to 25 Member States, the number of petitions received by the Parliament has remained relatively constant, contrary to initial expectations; however, it is inevitable that the more closely the citizens of the new Member States become acquainted with the petitions process, the more frequently they will make use of their rights;

21. Calls for measures to be taken both at EU and at national level by Parliament to increase the awareness of EU citizens of their rights to petition Parliament under Article 194 of the Treaty on matters within the EU's fields of activity which concern them directly, and to emphasise also the fact that complaints to the Ombudsman under Article 195 of the Treaty concern only allegations of maladministration within the EU institutions or bodies;

22. Acknowledges and welcomes the steps made to strengthen the secretariat of the Committee in order to cover the need for linguistic, legal and political expertise and stresses that this process should continue, so that response times may become shorter, investigations even more effective and its service be equally available to all citizens of the EU; regrets, however, the permanent lack of staff in the Committee secretariat with regard to the growing number of petitions coming from the new Member States;

23. Calls upon the Conference of Presidents to consider, at the appropriate time, a substantial increase in the membership of the Committee of Petitions to 50 full members in order to ensure that EU citizens are able to obtain an even better understanding of their case in Committee, and thus allow Parliament to better respond to the expectations of petitioners;

24. Welcomes the introduction, in July 2005, of a new software system for petitions that functions both as a database and as a management tool providing information about the petitions workflow; and points out that the e-Petition software is accessible to Members of the Committee, their assistants as well as the political group staff and aims at further reinforcing the transparency and the efficiency of the Committee's activity;

25. Notes that Article 230 of the Treaty enables Parliament to refer to the Court of Justice cases of violation of the Treaty or any other rule of law related to its application;

26. Stresses the legitimate entitlement of Parliament to make use of its powers if this is necessary in order to bring to an end a serious infringement of Community law which has been revealed in the course of the examination of a petition;

27. Recalls that since 1998 Parliament has called for a review of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 1989; reiterates its urgent requests for the Council and the Commission to undertake this review with a view to a more effective means of redress and defining a clear and coherent framework for essential cooperation between the institutions in the area concerned;

28. Calls upon the responsible committee, in close cooperation with the Committee on Petitions, to conduct a review of the current rules of procedure of the petitions procedure in order to bring it more into line with current best practice and reinforce procedures related to data protection and confidentiality without undermining the essential transparency of the petitions process itself;

29. Instructs its President to forward this resolution and the report of the Committee on Petitions to the Council, the Commission, the European Ombudsman, the governments and parliaments of the Member States and their committees on petitions and ombudsmen or similar competent bodies.

[1] OJ C 120, 12.4.1989, p. 90.

[2] OJ C 117 E, 18.5.2006, p. 123.

[3] OJ C 321, 31.12.2003, p. 1.

--------------------------------------------------