Deliberations of the Committee on Petitions during 2007 European Parliament resolution of 23 September 2008 on the deliberations of the Committee on Petitions during 2007 (2008/2028(INI))
Date: 2008-09-23
Institutions: Committee on Petitions, European Parliament
Subjects: European Parliament, citizens' Europe, interinstitutional cooperation (EU), petition








CE2010008EN.01004101.xml










14.1.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CE 8/41





Tuesday 23 September 2008Deliberations of the Committee on Petitions during 2007
P6_TA(2008)0437
European Parliament resolution of 23 September 2008 on the deliberations of the Committee on Petitions during 2007 (2008/2028(INI))
2010/C 8 E/08

The European Parliament,
having regard to its previous resolutions on the deliberations of the Committee on Petitions, notably its resolution of 21 June 2007 on the results of the fact-finding mission to the regions of Andalucía, Valencia and Madrid conducted on behalf of the Committee on Petitions (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 (A6-0336/2008),






A.


recognising the singular importance of the petitions process in allowing individuals the opportunity to draw to the attention of the European Parliament specific issues which are of direct concern to them covering the area of activity of the Union,










B.


whereas the Committee on Petitions should always strive to improve its efficiency in order to better serve EU citizens and meet their expectations,










C.


mindful of the fact that, in spite of considerable progress in the development of the structures and policies of the Union during this period, citizens often remain conscious of many shortcomings in the application of the policies and programmes of the Union as they affect them directly,










D.


whereas, in accordance with the EC Treaty, EU citizens have the right to petition the European Parliament but they may also channel their complaints to other EU institutions or organs, notably the Commission,










E.


whereas efforts to promote and provide information on the public right to petition Parliament remain vital at national level, so as to awaken public interest and, in particular, prevent confusion over the various complaints procedures,










F.


whereas it is the responsibility of the Member States to apply Community regulations and directives, a responsibility which they may delegate to regional or local political authorities depending upon their own constitutional arrangements,










G.


whereas it is legitimate for Parliament to exercise democratic oversight and supervision of Union policies, bearing in mind the important principle of subsidiarity, in order to ensure that Union laws are properly implemented and understood and that they fulfil the purpose for which they were designed, debated and adopted by the competent institutions of the Union,










H.


whereas EU citizens and residents of the Union may actively participate in this activity by exercising their right of petition to the European Parliament in the knowledge that their concerns will be addressed and investigated by the responsible committee and that a suitable reply will be given,










I.


whereas the existing Treaties already contain commitments to respect, as core principles of European society, human dignity, freedom, democracy, the rule of law, human rights, equality and the rights of minorities and whereas the new Treaties on European Union and on the Functioning of the European Union will, if ratified by all 27 Member States, further strengthen this by incorporating the Charter of Fundamental Rights, providing for the accession of the Union to the European Convention on Human Rights, and introducing a legal basis for citizens’ legislative initiatives, as well as a proper system of administrative law for the EU institutions,










J.


whereas Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union lays down procedures whereby the Union can take action to counter serious and persistent breaches by a Member State of the principles on which the Union is founded, as laid down in Article 6 of that Treaty,










K.


recalling in this respect that EU citizens frequently petition Parliament for redress where they feel that their rights as recognised under the Treaties have been infringed and where they find that judicial remedies are unsuitable, impractical, excessively protracted or — as is often the case — expensive,










L.


whereas the Committee on Petitions, as the responsible committee, has a duty not only to respond to individual petitions but also to seek to provide viable solutions to the concerns expressed by petitioners within an adequate time frame, and whereas this constitutes the main objective of its work,










M.


whereas the solutions to the concerns of petitioners are generally found as a result of loyal cooperation between the Committee on Petitions, on the one hand, and the Commission, the Member States and their regional and local authorities on the other hand, which together provide non-judicial remedies,










N.


whereas, nevertheless, there is not always a clear willingness on the part of Member States and regional or local authorities to find practical solutions to the problems raised by petitioners,










O.


whereas, moreover, although petitioners’ allegations are not always well-founded, the petitioners are entitled to expect an explanation and a response from the committee responsible,










P.


whereas enhanced inter-institutional coordination should make the redirection of inadmissible petitions to national authorities more effective,










Q.


whereas petitions may be declared inadmissible if they are not concerned with the area of activity of the European Union and whereas the petitions process is not a method to be used by citizens as a means of appealing against decisions taken by competent national legal or political authorities with which they may disagree,










R.


whereas it is essential that Parliament provide itself with the means, in terms of effective authority, rules, procedures and resources, to respond efficiently and in good time to the petitions received by it,










S.


whereas the petitions process can make a positive contribution to better law-making, notably by identifying areas indicated by petitioners where existing EU law is weak or ineffective having regard to the objectives of the legislative act concerned and whereas, with the cooperation and under the authority of the competent legislative committee, such situations can be remedied by revising the legislative acts concerned,










T.


whereas the petitions process also makes a significant contribution to the identification of instances in which Member States are not correctly applying Community law, which in a number of cases leads to the initiation by the Commission of infringement procedures under Article 226 of the EC Treaty,










U.


whereas the infringement procedure is designed to ensure that the Member State concerned is made to comply with existing Community law and is moreover decided upon at the discretion of the Commission without there being any provision for direct parliamentary involvement in this process; noting, nevertheless, that about one third of infringements are related to issues submitted by petitioners to the European Parliament,










V.


whereas an infringement procedure, even if successful, may not directly provide redress in relation to the specific issues raised by individual petitioners, whereas this undermines citizens’ confidence in the EU institutions’ ability to meet their expectations,










W.


whereas in 2007, when the membership of the Committee on Petitions was increased from 25 to 40, Parliament registered 1 506 petitions (representing a 50 % increase compared to 2006), of which 1 089 were declared admissible,










X.


recording that in 2007 a total of 159 petitioners participated in meetings of the Committee on Petitions, not including many others who were present to observe proceedings,










Y.


whereas six fact-finding visits were organised in 2007 to Germany, Spain, Ireland, Poland, France and Cyprus, as a result of which reports were prepared and recommendations made which were subsequently sent to all interested parties and in particular to the petitioners,










Z.


whereas nine full committee meetings were organised at which over 500 individual petitions were debated, with the valuable assistance of representatives of the Commission, all petitioners being informed of the outcome,










AA.


whereas the priority areas of concern to EU citizens, as expressed in the petitions process, focus on the following issues: the environment and its protection, including the weakness of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive, the Water Framework Directive, the Drinking Water Directive, the Waste Directives, the Habitats Directive, the Birds Directive, the Money Laundering Directive and others, and including general concerns about pollution and climate change, individual and private property rights, financial services, free movement and rights of workers including pension rights and other social provisions, free movement of goods and taxation, recognition of professional qualifications, freedom of establishment and allegations of discrimination on grounds of nationality, gender or membership of a minority,










AB.


whereas the subject-matter of petitions and the course of their examination in 2007 involved major contemporary issues such as climate change, biodiversity loss, water scarcity, regulation of financial services and the European Union's energy supply,










AC.


bearing in mind the permanent and constructive relations established between the European Ombudsman, who has the responsibility to investigate citizens’ complaints regarding allegations of maladministration in the EU institutions, and the Committee on Petitions, which reports regularly to Parliament on the Ombudsman's Annual Report or on Special Reports — which remain the Ombudsman's last means of action when his recommendations are not followed — of which there was one in 2007,










AD.


whereas a request from the committee responsible submitted in June 2005 for authorisation to draw up a report on a Special Report from the Ombudsman to Parliament on maladministration within the European Anti-Fraud Office was refused by a decision of the Conference of Presidents on 15 November 2007,










AE.


bearing in mind future developments which will further enhance the involvement of EU citizens in the activity and work of the European Union, notably by the introduction of the ‘citizens’ initiative’ provided for under the Treaty of Lisbon, if ratified by all 27 Member States, which will permit not less than one million individuals from several Member States to call for a proposal for a new legislative act, and for which specific procedures must be introduced involving the Commission, to which such initiatives must be initially addressed, the European Parliament and the Council,










AF.


whereas if the operations of the Committee on Petitions are effective and efficient, this sends a clear signal to citizens that their legitimate concerns are being dealt with and establishes a genuine connection between citizens and the EU; whereas, however, if there are unacceptable delays, and an unwillingness on behalf of Member States to implement the required recommendations in accordance with Community law, this merely serves to increase the distance between the EU and its citizens and in many cases confirms their view that a democratic deficit exists,










AG.


whereas in the course of 2007 the members of the Committee on Petitions were able to benefit from the considerable enhancement of the e-Petition database and management tool, developed by its secretariat in collaboration with the service responsible for information technology, which provides all members of the committee and political groups with direct access to all petitions and associated documentation, thus improving their ability to serve petitioners effectively,










AH.


noting, nevertheless, that Parliament failed to provide the resources, requested in last year's resolution on the work of the Committee on Petitions, that are needed to improve Internet facilities for the petitions process and to give effect to Rule 192(2) of Parliament's Rules of Procedure, which provides that an electronic register ‘shall be set up in which citizens may lend their support to the petitioner, appending their own electronic signature to petitions which have been declared admissible and entered in the register’,










AI.


whereas it is important for EU citizens to be properly informed of the work of the Committee on Petitions as they prepare to vote for a new Parliament in the next EU elections scheduled for June 2009,










1.


Welcomes the close collaboration between the Committee on Petitions and the services of the Commission and the Ombudsman and the climate of cooperation that exists between the institutions which seek to respond to the concerns of EU citizens; firmly believes, however, that priority should be accorded to enabling the Committee on Petitions itself to further enhance its own independent investigatory facilities, notably through the reinforcement of its secretariat and its legal expertise; undertakes to further streamline internal procedures of the Committee on Petitions in order to facilitate the petitions process further, notably with respect to the time frame within which petitions are determined, their admissibility, investigation and follow-up, the organisation of committee meetings, cooperation with other parliamentary committees which may have an interest or competence with regard to certain petitions, and committee initiatives such as fact-finding missions;










2.


Stresses that the legal scope of the Charter of Fundamental Rights will be recognised if the Lisbon Treaty is fully ratified, and that this will formally enshrine its independent binding character, and points out that specific measures will have to be envisaged to determine what effect this will have on citizens’ rights and, as a consequence, on the work and competences of the Committee on Petitions;










3.


Reiterates its requests to its Secretary-General to conduct an urgent review of the ‘Citizens Portal’ on Parliament's website with the objective of enhancing the visibility of the portal as regards the right of petition and to ensure that citizens are provided with the means to append their signatures electronically in support of petitions, as provided for in Rule 192(2) of the Rules of Procedure; urges that the Citizen's Portal must ensure web-browsing software interoperability in order to provide citizens with equal rights of access in this respect;










4.


Considers that the present procedure for registration of petitions unduly delays their examination, and is concerned that this may be perceived as displaying a certain lack of sensitivity towards petitioners; urges its Secretary-General, therefore, to take the necessary measures to transfer the registration of petitions from the Directorate-General of the Presidency to the secretariat of the committee responsible;










5.


Calls for the initiation of negotiations between Parliament and the Commission with a view to better coordinating their work on complaints in a way that facilitates, simplifies and streamlines the complaint procedures and makes them more transparent and expeditious; calls on the Secretary-General to report back to the Committee on Petitions within six months;










6.


Supports the formalisation of a procedure whereby petitions in the field of the internal market are transferred to the Solvit network with a view to significantly shortening the petitions process in the field of internal market issues such as car taxes, recognition of professional qualifications, residence permits, border controls and access to education, while preserving Parliament's right to examine the issue should a satisfactory solution not be found through Solvit;










7.


Reiterates the need for greater involvement on the part of the Council and the Member States’ Permanent Representations in the activities of the Committee on Petitions, and urges them to increase their presence and participation in the interests of the citizens;










8.


Considers that, in the context of the reinforcement of the secretariat of the Committee on Petitions, and in the context of development of the e-Petition system, the introduction of an IT facility for online tracking aimed at petitioners would help to create a more transparent and efficient process by means of, inter alia, regular status updates and calls for additional information; notes that such a measure would better meet the expectations of EU citizens while also fostering improved performance of the institutional responsibilities incumbent on Parliament and on its Committee on Petitions;










9.


Calls on the Commission to take full account of the recommendations of the Committee on Petitions when reaching decisions regarding the initiation of infringement proceedings against Member States, and reiterates its demand that the Committee on Petitions be directly and officially notified by the Commission when an infringement procedure is launched which is related to a petition under consideration by the Committee;










10.


Reiterates in this connection the representative nature of the Committee on Petitions as well as the institutional role and duty that it performs vis-à-vis EU citizens and residents;










11.


Expresses concern about the excessive length of time taken to conclude infringement cases by the Commission services and the Court of Justice, if and when the Court is involved, and — recognising that this is frequently the result of slow and often deliberate obstruction within the Member State administrations involved — calls for the introduction of more stringent timescales; expresses its doubts about the efficiency of the so-called ‘horizontal infringement procedures’, which take longer to conclude; calls for a review of the infringement procedure aimed at ensuring greater respect for the application of EC legislative acts;










12.


Calls on the institutions concerned to make better use of this procedure as a means of ensuring full respect for Community law, and deeply regrets that too often the slowness of the procedures used and the frequent obfuscation of what is at stake lead to de facto breaches of Community law by Member States, who thus act with impunity against the interests of directly affected local communities who have petitioned Parliament;










13.


Considers it problematic that the present system for the monitoring of Community law allows Member States to delay compliance until a pecuniary sanction is actually imminent and still avoid responsibility for past intentional violations, and that citizens often appear to lack adequate access to justice and remedies at national level even when the Court of Justice has ruled that a Member State has failed to respect citizens’ rights under Community law;










14.


Recommends that priority be given to ensuring that the Committee on Petitions is effective and efficient in all aspects of its operations from start to finish, as this represents a real and tangible commitment to its citizens indicating that the EU is willing and able to respond to their legitimate concerns;










15.


Expresses its concern and dismay at reports by petitioners that, even when they have obtained the support of the Committee on Petitions on the substance of their petition, they too often experience great difficulty in obtaining any compensation from the authorities and national courts involved; believes that such systemic weaknesses need to be further investigated, notably in so far as they apply to the financial services sector, as in the case of the findings of the Committee of Inquiry into the Equitable Life Crisis, which were based on petitions received by Parliament and on which a report was produced in 2007;










16.


Welcomes the fact that in 2007 the Commission and the Court of Justice acted swiftly, including by means of an injunction, to prevent the imminent destruction of an area protected under the Habitats Directive in the Rospuda Valley by the Via Baltica road corridor, in respect of which the Committee on Petitions had conducted its own independent investigation and fact-finding visit and made specific recommendations; laments the fact that there were not more examples of this kind;










17.


Urges the Commission, when dealing with petitions and complaints related to environmental policy — which is one of the predominant concerns of petitioners in the EU — to be more ready to act to prevent breaches of Community law; notes that the ‘precautionary principle’ has insufficient practical legal force and is too often ignored by responsible authorities in Member States who are nevertheless under an obligation to apply the EC Treaty;










18.


Regrets the lack of support given to the Committee on Petitions by the Commission when, as a result of fact-finding visits in particular, compelling evidence is obtained concerning failure to respect citizen's rights as enshrined in the Treaty or failure to apply legislation, and calls for new procedures to be established which allow Parliament to bring such cases directly before the Court of Justice;










19.


Fully recognises that the petitions process, as recognised in the Treaty, is nevertheless primarily concerned with obtaining non-judicial remedies and solutions with regard to the problems raised by EU citizens through the political process and, in this context, welcomes the fact that in many instances satisfactory outcomes are achieved;










20.


Recognises also that in many instances satisfactory solutions cannot be found for petitioners because of the weaknesses in the applicable Community legislation itself;










21.


Calls on the responsible legislative committees, when preparing and negotiating new or revised legislative acts, to pay close attention to the problems reported through the petitions process;










22.


Calls on the Commission to be more concerned about the use of Cohesion Funds in areas of the EU where large infrastructure projects have a major impact on the environment, and urges Member States to ensure that EU funds are directed towards sustainable development in the interests of local communities, a growing number of which are petitioning Parliament to protest that such priorities are not always respected by regional and local authorities; welcomes the work being undertaken by the Committee on Budgetary Control and the Court of Auditors in this respect;










23.


Notes that a growing number of petitions received, notably from citizens from the new Member States, concern the question of the restitution of property, even though this subject remains essentially one of national competence; urges the Member States involved to ensure that their laws concerning property rights resulting from regime change are fully in accordance with Treaty requirements and the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, as required also by Article 6 of the EU Treaty as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon; emphasises that petitions received on this subject do not concern the system of property ownership but the right to legitimately acquired property; in this context, urges the Commission to be particularly vigilant not only in its dealings with existing Member States but also in its negotiations with candidate countries;










24.


Reaffirms its commitment to upholding the recognition of rights of EU citizens to their private property which has been legally obtained, and condemns all attempts to divest families of their property without due process, proper compensation or respect for their personal integrity; notes an increase in the numbers of petitions received on this issue, especially regarding Spain in 2007, and notes also the report and recommendations of the fact-finding visit conducted by the Committee on Petitions to investigate the problem for the third time; notes that, as regards the Public Procurement Directives, ongoing infringement procedures are still open;










25.


Notes also the criticisms raised by the Committee on Petitions following its fact-finding visit to the Loiret, in France, in 2007, and in particular requests the French authorities to act decisively to ensure compliance with EU directives which risk being infringed should certain planned projects for the construction of bridges over the River Loire be allowed to go ahead, bearing in mind that the Loire Valley is not only protected under the terms of the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive but is also a Unesco World Heritage Site and one of Europe's last remaining wild river systems;










26.


Expresses its ongoing concern about the lack of implementation of the provisions of the Drinking Water Directive in Ireland, the absence of any assessment in advance of a 2007 decision to remove a national monument situated at Lismullin in the path of the M3 motorway project near Tara in County Meath — leading to the Commission's decision to bring an action against Ireland before the Court of Justice on the grounds that Ireland's wider approach to the removal of national monuments in circumstances such as those at Lismullin does not fully respect the requirements of Directive 85/337/EEC (2), the problems faced by local communities in Limerick, and other issues raised in the report of the fact-finding visit to Ireland conducted by the Committee on Petitions in 2007; notes that some of these issues are the subject of ongoing infringement procedures;










27.


Notes the report on the fact-finding visit to Poland which made recommendations concerning the protection of the Rospuda Valley and the last primeval forest in Europe; urges the Commission to continue to work with the Polish authorities on alternative routes for the Via Baltica road network and rail network as recommended by the report of the Committee on Petitions; also encourages the Commission to ensure that funding is made available to alleviate the pressure on the road system in Augustow in such a way as to protect the local population and preserve the environment of the area;










28.


Notes the fact-finding visit to Cyprus in November 2007 by the Chairman and members of the Committee on Petitions; urges the parties concerned to continue with their efforts to reach a negotiated solution to the outstanding issues of concern to petitioners, notably as regards the sealed-off section of Famagusta which should be returned to its lawful owners, and welcomes the fact that the two sides in Cyprus are having talks within a framework of renewed efforts to resolve the Cyprus problem; stresses the importance, moreover, of the immediate implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 550 (1984), which sets out the commitment to return the town of Famagusta to its lawful inhabitants;










29.


Notes the growing number of petitions and letters received by the Committee on Petitions concerning the most sensitive matter of child custody, on which it is extremely difficult to take action, as for instance in the case of petitions concerning the German Jugendamt, because of the involvement of the courts in many cases, and because of the fact that — except in cases of parents from different EU countries — it is difficult to claim competence for the EU as such;










30.


Records that, in 2007, many British petitioners who had their property confiscated by the British Customs & Excise authorities were still without redress even though the Commission halted infringement proceedings against the UK for failure to respect the Treaty obligation allowing the free movement of goods; urges the British authorities to come up with an equitable solution including the payment of ex gratia payments to petitioners who suffered serious financial loss before the authorities reviewed their practice and, according to the Commission, began to act in conformity with the relevant directives;










31.


Also records the fact that, in Greece, the customs authorities continue to confiscate, as an extraordinary measure only, the cars of Greek nationals provisionally abroad and who return to Greece with foreign number plates on their vehicles, many of whom have been accused of smuggling and have not had their case duly processed, as previously reported by the Committee on Petitions to Parliament; urges the Greek authorities to provide compensatory payments to those petitioners who have been victims of this practice; takes note of the ruling of the Court of Justice C-156/04 (7 June 2007) that deems satisfactory most of the explanations provided by the Greek authorities in this case; welcomes the implementation of new legislation adopted by the latter in the purpose of addressing the shortcomings highlighted in the aforementioned ruling;










32.


Deplores the fact that, among the oldest outstanding petitions still being worked upon, the case of the ‘Lettori’, the foreign language teachers in Italy, continues to be unresolved despite two decisions by the Court of Justice and the support of the Commission and the Committee on Petitions for their case and their grievances; urges the Italian authorities and the individual universities involved, including inter alia those of Genoa, Padua and Naples, to act to apply a just solution to these legitimate claims;










33.


Records that the petitions considered by the Committee on Petitions in 2007 included — although it was originally tabled in 2006 — the so-called ‘One Seat’ petition, which was supported by 1,25 million EU citizens and which called for a single seat for the European Parliament, to be located in Brussels; notes that in October 2007 the President referred the petition back to the committee, which subsequently called for Parliament to give its opinion on this question, bearing in mind that the seat of the institution is governed by the provisions of the Treaty and that the Member States have the responsibility for taking a decision on this matter;










34.


Resolves to review the name of the Committee on Petitions, as translated into all EU official languages, for the next legislative term, so as to ensure that the name communicates the nature of the Committee in a comprehensible manner, as this is apparently not the case in certain languages at the moment, and so as to underline the element of participatory democracy in the right of petition; suggests that the term ‘Committee on Citizens’ Petitions’ may be more easily understandable;










35.


Is concerned by the number of petitions received which draw attention to the problems of electoral registration experienced by EU citizens who are expatriates or have minority status within a Member State; urges all Member States to pay particular attention to the facilities made available for all EU citizens and eligible EU residents in order to ensure their full participation in the next EU elections;










36.


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, their committees on petitions and their national ombudsmen or similar competent bodies.






(1)  OJ C 146 E, 12.6.2008, p. 340.

(2)  Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40).