natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Last but not least, Members are in full agreement on the importance of conducting a review of the current rules governing the petitions procedure in order to provide clarification regarding the assessment of the admissibility of petitions, and to reinforce procedures related to data protection and confidentiality without undermining the essential transparency of the petitions process itself.
Last but not least, Members are in full agreement on the importance of conducting a review of the current rules governing the petitions procedure in order to provide clarification regarding the assessment of the admissibility of petitions, and to reinforce procedures related to data protection and confidentiality without undermining the essential transparency of the petitions process itself.
Right to table petitions
Right to table petitions
The right of petitions, as enshrined in the EC Treaty under articles 21 and 194, is a significant feature of the European citizenship as it enables any European Union citizen, any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State to address the European Parliament on matters falling within the EU’s fields of activity.
The right of petitions, as enshrined in the EC Treaty under articles 21 and 194, is a significant feature of the European citizenship as it enables any European Union citizen, any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State to address the European Parliament on matters falling within the EU’s fields of activity.
Tabling petitions is free of any charge to the petitioner and can be done in writing, in any of the EU official languages via fax, regular mail and internet.
Tabling petitions is free of any charge to the petitioner and can be done in writing, in any of the EU official languages via fax, regular mail and internet.
The Rules of Procedures of the European Parliament further emphasise this right, conceived as a link between citizens and their representatives at EU level as well as a guarantee of the possibility to shape and influence the political decision-making process.
The Rules of Procedures of the European Parliament further emphasise this right, conceived as a link between citizens and their representatives at EU level as well as a guarantee of the possibility to shape and influence the political decision-making process.
The substance of this guarantee is widely drawn up in Rule 191 which expressly states that to be admissible a petition must concern "a matter which comes within the European Union's fields of activity and which affects him, her or it (i.e. an association) directly".
The substance of this guarantee is widely drawn up in Rule 191 which expressly states that to be admissible a petition must concern "a matter which comes within the European Union's fields of activity and which affects him, her or it (i.e. an association) directly" .
The question of admissibility does not however prejudge the Committee's view on the substance of the petitions, nor does it prejudge the outcome of any deliberations on the matter.
The question of admissibility does not however prejudge the Committee's view on the substance of the petitions, nor does it prejudge the outcome of any deliberations on the matter.
It does however open the way for the organisation of a debate on the points raised by the petition, or for any other alternative course of action which the Committee may decide, such as requesting the Commission to conduct a preliminary investigation into the matter, or forwarding to another competent committee for information or an opinion.
It does however open the way for the organisation of a debate on the points raised by the petition, or for any other alternative course of action which the Committee may decide, such as requesting the Commission to conduct a preliminary investigation into the matter, or forwarding to another competent committee for information or an opinion.
As part of the work initiated in 2006 on the review of the Rules of procedures in order to simplify and clarify certain provisions on petitions, consideration will be given to the opportunity of detailing the way admissibility is assessed.
As part of the work initiated in 2006 on the review of the Rules of procedures in order to simplify and clarify certain provisions on petitions, consideration will be given to the opportunity of detailing the way admissibility is assessed.
During 2006, Parliament received 1016 petitions, a slight decrease compared to 2005 when 1032 petitions were tabled.
During 2006, Parliament received 1016 petitions, a slight decrease compared to 2005 when 1032 petitions were tabled.
As in 2005, in 2006 around one third of the petitions received were declared inadmissible, as they fell outside the area of activity of the EU.
As in 2005, in 2006 around one third of the petitions received were declared inadmissible , as they fell outside the area of activity of the EU.
Two years after EU enlargement to 25 members, the number of petitions seems to be stable, slightly above 1000 with German, British, Spanish, Greek, French, Italian and Polish nationals being the most active.
Two years after EU enlargement to 25 members, the number of petitions seems to be stable, slightly above 1000 with German, British, Spanish, Greek, French, Italian and Polish nationals being the most active.
EU enlargement to include Romania and Bulgaria in 2007 will probably result in the Committee receiving a considerable number of petitions from the two countries.
EU enlargement to include Romania and Bulgaria in 2007 will probably result in the Committee receiving a considerable number of petitions from the two countries.
Petitions offer an important image about the application of the European legislation and the impact it has on individuals.
Petitions offer an important image about the application of the European legislation and the impact it has on individuals.
Through their petitions, European citizens point out the shortcomings and difficulties of the transposition and application process and remain best placed to monitor the implementation of the EU legislation at national level.
Through their petitions, European citizens point out the shortcomings and difficulties of the transposition and application process and remain best placed to monitor the implementation of the EU legislation at national level.
Most of the petitions point to difficulties related to the implementation of EC legislation in the fields of environment, social security, recognition of diplomas, and other aspects related to the functioning of the internal market.
Most of the petitions point to difficulties related to the implementation of EC legislation in the fields of environment, social security, recognition of diplomas, and other aspects related to the functioning of the internal market.
The most concerned pieces of EU legislation were Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by 97/11/EC and 2003/35/EC on Environmental Impact Assessment and Directive 2003/4/EC on public access to environmental information.
The most concerned pieces of EU legislation were Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by 97/11/EC and 2003/35/EC on Environmental Impact Assessment and Directive 2003/4/EC on public access to environmental information.
The significant number of petitions received from United Kingdom, Germany and Ireland on major financial losses incurred following alleged mismanagement at Equitable Life resulted in the European Parliament setting up a temporary committee of inquiry to investigate "alleged contraventions or maladministration in the implementation of Community law" (Article 193 of the EC Treaty).
The significant number of petitions received from United Kingdom, Germany and Ireland on major financial losses incurred following alleged mismanagement at Equitable Life resulted in the European Parliament setting up a temporary committee of inquiry to investigate "alleged contraventions or maladministration in the implementation of Community law" (Article 193 of the EC Treaty).
A significant number of petitions refer to respect of fundamental rights in the Member States and express citizens' views or opinions about EU activities.
A significant number of petitions refer to respect of fundamental rights in the Member States and express citizens' views or opinions about EU activities.
Most of these petitioners are encouraged to avail themselves of the legal remedies existing at national level and after exhausting all ways of appeal to consider the possibility of bringing their case before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
Most of these petitioners are encouraged to avail themselves of the legal remedies existing at national level and after exhausting all ways of appeal to consider the possibility of bringing their case before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
The proportion of inadmissible petitions indicates a continuous need to raise public awareness and better inform European citizens about EU legislation and policies, as well as about their legitimate right to petition the European Parliament.
The proportion of inadmissible petitions indicates a continuous need to raise public awareness and better inform European citizens about EU legislation and policies, as well as about their legitimate right to petition the European Parliament.
A concerted effort at both European and national level is required in order to reach this objective.
A concerted effort at both European and national level is required in order to reach this objective.
Relations with the Commission
Relations with the Commission
Given the very substance of the activity of the Committee on Petitions as a vehicle allowing individual citizens to signal breaches of EC legislation directly affecting their interests and the role of the European Commission in monitoring the transposition and implementation of European law, the two remain natural partners in addressing such situations.
Given the very substance of the activity of the Committee on Petitions as a vehicle allowing individual citizens to signal breaches of EC legislation directly affecting their interests and the role of the European Commission in monitoring the transposition and implementation of European law, the two remain natural partners in addressing such situations.
The Committee on Petitions relies on the European Commission's expertise in investigating potential breaches of Community legislation brought to light via petitions.
The Committee on Petitions relies on the European Commission's expertise in investigating potential breaches of Community legislation brought to light via petitions.
Commission's recommendations remain instrumental in defining the most appropriate answer to petitioners' problems.
Commission's recommendations remain instrumental in defining the most appropriate answer to petitioners' problems.
Nevertheless, the Committee kept encouraging the Commission to avoid standard and rather general answers based on a strict interpretation of its competencies and on the information provided by the Member States.
Nevertheless, the Committee kept encouraging the Commission to avoid standard and rather general answers based on a strict interpretation of its competencies and on the information provided by the Member States.
The Committee on Petitions continued to emphasise the need for more problem-focussed assessments of the petitions and to ask the European Commission to carry out independent investigations which may allow for more a more coherent approach to specific issues.
The Committee on Petitions continued to emphasise the need for more problem-focussed assessments of the petitions and to ask the European Commission to carry out independent investigations which may allow for more a more coherent approach to specific issues.
Following a number of calls on the Commission to better acknowledge the importance of the petitions in revealing potential infringements, the Committee notes with satisfaction that its 23rd Annual report on monitoring the application of Community law, the Commission indicates that between one quarter and one third of petitions received by the Committee in 2005 are linked to or have given rise to infringement proceedings initiated against Member States under article 226 of the EU Treaty.
Following a number of calls on the Commission to better acknowledge the importance of the petitions in revealing potential infringements, the Committee notes with satisfaction that its 23rd Annual report on monitoring the application of Community law, the Commission indicates that between one quarter and one third of petitions received by the Committee in 2005 are linked to or have given rise to infringement proceedings initiated against Member States under article 226 of the EU Treaty.
Such satisfaction is however strongly attenuated by two important considerations.
Such satisfaction is however strongly attenuated by two important considerations.
The first is that to reach the stage of even opening an article 226 procedure an enormous amount of time has been taken up - usually counted in years or as the Commission says, 35 months on average.
The first is that to reach the stage of even opening an article 226 procedure an enormous amount of time has been taken up - usually counted in years or as the Commission says, 35 months on average.
The second is that even when an infringement case is won - either by the voluntary compliance of the Member State to act in full conformity with a given Directive, or by means of a decision of the European Court of Justice, this is often of no direct benefit to the individual petitioner.
The second is that even when an infringement case is won - either by the voluntary compliance of the Member State to act in full conformity with a given Directive, or by means of a decision of the European Court of Justice, this is often of no direct benefit to the individual petitioner.
Moreover, the Commission is increasingly drawn towards using what it has called "horizontal" infringement proceedings against Member States.
Moreover, the Commission is increasingly drawn towards using what it has called "horizontal" infringement proceedings against Member States.
It does so in order to regroup several, sometimes dozens of infringement cases into a global package which it then discusses with the Member State concerned with a view to obtaining compliance.
It does so in order to regroup several, sometimes dozens of infringement cases into a global package which it then discusses with the Member State concerned with a view to obtaining compliance.
Although this is of course very convenient in administrative terms as it no doubt requires fewer personnel to negotiate such matters, for the petitioner who is awaiting a resolution of his problem such horizontal procedures exacerbate the matter by demonstrating the inability of Parliament to provide a solution and undermining his confidence in the EU's ability to be of any use whatsoever.
Although this is of course very convenient in administrative terms as it no doubt requires fewer personnel to negotiate such matters, for the petitioner who is awaiting a resolution of his problem such horizontal procedures exacerbate the matter by demonstrating the inability of Parliament to provide a solution and undermining his confidence in the EU's ability to be of any use whatsoever.
Considering all the above, in its dialogue with the European Commission, the Committee has relentlessly underlined the role of petitions in achieving the common goal of bringing Europe closer to citizens and insisted that, although fully aware of the many reasons delaying Commission's replies to petitions, further measures are necessary to improve the transparency of its assessments and the promptness of its answers to petitioners.
Considering all the above, in its dialogue with the European Commission, the Committee has relentlessly underlined the role of petitions in achieving the common goal of bringing Europe closer to citizens and insisted that, although fully aware of the many reasons delaying Commission's replies to petitions, further measures are necessary to improve the transparency of its assessments and the promptness of its answers to petitioners.
Committee on Petitions and the European Ombudsman
Committee on Petitions and the European Ombudsman
The Committee on Petitions and the European Ombudsman carried on a constructive relationship based on constant dialogue and mutual respect of each other competences and prerogatives.
The Committee on Petitions and the European Ombudsman carried on a constructive relationship based on constant dialogue and mutual respect of each other competences and prerogatives.
The Schwab Report on the Annual Report on the European Ombudsman’s activities in 2005 ( 2006/2117(INI) ) points out the role of the Ombudsman in enhancing openness and accountability in the decision-making processes and administration of the European Union and its contribution to the transparency of the work of the European institutions.
The Schwab Report on the Annual Report on the European Ombudsman’s activities in 2005 ( 2006/2117(INI) ) points out the role of the Ombudsman in enhancing openness and accountability in the decision-making processes and administration of the European Union and its contribution to the transparency of the work of the European institutions.
In 2006, the Ombudsman presented two new Special Reports to the Committee:
In 2006, the Ombudsman presented two new Special Reports to the Committee:
· Special Report from the European Ombudsman to the European Parliament following the draft recommendation to the Council of the European Union in complaint 1487/2005/GG the question as to the languages that should be used for the internet presentations of the Presidency of the EU - on which the Committee decided to draft a report (Rapporteur Rainer Wieland).
· Special Report from the European Ombudsman to the European Parliament following the draft recommendation to the Council of the European Union in complaint 1487/2005/GG the question as to the languages that should be used for the internet presentations of the Presidency of the EU - on which the Committee decided to draft a report (Rapporteur Rainer Wieland).
· Special Report from the European Ombudsman to the European Parliament following the draft recommendation to the European Commission in complaint 289/2005/(WP)GG on the way in which the Commission is handling complaints alleging an infringement.
· Special Report from the European Ombudsman to the European Parliament following the draft recommendation to the European Commission in complaint 289/2005/(WP)GG on the way in which the Commission is handling complaints alleging an infringement.
On May 15 2006, in a follow up to the Special Report of the European Ombudsman on the Complaint 2485/2004/GG concerning recommendations to the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the Committee on Petitions held an extraordinary meeting with the participation of Nikiforos Diamandouros, the European Ombudsman, and Franz-Hermann Brüner.
On May 15 2006, in a follow up to the Special Report of the European Ombudsman on the Complaint 2485/2004/GG concerning recommendations to the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the Committee on Petitions held an extraordinary meeting with the participation of Nikiforos Diamandouros, the European Ombudsman, and Franz-Hermann Brüner.
The Committee on Petitions intends to make a further request to the Conference of Presidents to prepare a report on the European Ombudsman's Special Report.
The Committee on Petitions intends to make a further request to the Conference of Presidents to prepare a report on the European Ombudsman's Special Report.
Relations with Council and the Member States.
Relations with Council and the Member States .
By their very nature the petitions process brings to light a number of problems with the transposition or implementation of the European legislation by the Member States.
By their very nature the petitions process brings to light a number of problems with the transposition or implementation of the European legislation by the Member States.
Petitioners seek help and redress and in order to provide them with rapid solutions, the Committee should be able to rely on its cooperation with the Council and the Member States.
Petitioners seek help and redress and in order to provide them with rapid solutions, the Committee should be able to rely on its cooperation with the Council and the Member States.
Repeated calls for the Council to get more involved into the work of the Committee remain unanswered.
Repeated calls for the Council to get more involved into the work of the Committee remain unanswered.
Relations between the Committee on Petitions and Member States have continued to develop.
Relations between the Committee on Petitions and Member States have continued to develop.
Nevertheless, more steps should be taken towards working together in a positive manner in order to provide citizens with the best solutions to their problems.
Nevertheless, more steps should be taken towards working together in a positive manner in order to provide citizens with the best solutions to their problems.
Member States have participated in the activity of the Committee on case by case basis, but relations between the two are still perceived as rather conflictual.
Member States have participated in the activity of the Committee on case by case basis, but relations between the two are still perceived as rather conflictual.
The very nature of the petitions - complaints about alleged failures of national or regional bodies in applying European legislation - explains this situation.
The very nature of the petitions - complaints about alleged failures of national or regional bodies in applying European legislation - explains this situation.
However, it is important to emphasize that the main goal of the Committee on Petitions is not to criticize Member States, but to assist citizens in solving their problems.
However, it is important to emphasize that the main goal of the Committee on Petitions is not to criticize Member States, but to assist citizens in solving their problems.
Co-operation rather than hindrance should result in many cases being solved faster and in the best interest of all parties.
Co-operation rather than hindrance should result in many cases being solved faster and in the best interest of all parties.
Since 2002 the Committee on Petitions continuously required a trustworthy work-flow system and database in order to function effectively and manage the increasing demands made upon it; a system that enhances the transparency of the work of the Committee in the public interest.
Since 2002 the Committee on Petitions continuously required a trustworthy work-flow system and database in order to function effectively and manage the increasing demands made upon it; a system that enhances the transparency of the work of the Committee in the public interest.
The improvement in the functions of the current e-petition system continued during the first half of 2006, with detailed preparatory work being carried out for several months on the second phase of the e-Petitions process.
The improvement in the functions of the current e-petition system continued during the first half of 2006, with detailed preparatory work being carried out for several months on the second phase of the e-Petitions process.
Priority was given to incorporate the functions of Geda in e-Petition, to improve and simplify the system.
Priority was given to incorporate the functions of Geda in e-Petition, to improve and simplify the system.
During the summer of 2006, the Directorate of Information Technology (DIT) stopped the development of phase 2 of e-petition for two reasons.
During the summer of 2006, the Directorate of Information Technology (DIT) stopped the development of phase 2 of e-petition for two reasons.
Firstly, the DIT decided to abandon the use of Documentum software, following a series of technical and licensing difficulties.
Firstly, the DIT decided to abandon the use of Documentum software, following a series of technical and licensing difficulties.