El Presidente. − El siguiente punto es el informe de Willy Meyer, en nombre de la Comisión de Peticiones, sobre las actividades de la Comisión de Peticiones relativo a 2010 (2010/2295(INI)) (A7-0232/2011).

  Willy Meyer, Ponente. − Señor Presidente, señor Comisario, señor representante del Consejo, en primer lugar quería agradecer a todos los diputados y diputadas de la comisión, que nos han permitido presentar este informe con un gran consenso; especialmente a aquellos diputados que han presentado por escrito enmiendas y sugerencias al señor Jahr, al señor Boştinaru, al señor Salavrakos, a la señora Werthmann y al señor Boulland, porque estas aportaciones, sin duda, han contribuido al mejor acierto al presentar a la Cámara este memorándum.

Cómo no, también a la secretaría de la comisión, que, con su esfuerzo y dedicación, siempre nos ayudan a sacar un ingente trabajo adelante.

En este informe, que discutimos hoy y votaremos mañana, hemos recogido los trabajos del año 2010 con un calendario de actividades que no gira en torno al programa legislativo de la Comisión Europea, sino que son los propios ciudadanos y ciudadanas quienes lo establecen al ejercer su derecho de petición ante el Parlamento Europeo.

La voluntad de este informe es triple: en primer lugar, recoger de forma clara y comprensible la actividad de la Comisión de Peticiones durante el año 2010; en segundo lugar, subrayar el papel de la Comisión de Peticiones y el derecho de petición que ejerce la ciudadanía europea para denunciar las violaciones de Derecho comunitario y que debe ser un pilar de la ciudadanía europea; y, por último, hacer referencia especial a cambios legislativos como la aprobación de la iniciativa ciudadana y el carácter jurídicamente vinculante de la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales.

En su parte descriptiva, el informe señala que las peticiones han descendido en un 14 % respecto al 2009; es decir, se han presentado 1 655 frente a las 1 924 del año 2009.

Los temas fundamentales objeto de las peticiones, de mayor a menor importancia, han sido sin dua el medio ambiente, los derechos fundamentales, el mercado interior y la justicia. Ante la constatación de que la mayoría de peticiones se refieren al medio ambiente hay que adoptar los procedimientos pertinentes para prevenir nuevas pérdidas irreparables en la biodiversidad de la Unión Europea.

Los idiomas más utilizados para presentar las peticiones han sido el alemán, el inglés, el español y el italiano. La nacionalidad del principal peticionario ha sido la alemana, seguida de la española, la italiana y la rumana. Y en cuanto al país o países al que se refieren las peticiones se produce un cambio destacable: las peticiones relativas a España superan a las referidas a la Unión Europea en su conjunto; luego siguen en número las relativas a Alemania e Italia. El formato de recepción, afortunadamente, está siendo el Internet -que desplaza claramente al papel- y también resaltamos en el informe las tres misiones de investigación que desarrolló la comisión en el 2010: misión de investigación en la ría de Huelva (España) para examinar la gestión de residuos tóxicos (vertidos de fosfoyesos y cenizas tóxicas), misión en Campania (Italia) sobre la gestión de residuos urbanos y misión en Voralberg (Austria) con relación a la transposición a legislación nacional de la Directiva de impacto ambiental por lo que se refiere a un proyecto relacionado con el esquí.

Sobre la relación de nuestra comisión con otras comisiones parlamentarias, con otras instituciones como la Comisión Europea, el Consejo o el Defensor del Pueblo y con los Estados miembros, el informe solicita la reducción de los tiempos de respuesta a las solicitudes de investigación por parte de la Comisión Europea, como ya hicimos en el anterior informe que presentó el señor Iturgaiz relativo al informe anual del 2009.

La Comisión Europea debe proporcionar información periódica sobre las fases en que se encuentran los procedimientos de infracción relacionados con peticiones. Quisiera subrayar que para el trabajo de nuestra comisión resulta fundamental una fluida comunicación con esta institución.

Respecto a los Estados miembros, el informe lamenta la negligencia de algunos de ellos en lo que se refiere a la aplicación y el cumplimiento de la legislación ambiental europea. Al mismo tiempo nos alegramos de las excelentes relaciones que existen entre el señor Diamandouros, Defensor del Pueblo Europeo, y nuestra propia comisión. También señalamos la necesidad de dar más transparencia a la gestión de las peticiones.

Para concluir me gustaría señalar que, en la hora actual, una de las grandes novedades para nuestra comisión consiste en la iniciativa ciudadana europea. Desde la comisión entendemos, por nuestra experiencia, que deberíamos estar muy cerca de cara a este nuevo instrumento. Y del mismo modo consideramos que es necesario lanzar un debate sobre el aspecto de aplicación limitada de la Carta de Derechos Fundamentales por el gran número de peticiones relativa a violaciones de la Comisión.

  Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Meyer for this very important report and the whole committee for its excellent work. In my response I would like, if I may, to focus on three particular issues. Firstly, on collaboration with the committee; secondly on the questions of timing which are raised in the report; and thirdly on the profile of the petitions on which you most often need our help and assistance.

On the first point, I would like to reassure all the honourable Members of the European Parliament of our willing and continued collaboration with your work and provision of all the assistance we can offer. As Mr Meyer’s report points out, you asked us for help with over half of the admissible petitions you received in 2010. That is a pretty impressive number, and I would like to point out that it is almost exactly the same proportion as the year before. I hope that this indicates that we are getting something right and collaborating in a very good spirit.

Although our help mainly involves initially analysing what EU law, if any, might be applicable in each case, we also attend the – sometimes numerous – follow-up meetings on petitions. I would also like to commend the Committee for assisting the Commission, as illustrated by the active participation of Ms Mazzoni and Ms Auken and the committee secretariat, in the recent stakeholder conference on the implementation of environment law organised by the Environment DG. Their participation emphasised to Member States the importance that the committee attaches to the good implementation of environmental law and legislation.

Secondly, there is a new – and, we believe, very important – reference in this annual report to timing. Of course, we could point to several cases where we have dealt with a petition after quite a long delay and our action has not been as relevant as it would have been if the timing had been better. But we also have more encouraging examples from recent months – for example a petition tabled in May which fell within the context of an ongoing debate on origin labelling, with specific reference to canned fish products following the Fukushima disaster. That was well-timed. It is not just in that area that things seem to be going well. I am told that a very promising report by Mr Iturgaiz on the application of waste legislation is due before the end of this year.

I also see from Mr Meyer’s report that you are already planning ahead for the 2013 European Year of Citizenship, which is another encouraging sign. The report indicates that you also hope to be looking at some other citizens’ initiatives by then. As you know, the Citizens’ Initiative regulation will enter into force on 1 April next year.

Thirdly, and finally, may I refer to something described as a key issue in the report, in other words the question of fundamental rights and the applicability of the Charter. The report acknowledges that it is often impossible to invoke the Charter in a petitioner’s case because of the specifics of the case, or because the case just happened to fall outside the scope of EU law. It is disappointing all round if petitioners discover that, to borrow the expression of one of your Members, they have in effect been ‘knocking at the wrong door’. For this reason, we very warmly welcome the efforts described in the report to ensure an even better user interface for potential petitioners turning to Parliament, in addition perhaps to some more ‘upstream’ filtering of cases.

I understand that this topic is even going to draw some amendments tomorrow, and getting it right can only help to underpin the image of the European institutions, which is in the common interest of both the Commission and Parliament. On that note, I would like to close. I am very much looking forward to the discussion.

  Peter Jahr, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrte Kollegen! Vielen Dank an den Berichterstatter für seinen hervorragenden Bericht! Mithilfe des Petitionsausschusses können die Bürger der Europäischen Union auf mögliche Verstöße gegen Unionsrecht oder ihre eigenen Rechte aufmerksam machen. So erfahren wir als Abgeordnete auch aus erster Hand, welche Auswirkungen die Europäische Union auf den Alltag der Menschen hat. Damit ist das Petitionsrecht eines der wichtigsten und konkretesten Rechte der Menschen in Europa. Die nach wie vor hohe Anzahl an Petitionen zeigt, dass die Menschen dieses Recht auch zu nützen wissen.

In meiner Rede zum Jahresbericht 2009 habe ich gefordert, dass wir unsere internen Abläufe verbessern müssen. Dies ist uns vor allem im Bereich der Nicht-Petitionen gelungen. Allen Beteiligten, den Abgeordneten, der Petitionsverwaltung dafür meinen herzlichen Dank! Wir werden auch weiterhin daran arbeiten, dass alle eine möglichst schnelle und angemessene Antwort bekommen.

Ein zentrales Thema vieler Petitionen ist das Umweltrecht. Hier, denke ich, sind zwei Dinge noch verbesserungswürdig: Wir brauchen erstens eine bessere Kommunikation zwischen Kommission und Mitgliedstaaten. Oft sind die Informationen unvollständig und nicht aktuell. Schuld daran ist meist eine zurückhaltende Informationspolitik der Mitgliedstaaten. Die Kommission bemüht sich hier redlich.

Zweitens: Gerade hinsichtlich der Beschwerden in langwierigen Umweltverfahren brauchen wir Instrumente, um bereits im Planungsverfahren eingreifen zu können und nicht erst am Ende des Verfahrens oder – noch schlimmer –, wenn die Bauvorhaben beendet sind. Wenn wir dann feststellen, es war zwar gegen geltendes Recht, aber das Bauwerk steht, ist es im Einzelfall sehr, sehr schwierig, die Dinge noch zu reparieren.

Abschließend möchte ich noch einmal an die in diesem Jahr beschlossene Bürgerinitiative erinnern. Mit diesem Instrument können sich Bürgerinnen und Bürger zukünftig aktiv am politischen Geschehen beteiligen. Für mich ist es unerlässlich, dass dem Petitionsausschuss als einzigem echten Bürgerausschuss eine angemessene Rolle zukommt.

  Victor Boştinaru, în numele grupului S&D. – Am să încep prin a sublinia o dată în plus importanţa şi rolul special al Comisiei pentru petiţii în a garanta şi apăra drepturile cetăţenilor europeni atunci când ele sunt încălcate de către o autoritate a unui stat membru sau o autoritate europeană. Iar noi, europarlamentarii aleşi de cetăţenii Uniunii noastre, avem dreptul, dar şi datoria de a-i apăra.

Aş dori să evidenţiez două aspecte importante din dezbaterea raportului Meyer. În primul rând, regret că, în pofida unui număr mare de petiţii privind încălcări grave ale drepturilor omului consacrate în Carta drepturilor fundamentale, Comisia Europeană fie refuză, fie explică, sub pretextul lipsei de instrumente, că nu poate acţiona. Citez din raportul Comisiei de la Veneţia în cazul Constituţiei ungare: odată ratificată, Carta fundamentală a drepturilor omului „is a legal, binding piece of legislation”, ceea ce pentru Comisia Europeană nu este încă evident.

În al doilea rând, în ceea ce priveşte legislaţia europeană în materie de mediu, Comisia Europeană ar trebui să controleze mai strict şi să acţioneze în consecinţă pentru a garanta respectarea şi punerea în aplicare a tuturor actelor şi legislaţiei europene, iar acest lucru trebuie realizat în toate fazele dezvoltării proiectelor, nu doar atunci când acestea au fost implementate. Doresc, în acest sens, să atrag atenţia Comisiei Europene asupra proiectului gigantic în dezvoltare în România, Roşia Montană.

Folosesc această ocazie pentru a mulţumi o dată în plus colegului Meyer pentru excelenta cooperare, ca şi tuturor membrilor Comisie pentru petiţii.

  Margrete Auken, for Verts/ALE-Gruppen. – Hr. formand! Tak til kommissær Šefčovič og til Willy Meyer for arbejdet. Jeg vil ikke stå her og gentage, hvad mine kolleger har sagt. Jeg er enig i det meste af det, men vil dog lige sige til kommissæren, at det er faktisk et problem, at man ikke mener, at menneskerettigheder skal spille den rolle. Vi har fra Kommissionens side hørt i udvalget, at f.eks. Københavnskriterierne kun kunne mobiliseres, når et land skulle optages. Det er jo ikke godt for vores troværdighed, hvis alle disse grundlæggende værdier kan tilsidesættes. Men vi skal snart have en høring om det. Lad det blive ved det.

Jeg vil gerne bruge min taletid her til først og fremmest at beskrive de faktisk lidt ringe vilkår, jeg synes Parlamentet giver vores udvalg. Vores udvalg er det borgernære udvalg. Man er vældig stolt af det, når man omtaler borgernes rettigheder udadtil, men når det kommer til stykket, er det faktisk sølle vilkår, vi har.

Hjemmesiden er for viderekomne. Man kan ikke finde vores udvalg. Nu har jeg hørt, at man kan klage elektronisk, og det er jeg glad for. Det har jeg indtil videre ikke oplevet, at man kunne, men det er godt at høre. Det er en nyhed. Tak for det.

Vi trænger også til bedre ressourcer, så vi indimellem kan lave vores egne undersøgelser, også i forhold til de juridiske undersøgelser. Normalt går det godt med Kommissionen, men det ville være dejligt, hvis vi kunne leve bedre op til de mange klager, der kommer. Vi må ikke glemme, at borgerne har traktatfæstede rettigheder til at komme til os med deres klager.

Til sidst to ting, hvor jeg heller ikke synes, at vi bliver behandlet godt nok. Udvalgets neutralisering, altså at det er et andenrangsudvalg, gør, at medlemmerne meget ofte ikke kan være til stede og passe arbejdet i udvalget. Det er et meget skidt signal at sende til borgerne, idet de på den måde oplever, at de ikke bliver respekteret.

Og så til allersidst: Udvalget hedder altså noget, som er helt uopfatteligt, i hvert fald på dansk og på finsk og svensk: "Udvalget for Andragender". Det er et afdødt kancelliord, som ikke en sjæl aner hvad handler om. Det burde være en smal sag som navn at give udvalget en betegnelse, som borgerne kender, f.eks. "Udvalget for Borgerklager".

  Roger Helmer, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, I have only one problem with this otherwise excellent report, which is that it omits any mention of the problem which has generated the highest number of petitions in recent years. This, of course, is the Spanish property issue.

Hundreds of EU citizens from many countries have spent their life savings on dream properties in Spain, only to wake up one morning to find an eviction notice on the mat and a bulldozer at the gate.

For a decade, Spain has refused to deal with this issue. It denies property rights and enforceable contracts to EU citizens; it defies the rule of law; it makes a nonsense of our commitment to human rights. This is a scandal. It shows the impotence not only of the Committee on Petitions, but of this Parliament and indeed of the EU generally to deliver on the promises we make to citizens.

Mr Boştinaru has complained that the Commission is not active enough in dealing with these breaches of human rights and in this case that applies too. I call on the Commission to get a grip on this action and to insist that the problem is solved, and solved rapidly.

  Matteo Salvini, a nome del gruppo EFD. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ringrazio per la relazione che voteremo domani ma penso a quanto sia lontano il dibattito delle istituzioni europee dalla vita quotidiana dei quasi 500 milioni di cittadini europei. Cinquecento milioni di abitanti e 1 600 petizioni l'anno scorso, di cui più di 1 000 archiviate, questo ci fa capire quanto questo strumento sia conosciuto, sia utile e sia efficace, senza andare a contare le centinaia di petizioni degli anni scorsi che sono ancora in sospeso. Ho visto che la commissione è andata in visita a Napoli l'anno scorso, ma più che la commissione petizioni lì occorre un miracolo per risolvere la situazione.

Quello che è positivo è che si parla del diritto di iniziativa di un milione di cittadini europei che possono promuovere una petizione. Bene, peccato che se neanche i 400 milioni di europei tutti insieme firmassero quello che il Parlamento ha già discusso e votato, ad esempio, come l'incredibile situazione della doppia sede del Parlamento europeo sia a Bruxelles che a Strasburgo, la lontananza delle istituzioni europee in un momento di crisi economica, di tagli e di risparmi dall'Italia, dalla Spagna, dalla Grecia, circa 400 milioni di costo superfluo per riunirci qui a Strasburgo una volta al mese, non c'è petizione, non c'è volontà popolare che tenga che possa sopprimere tutto questo. Quindi auguro buon lavoro alla commissione, consapevole del fatto che probabilmente non è in questa maniera che le istituzioni daranno una risposta ai cittadini.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI). - Herr Präsident! Dieser Jahresbericht sollte in erster Linie die erreichten Fortschritte darlegen. Der diesjährige Bericht liest sich im Wesentlichen wie jener aus dem letzten Jahr oder auch derjenige von 2008. Dies hat natürlich nichts mit dem von mir sehr geschätzten Kollegen Meyer zu tun, für dessen Bericht ich auch sehr danke, sondern die Fakten lassen kein anderes Bild zu. Die Themen sind dieselben, die betroffenen Mitgliedstaaten sind dieselben. Seit Jahren werden mit einem Großteil der Petitionen Mängel in der Umsetzung von Richtlinien im Bereich Umwelt an das EP herangetragen. Vielleicht ist es an der Zeit, die Art der Gesetzgebung in diesem Bereich zu überdenken und diverse Optionen zu prüfen, um die Zahl der Verletzungen von EU-Recht endlich in Angriff zu nehmen. Bedarf es zusätzlicher Leitlinien der Kommission für die Umsetzung oder einer verschärften Kontrolle?

In der Arbeit im Ausschuss sind wir auf die aktive Zusammenarbeit mit Kommission und Rat im Sinne von Stellungnahmen angewiesen, wobei der Rat bei den Ausschusssitzungen oft durch Abwesenheit glänzt. Wir brauchen definitiv eine Überarbeitung der Arbeitsweise. Unsere Arbeit wird verzögert, auch untergraben, wenn den Debatten im Ausschuss keinerlei Taten folgen. Die sich abzeichnende rückläufige Tendenz bei neu eingebrachten Petitionen mag richtig sein. Der Rückgang könnte aber auch bedeuten, dass die Bürger und Bürgerinnen in ihrem Petitionsrecht auf Unionsebene keine sinnvolle Option mehr sehen.

Ich unterstütze die im Bericht geäußerten Forderungen vorbehaltlos!

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ringrazio il Commissario Šefčovič, ringrazio il collega Meyer per il lavoro che ha svolto. Questa relazione, come ogni anno, dà il conto del lavoro svolto nell'anno precedente e quindi è sicuramente una relazione ricognitiva e io raccolgo tutte le critiche che prendo come suggerimenti formulate dai colleghi e parto proprio da quella della collega Werthmann, che parla di una ripetitività delle tematiche e di una scarsa efficienza dell'azione della commissione. Sul tema dell'ambiente, tema ricorrente nella nostra commissione come oggetto di doglianze da parte dei cittadini, noi stiamo discutendo un rapporto per chiedere proprio in quest'Aula, vorremmo portarlo infatti in Parlamento, un rapporto per poter chiedere alla Commissione di intervenire tenendo conto di quelle che sono state le denunce presentate dai cittadini dell'Unione europea.

Ci sono stati però anche fatti rilevanti in questo anno. Il primo più importante citato dai colleghi è quello che riguarda l'approvazione del regolamento sull'iniziativa popolare: l'iniziativa popolare è un'iniziativa che dà potere legislativo ai cittadini, quindi non è un'iniziativa, come diceva il collega Salvini, tesa a presentare petizioni da parte di un numero più consistente di cittadini, si dà potere legislativo, e questo è un dato importante.

Sull'iniziativa popolare la commissione petizioni ha rivendicato un ruolo all'interno della procedura regolamentare che è stata prevista per poter dar luogo alle audizioni dei cittadini così come concordato anche con il Commissario Šefčovič e con gli altri, e spero che a questa richiesta della commissione si dia un seguito.

Credo che sia fondamentale anche un'attenzione diversa sulla problematica legata all'applicazione della carta dei diritti fondamentali, che pure viene citata nella relazione, argomento sul quale la commissione per le petizioni insieme alla Commissione esecutiva ha in programma il 6 ottobre un seminario al quale parteciperanno accademici e studiosi proprio per dare risposte che potranno essere la nostra linea guida.

Un ultimo riferimento all'intervento del collega Salvini, credo che non è attraverso la commissione per le petizioni che si possono risolvere i problemi dei cittadini, ma attraverso quest'organo si può promuovere la democrazia che serve per promuovere e costruire un'Europa politica.

  Michael Cashman (S&D). - Mr President, I welcome this report on the activities of the Petitions Committee in 2010 and I want to pay particular tribute to the work of the secretariat, under David Lowe, which deals with thousands of petitions. That is proof enough of the success of this system. I also want to underline the Committee’s important collaboration with the European Ombudsman and growing collaboration with the Commission, and especially Commissioner Reding, who has always been present at the committee.

I would stress, also, the importance of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It is now enforceable, and we need to bring it more and more into our work. However, I deplore the limits of the enforceability of the CFR, for example in the domain of property rights and the long-standing issue of the Spanish ‘land grab’ of legally built and legally purchased house. It is a scandal that has been going on since 2004, sadly. Mr Helmer highlighted this, but it is no use attacking the Commission and the EU when the only solution to this issue rests with the Spanish Government. It should address it immediately.

Property rights are a growing concern; we have seen even more petitions on this issue, which is now spreading to other parts of the EU, including Bulgaria and Cyprus. Finally, therefore, let me make a recommendation. It is time, I believe, for a high-level commission or seminar on the issue of property rights and purchases of property in other countries to be undertaken immediately on behalf of the EU if we are to inform and protect our citizens in the future.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE). - Monsieur le Président, je tiens à remercier le rapporteur, Monsieur Meyer, ainsi que mes collègues, qui ont tenu des propos parfois critiques, mais ce rapport d'activité 2010 est enfin une formidable occasion de parler de la commission des pétitions, car elle reste trop méconnue.

Pourtant, cette commission a un lien direct, parfois physique, avec le citoyen, qui peut assister lui-même à nos débats. Elle a une légitimité indéniable au Parlement ainsi qu'une très longue expertise grâce à sa relation directe avec le citoyen. En effet, tout pétitionnaire peut se rendre au Parlement et défendre ses droits devant la commission des pétitions. Nous pouvons également saluer la sérénité de ses débats, malgré les cas souvent douloureux qui y sont traités.

Cette commission représente l'Europe telle qu'elle doit être: à l'écoute des problèmes de ses citoyens et soudée pour trouver des solutions et les protéger. Malheureusement, ses moyens d'action et de pression restent encore limités, notamment sur le risque environnemental de projets parfois presque aboutis. Je le vois aussi, lorsqu'il s'agit de défendre des cas précis, comme les droits de la famille ou les droits de l'enfant en cas de divorce. Nous allons d'ailleurs effectuer une mission en novembre sur ce sujet.

Je regrette également que les autorités nationales ne se pressent pas toujours pour nous apporter toutes les informations nécessaires.

Je souhaite remercier la Commission européenne pour le travail de recherche et de vérification qu'elle effectue, même si parfois, elle pourrait aller plus loin dans la recherche de la vérité. Je dois aussi saluer le travail constructif que nous réalisons avec le Médiateur européen.

J'en appelle enfin aux citoyens: continuez à nous interpeller à travers des pétitions, nous qui sommes vos représentants directement élus. Notre rôle sera toujours de préserver vos intérêts dans le strict respect du droit européen.

  Monika Flašíková-Beňová (S&D) - Pán Komisár Šefčovič, som veľmi rada, že ste pri tejto debate, pretože vy ste už známy svojim pozitívnym postojom k občianskym iniciatívam. A hoci mnohí ľudia rezignovali na verejné angažovanie sa, stále je veľa tých, čo sa na Parlament obracajú petíciami.

Predmetom mnohých petícií je odvolanie sa proti rozhodnutiam vnútroštátnych orgánov. Každopádne vo väčšine petícií sa hovorí o nesprávnom uplatňovaní európskych právnych predpisov, či už v dôsledku ich chybnej transpozície, v dôsledku nedostatkov v ich uplatňovaní alebo ich porušovania. Aby sme nemrhali vzácnym záujmom a aktivitou Európanov a Európaniek, ktorí sa na nás obracajú, bude nevyhnutné pracovať najmä na informovanosti o kompetenciách. V petíciách, ktoré boli totiž vyhodnotené ako neprístupné, často išlo o prípady, keď si predkladatelia petícií pomýlili vnútroštátnu a európsku právomoc, ako aj inštitúcie Európskej únie s Radou Európy, najmä so Súdom pre ľudské práva.

Hoci naše odmietnutie takýchto petícií je v súlade s právom, musíme zabezpečiť dostatočnú informovanosť verejnosti o deľbe právomocí, o tom, čo znamená právo na petíciu a čo možno dosiahnuť podaním petície Parlamentu.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). - Aş dori şi eu să îl felicit pe colegul meu Meyer pentru munca depusă la acest raport, în care se regăsesc principalele recomandări în privinţa viitoarei activităţi a Comisiei pentru petiţii.

Atrag atenţia asupra problemei esenţiale care îi afectează eficienţa, şi anume lipsa de informare a cetăţenilor. În 2010, numărul petiţiilor adresate Parlamentului a scăzut, iar multe dintre ele au fost declarate inadmisibile. Transparenţa de care are nevoie Parlamentul este asigurată în mare măsură de Comisia pentru petiţii. De aceea, trebuie adoptate măsuri destinate promovării iniţiativelor cetăţeneşti. Astfel s-ar furniza susţinerea necesară viitoarelor iniţiative legislative.

Subliniez rolul Comisiei în implementarea Cartei drepturilor fundamentale în UE. Această completare adusă acquis-ului comunitar are un impact direct asupra cetăţenilor. Monitorizarea aplicării sale garantează o îmbunătăţire a condiţiilor de viaţă la nivel european.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). - Mr President, as a member who has just had to withdraw from the Committee on Petitions, I would like to thank my colleagues on that committee, and indeed the secretariat and all who have helped me. It is simply a question of workload on other committees.

I do think it is important that we draw attention to our successes. In my time, we had Equitable Life where soon the UK Government will be paying out compensation to EU citizens who had problems. We also have the unresolved problem of property rights that other colleagues have mentioned here. I would support the call by Michael Cashman that some initiative should be taken for citizens who purchase properties in other Member States, either to warn them that they are not protected as EU citizens or to do something about it.

We talk in this House about ‘more Europe’ and I think this is one area where we do perhaps need ‘more Europe’ for our legal system, particularly in relation to property.

  Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, I should like to say thank you very much for all the contributions by the honourable Members and the excellent work done by the Committee on Petitions. Allow me to respond to some of the comments.

Firstly, we all know that one of the Commission’s very important roles is to be the guardian of the treaties, so we have to respect the law. We have to respect the division of labour between European and national levels and our stance must be always legally precise and correct. Otherwise, every step we take, every act we adopt could be challenged in the European Court of Justice. Therefore, sometimes an approach that you may find cautious is very important from the point of view of how correctly we apply the law because we are responsible for monitoring that European law is always correctly applied. We must therefore lead by example.

I understand your preoccupations and that a lot of the petitioners who are unhappy with the results of their efforts then complain that they were not properly informed in advance. I therefore think Mr Jahr’s idea to improve communication on pieces of legislation that are particularly complicated – which is usually the case in the field of the environment – is very important. We particularly appreciate the fact that both Ms Mazzoni and Ms Auken participated in the seminar organised by DG Environment because this is exactly how we would like to promote awareness on these very complicated pieces of legislation.

Another item which was highlighted several times by Members is the element of fundamental rights. Here again we have to respect the law, and the fact that the fundamental rights in the Charter cannot be invoked outside the scope of the EU is, we know, a frequent source of disappointment for petitioners.

Therefore, again with your help and cooperation, we are going to organise a special conference on the workability of the Charter early next month, on 6 October. I am sure that this will also help to raise awareness of what is applicable and what is not and how the EU Charter can be applied and monitored by the EU institutions.

Finally, the European Citizens’ Initiative. We have been working very closely with the Committee on Petitions and Ms Mazzoni, and we have been going through the regulations. There is interest in the European Parliament, and the number of rapporteurs proves how important the ECI is for the European Parliament also. I was therefore glad that in the end we could find a compromise where we agreed that the hearings would be organised at the European Parliament because we in the Commission also found it very important for parliamentary ground to be used for the deliberations at these hearings.

I am sure that the Committee on Petitions will be properly involved, but of course it would be an internal European Parliament decision to decide how the European Citizens’ Initiative will be treated by the European Parliament and the respective committees.

  Willy Meyer, Ponente. − Señor Presidente, creo que el debate ha señalado las preocupaciones del conjunto de la Comisión de Peticiones.

En primer lugar, y por segunda vez, reiteramos la necesidad de elevar el nivel de exigencia a la hora de acortar los trámites con peticiones que puedan poner en riesgo la biodiversidad en la Unión Europea. Me refiero a que muchas veces, desde que se inician los trámites, pasan a la Comisión, la Comisión pide información al Estado miembro y el Estado miembro responde... pasa tanto tiempo que, en el caso de una obra pública o privada que pueda poner en riesgo la biodiversidad, cuando llega la carta de emplazamiento o la actuación de los tribunales, el daño ya está hecho y es irreversible.

Por segunda vez hacemos esta llamada urgente para que se eleve el nivel de exigencia con los Estados miembros y que, por parte del Parlamento, la Comisión Europea y los Estados miembros, actuemos con mucha más celeridad.

En segundo lugar, esta comisión entiende que es la que está en mejores condiciones, es la más indicada para hacer el seguimiento de la iniciativa legislativa ciudadana, que es una figura muy importante porque, efectivamente, permite a la ciudadanía europea hacer peticiones legislativas a esta Cámara.

También deseamos manifestar una preocupación que ha surgido en relación con el tema de propiedad y que no se ha planteado concretamente porque hemos optado por no hacer un desarrollo exhaustivo de toda la actividad, salvo en relación con la aplicación de la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales: creemos que la falta de instrumentos jurídicos se tiene que resolver y, por eso, creemos que hace falta un debate —que está abierto, que está en perspectiva—, un debate para que, efectivamente, en esa aplicación haya instrumentos jurídicos que podamos tener garantía de que se apliquen en el conjunto de los Estados miembros y en el conjunto de la Unión Europea.

Termino como empecé, agradeciendo la colaboración de todos mis colegas y reiterando también el reconocimiento de todo el trabajo de la secretaría. Por lo tanto, espero que mañana podamos concluir en la votación este informe de 2010 y espero también que en 2011 no volvamos a reiterar la necesidad de acortar los trámites ante determinadas peticiones que pongan en riesgo la biodiversidad en la Unión Europea.

  El Presidente. − Se cierra el debate.

La votación tendrá lugar mañana a las 11.30 horas.

IN THE CHAIR: DIANA WALLIS
Vice-President

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Jim Higgins (PPE), in writing. – The Committee on Petitions’ repeated calls to be kept informed of the progress of infringement proceedings relating to open petitions remain unanswered in most cases. Petitioners contact their local MEPs in order to follow their petition and it is embarrassing and simply not acceptable that we cannot inform them of the status of their petitions, therefore paragraph 24 is particularly welcome and pertinent. The Commission also needs to be forthcoming regarding the progress of their investigations, upon initial examination of a petition (which usually takes six to eight months); neither the MEP nor the petitioners receive any feedback on what are usually very urgent matters. A sense of urgency needs to be adopted by the Commission. I would like draw attention to Recital L: 40% of petitions received are inadmissible; we need to work to raise citizens’ awareness of petitions. Confusion remains on the different EU and national competences, as well as those of the EU institutions, in particular the European Court of Human Rights. Petitioners are often unsure of what exactly constitutes an admissible petition. As petitions are the earliest indications that Member States are lagging behind in implementing EU law, the Commission must recognise the role and crucial importance of petitions in monitoring the effective implementation of EU law.