Indeks 
 Poprzedni 
 Następny 
 Pełny tekst 
Procedura : 2016/2610(RSP)
Przebieg prac nad dokumentem podczas sesji
Wybrany dokument :

Teksty złożone :

B8-0685/2016

Debaty :

PV 08/06/2016 - 26
CRE 08/06/2016 - 26

Głosowanie :

PV 09/06/2016 - 4.6

Teksty przyjęte :

P8_TA(2016)0279

Debaty
Środa, 8 czerwca 2016 r. - Strasburg Wersja poprawiona

26. Otwarta, efektywna i niezależna administracja Unii Europejskiej (debata)
zapis wideo wystąpień
PV
 

Die Präsidentin. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Anfrage zur mündlichen Beantwortung an die Kommission über Regeln für eine offene, effiziente und unabhängige Verwaltung der Europäischen Union von Pavel Svoboda und Heidi Hautala im Namen des Rechtsausschusses (O-000079/2016 - B8-0705/2016) (2016/2610(RSP)).

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Pavel Svoboda, author. – Madam President, Parliament has repeatedly called for the adoption of a regulation on the administrative procedure of the Union, which would enable European citizens to better exercise their right to good administration. For the first time, in 2001, Parliament called on the Commission to submit a proposal for a regulation containing a code of good administrative behaviour. At that time we had no clear legal basis for an EU administrative procedure law but, with the Lisbon Treaty, Article 298 was introduced as an appropriate legal base.

In 2010, the Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) set up a working group on EU administrative law. We concluded that EU administrative law was very fragmented and only a very few areas of the Union’s administrative activities were subject to a systematic approach. That is why Parliament, in January 2013, adopted the Berlinguer report, in which it clearly requested the Commission to submit a proposal for an administrative regulation applicable to the administration of the Union’s institutions, bodies, offices and agencies.

In the current parliamentary term we have again followed up, with a working group chaired by my esteemed colleague Heidi Hautala, which has done tremendous work that has now come to an end. As the Commission has, unfortunately, still not come up with a concrete proposal for a regulation, or clearly stated that we are to expect such an initiative, the oral question and resolution we are talking about tonight shall serve as a gentle reminder from Parliament to the Commission.

In order to help the Commission to make up its mind, the main aim of the JURI Committee working group was to draft a model regulation, with the advice of law professors, containing a basic set of the rules we would like to see. We have annexed this regulation to the oral question and resolution presented tonight. The objective of such a proposal is to provide citizens and the Union’s administration with a comprehensive and cross-cutting administrative procedure.

Especially in the current times, with Euroscepticism on the rise, citizens would enormously benefit from uniform procedural guarantees enforceable in the EU courts. Increased openness, transparency and accessibility of the EU administration will improve trust and the relationship between citizens and the Union’s administration, and in that way we will also reinforce the legitimacy of the EU.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Heidi Hautala, author. – Madam President, over the years the complexity of the EU’s administration has increased. New bodies, offices and agencies have been created and the tasks for which the European Union is responsible have also grown. This has meant, too, that citizens and businesses increasingly have become directly involved with the Union’s administration. This happens, for instance, when they are applying for EU funds, or when they lodge complaints against a decision which is unfavourable to them, etcetera.

However, despite the fact that the Union has at its service officials who are both competent and dedicated, its public image is unfortunately often that of an incomprehensible and distant bureaucracy. The scattered nature of the rules governing the EU’s administrative activities, and the gaps and uncertainties that this leads to, are certainly not helping to improve this image.

We have already heard from Mr Swoboda that there is a legal basis now for the Commission to come up with a proposal on law and administrative procedure, which would be applied to all EU institutions. And it is important to emphasise that the draft regulation which has been produced by the working group would apply only to the administration of the Union’s institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, and not to Member States’ administration. It would also concern only administrative activities in the strict sense. It excludes legislative procedures and it excludes judicial proceedings, as well as the adoption of delegated acts and implementing acts and other non-legislative acts directly based on the Treaties.

What is very important is that the Commission looks at how, with the help of this draft regulation which has been finalised, we can foster the culture of an open, efficient and independent European administration.

Finally I would like to say a word of thanks to the European Law Institute, a group of dedicated academic experts, from the political groups, for the immense amount of work that has gone into this exercise over the years, and notably during the past two years.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jyrki Katainen, Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, I am here today to reply to your oral question on the very important topic of European Union administration.

You ask, in particular, if the Commission has analysed your suggestion for a regulation for an open, efficient and independent European Union administration, and whether the Commission has any plans to put forward its own proposal. You ask for the reasons that have prevented the Commission, thus far, from acting on its right of initiative in this field.

Let me assure you from the start that the Commission is extremely serious about its commitment to guaranteeing that citizens can interact with a European administration that is open, independent and efficient. That is why the Commission has, for instance, set up the transparency portal. This portal provides citizens with direct access to information and will help them to be better informed and better prepared to follow and participate in the EU decision-making process.

I also want to mention the Commission Inter-Service Group on Public Administration Quality and Innovation. This group is working to enable, among others, national administrations, and therefore European businesses, fully to tap the potential of the internal market, joint economic governance and the structural funds.

Apart from these more recent initiatives, and as you know, the Commission has a well-established set of horizontal rules which govern its administrative behaviour – as, I would expect, does Parliament. This includes the general provisions of the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, as well as a range of provisions on staff and financial regulations, on data protection and access to documents, to name but a few of the areas covered.

All of these horizontal rules are a reflection of the existing legal principles of good administration, such as non-discrimination, impartiality and fairness, and the right to have one’s affairs handled within a reasonable time, etcetera.

As the EU administers a range of diverse and mostly highly specialised activities, it also relies on sector-specific rules. Citizens and businesses concerned by such specialised activities are guaranteed specific administrative rights. Examples here are numerous: we have specific rights in competition law, and in relation to novel foods, the authorisation of medicinal products, GMOs, trade defence, etcetera.

The Commission has analysed your suggestion for a regulation for an open, efficient and independent European Union administration against these existing horizontal and sectoral rules, principles and practices. As a result of that analysis, the Commission is, at this stage, not convinced that the benefits of using a legislative instrument that would codify administrative law would outweigh the costs. Codification is a complex and delicate exercise that can often have unintended consequences.

In having to clarify the relationship and to ensure consistency with these more detailed rules, codification would require the revision of the considerable volume of existing EU legislation. Even where done with care and a sense of proportion, codification may still lead to problems of delimitation between the general and specific rules – not making legislation any clearer or litigation any easier for citizens and businesses affected.

Codification would remove the flexibility required to adapt to particular needs. These challenges and difficulties are also confirmed by the draft regulation. The text does not identify what the gaps and inconsistencies in current law are, and therefore what the justification is for coming forward with horizontal legislative solutions as a proportionate answer to deal with them. It also does not assess the concrete impact of the provisions it contains.

While the text is said to be without prejudice to existing rules and rights under specific Union legislation, it provides for no legal mechanism to ensure delimitation between the general and the specific rules. It rather seems to suggest that a case-by-case analysis would continue to apply.

Lastly, there is the matter of ways to identify administrative activities of the institutions and bodies that would be subject to the new rules. Instead of engaging in a highly complex exercise of codification, with uncertain value-added, the Commission is of the opinion that we should continue to address concrete problems where they arise, analyse the root causes and then take the sort of action that is needed. The Commission analyses each case of alleged maladministration, and will try to rectify any error that has been made. It also engages constructively in the context of all inquiries by the European Ombudsman.

That being said, at this stage the Commission is not aware of any pattern of cases of maladministration that could be addressed through a general administrative law.

I am, as is the Commission, therefore grateful for the work you have done, and will continue working with you on all options and good arguments as to how we can improve our citizens’ life.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Емил Радев, от името на групата PPE. – Бих искал да поздравя г-жа Хаутала и правната служба на Европейския парламент, които положиха толкова усилия за изработването на този важен за европейската администрация документ. Европейският парламент нееднократно е призовавал за приемането на регламент относно административната процедура на Съюза. Досега Европейската комисия остана глуха за нашите призиви. Да се надяваме, че  този път ще положи необходимите усилия, за да стане това предложение реалност.

Договорите и Хартата на основните права предоставят право на добра администрация. Но за да могат гражданите да упражнят това свое право, те се нуждаят от ясни, ефективни, предвидими и достъпни процедури в отношенията им с европейската администрация. Ползите от едно такова законодателство са неоспорими – от една страна то ще запълни пропуските в правната система на Съюза и ще повиши правната сигурност, като предостави на гражданите и юридическите лица по-ясни права, а от друга страна ще спомогне за утвърждаване на доверието в работата на европейската администрация, като така ще бъде засилена легитимността на Съюза.

С нашето предложение ние даваме отговори на важни въпроси, като започването на административната процедура, сроковете и средствата за правна защита. Считам, че важен елемент от предложението е потвърждаването на основните процесуални права, които имат за цел да направят европейската администрация отворена, ефективна и независима администрация.

Защитата на основни права, като правото на изслушване, правото на достъп на всяко лице до документи, които се отнасят до него, изискването да се предоставя необходимата информация на страните са само част от правните средства за защита, от които гражданите могат да се възползват.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Victor Negrescu, în numele grupului S&D. – Doamnă președintă, Uniunea Europeană are nevoie de o administrație transparentă, eficientă și independentă. Este ceea ce, de altfel, a cerut și Parlamentul European în Rezoluția sa din 15 ianuarie 2013, în urmă cu câțiva ani.

Astăzi, Uniunea Europeană are un mecanism instituțional greoi. Fondurile europene se absorb în baza unui sistem complicat și dificil de accesat de către cetățeni, iar întreprinzătorii se confruntă cu mecanisme birocratice stufoase, care le blochează activitatea. De aceea, modul de lucru al instituțiilor europene trebuie simplificat, pentru a deveni mai ușor de înțeles pentru toată lumea și, mai ales, pentru tineri. Situația trebuie să se schimbe. Buna administrare nu este o opțiune, ci un drept legal, garantat de articolul 41 din Carta drepturilor fundamentale a Uniunii Europene.

Instituțiile trebuie să conștientizeze mai mult avantajele practice ale abordării centrate pe nevoile cetățeanului. Principiile transparenței, eficienței și independenței duc la o Uniune Europeană mai solidă și au caracter obligatoriu pentru statele membre, atunci când acțiunile acestora intră sub incidența legislației UE.

Uniunea Europeană însă este datoare să-și eficientizeze administrația înainte de a critica funcționarea administrațiilor din statele membre. Cu toate acestea, constat cu regret că încă mai există probleme în a avea o abordare comună europeană. Anumite state sunt protejate când comit încălcări ale legislației europene, în timp ce altele, percepute ca fiind mai slabe, sunt uneori criticate fără argumente obiective.

Absența dimensiunii europene se regăsește și la nivelul reprezentativității în instituțiile europene. Fie că vorbim de reprezentativitate națională sau de gen. O identitate și cultură comună europeană nu se poate face în absența unei reprezentări echitabile. De aceea, cred că este de datoria instituțiilor europene să corecteze asemenea situații și să propună un cadru legal transparent și eficient.

Vorbim despre buna administrare. Vreau, în final, să invit cu fermitate Comisia Europeană să respecte Regulamentul și să vină cu o propunere la documentul realizat de Comisia pentru afaceri juridice privind o administrație transparentă, eficientă și independentă a Uniunii Europene.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ангел Джамбазки, от името на групата ECR. – За нас от групата на Европейските консерватори и реформисти въпросът за откритата, ефикасна, независима администрация на Европейския съюз е от съществено значение, както за европейските граждани, така и за доброто функциониране на институциите на Европейския съюз.

Въпреки неколкократните инициативи от страна на Парламента, както и заложените в Договорите текстове, призоваващи за открита, ефикасна, независима европейска администрация, Европейската комисия все още не е направила предложение за регламент по темата.

Един общ европейски административен закон, отнасящ се за институции, органи, агенции и служби, би се отнасял за институциите на Европейския съюз и би следвало да обхваща аспекти от конфликт на интереси до прости и разбираемо подготвени административни актове. Това би послужило не само на европейските граждани, но и на самите институции и би ги направило по-достъпни и разбираеми за гражданите на страните членки.

Любопитен съм да видя какво предложение би представила Европейската комисия и какво място в него биха намерили вижданията на Парламента по темата.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Margot Parker, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Madam President, the words of this resolution might easily have been written with the upcoming UK referendum on Brexit in mind. With the development of the competences of the European Union, citizens are increasingly confronted with the Union’s institutions, bodies, offices and agencies without always having their procedural rights adequately protected. There you have the heart of the matter. The EU has become a bureaucratic monster that pervades all areas of life in the Member States, so wide are its competences and so untrammelled its powers.

The vast majority of UK citizens have absolutely nothing to do with the EU, yet their lives are routinely interfered with by the activities of the EU. When we think of EU administration, the words ‘open’, ‘efficient’ and ‘independent’ certainly never cross our minds. As for the proposed regulation contemplated by the resolution, it is surely a joke. What rational, efficient civil service needs a regulation to tell it how to administer? It is a document written for the Kingdom of Ruritania or some foundling post-colonial state. The British electorate will be underwhelmed by the promises and stated objectives of this regulation. Instead, our voters will think that this is a document, a parody, worthy of the famous television comedy, ‘Yes Minister’.

The EU has a well—merited reputation for having a deeply entrenched and ingrained habit of opaque, inefficient and less than independent administration. It will take more than a tick-box regulation to change that habit. Old dogs don’t learn new tricks.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Gilles Lebreton, au nom du groupe ENF. – Madame la Présidente, l'Union européenne est une administration tentaculaire peuplée d'innombrables institutions, agences, organes et organismes divers qui prennent des décisions administratives.

Or, chaque élément de ce système kafkaïen est régi par ses propres règles. Ce manque de cohérence génère un manque de transparence sur les garanties dont bénéficient les administrés. Il est de nature à favoriser l'abus de pouvoir. C'est pourquoi je soutiens la proposition de résolution déposée par Mme Hautala.

Cette proposition vise en effet à codifier et à uniformiser la procédure administrative applicable à l'ensemble des organes de l'Union. Elle clarifie ainsi les droits des administrés, en précisant par exemple que chaque individu a le droit d'être entendu avant de faire l'objet d'une décision individuelle.

Je regrette que la Commission de Bruxelles ait écarté cette intéressante proposition; toutefois, je n'en suis pas surpris, car il y a longtemps que je sais que cet aréopage oligarchique se complaît dans l'opacité.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Tadeusz Zwiefka (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Przede wszystkim chciałbym bardzo serdecznie podziękować koleżankom i kolegom posłom, a w szczególności naszej koleżance Heidi Hautali, którzy od wielu miesięcy w ramach specjalnego zespołu pracują nad kwestiami dotyczącymi prawa administracyjnego. Owocem tej pracy jest załączony do dzisiejszej rezolucji projekt – bardzo poważny, niezwykle ciekawy projekt, do którego, jak sądzę, Komisja Europejska powinna podejść z pełną powagą – dotyczący sprawnej, niezależnej i dobrze funkcjonującej administracji unijnej.

Jest to oczywiście projekt nowatorski, a zatem nie dziwi, że niektóre instytucje unijne podchodzą do niego z dużą rezerwą, w tym także Komisja Europejska. Ale uważam, że czasami trzeba położyć na stole coś bardzo nowego, bardzo inspirującego, aby można było osiągnąć cel. A tym celem jest udostępnienie, zarówno obywatelom, jak i biznesmenom, ale także organom administracji unijnej kompleksowego i horyzontalnego sposobu działania w ramach postępowania administracyjnego. Z jednej strony zatem obywatele i przedsiębiorcy będą mogli korzystać ze swoich praw i dochodzić ich przed sądami unijnymi, z drugiej strony administracja będzie mogła korzystać z jasnego i jednolitego zespołu przepisów.

Oczywiście propozycja, którą przedstawia Parlament, to zachęta przede wszystkim do dyskusji pomiędzy administracją unijną a obywatelami, tak aby znaleźć najlepsze dla nich rozwiązania. Dziękuję bardzo.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, come ha sentito ripetere dai miei colleghi – ed è molto importante che questa considerazione venga da famiglie politiche tra di loro diverse e addirittura molto distanti – le nostre intenzioni sono intenzioni positive. In attesa di avere una proposta formale da parte della Commissione, abbiamo cercato di lavorare intorno a questo regolamento non per sostituire la legislatura vigente, ma per integrarla, per riempire gli spazi vuoti, per dare soprattutto maggior certezza chi poi utilizza questi strumenti. La certezza è molto importante per dare credibilità alle istituzioni.

Ci sono due cose sulle quali bisogna concentrare i nostri sforzi, e non casualmente sono state ricordate qui più volte. In primo luogo, la certezza in diritto è fondamentale: avere delle regole facili da interpretare ed efficaci nella fase della loro attuazione. Dall'altra parte c'è la trasparenza. Tutto quello che noi facciamo è, inevitabilmente ma vorrei dire giustamente, osservato dei cittadini europei, in qualche circostanza addirittura con molta diffidenza. Soprattutto le persone che sono in maggior difficoltà guardano alle istituzioni con lo spirito di chi ha bisogno dell'intervento delle istituzioni e con il dubbio di chi ritiene che una parte delle difficoltà della loro vita derivino dall'incertezza oppure dall'incapacità delle istituzioni.

Allora questo lavoro è un lavoro di grandissima utilità, che vorremmo fare insieme. Noi possiamo, nello stato attuale, integrare le norme che sono a disposizione. Voi dovete però rapidamente aiutarci a dare compiutezza al lavoro che stiamo facendo. Se riusciremo ad avere, da un lato, la certezza del diritto garantita e, dall'altra parte, la trasparenza dei comportamenti delle istituzioni, sconfiggeremo tutti coloro che pensano che l'Europa sia un luogo istituzionale e sostanzialmente inutile.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ruža Tomašić (ECR). – Gospođo predsjednice, upravu Europske unije građani s pravom doživljavaju kao okoštalu strukturu koja pored nacionalnih, regionalnih i lokalnih upravnih tijela predstavlja samo dodatni trošak.

No, unatoč uvriježenom mišljenju kako su dodatne razine uprave suvišne i skupe, Unija mora imati svoju upravu kako bi uopće mogla funkcionirati kao političko-pravni subjekt. Ta bi uprava doista trebala biti, kako sam naziv ove uredbe kaže, otvorena, učinkovita i neovisna, a ja bih dodala i minimalna.

Na svim se razinama upravljanja potreba za promjenom glomaznih i okoštalih struktura vrlo često stavlja pod plašt povećanja učinkovitosti. To je zamka koju valja izbjeći jer upravo je glomaznost upravnih tijela i gomilanje propisa glavni uzrok neučinkovitosti.

Mislimo li imati kvalitetnu upravu na razini EU-a, ona mora biti moderna i minimalna te djelovati u koordinaciji s upravnim tijelima država članica. Jak i glomazan upravni aparat koji služi kao priprema za preuzimanje novih nadležnosti s nacionalne razine u pokušaju ostvarivanja federalističkih ambicija nikad neće biti ni otvoren ni učinkovit.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ingeborg Gräßle (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin! Herr Vizepräsident, das, was Sie als Reaktion der Kommission vorgetragen haben, war mehr als enttäuschend. Es war ernüchternd, es war nicht wirklich etwas Neues. Wir haben mit nichts anderem gerechnet. Ich nehme für den Haushaltskontrollausschuss an dieser Arbeitsgruppe teil und möchte mich ganz herzlich bei Frau Hautala und allen Beteiligten bedanken für eine tolle Arbeit.

Das, was Sie heute Abend vorgetragen haben, ist weit weg von Enthusiasmus, und das ist ausgesprochen bedauerlich. Es war Kanzleitrost und eigentlich eine Beerdigung dritter Klasse. Dritter Klasse, weil in dem Fall die Leiche die Kerze selbst trägt.

Ich kann nur sagen: Wie kann man nur bestimmte Dinge nicht verstehen? Wie kann man nicht verstehen, dass das kleine Einmaleins der Verwaltung genau da ansetzt, wo ein Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz ansetzt, nämlich bei der Frage der Rechtsbehelfe, der Bescheide, der Vereinheitlichung von Verfahren? Das Ansinnen ist mehr als gerecht, und es ist für die EU und das Ansehen der EU ausgesprochen wichtig. Deswegen, Herr Vizepräsident – nehmen Sie es nicht persönlich, aber das, was Sie heute im Auftrag der Kommission vorgetragen haben, finde ich armselig und jenseits dessen, was diese EU gerade zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt braucht.

Die Mitgliedstaaten sind weiser als die EU. Und allein schon deswegen muss ich mich hier schämen, weil ich glaube, dass diesem verwaltungsmäßigen Zustand des Mittelalters, in dem sich die EU hier befindet, dringend abgeholfen gehört. Hier macht jeder, was er will. Ich habe das jetzt seit zwölf Jahren beobachtet. Jeder macht, was er will, und so, wie er es kann. Und auch hier muss die Kommission sich mehr Mühe geben und zu einer größeren Vereinheitlichung beitragen. Wir sprechen uns noch.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Monica Macovei (ECR). – Doamnă președintă, aș începe spunând că sunt absolut total de acord cu ce a spus doamna Gräßle. A spus-o în cuvinte foarte clare, normale și directe.

Astăzi auzim de la Comisie că Regulamentul privind o administrație transparentă și eficientă a Uniunii, de fapt, nu o să ne parvină, pentru că nu e cazul, pentru că sunt foarte rare cazurile în care sunt astfel de încălcări. Comisia nu se grăbește, deși am cerut, ca Parlament, acum trei ani de zile acest lucru! Mi se pare inadmisibil și într-adevăr e o bătaie de joc.

Tratatul de la Lisabona prevede că instituțiile și agențiile europene trebuie să fie sprijinite de o administrație eficientă și independentă. Ce le dăm oamenilor în schimb este, de multe ori, incoerență la nivel administrativ, birocrație și lipsă de claritate. Pierdem din vedere interesul public. Există proceduri, iar excesul de proceduri, ca și lipsa acestora, duc la o administrare defectuoasă.

Să nu confundăm birocrația cu regulile! Noi, la rândul nostru, ca europarlamentari, suntem îngrădiți și îngropați de birocrație și nu putem să ne facem serviciul pentru oameni.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Daniel Buda (PPE). – Doamnă președintă, într-o Uniune a valorilor, în care cetățenii și întreprinderile plătesc taxe și impozite pentru funcționarea administrației publice, este absolut normal și firesc să-și dorească o administrație eficientă, capabilă să răspundă în orice moment nevoilor și preocupărilor acestora. Este important, astfel, ca, la nivelul Uniunii, să existe și să se asigure o definire clară a regulilor și procedurilor care să fie corelative cu drepturile și obligațiile acestora. Trebuie să se asigure un grad ridicat de transparență, eficiență, dar și o soluționare rapidă a problemelor din partea instituțiilor.

Totodată, este nevoie să avem în vedere faptul că, deși de-a lungul timpului s-au dezvoltat o serie de proceduri administrativ-sectoriale, acestea nu sunt în măsură să asigure coerența sistemului, îngreunând astfel procesul de înțelegere de către cetățeni a drepturilor lor izvorâte din legislația europeană. Reținem, așadar, că un set excesiv de norme și proceduri, sau, deopotrivă, lipsa acestora din anumite sectoare poate conduce la o administrație defectuoasă.

Se impune, astfel, cu forța evidenței aritmetice, nevoia unui set comun de proceduri administrative, care să acopere lacunele din acest sistem, ceea ce, în mod cert, va duce la o securitate juridică sporită. În abordarea acestei probleme trebuie să plecăm în mod obligatoriu de la jurisprudența Curții de Justiție a Uniunii Europene, astfel încât să fie păstrate principiile statului de drept, iar cetățenii să aibă garanția că sunt beneficiarii unei administrații care le este mereu aproape și drepturile le sunt mereu respectate.

 
  
 

Catch-the-eye-Verfahren

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Νότης Μαριάς ( ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, ενώ η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση διανύει μια περίοδο βαθιάς υπαρξιακής κρίσης, ενώ σε λίγο οι Βρετανοί πολίτες αναμένεται να ψηφίσουν για το Brexit, ενώ σε άλλες 8 χώρες πολίτες έχουν εκφράσει την επιθυμία τους για αντίστοιχα δημοψηφίσματα, ενώ ελλοχεύει διάλυση του ευρωπαϊκού οικοδομήματος, κάποιοι επιστρατεύουν τη δήθεν φυγή προς τα εμπρός. Είναι η ύστατη επιλογή στην προσπάθειά τους να περισώσουν την Ευρώπη των μνημονίων και της λιτότητας. Δεν αναφέρονται σε μια πιο δημοκρατική Ευρώπη και, παρότι εξαρχής το μείζον πρόβλημα είναι το έλλειμμα της δημοκρατίας στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, αυτό που τους ενδιαφέρει είναι η δήθεν αποτελεσματικότητα και κυρίως η ανεξαρτησία της γραφειοκρατίας των Βρυξελλών. Αυτό που τους ενδιαφέρει είναι η παράκαμψη της λαϊκής ετυμηγορίας. Στην Ελλάδα η τρόικα επέβαλε δεσμά αυτόματων μέτρων που θα ενεργοποιούνται σε περίπτωση παρέκκλισης από τους δημοσιονομικούς στόχους, παρακάμπτοντας έτσι την ελληνική Βουλή. Αυτό κάποιοι ονειρεύονται να γίνει και σε όλη την Ευρώπη. Δεν θα τους περάσει όμως, γιατί οι λαοί θα αντιδράσουν.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). – Frau Präsidentin! Wir haben immer etwas zu sagen.

Gospođo predsjedavajuća, ja sam vjerojatno jedna od osoba u Hrvatskoj koje su prepoznate kao najveći euroentuzijasti. I zaista to jesam i želim to i ostati. Međutim, moje iskustvo zadnjih petnaestak godina u radu s europskom administracijom, neću reći da je razočaravajuće, ali je u svakom slučaju vrlo, vrlo dvojbeno.

Kao da je ponekad ta administracija sama dovoljna sebi, kao da izmišlja propise i nove procedure, možda ne da bi nama zagorčala život, nego zato da bi sebe štitila zbog šume propisa koji postoje unutar Europske unije. To je posebno problematično kod korištenja europskih fondova, kod kohezijske politike i stoga zbog potrebe da pojednostavimo procese pozivam na, kao što želimo, otvorenu, učinkovitu i neovisnu upravu.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Kateřina Konečná (GUE/NGL). – Paní předsedající, jednou za pět let se vždy evropské instituce ptají, proč evropští občané nechodí k volbám a proč jsou k evropskému projektu lhostejní. Je pravdou, že se jim vždy na poslední chvíli snaží Evropský parlament předhodit něco, například zrušení roamingu, aby je k účasti ve volbách navnadil, ale bez valného úspěchu. Prostou pravdou totiž je, že občané po celých pět let naráží na často uzavřenou, neefektivní správu, ve které má větší slovo lobby korporací než zájmy občanů a často i samotné EU. Pokud skutečně všichni stojíme na stejné straně, pak musíme uznat, že zefektivnění evropské správy je naprostou nutností již teď a není na co čekat. Apeluji na Komisi, aby začala v této věci konat co nejdříve. Naši občané již čekali dlouho, ale po Vašem vystoupení, pane komisaři, nejsem přesvědčená o tom, že víte, co chce Evropský parlament. Chtěla bych Vám sdělit, že Vy volený nejste, ale my Vás odvolat umíme.

 
  
 

(Ende des Catch-the-eye-Verfahrens)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jyrki Katainen, Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, it has become clear that we do not necessarily agree on every single issue, even though we agree on a lot of things. I want to congratulate the European Parliament for raising the important topic of an open, efficient and independent European Union administration with the Commission today. For everybody in this room, this is a key topic as we are all here to serve EU citizens. What we do for the EU in our legislative and policy work can be found in official documents, but for the individual citizens it is especially in the conduct of the EU institution and bodies that we are judged.

We therefore must ensure that we provide them with high quality administration that acts through efficient, transparent and coherent procedures. This is essential for gaining their trust and confidence in the EU. The EU's institutions and bodies, which have been created on the basis of common principles and values, have through the years developed rules and practices that grant citizens rights to impose obligations on the administration.

The Commission, and I trust also the other institutions and bodies, regularly reviews its practices to make sure that they continue to be fit for purpose and are adapted to developments. The European Ombudsman also contributes to ensuring quality in the work of the institutions and bodies and can point out where concrete improvements could be made.

While we see that the Parliament wants a ‘once-size-fits-all’ rule for EU administration, the Commission rather thinks that we best serve citizens if we have administrative rules that are tailor-made and can maximise the effect in each field of concern. We will continue to monitor our rules and practices in this spirit and, as always, are open to examine input by citizens and stakeholders that point our attention to specific needs for improvements. Thank you very much for this discussion and your attention.

 
  
 

Die Präsidentin. – Zum Abschluss der Aussprache wurde gemäß Artikel 128 Absatz 5 der Geschäftsordnung ein Entschließungsantrag eingereicht.

 
Ostatnia aktualizacja: 5 sierpnia 2016Informacja prawna