Index 
 Zurück 
 Vor 
 Vollständiger Text 
Werdegang im Plenum
Entwicklungsstadium in Bezug auf das Dokument : O-000003/2017

Eingereichte Texte :

O-000003/2017 (B8-0216/2017)

Aussprachen :

PV 03/04/2017 - 17
CRE 03/04/2017 - 17

Abstimmungen :

Angenommene Texte :


Plenardebatten
Montag, 3. April 2017 - Straßburg Überprüfte Ausgabe

17. Antworten der Kommission auf Anfragen zur schriftlichen Beantwortung (Aussprache)
Video der Beiträge
PV
MPphoto
 

  President. – The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission on the Commission’s answers to written questions by Daniel Caspary, Tiziana Beghin, Sven Giegold, Emma McClarkin, Alessia Maria Mosca, Helmut Scholz, Michael Theurer, Isabella Adinolfi, Marco Affronte, Laura Agea, Clara Eugenia Aguilera García, Daniela Aiuto, Jan Philipp Albrecht, Eric Andrieu, Laima Liucija Andrikienė, Maria Arena, Pascal Arimont, Georges Bach, Burkhard Balz, Heinz K. Becker, Ivo Belet, Bendt Bendtsen, Brando Benifei, Joëlle Bergeron, Vilija Blinkevičiūtė, Andrea Bocskor, Reimer Böge, Simona Bonafè, David Borrelli, Lynn Boylan, Elmar Brok, Klaus Buchner, Reinhard Bütikofer, Enrique Calvet Chambon, Nicola Caputo, Matt Carthy, David Casa, Fabio Massimo Castaldo, Lorenzo Cesa, Dita Charanzová, Nessa Childers, Kostas Chrysogonos, Salvatore Cicu, Alberto Cirio, Birgit Collin-Langen, Lara Comi, Ignazio Corrao, Andrea Cozzolino, Pál Csáky, Daniel Dalton, Rosa D'Amato, Nicola Danti, Michel Dantin, Dennis de Jong, Fabio De Masi, Angélique Delahaye, Andor Deli, Albert Deß, Tamás Deutsch, Herbert Dorfmann, Pascal Durand, Stefan Eck, Christian Ehler, Bas Eickhout, Frank Engel, Norbert Erdős, Ismail Ertug, Eleonora Evi, José Inácio Faria, Markus Ferber, Laura Ferrara, Santiago Fisas Ayxelà, Raffaele Fitto, Christofer Fjellner, Karl-Heinz Florenz, Eleonora Forenza, Michael Gahler, Kinga Gál, Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz, Elisabetta Gardini, Jens Gieseke, Julie Girling, Michela Giuffrida, Tania González Peñas, Esteban González Pons, Ingeborg Gräßle, Karoline Graswander-Hainz, Iveta Grigule, Takis Hadjigeorgiou, Marian Harkin, Monika Hohlmeier, György Hölvényi, Filiz Hyusmenova, Peter Jahr, Danuta Jazłowiecka, Eva Joly, Agnes Jongerius, Marc Joulaud, Josu Juaristi Abaunz, Syed Kamall, Othmar Karas, Rina Ronja Kari, Krišjānis Kariņš, Karol Karski, Tunne Kelam, Jude Kirton-Darling, Dieter-Lebrecht Koch, Ádám Kósa, Dietmar Köster, Stelios Kouloglou, Andrey Kovatchev, Werner Kuhn, Merja Kyllönen, Ilhan Kyuchyuk, Giovanni La Via, Alain Lamassoure, Philippe Lamberts, Bernd Lange, Werner Langen, Jeroen Lenaers, Peter Liese, Norbert Lins, Barbara Lochbihler, Sander Loones, Paloma López Bermejo, Javi López, Antonio López-Istúriz White, Sabine Lösing, Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska, Ulrike Lunacek, Thomas Mann, David Martin, Edouard Martin, Fulvio Martusciello, Jiří Maštálka, Barbara Matera, Marisa Matias, Gabriel Mato, Costas Mavrides, Valentinas Mazuronis, David McAllister, Mairead McGuinness, Morten Messerschmidt, Martina Michels, Miroslav Mikolášik, Siegfried Mureşan, Renaud Muselier, Victor Negrescu, Angelika Niebler, Luděk Niedermayer, Lambert van Nistelrooij, Artis Pabriks, Massimo Paolucci, Dimitrios Papadimoulis, Aldo Patriciello, Eva Maydell, Piernicola Pedicini, Alojz Peterle, Marijana Petir, Pina Picierno, Tonino Picula, Markus Pieper, Sirpa Pietikäinen, Georgi Pirinski, Miroslav Poche, Salvatore Domenico Pogliese, Cristian Dan Preda, Franck Proust, Carolina Punset, Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl, Julia Reda, Viviane Reding, Terry Reintke, Herbert Reul, Frédérique Ries, Michèle Rivasi, Inmaculada Rodríguez-Piñero Fernández, Claude Rolin, Bronis Ropė, Dariusz Rosati, Fernando Ruas, Tokia Saïfi, Sofia Sakorafa, Anne Sander, Alfred Sant, Marielle de Sarnez, Petri Sarvamaa, Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, Algirdas Saudargas, Marietje Schaake, Christel Schaldemose, Elly Schlein, Sven Schulze, Andreas Schwab, Molly Scott Cato, Olga Sehnalová, Jasenko Selimovic, Remo Sernagiotto, Czesław Adam Siekierski, Birgit Sippel, Renate Sommer, Barbara Spinelli, Bart Staes, Joachim Starbatty, Ivan Štefanec, Jutta Steinruck, Dubravka Šuica, Richard Sulík, József Szájer, Tibor Szanyi, Adam Szejnfeld, Antonio Tajani, Hannu Takkula, Dario Tamburrano, Keith Taylor, Pavel Telička, László Tőkés, Ruža Tomašić, Romana Tomc, Evžen Tošenovský, Ramon Tremosa i Balcells, Helga Trüpel, Ernest Urtasun, Inese Vaidere, Ivo Vajgl, Ramón Luis Valcárcel Siso, Marco Valli, Wim van de Camp, Tom Vandenkendelaere, Paavo Väyrynen, Sabine Verheyen, Daniele Viotti, Axel Voss, Jarosław Wałęsa, Renate Weber, Bogdan Brunon Wenta, Lieve Wierinck, Hermann Winkler, Iuliu Winkler, Anna Záborská, Jan Zahradil, Marco Zanni, Flavio Zanonato, Joachim Zeller, Marco Zullo, and Milan Zver (O—000003/2017 – B8-0216/2017).

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Daniel Caspary, Verfasser. – Frau Präsidentin, geschätzter Herr Kommissar! Jeder von uns Abgeordneten kennt die Situation, dass man eine Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung an die Kommission stellt und nur eine sehr fragwürdige oder schlechte Antwort bekommt. Da gibt es sicherlich Fälle, bei denen die Kommission nicht antworten kann, weil sie Informationen schlicht nicht hat oder die Mitgliedstaaten das nicht zur Verfügung stellen. Es gibt aber Antworten, wo uns die Kommission hinhält, weil sie etwas prüft und sagt: Wir sind noch in einem Prüfungsverfahren und brauchen noch etwas, bis die Antwort kommt. Dann kommt aber in aller Regel keine Antwort nach. Es gibt Fälle, wo die Kommission nicht antworten will. Ich kann das manchmal, ehrlich gesagt, auch verstehen, weil es viele Kollegen gibt, die grenzwertig viele Anfragen stellen. Dazu sollten wir uns hier im Haus weiter Gedanken machen. Aber es gibt halt auch die Anfragen, wo die Kommission keine Antworten geben möchte, warum auch immer, – im Zweifelsfall, weil sie uns etwas verheimlichen möchte.

Wir haben hier im Europäischen Parlament schon viele, viele Einschränkungen für uns Abgeordnete selbst eingeführt, um die Kommission zu ermuntern, im Gegenzug ihre Antworten zu verbessern: Wir haben die Zahl reduziert, wir haben die Zahl dann nochmal reduziert, wir haben die Wortanzahl in den Anfragen reduziert, man darf nur noch drei Unterfragen stellen. Also wir im Parlament haben unseren Beitrag sicherlich geleistet. Und deswegen soll die heutige Debatte auch nur ein kleines Zeichen sein. Wir haben nur eine sehr kurze Debatte, wir haben bewusst keine Entschließung, aber wir wollen die Kommission daran erinnern, dass die Qualität sich bitte verbessern sollte. Wir haben eine Gegenbewegung, die wächst. Als wir das letzte Mal hier im Haus die Geschäftsordnung geändert haben, haben wir eine kleine und eine große Anfrage an die Kommission eingeführt. Das war eine Sache aus der Mitte der Abgeordneten heraus, weil wir einfach oft unzufrieden sind.

Deswegen lautet meine Bitte wirklich: Ändern Sie Ihre Praxis und versuchen Sie weiterhin, die Antwort zu verbessern. Folgendes würde uns konkret interessieren – hier haben heute 246 Abgeordnete diese Anfrage gemeinsam eingereicht: Erstens: Welche exakten Auflagen und Beschränkungen hat sich die Kommission selbst gegeben, und wie rechtfertigt sie die oft nicht vorhandenen substanziellen Gehalte? Zweitens: Auf welcher Rechtsgrundlage sind diese Auflagen eingeführt worden, und welche Ebene hat diese Entscheidung getroffen? Und drittens: Strebt die Kommission Veränderungen in der Beantwortungspraxis an, sodass ausführliche und bessere Antworten zu erwarten sind?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Tibor Navracsics, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, the Commission takes its replies to Parliamentary questions seriously. Today’s oral question was added to the agenda at such short notice, making it difficult to give a complete response to the issues you raised. Nevertheless, I am able to make a few remarks in response.

As a sign of the importance that the Commission attaches to these matters, President Juncker wrote recently, on 13 March, to President Tajani on this very subject. In his letter the President said, once again, that the Commission, under his leadership, has been committed from the start to filling with new life the special partnership with the European Parliament as laid down in the framework agreement of 2010. Only together can we change and renew Europe and regain citizens’ trust in the European Project.

Replies to written questions are an integral part of our close relations. The Commission sees them as an important democratic scrutiny tool, which must be given due consideration. Over the last two years, measures have been taken by both institutions to improve the system of written questions and answers.

The Commission welcomes the European Parliament’s efforts to set a maximum number of written questions to be tabled by Members of the European Parliament. This is appreciated by the Commission in a spirit of cooperation between the two institutions.

The Commission makes every effort to reply in good time and to provide high-quality and politically-pertinent replies. The success of these efforts depends also on the quality of the questions. In 2016 the Commission replied to more than 9 500 written questions. An average of 40 replies a day was transmitted to the European Parliament throughout last year.

It is important to recall that, according to Article 230 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Parliamentary questions are to be answered by the European Commission and thus by the College, and not by individual Commissioners. This is why each reply is subject to wide internal consultation and agreed by the Commission through a collegial process, in order to enhance the quality and political relevance. It is in this context that the Commission has chosen to set an indicative limit to the length of replies in order to facilitate the smooth operation of the process and to avoid disproportionate costs arising. Derogations from this limit are made where necessary.

President Juncker has asked all Members of the College to pay the utmost importance to the replies to written questions of the Members of the European Parliament, to discuss the answers amongst Members to avoid silo approaches, and to give political answers to political questions. The Commission is ready to join forces with you to ensure that the limitation in the number of questions is matched with high-quality replies.

The Treaty does not set out any deadlines for replies, but the Commission makes all reasonable efforts to reply to written questions in good time and, wherever possible, within the target dates that Parliament has requested.

New efforts have been made in recent months to reduce the numbers of replies delivered after these targets, and these are already bearing fruit. In this context, the Secretariat-General of the Commission is in contact with the Secretariat-General of the European Parliament to work together to further improve the mutual performance of our institutions.

In this context I can inform you that a meeting between the responsible Deputy Secretaries-General of the two institutions in planned already for next week.

 
  
 

Catch-the-eye procedure

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Tibor Szanyi (S&D). – Tisztelt Elnök asszony, tisztelt Biztos úr! Az ön anyanyelvén és az én anyanyelvemen fogom most ezt a pár másodpercet kihasználni. Én elfogadom azt, amit ön mondott, nincs semmiféle kifogásom az ellen, hogy önök is átgondolják a helyzetet és igyekezzenek minél korrektebb válaszokat adni, de önnek volt egy mondata, és ezt én nagyon szeretném megragadni, hogy politikai kérdésekre politikai válaszokat kívánnak adni. Na, pont ez hiányzott.

Mi a Parlament részéről már megtettük azt, hogy korlátoztuk magunkat, tényleg nagyon kevés kérdés van, gondolom, az a kilencezer önöknek soknak tűnik, a Bizottság kapacitásához képest ezt talán kevésbé sok. De igen, amikor egy képviselő megkérdezi azt, amit éppen megkérdez, akkor ő egy politikai választ akar adni, amit föl tud mutatni a választóinak, vagy bármilyen közegben, hogy igen ez az Európai Bizottság álláspontja. A kérdések döntő többségére adott válaszuk jelenleg még mindig csak annyi: majd meglátjuk. Ezzel nem sokra megyünk.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Νότης Μαριάς ( ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κύριε Navracsics, το θέμα που συζητούμε είναι ιδιαίτερα σοβαρό. Πρώτα απ’ όλα, έχω διαμαρτυρηθεί επανειλημμένα σε αυτή την αίθουσα, γιατί υπάρχει μείωση του αριθμού των ερωτήσεων που μπορούν να υποβάλουν οι ευρωβουλευτές. Ξέρετε, μία από τις βασικές πτυχές της λειτουργίας αυτού του Κοινοβουλίου είναι η υποβολή κοινοβουλευτικών ερωτήσεων, διότι ο ρόλος μας είναι να ψηφίζουμε, αλλά και να ελέγχουμε την εκτελεστική εξουσία, να ελέγχουμε εσάς ως Επιτροπή. Άρα, το ότι απαντάτε 9.000 ερωτήσεις δεν μου λέει τίποτε.

Οφείλετε να απαντήσετε σε ερωτήσεις, διότι δράτε, διότι λαμβάνετε αποφάσεις, διότι χρησιμοποιείτε αρκετούς πόρους. Αυτό είναι το πρώτο. Το δεύτερο είναι ότι, όταν δίνετε κάποιες απαντήσεις, οι περισσότερες από αυτές είναι αόριστες, δεν απαντούν επί του θέματος, «πετάνε την μπάλα στην εξέδρα», όπως λέμε.

Άρα, λοιπόν, πρέπει να είστε πολύ πιο σαφής, να δίνετε απαντήσεις, να αντιμετωπίζετε τα ζητήματα και να βλέπετε τις ερωτήσεις ως μία ευκαιρία για να βελτιώσετε τη δική σας εργασία, να βελτιώσετε την απόδοση της ίδιας της Επιτροπής.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). – Gospođo predsjednice, poštovani gospodine povjereniče, uspio sam postaviti 519 pitanja Komisiji dosada. Potpuno se slažem s vama da sustav treba promijeniti i nije bitna kvantiteta pitanja, nego je bitna kvaliteta pitanja, a još bitnija je kvaliteta odgovora.

Ja sam postavio 518 konkretnih pitanja. Na njih sam dobivao uglavnom općenite odgovore. Nisam postavljao previše političkih pitanja, jer me to manje zanima. Ja uglavnom znam političke stavove Komisije o glavnim temama, ali postavio sam konkretna pitanja na koja sam dobivao općenite odgovore.

Na jedno pitanje, o tome što Komisija čini u zaštiti interesa Europske unije i zemalja članica kad je u pitanju svemir i mjesec, dobio sam protupitanje. Vrlo neozbiljno! Ja mislim da trebamo zaista promijeniti način odgovaranja na naša pitanja.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, a questão que aqui nos traz hoje, ou seja, as perguntas que podemos fazer à Comissão Europeia, é uma das formas, poucas, que estão à disposição dos cidadãos europeus de entrar em contacto com a Comissão Europeia através de nós, seus representantes, eurodeputados e eurodeputadas.

Creio que não é sério dizer que depende da qualidade da pergunta, porque muitas vezes são os cidadãos que conseguem identificar os problemas da não aplicação da legislação comunitária, por exemplo em matéria de ambiente, e nós somos os seus porta-vozes.

O que a Comissão faz muitas vezes é dizer que não tem nada a acrescentar, que a responsabilidade não é sua, que não tem culpa. Às únicas vias a que se dá ao trabalho de verdadeiramente responder, raramente acrescenta alguma coisa em relação àquilo que já sabíamos.

Quer dizer, Sr. Comissário, que esta é uma questão de profunda importância democrática, porque o défice democrático que nós temos entre cidadãos e Comissão também se mede pela qualidade das respostas da Comissão Europeia aos seus cidadãos, por via dos eurodeputados e das eurodeputadas e, nesse sentido, Sr. Comissário, não é um frete, é uma obrigação democrática que devem levar muito, muito a sério.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Tania González Peñas (GUE/NGL). – Señora presidenta, le voy a poner un ejemplo de una pregunta sobre el sector del Contact Center en España, en la que planteábamos que este sector abusa de la contratación temporal y de la transmisión de la actividad entre distintas subcontratas, y que estas circunstancias incumplen las Directivas 1999/70/CE y 2001/23/CE.

Preguntamos a la Comisión si va a investigar estos casos y si tomará medidas para obligar al Estado español a cumplir la legislación europea. La respuesta es que la Comisión se pondrá en contacto con las autoridades españolas. Como ven, una respuesta que no dice nada y que de nada sirve.

El problema de no tomarse en serio las preguntas parlamentarias es que reducen al absurdo una de las herramientas de este Parlamento para obtener información y para responder a la ciudadanía a la que representamos.

Detrás de cada una de estas preguntas no solamente hay un trabajo de fundamentación legal y jurídica, sino que hay un trabajo con organizaciones sociales, con organizaciones sindicales, con asociaciones ciudadanas que se encuentran, en muchos casos, en una situación de abuso y de violación y vulneración de sus derechos, y tratamos de utilizarlas para representarlos. Que no se las tomen en serio es no tomarse en serio a la ciudadanía europea.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Geoffrey Van Orden (ECR). – Madam President, my apologies for being late in the Chamber. I just wanted to support the question that has been put down this afternoon because when many of us ask questions of the Commission or the Council, I get the impression that they sometimes think we are just doing it out of badness or just to make some political point, whereas often what we are trying to do is genuinely seek information and perhaps forward some useful political process. On a number of occasions I have put down questions and I have either had a delay, or when I have had a reply it has been a thoroughly inadequate response. For example, in December I put down a question about the negotiations going on in Cyprus and asking what sort of helpful role could the Council and Commission be playing in those negotiations, and it was not until February that I got a reply and it told me absolutely nothing at all, so I do think we need to seriously look at this issue.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jonathan Arnott (EFDD). – Madam President, written questions are a valuable tool for doing the job of representing our constituents when they want us to represent them in this place on issues which are affecting them, and they are one of the few ways that we can hold the Commission to account and ensure proper democratic scrutiny, and one of the few ways that we can gain information about the huge areas of responsibility of the European Commission. But it seems sometimes that when answers would be embarrassing to the Commission we do not get answers that fully respond to the question, if we get answers at all.

Parliament has already limited the number of questions that we can ask. It seems that the movement is all in one direction, but the system here is not working. It goes to the heart, in my view, of the distinction between an elected body and an unelected body and the principles of democratic scrutiny and transparency and that, sadly, in the EU institutions is so often a major failing.

 
  
 

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Tibor Navracsics, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable members, thank you for this short discussion. I have taken note of your concerns and observations. I think that there is a general consensus and nobody would put it into question that it is one of the fundamental rights of the Members of the European Parliament to question the European Commission, and it is one of the obligations of the European Commission and the Members of the European Commission to answer those questions. It is an non-waivable right, no hesitation and no question in that respect.

Let me refer to one issue raised in your interventions and that is the vagueness of the replies of the European Commission. I think there are two reasons for that. One is a political reason, and I agree with my fellow countryman Mr Szanyi that the European Commission is a political body – and this is the self-definition of the European Commission, that it is a political Commission – so if it is a political Commission it needs to give political answers. I agree, but let us not mix up political answers with party political answers or partisan answers, because the European Commission is not only a political body, but it is a political body of four political groups, representatives of four political groups and 28 Member States, or Commissioners sent from 28 Member States. We cannot afford to be party political or partisan. We give political answers but they are not party political answers.

The second reason for the so-called vagueness might be the limits of the competences of the European Commission. Sometimes our answers go beyond the real competences of the European Commission. So we must be vague because it is not in our competence to answer concretely those questions. If there are other examples of vagueness, I really apologise for that. We would like to improve the quality of the replies and I hope that we can improve the close relations between the two institutions and the meeting of the Deputy Secretaries-General will help in improving this cooperation.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – The debate is closed.

 
Letzte Aktualisierung: 11. Juli 2017Rechtlicher Hinweis