REPORT on the deliberations of the Committee on Petitions during the year 2009
7.6.2010 - (2009/2139(INI))
Committee on Petitions
Rapporteur: Carlos José Iturgaiz Angulo
MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION
on the deliberations of the Committee on Petitions during the year 2009
The European Parliament,
– having regard to its previous resolutions on the deliberations of the Committee on Petitions,
– having regard to Articles 24 and 227 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
– having regard to Articles 10 and 11 of the Treaty on the European Union,
– having regard to Rules 48 and 202(8) of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Petitions (A7-0186/2010),
A. whereas the activity of the Committee on Petitions in 2009 was marked by the transition from the sixth to the seventh parliamentary term, and membership of the Committee changed considerably, with two thirds of members sitting for the first time,
B. whereas 2009 marked the end of the European Ombudsman’s term of office and the Committee on Petitions was directly involved in the hearings of candidates for the position,
C. whereas the Treaty of Lisbon came into force on 1 December 2009, creating the necessary premises for increased participation by citizens in the EU decision-making process, in an effort to reinforce its legitimacy and accountability,
D. whereas citizens of the EU are directly represented by Parliament, and the right of petition as enshrined in the Treaty offers them the means to address their representatives whenever they consider that their rights have been infringed,
E. whereas enforcement of European legislation has a direct impact on citizens, who are the best placed to assess its effectiveness and its shortcomings and to signal remaining gaps that need to be filled in order to ensure adherence to the Union’s objectives,
F. bearing in mind that European citizens, individually and collectively, turn to Parliament for redress when European law is broken,
G. whereas Parliament, through its Committee on Petitions, has an obligation to investigate such concerns and to do its best to bring such breaches of the law to an end; whereas, in order to offer citizens the most appropriate and rapid remedies, the Committee on Petitions has continued to reinforce its cooperation with the Commission, other parliamentary committees, European bodies, agencies and networks, and Member States,
H. whereas the number of petitions received by Parliament in 2009 was slightly higher than that recorded in 2008 (i.e. 1924 compared with 1849), and the growing trend for petitions to be submitted electronically was confirmed (about 65% were received in this form in 2009 as against 60% in 2008),
I. whereas the number of inadmissible petitions received in 2009 indicates that additional emphasis should be placed on informing citizens better about the competences of the Union and the role of its various institutions,
J. whereas, in many instances, citizens petition Parliament about decisions taken by the competent administrative or judicial authorities within Member States, and whereas citizens need mechanisms through which they can call national authorities to account for their part in both the European legislative process and in the legislative enforcement process,
K. whereas citizens should, in particular, be made aware that – as recognised by the European Ombudsman in the decision of December 2009 closing the inquiry into complaint 822/2009/BU against the Commission – national court proceedings are part of the process of implementing European legislation in the Member States, and that the Committee on Petitions cannot deal with issues subject to national court proceedings or review the outcome of such proceedings,
L. whereas Parliament faces a particular problem when petitioned on alleged failures by the national judiciary to request a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice in disregard of Article 267 TFEU, especially if the Commission does not use its powers under Article 258 to taken action against the Member State in question,
M. whereas the petitions process – through its working mechanisms and because the right to petition is granted to all EU citizens and residents under the terms of the Treaty – differs from other remedies available to citizens at EU level, such as the submission of complaints to the European Ombudsman or to the Commission,
N. whereas citizens are entitled to speedy and solution-oriented redress and to a high level of transparency and clarity from all European institutions and whereas Parliament has repeatedly requested the Commission to use its prerogatives as guardian of the Treaty to act against breaches of European legislation revealed by petitioners, especially where transposition of EU legislation at national level results in its infringement,
O. whereas many petitions continue to raise concerns about the transposition and implementation of European legislation on the internal market and the environment, and bearing in mind the previous calls made by the Committee on Petitions to the Commission to ensure that enforcement checks in these areas are strengthened and made more efficient,
P. whereas, although the Commission can fully check compliance with EU law only when a final decision has been taken by national authorities, it is important, particularly in relation to environmental matters and all cases in which the time aspect is especially significant, to verify at an early stage that local, regional and national authorities correctly apply all relevant procedural requirements under EU law and, when necessary, to carry out detailed studies on the application and impact of the legislation in force, in order to obtain all the requisite information,
Q. bearing in mind the importance of preventing further irreparable losses in biodiversity, especially inside Natura 2000 designated sites, and the commitment by Member States to ensure the protection of special conservation areas under the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) and the Birds Directive (79/409 EEC),
R. whereas petitions highlight the impact of European legislation on the everyday lives of EU citizens, and recognising the need to take all necessary steps to consolidate the progress achieved in reinforcing citizens’ EU rights,
S. whereas, in its previous activity report and its opinion on the Commission’s annual report on monitoring the application of Community law, the Committee on Petitions requested to be kept informed regularly about the stages reached in infringement procedures the subject of which is also covered by petitions,
T. bearing in mind that Member States have the primary responsibility for correctly transposing and enforcing European legislation, and recognising that many of them have been increasingly involved in the work of the Committee on Petitions in 2009,
1. Welcomes the smooth transition to the new parliamentary term and notes that much of work of the Committee on Petitions, unlike that of other parliamentary committees, was carried over into the new term because examination of a considerable number of petitions had not been completed;
2. Welcomes the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and is confident that Parliament will be closely involved in the development of the new citizens’ initiative so that this instrument can fully achieve its purpose and ensure enhanced transparency and accountability in the EU decision-making process, allowing citizens to suggest improvements or additions to EU law;
3. Welcomes the Green Paper on a European Citizens’ Initiative[1], published by the Commission at the end of 2009, as a first step towards translating the concept into practice;
4. Points out that Parliament has received campaign-type petitions bearing more than one million signatures and insists on the need to ensure that citizens are made fully aware of the distinction between this type of petition and the citizens’ initiative;
5. Recalls its resolution on the citizens’ initiative[2], to which the Committee on Petitions contributed an opinion; urges the Commission establish comprehensible implementing rules which identify clearly the roles and obligations of the institutions involved in the examination and decision-making processes;
6. Welcomes the legally binding force acquired by the Charter of Fundamental Rights with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and underlines the importance of the Charter in making fundamental rights clearer and more visible to all citizens;
7. Considers that both the Union and its Member States have an obligation to ensure that the fundamental rights included in the Charter are fully observed, and trusts that the Charter will help to develop the concept of citizenship of the Union;
8. Trusts that all necessary procedural steps will be taken to ensure that the institutional aspects of EU accession to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms are rapidly clarified, and notes the intention of the Committee on Petitions to contribute to Parliament’s work on this matter;
9. Recalls its previous request that a full review of the redress procedures available to EU citizens should be carried out by the relevant services of Parliament and the Commission and underscores the importance of pursuing the negotiations on the revised Framework Agreement between the European Parliament and the Commission in order to take full account of the increased rights of EU citizens particularly with regard to the European citizens’ initiative;
10. Welcomes the steps taken by the Commission to streamline the existing public assistance services, in order to inform citizens about their EU rights and the means of redress available in case of infringement, by regrouping the various relevant webpages (such as those of SOLVIT and ECC-Net) under the Your EU Rights chapter on the main EU website;
11. Points out that Parliament has repeatedly called on the Commission to develop a system for clearly signposting the various complaints mechanisms available to citizens and believes that further steps are needed, with the ultimate aim of converting the Your EU Rights webpage into a user-friendly, online one-stop shop; looks forward to initial assessments of the implementation of its 2008 Action Plan[3], which are expected in 2010;
12. Recalls its resolution on the activities of the European Ombudsman in 2008 and encourages the newly re-elected Ombudsman to keep working to enhance the openness and accountability of European administration and to ensure that decisions are taken as openly as possible and at the closest possible level to citizens;
13. Reaffirms its determination to support the Ombudsman’s office in its efforts to raise public awareness of its work and to identify and act against instances of maladministration by European institutions; believes that the Ombudsman represents a valuable source of information in the overall endeavour to improve European administration;
14. Notes that petitions received in 2009, almost 40% of which were deemed inadmissible, continued to focus on environment, fundamental rights, justice and the internal market; in terms of geographical focus, most of the petitions concerned the Union as a whole – followed by Germany, Spain, Italy and Romania – demonstrating that citizens do keep a watchful eye on the Union’s work and turn to it for action;
15. Acknowledges the importance of the work of petitioners and of its Committee on Petitions for the protection of the Union’s environment; welcomes the initiative of the committee in ordering a study on the application of the Habitats Directive, in anticipation of the International Year of Biodiversity, and considers it a useful tool for evaluating the EU biodiversity strategy to date and drafting a new strategy;
16. Observes that more and more petitions are highlighting the problems encountered by citizens who exercise their right to free movement; such petitions refer to the excessive length of time taken by host Member States in delivering residence permits to third-country family members, and to difficulties in exercising voting rights and having qualifications recognised;
17. Reiterates its previous calls on the Commission to put forward practical proposals to extend consumer protection against unfair commercial practices to small businesses, as requested in its resolution on misleading directory companies[4], as the Committee continues to receive petitions from victims of business-directory scams;
18. Acknowledges the central role that the Commission plays in the work of the Committee on Petitions, which continues to rely on its expertise when assessing petitions, identifying breaches of European legislation and seeking redress, and recognises the efforts made by the Commission to improve its overall response time to the Committee’s requests for investigations so that cases reported by citizens can be resolved as quickly as possible;
19. Encourages the Commission to intervene at at early stage whenever petitions signal potential damage to specially protected areas, by reminding the national authorities concerned of their commitments to ensure the integrity of sites classified as Natura 2000 under EC Directive 92/43 (Habitats) and, where necessary, by taking preventive measures to ensure compliance with European legislation;
20. Welcomes the newly elected Commissioners – especially the Commissioner responsible for inter-institutional relations and administration – and trusts that they will cooperate with the Committee on Petitions as closely and effectively as possible and will respect it as one of the most important channels of communication between citizens and European institutions;
21. Regrets that the Commission has yet to address the Committee’s repeated calls for official and regular updates on the progress of infringement proceedings relating to open petitions; notes that the monthly publication of Commission decisions on infringement proceedings – in accordance with Articles 258 and 260 of the Treaty – although praiseworthy in terms of transparency does not represent an adequate answer to such requests;
22. Believes that tracking down infringement proceedings by following the Commission’s press releases and matching them to certain petitions would unnecessarily waste the Committee’s time and resources, especially in the case of horizontal infringements, and asks that the Commission inform the Petitions Committee of any relevant infringement proceedings;
23. Reiterates its belief that EU citizens should benefit from the same level of transparency from the Commission whether they make a formal complaint or submit a petition to Parliament and calls on the Commission, once again, to ensure that greater recognition is given to the petitions process and to its role in bringing to light breaches of European legislation, in respect of which infringement proceedings are subsequently launched;
24. Recalls that, in many instances, petitions uncover problems related to the transposition and enforcement of European legislation and recognises that launching infringement proceedings does not necessarily provide citizens with immediate solutions to their problems, given the average length of such proceedings;
25. Welcomes the Commission’s efforts to develop alternative means of promoting better implementation of European legislation, and the positive attitude of certain Member States which take the necessary steps to correct breaches at the early stages of the implementation process;
26. Welcomes the increased involvement of Member States in the activity of the Committee on Petitions and the presence of their representatives at meetings; believes that such cooperation should be strengthened as the national authorities are primarily responsible for enforcing European legislation once it has been transposed into their legal order;
27. Stresses that closer cooperation with the Member States is extremely important for the work of the Petitions Committee; believes that one way of achieving this could be through more intensive cooperation with the national parliaments especially in the context of the Lisbon Treaty;
28. Encourages Member States to be prepared to play a more transparent and proactive part in responding to petitions related to the implementation and enforcement of European law;
29. Considers that, in light of the Lisbon Treaty, the EP Petitions Committee should forge closer working links with similar committees in Member States’ national and regional parliaments in order to promote mutual understanding of petitions on European issues and to ensure the swiftest response to citizens at the most appropriate level;
30. Draws attention to the conclusions in its resolution on the impact of extensive urbanisation in Spain and asks the Spanish authorities to continue to provide assessments of the measures taken, as they have been doing up to now;
31. Notes the increasing number of petitioners who turn to Parliament for redress on issues that fall outside the EU’s area of competence, such as, for example, the calculation of retirement benefits, the enforcement of national courts’ decisions and passivity on the part of national administrations; the Committee on Petitions has done its best to re-direct such complaints to the competent national authorities;
32. Believes that, while extensive use of the Internet should be encouraged as it facilitates communication with citizens, a solution should be found to prevent the Committee being burdened with ‘non-petitions’; considers that a possible solution could lie in revision of the registration process in Parliament and encourages the staff responsible to re-direct the files in question to the Correspondence with Citizens Unit, rather than submitting them to the Committee on Petitions;
33. Stresses the need to keep working on increasing the transparency of petitions management: internally by constantly upgrading the E-petition application – which provides Members with direct access to petition files – and externally by establishing a user-friendly, interactive petitions portal which would enable Parliament to reach out more effectively to citizens, and would also make the Committee’s voting procedures and responsibilities clearer to the public;
34. Encourages the creation of a portal offering a multi-stage interactive template for petitions, which could inform citizens about what can be achieved by submitting petitions to Parliament and about Parliament’s remit, and could include links to alternative means of redress at European and national level; calls for the Union’s responsibilities in various areas to be described in as much detail as possible, to eliminate confusion between EU competences and national competences;
35. Acknowledges that implementing such an initiative would not be cost-free but urges the relevant administrative services to work with the Committee on Petitions to find the most suitable solutions, as such a portal will be of paramount importance not only in improving contact between Parliament and EU citizens but also in reducing the number of inadmissible petitions;
36. Stresses that, until the issue of resources is resolved satisfactorily, an immediate improvement of the existing website is necessary;
37. Welcomes the approval of Parliament’s new Rules of Procedure and the revision of the provisions related to the management of petitions; encourages the work of the Secretariat and political group representatives on a revised guide for Members to the rules and internal procedures of the Committee on Petitions, as such a document will not only assist Members in their work, but will also further increase the transparency of the petitions process;
38. Reiterates its call to the relevant administrative departments to take the measures needed to set up an electronic register through which citizens may lend support to, or withdraw their support from, a petition in accordance with Rule 202;
39. Instructs its President to forward this resolution and the report of the Committee on Petitions to the Council, the Commission, the European Ombudsman, the governments of the Member States, their committees on petitions and their national ombudsmen or similar competent bodies.
- [1] (COM(2009)622 final) of 11.11.2009.
- [2] European Parliament Resolution of 7 May 2009 requesting the Commission to submit a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the implementation of the citizens’ initiative – P6_TA (2009)0389.
- [3] Action Plan on an integrated approach for providing Single Market Assistance Services to citizens and business – Commission Staff Working Paper SEC (2008)1882.
- [4] European Parliament resolution of 16 December 2008 on misleading directory companies, OJ C 45E, 23.2.2010, pp. 17-22.
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
Introduction
One should start this annual report by underlining that 2009 was not an ordinary year, but a rather extraordinary one, dominated by the European elections and entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. If the impact of the latter event on the work of the Committee is likely to be felt in the coming years, the former had significant influence on the everyday activity of the Committee.
Unlike other parliamentary committees, the Committee on Petitions distinguishes itself as one where the calendar of activities is not fixed around the legislative programme of the Commission, but is set by the citizens who exercise their right to petition the European Parliament. 2009 marked the transition from the sixth to the seventh legislature; the new Members of the Committee had to get acquainted with its overall work. Despite a considerable tiding up of the petitions at the end of the legislature, many files were carried over into the new one and, therefore, Members had to rapidly familiarise themselves with them as new petitions kept coming in. One should note that the process was quite smooth and that both the previous and the current Committee did their best to ensure that petitioners would be the least affected by this transition period. Nevertheless, other aspects of the regular work of the Committee - such as the fact-finding visits - had to be postponed to 2010.
Against this background, the 2009 Report intends to offer a comprehensible picture of the activity of the Committee during the year and ultimately a better understanding of what petitioning the European Parliament means, the possible outcome of the process, its success-stories and its limits.
Statistics such as those on the number of petitions received, closed or dealt with by the Committee, of the concerned countries or topics represents an important quantitative tool in assessing the work of the Committee. Additional aspects like the relations with other European institutions, national and regional authorities or institutional changes with direct impact on the activity of the Committee come together to complete the overall picture.
Last but not least the Report examines the progress achieved in implementing previous recommendations aiming to improve the work of the Committee and highlights some of the biggest challenges ahead in light of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon.
Submitting petitions to Parliament - a fundamental right set in Article 227 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (former Article 194)
The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon has reconfirmed the right to petition the European Parliament as a cornerstone element of the European citizenship. Article 227 of the new Treaty (former article 194) provides that citizens or residents of the European Union, natural or legal persons, individually or in association with other citizens or persons have the right to submit petitions to the European Parliament on a matter which comes within the Union's fields of activity.
The very wording of this article offers a comprehensive image of what petitioning the European Parliaments is - a tool empowering citizens to bring before the Parliament their concerns with the impact of different EU policies and legislation on their everyday life. Yearly statistics show that most citizens turn to Parliament looking for assistance in matters related to environment, fundamental rights, justice, internal market, etc. Others try to have their voice heard by making suggestions concerning the development of the European policies. Last, but not least, one needs to take due note of the number of citizens who appeal to the European Parliament in order to challenge decisions taken by the national authorities. Most of these petitions claim that the European legislation would not be properly enforced, while some complain about rulings of the national courts of law or lack of enforcement at administrative level or the European Parliament has little to do about such matters as they fall outside the scope of the competences of the Union.
According to statistics, in 2009 the European Parliament received 1924 petitions, a slight increase compared to the 1849 submitted in 2008. It may also be said that such a small difference indicates a certain stagnation after the constant ascending trend recorded following the 2004 and 2007 enlargement of the Union.
About forty-six percent of the petitions received in 2009 were declared admissible, a percentage almost similar to the one recorded in 2008. Out of the 688 petitions deemed admissible, 655 were sent to the European Commission for information. It is worthwhile underlining that the latter sent about 300 communications referring to petitions registered in 2009. As far as inadmissible petitions are concerned the situation is very similar to the previous year (812 against 818). As the percentage of inadmissible petitions remains quite high (slightly over half of the petitions received), it is obvious that efforts should be stepped up to enforce previous and current recommendations aiming to better inform the citizens about EU competences.
Petition Adoption Decision |
No. of petitions |
% |
No. of petitions |
% |
|
|
2009 |
2008 |
|||
Admissible |
688 |
45.9 |
708 |
46.4 |
|
Inadmissible |
812 |
54.1 |
818 |
53.6 |
|
Admissible and Close |
420 |
N/A |
354 |
N/A |
|
Petition sent to EC for opinion |
655 |
N/A |
729 |
N/A |
|
Petition sent for opinion to other bodies |
33 |
N/A |
53 |
N/A |
|
Petition sent for information to other bodies |
207 |
N/A |
207 |
N/A |
|
Not Recorded |
4 |
N/A |
6 |
N/A |
|
One should also note that about two thirds of the 2009 petitions, i.e. 1232 were closed at early stages of the procedure be it because they were deemed inadmissible or because, although admissible, they were closed immediately after providing the petitioners with information on the matters raised or after being re-directed to other EP Committees in whose remit they fell. Yet again 2009 and 2008 statistics are comparable as it may be noted from the data below.
2009 |
|||
Adoption Decision |
Number of petitions |
Percentage |
|
Admissible |
1,062 |
56.3 |
|
Inadmissible |
818 |
43.4 |
|
Not recorded |
6 |
0.3 |
|
2008 |
|||
Adoption Decision |
Number of petitions |
Percentage |
|
Admissible |
1,108 |
57.6 |
|
Inadmissible |
812 |
42.2 |
|
Not recorded |
4 |
0.2 |
|
Against this background, it should be reminded that Members have repeatedly called the attention on the so-called non-petitions, arguing that processing them is unnecessarily time consuming. Although no definition of a non-petition is available, a clear distinction should be made between such submissions and the petitions which are deemed inadmissible because they fall outside the scope of competences of the EU. Usually a non-petition can be described as a short personal statement or comment about EU policies or the way they should develop.
For that matter, on the European Parliaments webpage dedicated to Petitions it is clearly indicated that requests for information are not dealt with by the Committee on Petitions, neither are general comments on EU policy. Furthermore, citizens are notified that petitions which contain offensive language or lack pertinence in their substance will not be investigated by the Committee, nor will they be given a reply. One can, therefore, only conclude that the Committee needs to put further emphasis on better explaining to citizens what petitioning the European Parliament means, and on improving the registration process within the European Parliament.
Compared to 2008, few changes were registered in the top of the concerned countries: thus, the European Union as a whole continues to rank first, followed by Germany, Spain, Italy and Romania (the last two switched places as compared to 2008). Surprisingly, Malta finds itself at the bottom of the table, behind Slovenia and Latvia, as only nine petitions concerned this country in contrast with the twenty one received last year.
2009 |
|||
Concerned country |
Number of petitions |
% |
|
European Union |
403 |
18.6 |
|
Deutschland |
298 |
13.8 |
|
España |
279 |
12.9 |
|
Italia |
176 |
8.1 |
|
Romania |
143 |
6.6 |
|
Poland |
100 |
4.6 |
|
Others |
764 |
35.3 |
|
2008 |
|||
Concerned country |
Number of petitions |
% |
|
European Union |
330 |
15.9 |
|
Deutschland |
265 |
12.8 |
|
España |
226 |
10.9 |
|
Romania |
207 |
10.0 |
|
Italia |
184 |
8.9 |
|
Poland |
105 |
5.1 |
|
United Kingdom |
99 |
4.8 |
|
Greece |
97 |
4.7 |
|
France |
86 |
4.1 |
|
As already mentioned, environment remains the main field of concern for petitioners, followed by fundamental rights, justice and internal market, while property restitution related petitions decreased in number in year 2008.
2009 |
|||
Themes |
Number of petitions |
Percentage |
|
Environment |
228 |
9.7 |
|
Fundamental Rights |
164 |
7.0 |
|
Justice |
159 |
6.8 |
|
Internal Market |
142 |
6.0 |
|
Property & Restitution |
133 |
5.6 |
|
Employment |
105 |
4.5 |
|
Health |
104 |
4.4 |
|
Transport |
101 |
4.3 |
|
Social Affairs |
93 |
4.0 |
|
Education & Culture |
82 |
3.5 |
|
Others |
1,043 |
44.3 |
|
2008 |
|||
Themes |
Number of petitions |
Percentage |
|
Environment |
311 |
12.8 |
|
Fundamental Rights |
208 |
8.6 |
|
Property & Restitution |
149 |
6.1 |
|
Justice |
147 |
6.1 |
|
Internal Market |
130 |
5.4 |
|
Social Affairs |
118 |
4.9 |
|
Transport |
117 |
4.8 |
|
Health |
116 |
4.8 |
|
Education & Culture |
105 |
4.3 |
|
Employment |
89 |
3.7 |
|
Others |
938 |
38.6 |
|
That environment represents a constant concern of European citizens does not constitute any surprise. European legislation in this area is built in the spirit of the subsidiarity principle and the line between national and EU competences is not always clear to citizens who turn to the Parliament for assistance whenever they feel that regional or national authorities do not listen. In this context, the Committee welcomed the Commission's Communication on implementing the European environmental law (COM (2008)0773) as a first step towards ensuring better enforcement checks in this area[1].
As far as fundamental rights are concerned, distinction should be made between the petitions which claimed miscarriage of justice, lack of enforcement of national court rulings or violations of the right to justice and to a fair trial at national level, on the one hand and petitions claiming the protection of the rights guaranteed by the European legislation and jurisprudence on internal market, on the other hand.
Thus, in 2009 the Committee endorsed Diana Wallis' Working Document on the EC Communication on "An area of freedom, security and justice serving the citizens" - the so-called "Stockholm Program". It highlights a number of problematic aspects revealed by petitioners, among which the difficulties encountered by third country family members in obtaining residence documents in their country of residence (especially in the United Kingdom), different interpretations of EC Directive 2004/38 as far as the criteria for qualifying for permanent residence are concerned, problems encountered by petitioners in exercising their voting rights or having their qualifications recognised. On several occasions, the Committee recommended petitioners to use SOLVIT, an informal mechanism which can provide efficient solutions within strict deadlines. One should stress that restrictions related to the data protection prevent the Committee from re-directing petitions to SOLVIT itself and therefore can only advise the petitioner on this matter. It is therefore up to the petitioner whether to use it or not and whether to communicate to the Committee the outcome of his or her eventual demarches to SOLVIT.
Slight changes can also be observed in the ranking of the petitions by language: where in 2009 as in 2008 German and English remain the two main languages used by the petitioners, there was a switch of places between Italian and Spanish. Slovenian, Maltese and Estonian rank last.
2009 |
|||
Language |
Number of petitions |
Percentage |
|
German |
548 |
28.5 |
|
English |
343 |
17.8 |
|
Spanish |
237 |
12.3 |
|
Italian |
203 |
10.6 |
|
Polish |
116 |
6.0 |
|
Romanian |
110 |
5.7 |
|
French |
107 |
5.6 |
|
Others |
260 |
13.5 |
|
2008 |
|||
Language |
Number of petitions |
Percentage |
|
German |
437 |
23.2 |
|
English |
395 |
20.9 |
|
Italian |
222 |
11.8 |
|
Spanish |
193 |
10.2 |
|
Romanian |
155 |
8.2 |
|
French |
131 |
6.9 |
|
Polish |
101 |
5.4 |
|
Greek |
87 |
4.6 |
|
Others |
165 |
8.7 |
|
By nationality, Germans remain the most active petitioners, followed by Spanish and Italians (also in this statistics, Spanish and Italians switched places as compared to 2008). Romanian, Polish and British petitioners come on the next places. On the last places one can find the Czech, Estonian and Luxemburgish citizens who submitted together eleven petitions in 2009.
2009 |
|||
Prime petitioner nationality |
Number of petitions |
Percentage |
|
Deutschland |
496 |
25.8 |
|
España |
237 |
12.3 |
|
Italia |
219 |
11.4 |
|
Romania |
150 |
7.8 |
|
Poland |
131 |
6.8 |
|
United Kingdom |
121 |
6.3 |
|
France |
79 |
4.1 |
|
Greece |
78 |
4.1 |
|
Others |
414 |
21.5 |
|
2008 |
|||
Prime petitioner nationality |
Number of petitions |
Percentage |
|
Deutschland |
412 |
21.8 |
|
Italia |
245 |
12.9 |
|
España |
197 |
10.4 |
|
Romania |
189 |
10.0 |
|
United Kingdom |
144 |
7.6 |
|
Poland |
112 |
5.9 |
|
Greece |
102 |
5.4 |
|
France |
91 |
4.8 |
|
Others |
400 |
21.1 |
|
As regards the format of petitions, one may speak of a confirmation: petitioners are more inclined to submit their petitions by using the internet form rather than the traditional letter-type format (62.6% of the petitions received in 2009 were sent via e-mail against 59.2 % in 2008).
2009 |
|||
Petition Format |
Number of petitions |
% |
|
|
1,204 |
62.6 |
|
Letter |
720 |
37.4 |
|
2008 |
|||
Petition Format |
Number of petitions |
% |
|
|
1,117 |
59.2 |
|
Letter |
769 |
40.8 |
|
While they do represent a useful instrument allowing the Committee to assess its yearly activity, statistics should nevertheless be read carefully given that several elements are likely to influence the overall results - i.e. petitions can concern one or several fields, one or several countries; they can be submitted by individuals or associations and in some cases they can take the form of campaigns with numerous accompanying signatures; in addition, petitioners can choose to submit documents in their mother tongue or any other official language of the Union.
Nonetheless, statistics prove that the conclusions of previous annual reports remain valid. Thus, as already mentioned, most of the petitions declared inadmissible show that confusion persists in respect to the European and national competences, the EU institutions and those of the Council of Europe, in particular the Court of Human Rights. Therefore, previous calls for stepping up the efforts aiming to better inform citizens of what the petitions process is all about and what can be achieved when submitting a petition to Parliament are as current as ever.
One path to be explored could be the improvement of the webpage dedicated to Petitions on the portal of the European Parliament so that citizens submitting petitions online receive all the necessary information about the competences of the Parliament, the assessment of petitions, the work of the Committee and the possibilities of obtaining faster redress by using other networks available to them at EU or national level (SOLVIT, European Consumer Network, European Ombudsman, national Ombudsmen or the national parliamentary committees on petitions).
Previous Reports called for clearly signposting the various complaints mechanisms available to citizens at EU level by establishing a one-stop shop which could offer citizens guidance when they look for solutions to alleged breaches of their rights. It does remain a very important objective to reach. The initiative of the European Commission to regroup the formal and informal mechanisms of complaint under the Your Rights page of the europa.eu website represents a significant step forward. Yet, clearer distinction should be made between the formal mechanisms (Complaints to EC, petitions to Parliament, complaints to the European Ombudsman) and the informal ones (Solvit, ECC-net, etc.). A more interactive website could be developed to allow citizens to get the information they need before making the decision to direct themselves to one institution or another, to use one mechanism or another.
Relations with the European Commission
The European Commission remains the natural partner of the Committee when dealing with petitions as Members continue to rely on the expertise of its services for investigating matters raised in petitions. As the working relationship between the two institutions has constantly improved, the Committee continue to push the Commission to improve its response-timings to the requests of investigations. One particular aspect still to be addressed by the two parties concerns the way in which the Commission informs the Committee about the progress of the infringement proceedings directly linked to petitions.
While the Commission argues that its decisions on infringements are published monthly, one should note that they are published from the reasoned opinion stage onwards, except for the cases of failure to comply with Court judgments, when publication is authorized from the stage of the letter of formal notice, unless the Commission decides otherwise. Given the number of cases and the fact that the rhythm of the progression of a given file is difficult to predict and that no search tool which would allow finding a specific infringement is provided, monthly monitoring of this data base would mean an unnecessary waste of human and time resources. Therefore, additional steps should be taken so that the Commission automatically signals to the Committee every progress in the infringements relevant for petitions.
Relations with the European Ombudsman - Hearings for the candidates to this position
One of the main priorities of the Committee in 2009 was the organisation of the hearings for the candidates to the position of the European Ombudsman. Members, many new to the Committee and even to the Parliament, managed to successfully accomplish their responsibilities.
It is worthwhile mentioning that the first Report adopted by the new Committee concerned the activity of the European Ombudsman[2] in 2008. It emphasised the role of the Ombudsman in protecting the interests of EU citizens in the face of the institutions and bodies of the European Union had evolved in the 14 years since the office was created, especially because of the independence of the institution itself and of the democratic scrutiny exercised by the European Parliament over the transparency of his activities.
Members stressed their conviction that the role of the Ombudsman consisted in enhancing openness and accountability in the decision-making processes and administration of the European Union, therefore bringing an essential contribution towards a Union in which decisions were taken "as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen"[3]. They called on the Ombudsman to pursue his efforts in raising awareness of his work and to promote his activities effectively.
Conclusions
If 2009 was a year of transition, 2010 announces to be a challenging year for the Committee. The Commission should present its draft regulation to the European Parliament and to the Council concerning the Citizens' Initiative and the Committee will provide an Opinion to the Report to be drafted by the Constitutional Affairs Committee. Moreover, the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon meant that the Charter of Fundamental Rights became legally binding. At this stage, it is difficult to predict how it will impact on the activity of the Committee, but fundamental rights do constitute one of the themes constantly invoked by petitioners. More clarifications on the application of the Charter are likely to be necessary in the near future.
ANNEXES:
Concerned Country |
2009 |
2008 |
|||||
Number of petitions
|
Admissible |
Inadmissible |
Number of petitions
|
Admissible |
Inadmissible |
||
European Union |
403 |
341 |
61 |
330 |
286 |
43 |
|
EU Members |
1,630 |
|
|
1,647 |
|
|
|
Deutschland |
298 |
144 |
152 |
265 |
127 |
137 |
|
España |
279 |
196 |
83 |
226 |
151 |
74 |
|
Italia |
176 |
110 |
66 |
184 |
97 |
86 |
|
Romania |
143 |
46 |
97 |
207 |
70 |
136 |
|
Poland |
100 |
27 |
72 |
105 |
26 |
79 |
|
United Kingdom |
83 |
60 |
23 |
99 |
64 |
35 |
|
Greece |
74 |
37 |
37 |
97 |
40 |
57 |
|
France |
73 |
43 |
30 |
86 |
56 |
29 |
|
Bulgaria |
56 |
24 |
32 |
65 |
37 |
28 |
|
Ireland |
37 |
18 |
19 |
58 |
37 |
21 |
|
Portugal |
37 |
21 |
16 |
24 |
10 |
14 |
|
Netherlands |
35 |
24 |
11 |
24 |
19 |
4 |
|
Österreich |
34 |
24 |
9 |
20 |
13 |
7 |
|
Belgique/België |
30 |
21 |
9 |
32 |
21 |
10 |
|
Hungary |
25 |
19 |
6 |
18 |
9 |
9 |
|
Finland |
20 |
7 |
13 |
36 |
9 |
27 |
|
Slovakia |
19 |
5 |
14 |
9 |
3 |
6 |
|
Sweden |
17 |
7 |
10 |
12 |
6 |
6 |
|
Denmark |
14 |
7 |
7 |
6 |
1 |
5 |
|
Lithuania |
14 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
2 |
5 |
|
Cyprus |
13 |
8 |
5 |
9 |
3 |
6 |
|
Czech Republic |
13 |
8 |
5 |
15 |
9 |
6 |
|
Slovenia |
12 |
2 |
10 |
7 |
2 |
5 |
|
Latvia |
11 |
4 |
7 |
7 |
3 |
4 |
|
Malta |
9 |
6 |
3 |
21 |
16 |
5 |
|
Estonia |
4 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
|
Luxembourg |
4 |
3 |
1 |
6 |
4 |
2 |
|
Petition Language |
Number of petitions |
||
2009 |
2008 |
||
German |
548 |
437 |
|
English |
343 |
395 |
|
Spanish |
237 |
193 |
|
Italian |
203 |
222 |
|
Polish |
116 |
101 |
|
Romanian |
110 |
155 |
|
French |
107 |
131 |
|
Greek |
61 |
87 |
|
Dutch |
46 |
33 |
|
Bulgarian |
37 |
31 |
|
Portuguese |
27 |
26 |
|
Finnish |
19 |
35 |
|
Hungarian |
16 |
15 |
|
Slovak |
11 |
5 |
|
Danish |
9 |
4 |
|
Swedish |
8 |
6 |
|
Latvian |
7 |
2 |
|
Lithuanian |
7 |
2 |
|
Czech |
4 |
3 |
|
Slovenian |
4 |
2 |
|
Maltese |
2 |
0 |
|
Estonian |
1 |
1 |
|
mixed-language text |
1 |
0 |
|
Undefined |
0 |
0 |
|
Total |
1,924 |
1,886 |
|
Prime petitioner nationality |
Number of petitions
|
||
2009 |
2008 |
||
EU Members |
1,879 |
1,845 |
|
Deutschland |
496 |
412 |
|
España |
237 |
197 |
|
Italia |
219 |
245 |
|
Romania |
150 |
189 |
|
Poland |
131 |
112 |
|
United Kingdom |
121 |
144 |
|
France |
79 |
91 |
|
Greece |
78 |
102 |
|
Bulgaria |
54 |
60 |
|
Netherlands |
44 |
33 |
|
Österreich |
38 |
21 |
|
Portugal |
32 |
25 |
|
Ireland |
31 |
59 |
|
Belgique/België |
27 |
31 |
|
Finland |
26 |
40 |
|
Hungary |
17 |
20 |
|
Slovakia |
14 |
8 |
|
Denmark |
13 |
5 |
|
Sweden |
13 |
10 |
|
Latvia |
11 |
5 |
|
Malta |
11 |
16 |
|
Slovenia |
10 |
5 |
|
Cyprus |
8 |
1 |
|
Lithuania |
8 |
5 |
|
Czech Republic |
6 |
6 |
|
Estonia |
3 |
1 |
|
Luxembourg |
2 |
2 |
|
- [1] Opinion of the Committee on Petitions on monitoring the application of Community law (2007) (2008/2337(INI) - Rapporteur Diana Wallis (31.03.2009)
- [2] Report on the annual report on the European Ombudman's activities in 2008 (2009/2088(INI)) by Chrysoula Paliadeli (A7/0020/2009).
- [3] Title I, Article 1, paragraph 2, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the Union (C115/ 9.05.2008, p .0016).
RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE
Date adopted |
1.6.2010 |
|
|
|
||
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
20 0 2 |
||||
Members present for the final vote |
Margrete Auken, Elena Băsescu, Victor Boştinaru, Simon Busuttil, Michael Cashman, Bairbre de Brún, Pascale Gruny, Carlos José Iturgaiz Angulo, Peter Jahr, Lena Kolarska-Bobińska, Erminia Mazzoni, Willy Meyer, Mariya Nedelcheva, Nikolaos Salavrakos, Angelika Werthmann, Tatjana Ždanoka |
|||||
Substitute(s) present for the final vote |
Pablo Arias Echeverría, Kinga Göncz, Marian Harkin, Axel Voss |
|||||
Substitute(s) under Rule 187(2) present for the final vote |
Enrique Guerrero Salom, Andres Perello Rodriguez |
|||||