Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 13 September 2011 - Strasbourg

16. Activities of the Committee on Petitions 2010 (debate)

  President. – The next item is the report by Willy Meyer, on behalf of the Committee on Petitions, on the activities of the Committee on Petitions in 2010 (2010/2295(INI)) (A7-0232/2011).

  Willy Meyer, rapporteur. – (ES) Mr President, Council representative, Commissioner, I should first of all like to express my gratitude to all the members of the committee, who have allowed us to present this report with an overwhelming consensus; particularly those members who have presented amendments and suggestions in writing to Mr Jahr, Mr Boştinaru, Mr Salavrakos, Ms Werthmann and Mr Boulland, as their contributions have doubtless helped to enhance the presentation of this memorandum to the House.

Obviously, I also have to thank the committee secretariat, whose constant efforts and dedication help us to get through vast amounts of work.

In this report, which we are discussing today and which will be put to the vote tomorrow, we offer a view of the work carried out in 2010 following a calendar of activities which was not fixed around the legislative programme of the European Commission, but set by the citizens who exercise their right to petition the European Parliament.

The report sets out to achieve three goals: firstly, to offer a clear, easily understandable overview of the activities carried out by the Committee on Petitions in 2010; secondly, to highlight the role of the Committee on Petitions and European citizens’ right to petition, a right which enables them to complain about infringements of EU law and which should be a cornerstone of European citizenship; and, lastly, special reference is made to changes in legislation, including the approval of the citizens’ initiative and the legally binding character of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The descriptive part of the report points to a 14% fall in the number of petitions as compared with 2009: a total of 1 655 were presented, while the figure for 2009 was 1 924.

The chief subjects of the petitions, in order of importance, were clearly the environment, fundamental rights, the internal market and justice. Given that most petitions are related to the environment, the necessary procedures will need to be adopted to prevent further irreparable damage to the European Union’s biodiversity.

The languages most commonly used in the petitions presented were German, English, Spanish and Italian. The largest nationality group of the petitioners was German, followed by Spanish, Italian and Romanian. As for the country or countries to which the petitions refer, a significant shift has occurred: petitions relating to Spain are now more numerous than those referring to the European Union as a whole; they are followed by petitions relating to Germany and Italy. The dominant channel for reception is fortunately the Internet – far more commonly used than paper – and the report also highlights the three fact-finding missions conducted by the committee in 2010: the fact-finding mission to the Huelva estuary (Spain) to examine toxic waste management (phosphogypsum and radioactive ash discharges), the mission to Campania (Italy) on urban waste management, and the mission to Voralberg (Austria) relating to the transposition into domestic legislation of the Environmental Impact Directive in connection with a ski-related project.

Regarding our committee’s relation with other parliamentary committees, other institutions such as the European Commission, the Council or the Ombudsman, and with the Member States, the report calls for a reduction in the time taken by the European Commission to respond to our requests for investigation, a point that was already included in the previous report presented by Mr Iturgaiz on the annual report for 2009.

The European Commission must provide regular reports on the current stage of infringement procedures related to petitions. I should like to stress that effective communication with this institution is essential for our committee to be able to carry out its work.

As regards the Member States, the report regrets the negligence that some of them have displayed in the enforcement of and compliance with European environmental legislation. At the same time, we celebrate the excellent rapport which exists between the European Ombudsman, Mr Diamandouros, and our committee. We also point out that the processing of petitions should be made more transparent.

To conclude, I would like to mention that one of the most significant new developments for our committee at the present time is the European Citizens’ Initiative. Our experience tells us that we should stand very close to this new instrument. Similarly, we also believe that it is necessary to launch a debate on the limited applicability of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, given the large number of petitions relating to infringements by the Commission.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Peter Jahr, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, many thanks to the rapporteur for his excellent report. With the help of the Committee on Petitions, the citizens of the European Union can draw attention to possible breaches of European Union law or their own national legislation. This enables the Members of this House to find out at first hand what effect the European Union is having on people’s everyday lives. The right of petition is one of the most important and most clearly defined rights of people in Europe. The fact that people are continuing to submit a large number of petitions shows that they know how to use this right.

In my speech on the 2009 annual report, I called for us to improve our internal processes. We have succeeded in doing this, in particular with regard to the petitions which do not meet the necessary conditions. I would like to give my sincere thanks to everyone involved, including the Members of this House and the petition administrators. We will continue working to ensure that everyone receives an appropriate response as quickly as possible.

One central theme of many petitions is environmental law. I think that there are two areas for improvement in this respect. Firstly, we need better communication between the Commission and the Member States. The information is often incomplete and not up-to-date. This problem is generally caused by a cautious information policy in the Member States. The Commission is genuinely making an effort in this respect.

Secondly, in particular with regard to complaints concerning long-lasting environmental projects, we need instruments which will allow us to intervene during the planning phase and not to wait until the end of the project or, even worse, until the building stage is completed. If we then establish that the project was in breach of current legislation, but the building is already in place, it is very, very difficult to rectify the situation in these individual cases.

Finally, I would like to remind everyone about the citizens’ initiative which was adopted this year. This instrument will allow the citizens of Europe to play an active part in political events in future. For me, it is essential that the Committee on Petitions is given an appropriate role because it is the only genuine citizens’ committee.

  Victor Boştinaru, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (RO) Mr President, I must begin by emphasising once again the importance of, and the special role played by, the Committee on Petitions in guaranteeing and defending the rights of European citizens when they are infringed by a Member State or European authority. Indeed, as MEPs elected by the citizens of our Union, it is not only our right but also our duty to defend them.

I would like to highlight two important points from the debate on the Meyer report. First of all, I regret that, in spite of a large number of petitions concerning serious violations of the human rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the European Commission either refuses or explains that it cannot take any action, allegedly due to the lack of instruments. I will now quote from the Venice Commission’s report on the Hungarian Constitution: once ratified, the Charter of Fundamental Rights ‘is a legal, binding piece of legislation’, which is still not obvious to the European Commission.

Secondly, with regard to European environmental legislation, the European Commission should exercise tighter control and consequently take action in order to guarantee compliance with and the enforcement of all European acts and laws. This step must be carried out at every stage in a project’s progression and not only after it has been implemented. On this point, I would like to draw the European Commission’s attention to the huge project under way in Roşia Montană in Romania.

I take this opportunity to thank Mr Meyer once again for his excellent cooperation, as well as all the members of the Committee on Petitions.

  Margrete Auken, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DA) Mr President, my thanks to Commissioner Šefčovič and Mr Meyer for their work. I do not want to repeat what my fellow Members have said. I agree with most of it, although I would just like to say to the Commissioner that it is, in fact, a problem that he does not believe that human rights are important in this context. In committee, we heard from the Commission that, for example, the Copenhagen Criteria can only be mobilised when a country is in the process of accession. Clearly, it is not good for our credibility if all of these fundamental values can be disregarded. However, we will be carrying out a consultation with regard to this in the near future, so let us leave it at that.

I would like to use my speaking time here first and foremost to describe what are, in fact, the rather poor conditions that I think Parliament sets for our committee. Our committee is the one that is close to citizens. We are very proud of this when we talk about citizens’ rights to the outside world, but when it comes down to it, we actually work under very poor conditions.

The website is designed for advanced users. People cannot find our committee. I have now heard that it is possible to lodge a complaint electronically, and I am pleased about that. I was not aware that this was possible up to now, but it is good to hear. It is something new. Thank you for that.

We also need better resources so that, in the meantime, we can carry out our own investigations, including in relation to the legal investigations. The arrangement with the Commission usually works well, but it would be nice if we could deal better with the many complaints that we receive. We must not forget that citizens have rights laid down in the Treaty to come to us with their complaints.

Lastly, there are also two areas where I do not think that we are being treated well enough. The committee’s neutralisation, in other words, the fact that it is a second class committee, means that the members are very often unable to be present and carry out the work of the committee. This is a very bad signal to send to citizens, as it will give them the impression that they are not being respected.

Last of all, I would like to say that the name of the Committee is totally incomprehensible, at least in Danish, Finnish and Swedish: ‘Udvalget for Andragender’ (the Committee on Petitions). It is an obsolete bureaucratic word that not a single soul can fathom at all. As names go, it ought to be a simple matter to give the committee a name that citizens can recognise, such as the ‘Committee on Citizen Complaints’.

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

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

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

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

  Matteo Salvini, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am grateful for the report that we shall be voting on tomorrow, but I am struck by how far removed debate within the European institutions is from the daily life of nearly 500 million European citizens. Yes, there are 500 million European citizens and last year there were 1 600 petitions, of which more than 1 000 were filed. This demonstrates just how well-known, how useful and how effective these petitions are, without even bothering to count the hundreds of petitions from recent years that still await attention. I saw that the Committee on Petitions visited Naples last year, but to resolve the situation there, they need a miracle rather than a committee.

On the plus side, we are here talking about the right of initiative of a million European citizens who are entitled to start a petition. Great, but it is a shame that even if 400 million Europeans all signed on what Parliament has already debated and voted on – such as the incredible matter of Parliament’s dual seat in Brussels and Strasbourg – there is no petition and no popular will that could put a stop to all this. Indeed, meeting here in Strasbourg once a month results in EUR 400 million of excess spending and demonstrates just how detached from reality the European institutions are at a time of economic crisis, cuts and savings in Italy, Spain and Greece. I therefore wish the committee all the best, while recognising the fact that this is probably not the way that the institutions will manage to provide a response to citizens.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI). – (DE) Mr President, this annual report is primarily intended to describe the progress that has been made. This year’s report is essentially the same as last year’s and also as the report from 2008. Of course, this has nothing to do with Mr Meyer. I have a very high opinion of him and I would like to thank him for this report. It is simply that the facts do not allow any other picture to be presented. The subjects are the same and the Member States involved are the same. For years, a large proportion of the petitions submitted to the European Parliament have concerned shortcomings in the implementation of environmental directives. Perhaps it is time to review the type of legislation in this area and to investigate a variety of options, in order to finally begin reducing the number of breaches of EU law. Do we need additional guidelines from the Commission on implementing the legislation or do we need closer monitoring?

In our work in the committee, we rely on active cooperation with the Commission and the Council in the form of statements, but the Council is often conspicuous by its absence from these committee meetings. We definitely need to revise the way we work. If the debates in the committee are not followed by action, then our work will be delayed or even undermined. It may be that the reduction in the number of newly submitted petitions is the right thing to happen. However, this reduction could also mean that the citizens no longer regard the right of petition at a European Union level as a useful option.

I support the calls made in this report without reservations.

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mr Šefčovič, and also Mr Meyer for the work he has carried out. As in each year, this report summarises the work performed over the previous year and must therefore be seen as acknowledgement and acceptance of it. I will bring together all the criticisms – which I will take as recommendations – put forward by my fellow Members, beginning with Ms Werthmann’s, which relates to a certain repetitiveness in the issues dealt with and a lack of efficiency in the work of the Committee on Petitions. On the issue of the environment, which is a recurring theme in our committee as the subject of many complaints made by citizens, we are currently debating a report that we should like to bring to Parliament asking for the Commission to intervene, bearing in mind the complaints submitted by the citizens of the European Union.

However, there have also been some significant events this year. The most important of those listed by my fellow Members was the adoption of the regulation on the citizens’ initiative. This gives legislative power to citizens and is therefore not – as Mr Salvini said – designed to submit petitions on behalf of a greater number of citizens; it hands over legislative power and this is an important fact.

With regard to the citizens’ initiative, the Committee on Petitions claimed a role in the regulatory procedure set up to provide for public hearings, as agreed with Mr Šefčovič and others. I hope that there is some action taken on this request put forward by the committee.

I think it is also essential to pay a different level of attention to the problems related to the implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This, too, is mentioned in the report and will be the subject of a seminar to be held on 6 October by the Committee on Petitions and the Commission, together with academics and researchers, to provide some answers which can form guidelines for us.

Referring one last time to the speech by Mr Salvini, I do not think that the Committee on Petitions can solve citizens’ problems, but it can serve to promote the democracy required to stimulate and build a political Europe.

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

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

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

  Philippe Boulland (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, I should like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Meyer, and my colleagues, who have been critical in their comments at times, but this 2010 own-initiative report is ultimately a tremendous opportunity to talk about the Committee on Petitions, because people still do not know enough about it.

Nevertheless, this committee has a direct, and sometimes physical, link with the citizens, who can themselves contribute to our debates. Its legitimacy within Parliament is undisputed, and it has long-established expertise thanks to its direct link with the public. Indeed, any petitioner can come to Parliament and defend his or her rights before the Committee on Petitions. We can also applaud the calmness of its debates, despite the often distressing cases that they deal with.

This committee represents what Europe should be: willing to listen to its citizens’ problems and united in finding solutions to protect them. Unfortunately, its scope for taking action and exerting pressure remains limited, particularly when it comes to the environmental risk of projects that are sometimes near completion. I also see this when a specific case, such as family rights or the rights of the child in a divorce, is being defended. We are, incidentally, going to carry out an exercise on this subject in November.

Another regret I have is that the national authorities are still slow in providing us with all the information that we need.

I wish to thank the European Commission for the research and verification work it is doing, even though it could occasionally go further in searching for the truth. I must also pay tribute to the constructive work that we are doing with the European Ombudsman.

Lastly, I appeal to the citizens: carry on submitting your petitions to us, your directly elected representatives. Our role will always be to protect your interests strictly in accordance with European law.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). – (SK) Mr President, Commissioner Šefčovič, I am delighted that you are present at this debate, as you are well known for your favourable attitude to civic initiatives. Although many people have given up on public involvement, there are still many sending in petitions to Parliament.

Many petitions involve appeals against decisions taken by national authorities. In any case, most petitions are about the incorrect application of European legislation, whether as a result of incorrect transposition, deficiencies in application or infringements. In order not to waste the precious interest and activity of the European citizens who turn to us, we must work in particular on awareness of powers. In the petitions assessed as unacceptable, many involved cases where the petitioners confused national powers with European powers, and the institutions of the EU with the Council of Europe, and especially with the Court of Human Rights.

Although our rejection of such petitions is lawful, we should ensure that the public is sufficiently well informed as to the division of powers, as to the meaning of the right to petition, and as to what can be achieved by submitting a petition to Parliament.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I, too, would like to congratulate Mr Meyer for all his efforts on this report, which features the main recommendations regarding the Committee on Petitions’ future operation.

I must point out the basic problem impairing its effectiveness, which is the lack of information provided to the general public. In 2010, there was a drop in the number of petitions submitted to Parliament, with many of them being declared inadmissible. The transparency required by Parliament is largely guaranteed by the Committee on Petitions. This is why measures must be adopted, aimed at promoting citizens’ initiatives. This would help provide the support required for future legislative initiatives.

I must stress the role played by the Commission in implementing the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the EU. This supplement to Community acquis has a direct impact on citizens. Monitoring its enforcement ensures an improvement in living conditions across Europe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Willy Meyer, rapporteur. – (ES) Mr President, I believe the debate has brought up the concerns shared by the members of the Committee on Petitions.

Firstly, we should like to repeat for the second time that we need to be more stringent about speeding up the time taken to process petitions which may involve damage to the European Union’s biodiversity. Quite often, so much time is spent between the opening of the proceedings, transfer to the Commission, the Commission issuing a request for information to the Member State, the Member State responding, and so on, that in the case of public – or private – works that are potentially hazardous to biodiversity, by the time a letter of notice is sent or a court takes action, the damage is already done and irreparable.

For the second time, we are making this urgent call for greater stringency on the Member States and for much greater celerity in the actions of Parliament, the European Commission and the Member States.

Secondly, this committee believes it is in the best position to take on the task of monitoring the citizens’ initiative. This is indeed an important instrument, as it effectively allows the members of the European public to submit legislation petitions to this House.

We also wish to voice a concern that has emerged in relation to the subject of property, and which has not been specified in the report because we have chosen not to give an exhaustive account of all activities, except for the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights: we believe that the lack of legal instruments must be resolved, and to achieve this we believe we need to hold a debate, which is already open before us, to ensure that the necessary legal instruments are provided and applied in all the Member States across the European Union.

I shall finish as I began, by thanking all my colleagues for their help and acknowledging once again all the secretariat’s hard work. I therefore hope that we will be able to conclude this report for 2010 in tomorrow’s vote, and that we will not need to repeat once again in 2011 the need to expedite the processing of certain petitions involving a potential risk to biodiversity in the European Union.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 11.30.

IN THE CHAIR: DIANA WALLIS
Vice-President

Written statements (Rule 149)

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