Posėdžio stenograma

Trečiadienis, 2018 m. gruodžio 12 d. - Strasbūras

26. Peticijų komiteto svarstymai 2017 m. (diskusijos)

  Presidente. – L'ordine del giorno reca la relazione di Cecilia Wikström, a nome della commissione per le petizioni, sulle deliberazioni della commissione per le petizioni nel 2017 (2018/2104(INI)) (A8-0404/2018).

  Pál Csáky, deputising for the rapporteur. – Mr President, the petitions we receive in the Committee on Petitions (PETI) help us to better assess the impact that EU legislation has on people’s daily lives and to find loopholes and problems with the implementation of EU legislation. By acting as a bridge between citizens and institutions, the Committee on Petitions can contribute to both the creation of better legislation and helping people in their everyday lives.

The number of petitions received per year is rather constant, even if it is important to note that the petitions received during 2017 was the lowest number during this mandate.

However, the new system put in place via the PETI portal, which allows citizens to support existing petitions has increased greatly this past year – up from 6 000 users who supported a petition in 2016 to 15 000 users who supported a petition in 2017. This is a very positive trend which means that citizens can show they have support for an issue without having to file a petition by themselves.

It was therefore an important milestone when the petitions network was launched in March 2017. It serves as a useful tool for better follow-up on petitions in parliamentary and legislative work, increases the visibility for the petitions received within the House, and intensifies cooperation with colleagues in the other committees.

The main area of concern of the petitions received during 2017 were environmental matters such as such as water and waste management, and preservation. This demonstrates the need for proper environmental legislation and implementation. Other areas of concern were fundamental rights, especially voting rights and children’s rights, the free movement of persons, and social affairs such as working conditions. The Committee on Petitions had discussions on petitions covering these subjects in various committee meetings during 2017.

The work in the Committee on Petitions is very rewarding, due to the direct contact with citizens. It’s a constant reminder of the results of the legislation that we are working on, and for whom we write the laws. It’s both interesting and demanding to meet the various petitioners who come to the committee and talk about their problems. We cannot always solve the citizens’ problems but we can at least raise awareness of their concerns.

We can all always do better and together we should strive to improve our citizens’ support even further. The chair of the Committee on Petitions, Ms Cecilia Wikström, looks forward to continuing this work together with her colleagues until the end of the mandate.

Finally, the chair of the Committee is very pleased with the work done in the Committee on Petitions and the results achieved together. She would like to thank all the colleagues and the Secretariat of the Committee on Petitions for the good cooperation and work done during 2017.

  Věra Jourová, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, let me begin by thanking Ms Wikström, Mr Csáky and the whole Committee on Petitions (PETI) for the comprehensive report on the activities of PETI in 2017. Like its predecessors in previous years, the report gives evidence of the wide range of issues that petitioners bring to PETI’s attention each year, and of the committee’s efforts to ensure that the voices of those petitioners are really heard.

The Commission shares Parliament’s view that the right to petition is both a fundamental right of all EU citizens and a key element of participatory democracy, allowing for citizens’ active engagement in the fields of EU action.

Citizens often turn to the committee as a last resort because they feel that they have exhausted all other avenues, and we, both the Commission and the Parliament, can demonstrate that we listen to their concerns and take them seriously by offering proper responses and, where possible, showing them existing solutions at European or national level. This is a concrete example of how we can collaborate to bolster citizens’ confidence and trust in the European project.

However, we should also recognise that there are often cases where the expectations of citizens supersede the powers of the EU. Unmet expectations can lead to frustration and the argument that the EU is simply not up to the task. While this is understandable, though lamentable, it is impossible to answer citizens’ calls that go beyond our competences and EU law. It is our collective duty to inform citizens of the possibilities and limitations of EU law in order to stem unfair accusations that the EU doesn’t want to listen and/or is unfit to act.

As the report points out, our institutions have built good working relationships in recent years when it comes to handling petitions. Of the petitions declared admissible by the Parliament in 2017, about two-thirds were referred to the Commission for an opinion. In return, the 670 replies that the Commission sent back to the Parliament in 2017 testify to our engagement to support the critical work of the committee, which the Commission takes very seriously.

All Commission replies are prepared with care and are widely consulted upon among its services. Appropriately ranked officials with expert knowledge of the issues discussed participate in the committee’s meetings with the aim of providing the most meaningful and up-to-date information in a timely manner.

Here I am therefore pleased to reaffirm the commitment of the Commission to continue our good collaboration and to bring forward the EU added value in the resolutions of petitioners’ concerns.

The report calls on the Commission to make proper use of its powers stemming from its role as guardian of the Treaties, and for a timely handling of infringement procedures. The Commission’s new enforcement policy sets out a more strategic, effective and proportionate approach to infringement policy to allow us to deliver on our policy priorities. We will give priority to pursuing the most important breaches of EU law affecting the interests of citizens and businesses.

One key development is that we will launch infringement procedures without relying on the EU pilot mechanism unless recourse to this mechanism is seen as useful in a given case. This will allow us to act firmly and quickly when infringements obstruct the key EU policy objectives and to ensure timely handling of infringement procedures.

The main objective of infringement procedures is to ensure that Member States give effect to EU law. These often lengthy procedures are conducted between the Commission and a Member State and are not designed to provide for individual cases.

As guardian of the Treaties, the Commission enjoys discretionary power which allows it to decide to open or not to open an infringement procedure. According to the Treaties, where citizens’ rights under EU law are affected at national level they must have access to rapid and effective national redress mechanisms. As the Commission stated in its 2016 communication, national courts are the common courts for upholding EU law and contribute effectively to enforcing it in individual cases.

As for informing the Parliament about ongoing EU pilot investigations and infringement procedures related to petitions, the Commission strives to give as much information as possible in its written replies to Parliament. However, it has to respect the necessary confidentiality with regard to the Member State concerned, as recognised by the Court of Justice.

More generally, the Commission proactively disseminates information on infringements and publishes it on the centralised platform of the Europa website.

The report also touches upon a number of other important issues for which the views of Parliament and the Commission largely converge. Let me only mention the high priority in preserving citizens’ rights after the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union, or the protection of the rights of persons with disabilities.

I will, however, end my remarks here once again thanking Ms Wikström and the PETI Committee for your very helpful report. I look forward to hearing the views of the Honourable Members in the debate.

  Jarosław Wałęsa, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, I would like to start by saying that the right to submit a petition offers EU citizens the means to address their directly elected representatives. It constitutes, in fact, a bridge between them and the EU institutions. In my opinion, our committee has an important role in raising awareness through a debate, ensuring public participation and cooperation with Member States, and within the House through the petitions network that was launched last year. The subjects raised in the petitions of 2017 pertain mostly to environmental matters, fundamental rights, free movement of people, child welfare and social affairs.

Our work is not limited to the handling of petitions. The Committee organises fact-finding visits and hearings, commissions studies, gives opinions to legislative committees, is a member of the European network of Ombudsmen, and had a role in revising the regulation on the European citizens’ initiative. Last year, we dedicated a lot of time to petitions on Brexit, as they encompassed vital contributions to citizens ahead of the negotiations. As a committee we raised important questions to plenary by means of oral questions and resolutions. Here I would like to firmly state that we should stick to our mandate as a committee. I have the impression that some of my colleagues would like to take over the role of legislative committees.

Last but not least, I would like to underline the importance of communication and social media presence on topics that we are dealing with, and the difference between our committee and other services such as SOLVIT, so that our citizens and their enterprises can properly address the alleged breaches of European Union law.

  Michela Giuffrida, a nome del gruppo S&D. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, è davvero un piacere per me intervenire in quest'Aula e parlare del lavoro svolto dalla commissione per le petizioni, di cui ho l'onore di far parte.

In questi anni – e lo posso dire perché ormai è normale per noi tracciare una sorta di bilancio del nostro mandato da deputato europeo – abbiamo fatto un lavoro enorme nella commissione PETI, e ringrazio la presidente Wikström e anche la nostra coordinatrice del gruppo S&D, che sempre sono state presenti e costanti in un'opera che alla fine, possiamo dirlo, è un'opera di verità.

Alla commissione, che tra l'altro è la meno ambita, diciamolo con sincerità, tra quelle del Parlamento europeo, proprio perché non si occupa e non produce processi legislativi, approdano casi di ogni tipo e si può dire davvero che il nostro lavoro è un lavoro che a volte diventa quasi investigativo.

Ricordo negli anni i tanti casi trattati, le tante risposte che abbiamo dato ai cittadini europei che a noi si sono rivolti. Ne cito uno per tutti: il caso dei bambini scomparsi in Spagna sotto il regime di Francisco Franco, una vicenda che mi ha segnato, anche personalmente e in modo particolare, sulla quale ci siamo impegnati con una missione che ha avuto momenti toccanti, quando abbiamo incontrato le mamme ormai anziane che ancora cercano questi bambini.

Allora mi sento di dire, commentando questa relazione assolutamente opportuna che abbiamo portato in Aula, che il lavoro della commissione PETI va assolutamente incrementato e intensificato, che la Commissione, ma anche il Parlamento, ci devono dare l'opportunità di lavorare di più e meglio.

Questo si aspettano i cittadini europei e questo sarebbe un magnifico segnale nei confronti degli euroscettici. La commissione per le petizioni è il vero e proprio collegamento tra i cittadini e questa istituzione, il Parlamento europeo. Facciamo in modo che sia sempre più vicina ai cittadini e che rappresenti i veri valori europei.

  Νότης Μαριάς, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας ECR. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η Επιτροπή Αναφορών πραγματικά είναι η επιτροπή η οποία συνδέεται άμεσα με τους πολίτες. Είναι η μοναδική επιτροπή στην οποία οι πολίτες μπορούν να παρουσιαστούν και να μιλήσουν, κι αυτή είναι μια ποιοτική διαφορά. Παρότι ορισμένοι θεωρούν ότι είναι υποβαθμισμένη επιτροπή, κάνουν λάθος, διότι μέσα από την Επιτροπή Αναφορών ακούγονται τα δικαιώματα, ακούγονται τα αιτήματα των πολιτών, και εμείς ασχοληθήκαμε με πολύ σημαντικά θέματα όπως με τα δικαιώματα των ατόμων με ειδικές ανάγκες, ασχοληθήκαμε με το θέμα της αρπαγής των παιδιών, ασχοληθήκαμε με το περίφημο Jugendamt, ασχοληθήκαμε με τα κοινωνικά δικαιώματα, την πρόσβαση στα έγγραφα, τον ρόλο που παίζει η Επιτροπή στις γνωστές υποθέσεις «pilot», δηλαδή αυτές οι οποίες αναδεικνύουν ζητήματα παραβίασης του ευρωπαϊκού δικαίου, προστασία του περιβάλλοντος, για την προστασία επίσης των πολιτών από τα φυτοφάρμακα. Νομίζω ότι αυτό είχε σημαντικό αποτέλεσμα, ιδίως για την Ελλάδα, διότι δώσαμε χώρο σε αυτή την επιτροπή και έχουμε όλο και περισσότερες αναφορές, όλο και μεγαλύτερη παρέμβαση από τους έλληνες πολίτες, παρότι ορισμένοι θεωρούσαν την επιτροπή αυτή ως ήσσονος σημασίας.

Να παρατηρήσω μόνο ότι για άλλη μια χρονιά η Επιτροπή Αναφορών απέρριψε το αίτημα το οποίο υπέβαλα για τη διοργάνωση δημόσιας ακρόασης για το σοβαρό θέμα των γερμανικών αποζημιώσεων, ένα θέμα που απασχολεί την Ελλάδα, αλλά δυστυχώς για άλλη μια φορά η Επιτροπή Αναφορών δεν έκανε δεκτή την πρότασή μου. Ελπίζω ότι θα ασχοληθεί στο επόμενο διάστημα με τη νέα αναφορά την οποία θα καταθέσω για το ζήτημα των γερμανικών αποζημιώσεων, το ζήτημα των γερμανικών οφειλών, που περιλαμβάνουν το αναγκαστικό κατοχικό δάνειο, τις αποζημιώσεις των συγγενών των θυμάτων που εκτελέστηκαν από τα γερμανικά στρατεύματα κατοχής και τις πολεμικές επανορθώσεις. Είναι ένα θέμα το οποίο θα επαναφέρω το 2019 και ελπίζω ότι αυτή τη φορά η ίδια η επιτροπή μας θα είναι πολύ πιο θετική στην αντιμετώπιση του αιτήματος αυτού, που είναι ένα θέμα το οποίο ζητούν όλοι οι έλληνες πολίτες.

  Ángela Vallina, en nombre del Grupo GUE/NGL. – Señor presidente, durante este último año hemos observado en la Comisión de Peticiones que las denuncias sobre asuntos medioambientales y derechos fundamentales han aumentado hasta el punto de ser las principales fuentes de denuncia por parte de nuestra ciudadanía.

Por desgracia, seguimos viendo una ausencia de interés de los Estados para trasponer o aplicar la legislación correctamente. Hemos visto una actitud irresponsable por parte de las autoridades estatales a la hora de aplicar, por ejemplo, la Directiva sobre la calidad del aire, la Directiva marco del agua, las obligaciones internacionales en ayuda humanitaria, las Directivas sobre protección de los trabajadores precarios, la ratificación del Convenio de Estambul o el respeto al principio de libre circulación de ciudadanos y ciudadanas para evitar expulsiones en Estados miembros.

Tras evaluar tantos casos, que también afectan a mi país, no nos podemos sorprender de la crisis de legitimidad de esta Unión, que estamos viendo y sufriendo actualmente. También me sigue indignando la ausencia de reacción de la Comisión Europea en muchos casos. Es preciso que la Comisión Europea se implique más en sus respuestas, por favor, y con sus acciones. En muchas ocasiones, la Comisión tarda varios años en llevar a los Estados infractores al Tribunal de Justicia. Tenemos que tener claro que, en cuestiones de protección de los derechos fundamentales o medioambientales, de salud, por ejemplo, también, no se deben dilatar los procedimientos de infracción.

Finalmente, reclamo que podamos acceder a toda la documentación posible sobre los procedimientos de investigación abiertos, que se basen en las peticiones y que se refuerce la implicación de las otras comisiones parlamentarias de esta Cámara cuando así se lo exigimos desde la Comisión de Peticiones para informar sobre los temas que también las afectan a ellas.

  Ana Miranda, em nome do Grupo Verts/ALE. – Senhor Presidente, este relatório sobre as deliberações anuais da Comissão das Petições, em 2017, destaca a tarefa mais importante da nossa comissão: ser a ponte entre os cidadãos e as instituições europeias.

O relatório sublinha a forte preocupação das europeias e dos europeus em relação às questões ambientais, à água, à qualidade do ar nas nossas cidades, mas também temas como a segurança ferroviária. Há que lembrar que, em 17 de janeiro, houve vítimas no acidente mais grave da História europeia nos últimos 25 anos, o acidente em Santiago de Compostela, no meu país.

Para o futuro, penso que é importante que tenhamos uma Comissão das Petições reforçada, onde ainda seja mais óbvio que o papel da comissão deve ser o centro onde os denunciantes podem expressar as suas preocupações aos seus representantes.

A comissão deveria ser mais facilmente acessível e transparente no tratamento das denúncias. Além disso, é muito importante que nós, como eurodeputadas e eurodeputados, possamos ver e ouvir as esperanças no terreno e convidar os peticionários a Bruxelas para apresentarem os seus casos nas reuniões que são o cerne do nosso trabalho nesta comissão no Parlamento Europeu.

Cheguei a este parlamento a 1 de março e tinha a ideia muito clara de voltar a esta comissão parlamentar porque é a melhor do Parlamento Europeu.

  Eleonora Evi, a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, è vero, la commissione per le petizioni è una vera e propria commissione che si apre ai cittadini per ascoltare la loro voce.

L'attività di questa commissione, nel 2017, ha fatto registrare delle prese di posizione molto apprezzabili su problematiche denunciate tramite le tantissime petizioni da migliaia di cittadini europei: penso alla lotta al precariato, al tema della tutela del benessere dei minori, penso alla promozione delle energie rinnovabili e anche ai tanti casi in cui era in gioco la tutela dell'ambiente e della salute umana.

Tuttavia le audizioni compiute, le raccomandazioni formulate e le risoluzioni adottate non possono né devono essere considerate un punto di approdo. All'atto pratico, se non si registrano risultati concreti che comportano un miglioramento reale della vita quotidiana di quei cittadini che si sono rivolti con speranza al Parlamento europeo, non possiamo fermarci qui.

E questa rimane la sfida più grande per la commissione per le petizioni: mettere in atto un'instancabile opera di pressione politica verso le istituzioni europee e nazionali, affinché si dia costantemente ascolto alla voce dei cittadini.

  Csaba Sógor (PPE). – Tisztelt Elnök úr! Egy évvel ezelőtt arról beszéltem a Petíciós Bizottság előző évi tevékenysége kapcsán, hogy lakosságarányosan a petíciók legnagyobb számban Romániából és Görögországból érkeznek. Románia előtt csak a nagy tagállamok, Németország, Olaszország és Spanyolország állnak. Sajnálatos módon ebben a tekintetben semmi változás nem történt. 2017-ben a petíciók 5,2%-a Romániából – ezzel az ország a sorban a negyedik – 3,7%-a pedig Görögországból – sorrendben a hatodik – érkezett. Románia az előző évben már az Egyesült Királyságot is lekörözte ezen a téren, ami komoly aggodalomra adhat okot. Érdekesség továbbá, hogy amennyiben a benyújtók állampolgárságát vizsgáljuk, akkor a sorrend nem változik, az arányok azonban igen: a benyújtók 6,8%-a román, 4%-a görög állampolgár. Ezek a tények egyrész bizakodásra adnak okot, mert a román és a görög állampolgárok egyre nagyobb arányban élnek az uniós állampolgársághoz kötődő jogaikkal és fordulnak petícióval az Európai Parlamenthez, másrészt arra is rávilágítanak ezek a számok, hogy a nagy tagállamokon kívül Romániából és Görögországból kiugróan sok petíció érkezik, azaz ez a két tagállam külön figyelmet érdemel az Európai Parlament részéről. Az is kiderül a Petíciós Bizottság 2017-es tevékenységéből, hogy a benyújtott petíciók igen nagy számban érintik az alapvető jogok és a jogérvényesülés témaköreit. A környezetvédelem mellett ebben a tekintetben is sok a tennivalója az Európai Uniónak, hiszen a polgárok jogos elvárása, hogy az európai jog az EU területén mindenhol azonos mérce szerint érvényesüljön. Ezért az Európai Bizottság mellett a Tanácsnak, így a tagállamoknak is nagyobb figyelmet kell fordítaniuk a petíciók megoldására. A polgárok végül is ezt várják az európai intézményektől: oldják meg azokat a problémákat, amelyeket jeleznek felénk. Ha erre nem vagyunk képesek, akkor nem bújhatunk különböző jogi magyarázatok mögé és közben elveszítjük a polgárok bizalmát.

  Andrejs Mamikins (S&D). – Mr President, it happens to all of us to listen to people disappointed in the EU, blaming Brussels and feeling that nobody cares about their needs. This is partly due to the lack of information about the EU, but also partly due to the lack of reaction from the institutions. Unfortunately, numerous petitions get superficial replies from the Commission, which leads petitioners to conclude that the whole institutional system of the EU is inefficient.

The European Parliament, as the institution receiving the petitions, has a special role to play in the process of turning citizens’ claims into a real political change. But to make it a reality, we need to intervene on multiple levels. First, we need to ensure that information on EU law is made available to specific groups of citizens in the most user—friendly way. Information on filing a petition should also be made clearer. Second, we need to make sure that petitions manage to bring a mindful impact on EU policies. Petition is the right of any EU citizen, but we cannot give a right that does not really empower people. Some petitions are closed without people getting a concrete reply. This is the case of numerous petitions on the problem of non-citizenship in Latvia: this is a problem that affects 12% of the population, and has lasted for 27 years already. The only hope of Latvian non—citizens is an efficient reply at the EU level. When the petition becomes the only one and single tool, we cannot allow this single tool to be useless. Third, based on the petition statistics, we need to enhance cooperation with Member State authorities on the matter of implementation of EU law. Petitioners should be at the origin of the claim, but they should also be the final beneficiaries of our replies.

  Helga Stevens (ECR). – Voorzitter, collega's, ik treed volmondig de aanbevelingen in het verslag bij dat de Commissie haar bevoegdheden in verband met haar rol als hoedster van de Verdragen naar behoren moet uitoefenen, aangezien die rol van cruciaal belang is voor de werking van de EU voor de burgers. Logischerwijze moeten waar nodig op objectieve en neutrale wijze inbreukprocedures opgestart worden om zo een einde te maken aan situaties waarin het EU-recht niet wordt geëerbiedigd.

Ik dank ook de Commissie verzoekschriften voor het feit dat deze in verschillende bijdragen aan parlementaire verslagen haar advies heeft gegeven over diverse onderwerpen, zoals de Europese toegankelijkheidswet, het Verdrag van Marrakesh tot bevordering van de toegang tot gepubliceerde werken voor blinden en slechtzienden en de Europese strategie inzake handicaps.

Uit het jaarverslag blijkt verder dat voor personen met een beperking de toegang tot het openbaar vervoer en de bebouwde omgeving, en discriminatie op de arbeidsmarkt voor personen met een handicap de meeste problemen opleveren. Dit wijst op het belang van de Europese toegankelijkheidswet die onlangs werd goedgekeurd en die de lidstaten nu moeten omzetten naar nationale wetgeving. Hopelijk zal dat effectief het verschil maken op het terrein.

Verder lijkt het mij dat de lidstaten onvoldoende werk maken van de toepassing van de richtlijn gelijke behandeling in arbeid en beroep van 2000, in het Engels de Employment Equality Directive. Gezien het feit dat werk een belangrijke hefboom is voor inclusie van personen met een beperking in de maatschappij, moeten de lidstaten dringend een tandje bijsteken op dit domein.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D). – Panie Przewodniczący! Pani Komisarz! Ja z satysfakcją to sprawozdanie przeczytałem. Wydaje się, że jeżeli Parlament Europejski jest jedyną instytucją europejską pochodzącą bezpośrednio z wyborów dokonywanych przez obywateli, jest też jedyną albo pierwszą instytucją, do której obywatele mają prawo, a nawet obowiązek, się zwracać i zwracają się. Zwracają się nie wtedy, kiedy jest im bardzo dobrze – nie mamy wielu petycji zgłaszanych przez obywateli np. z Danii czy z Luksemburga – ale wtedy, kiedy odczuwają niesprawiedliwość, kiedy mają problemy, kiedy potrzebują, żeby ktoś po prostu podał im rękę. Zwracają się także w sprawach, które uznajemy powszechnie za sprawy o szerszym aspekcie, ale istotne dla naszego środowiska.

Tutaj pan poseł Mamikins bardzo słusznie podkreślił, że ważne, żeby się one przełożyły na decyzje. Taka jest właśnie nasza rola, żeby traktować te petycje jako źródło informacji, jako sposób zejścia czasami na ziemię. Jednocześnie miejmy świadomość, że nawet jeżeli czasem nie pomożemy bezpośrednio, to przynajmniej wysłuchamy. Samo wysłuchanie też przynosi ulgę bardzo wielu ludziom, którzy uważają, że ktoś im pomógł.

I ostatnia uwaga na temat zaproszenia do Brukseli na wysłuchanie. Mnie się podoba ta idea. Powinniśmy zatem rozważyć także w zapisach budżetowych środki dla komisji na realizację tego postulatu.

  Věra Jourová, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, thank you for this debate, which provides proof not only of the importance of the right to petition in our Union but also of the importance of our collective efforts to respond to the concerns that citizens bring to our attention. My choice of the word ‘collective’ in this context is a deliberate one, as both Parliament and the Commission have key roles to play in this area. And as Vice—President Liberadzki said, there is always something uncomfortable at the beginning: this is always the complaint of people about something wrong; something that they find unjust; something which they would like to see solved. A large number of petitions and a diversity of issues entail a combination of this bad start but also something very good: it is the proof that the people have confidence that if they come to us with their complaint we will do something useful. That we will deal with the complaints, that we will come up with a solution if it is within our power, and that we can come up with a workable solution which will change the situation for the better. This high level of confidence which the people show to us through their petitions is also a very strong commitment for all of us.

So I would like in this context to reiterate that the Commission attaches great importance to the good working relationship built during these years with the Committee on Petitions, and that I take this commitment very seriously and am ready to cooperate further on finding proper solutions to the problems of people. I would like to reassure the Parliament of our continued and strong commitment to cooperate closely together in the handling of petitions.

  Pál Csáky, helyettes előadó. – Tisztelt Elnök úr! Ha megengeded, most anyanyelvemet fogom használni.

Miután az Európai Néppárt megkért arra, hogy ebben a témában felszólaljak, engedd meg, hogy három pontban a saját és az Európai Néppárt véleményét összefoglaljam és utána a bizottsági elnök pozíciójából lezárjam ezt a vitát.

Először is szeretném ismét hangsúlyozni minden kollégának a Petíciós Bizottság ennek a Háznak az egyedüli olyan bizottsága, amely közvetlen kapcsolatot tart föl az állampolgárokkal. Nagyon fontos, hogy milyen képet adunk önmagunkról akkor, amikor az állampolgárokkal való viszonyt kialakítjuk, illetőleg az általuk felhozott problémák megoldását próbáljuk megvalósítani. Ezért arra szeretném kérni a Európai Bizottságot is, arra szeretném kérni a többi szakbizottságot is, adjunk komolyabb presztízst a Peti Bizottságnak, vegyük komolyan a Peti Bizottság kéréseit! Úgy gondolom, hogy az a jó munka, ami eddig egyébként megvalósult, az még javítható, és ne feledjük el, hogy a Peti Bizottság lényegében az Európai Unió lelkiismereteként is működhet, hiszen ha problémák vannak és az állampolgárok fordulnak felénk, az a bizalom megnyilvánulása is.

A másik dolog, Elnök Úr, én, tudják, Kelet-Európából, Szlovákiából, egy kis országból jövök – ott is egy kis közösségnek az ország 10%-át kitevő magyar közösségnek vagyok az egyik képviselője –, két alkalommal voltam Szlovákia miniszterelnök-helyettese is, tehát meg tudom ítélni a hivatalok tevékenységét is, és meg tudom ítélni az állampolgárok véleményét és kérését is. Ezért az egyik feladatomnak tartom és nagyon örülök, hogy több kollégám a bizottságban csatlakozott hozzám, hogy az emberek jogi tudatát erősítsük, a polgári öntudatát erősítsük. Az, hogyha meg tudnak fogalmazni jól egy petíciót és kiállnak a jogaikért, úgy gondolom, hogy erősíti Európát, mert Európában erős polgárokra van szükségünk.

És a harmadik dolog pedig, kedves Elnök Úr, ha megengeded – és most már mint a bizottság alelnöke, a bizottság képviseletében – szeretném megköszönni a kollégáknak az együttműködést a bizottságban, szeretném megköszönni a Parlament plenáris ülésének a támogatását! Idén februárban olyasmi történt, ami még nem: a Petíciós Bizottság javaslatára egy „short resolution”, egy határozat született a például az őshonos kisebbségek védelméről, aminek a támogatását szeretném most is megköszönni! Szeretném megköszönni a titkárság tevékenységét is! A titkárság vezetője most átprofesszionálódik egy másik pozícióba, elhagyja a titkárságot Virpi Asszony. Engedjék meg, hogy név szerint is megköszönjem Virpi Asszonynak a tevékenységét. És szeretném azt kérni, hogy a jövőben is kiváló együttműködés legyen a bizottságban, nem politikai szempontok alapján, hanem a tárgyi problémák megvitatása alapján.

  Presidente. – La discussione è chiusa.

La votazione si svolgerà giovedì 13 dicembre 2018 alle 12.00.