Az ülések szó szerinti jegyzőkönyve

2021. december 15., Szerda - Strasbourg

20. A Petíciós Bizottság 2020-as év során folytatott tanácskozásai (vita)

  Πρόεδρος. – Το επόμενο σημείο στην ημερήσια διάταξη είναι η συζήτηση επί:

της έκθεσης του κ. Gheorghe Falcă, εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής Αναφορών, σχετικά με τις διαβουλεύσεις της Επιτροπής Αναφορών το 2020 (2021/2019(INI)) (A9-0323/2021).

  Gheorghe Falcă, Raportor. – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar, dragi colegi, anul 2020 a fost un an dificil pentru toți, din cauza pandemiei de COVID-19. În acest an cetățenii au trimis către Parlamentul European 1 573 de petiții, o creștere semnificativă față de anul 2018 și 2019. Această creștere din 2020 se datorează îngrijorării cetățenilor legate de, evident, domeniul sănătății.

Principalele subiecte de interes ale petițiilor adresate din 2020 se referă la drepturile fundamentale, și acolo vorbim de impactul măsurilor de urgență luate de statele membre, dreptul la muncă, dreptul la informare, vorbim de domeniul sănătății, unde protecția sănătății cetățenilor, achiziția și distribuția de vaccinuri și calitatea echipamentelor de protecție sunt lucrurile îngrijorătoare adresate de către cetățeni. La domeniul mediului vorbim mai ales de minerit, securitatea nucleară și poluarea aerului. În domeniul justiției vorbim de îngrijorări legate de statul de drept și de independența sistemului judiciar. Când vorbim despre educație, vorbim de accesul discriminatoriu la educație sau reforme naționale contestate, iar atunci când vorbim de piața internă, în special vorbim de restricțiile naționale de călătorie și efectul lor asupra liberei circulații în Uniunea Europeană.

Dragi colegi, comisia noastră este unica ce își formează agenda în funcție de solicitările cetățenilor, iar petițiile sunt o poartă de intrare a cetățenilor în instituțiile europene, o ocazie unică pentru Parlamentul European și alte instituții de a stabili o legătură directă cu cetățenii și rezidenții din Uniunea Europeană. Mai mult, petițiile admisibile aduc contribuții valoroase și la activitatea altor comisii parlamentare, care acordă avize sau care primesc petițiile spre informare. În 2020, s-au transmis 56 de petiții pentru avizare și 385 de petiții pentru informare. Deși timpul alocat comisiilor în 2020 a fost mai mic, noi ne-am exprimat opinii cu privire la problemele importante ridicate în petiții și am contribuit la elaborarea mai multor rapoarte parlamentare. Aduc aminte acordul privind retragerea Regatului Unit din Uniunea Europeană, rezoluția referitoare la răpirea internațională a copiilor din Uniunea Europeană în Japonia și rezoluția referitoare la alocarea de fonduri suplimentare pentru cercetarea biomedicală. În raportul nostru apreciem și activitatea Ombudsmanului European și buna colaborare cu acesta. În 2020, portalul web pentru petiții a fost dezvoltat, devenind mai sigur și mai ușor de utilizat.

În final, aș vrea să menționez că ne pare rău că în 2020 nu a fost posibil ca petiționarii să vină fizic în comisia noastră, dar trebuie ca cetățenii să se bazeze pe noi, pe cei care le acceptăm și le discutăm petițiile. De aceea, vă mulțumesc și vă urez un Crăciun fericit.

  Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members of the European Parliament, first and foremost I would like to thank Mr Falcă for his comprehensive report, which will further contribute to strengthening cooperation between our institutions. As he said today, more than ever, petitions are an effective channel for direct contact and open dialogue on problems affecting the daily lives of Europeans. Your committee has swiftly adapted to the challenges of the current pandemic, playing a key role in ensuring Parliament’s continued engagement with citizens.

Our rapporteur already made a reference to the increase in the number of petitions, and I can say that it was an almost 16% increase, and indeed, as Mr Falcă has said, the increase was quite significant and the overall number is now 1 573, which is pretty impressive. Many of these were to do with the health concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as fundamental rights linked to the extraordinary measures taken by the Member States during this time. In addition, environmental issues remained an area of serious concerns for petitioners in 2020. I also take note that your committee has devoted much effort to the protection and promotion of the rights of people with disabilities and children’s rights.

I would like to congratulate you on the improvements to your petitions web portal. This is an essential tool for ensuring a smooth, efficient and transparent petitions process and is fully in line with our collective efforts for a digital union.

The issues raised by petitioners largely align with the Commission’s priorities under President von der Leyen’s political guidelines, especially the transition towards a greener, more digital, fairer and more resilient society. And as I said during our structured dialogue two weeks ago, I fully agree that providing timely and substantive answers to petitioners contributes to strengthening the credibility of all EU institutions. Therefore, I am working very hard together with the Commission services to make sure that the Commission plays an active role in your committee to ensure citizens receive detailed and understandable responses.

The Commission has been well represented at your committee meetings, including by my fellow Commissioners, Vice-President Jourová, Commissioner Dalli, our services and also myself, and I am glad to say that we further rationalised the process of replying to your requests to achieve a more transparent and streamlined way of working.

We also remain committed to fruitful cooperation in addressing infringement-related petitions. The proper application of EU law is a collective responsibility shared between the Commission, as the guardian of the Treaties, and national authorities. Therefore I welcome your call on national authorities to be proactive in taking the necessary measures to respond to citizens’ petitions in cases of systemic failure to comply with EU law.

As I explained during our structured dialogue, the aim of the formal infringement procedure is to help Member States to correct the laws or practices. It is not designed to offer concrete solutions for individuals or ensure individual redress, not least because the process can take years. Rather, infringements contribute to addressing systemic problems affecting a large amount of people, often across Member States. To put it simply, our enforcement work focuses on the root causes of the problem rather than the symptoms. One such example was the Commission’s intervention in the early stages of the pandemic against the practice of issuing travel vouchers for holidays cancelled because of COVID-19, even to those who wanted refunds. In its recommendation of 13 May 2020, the Commission recalled the obligations stemming from the Package Travel Directive and then opened infringement proceedings against 11 Member States. In most cases, the national measures were amended or expired or were not renewed. Only in one case did the Commission have to take the Member States to the European Court of Justice.

I also appreciate this committee’s fruitful cooperation during the reporting period regarding the withdrawal of the UK from the EU and the negotiations on our future relationship with the United Kingdom. In particular your work helped to ensure that citizens can have their concerns around Brexit heard.

To conclude, I want to reassure you that the Commission remains committed to maintaining close and fruitful cooperation with your committee.

  Peter Jahr, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, meine sehr verehrten Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Mein erstes Dankeschön geht an meinen Kollegen Gheorghe Falcă. Er hat es geschafft, einen Bericht vorzulegen mit einer großen fraktionsübergreifenden Mehrheit. Das ist gut und wichtig, weil erstens ist es ja unsere eigene Arbeit, die wir hier repräsentieren, und zweitens sind wir der einzige Ausschuss im Europäischen Parlament, wo die Tagesordnung de facto von den Menschen gemacht und bestimmt wird.

Petitionen, die eingereicht werden, bestimmen unsere eigene Agenda. Näher an den Menschen geht ganz einfach nicht. Und es ist auch eine große Verantwortung. Dieser Verantwortung sollten und müssen wir auch gerecht werden. Und deshalb ist es gut, dass wir nicht den Jahresbericht für ein politisches Battlefield ausgestaltet haben, sondern dass wir hier auch im Petitionsausschuss diesen Bericht mit einer supergroßen Mehrheit annehmen konnten.

Nun die zweite Geschichte – womöglich typisch deutsches Denken. Was können wir eigentlich in Zukunft besser machen? Auch darüber sollten wir reden. Das erste ist: Wir sollten im Interesse der Petenten auch schneller antworten. Hier haben mich die Ausführungen des Kommissars sehr ermutigt. Da machen wir weiter. Das nehmen wir auf. Und im ordentlichen Pingpong-Spiel kommen wir dazu, dass die Petenten auch schnell eine ordentliche Antwort bekommen.

Zweiter Punkt: Das Problem sind die Zuständigkeiten. Ich denke, ehrlich über Zuständigkeiten oder Nichtzuständigkeiten zu entscheiden, ist manchmal besser, als eine Petition dann in der Warteschleife warten zu lassen. Es ist einfach nicht fair, den Petenten gegenüber Dinge zu diskutieren, wo wir gar nicht zuständig sind, wo man ihnen letztendlich auch nicht helfen kann.

Drittens: Bei gemischten Zuständigkeiten wird es dann natürlich schwierig. Aber auch da sollte man den Mut haben zu sagen: Gut, wir greifen uns das raus, wo wir zuständig sind, und wo wir nicht zuständig sind, da müssen wir halt noch ein bisschen warten. Und viertens sind viele Petitionen für uns fachlich geprägt. Wir sollten wieder unser Netzwerk aktivieren, was wir gemacht haben.

Und zum Schluss noch ein Dankeschön an die Mitglieder und das Sekretariat des Petitionsausschusses. Und zum allerletzten Schluss wünsche ich allen noch ein frohes und gesegnetes Weihnachtsfest 2021.

  Cristina Maestre Martín De Almagro, en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor presidente, siempre que hacemos balance de la Comisión de Peticiones solemos decir que esta es una comisión muy, muy importante porque es la herramienta que tienen los ciudadanos para hacer valer sus derechos europeos. Sería bueno que nos lo creyéramos todos, porque lo mismo algunos piensan que, al no ser una comisión legislativa, es una comisión de segunda.

En mi opinión, esta es una comisión de primera categoría. Ninguna otra tiene la capacidad de dar audiencia a los ciudadanos como lo hace la Comisión de Peticiones. Ninguna otra tiene la capacidad de exigir informes o de hacer comparecer a la Comisión Europea o a los Estados miembros o a sus regiones, o incluso a las entidades locales, como lo hace la Comisión de Peticiones.

Eso sí, en numerosas ocasiones reprochamos a la Comisión Europea que no se implique más en su papel de «guardiana de los Tratados» a la hora de posicionarse sobre denuncias concretas donde es muy fácil hacerlo. Por eso, por enésima vez, pedimos una mayor implicación a la Comisión para dar respuesta y, también, por parte de todos los estamentos europeos.

Y, mirando a los diputados al Parlamento Europeo, pido a los grupos de la derecha de esta Cámara que dejen de amparar la instrumentalización de la Comisión de Peticiones como herramienta de ataque y oposición a gobiernos democráticamente elegidos. Esto está ocurriendo con diputados españoles del PP, de Vox y de Ciudadanos, que confunden la Comisión de Peticiones con un Parlamento nacional o con un plató de televisión. Son diputados que plantean cuestiones sin competencia ni justificación alguna, con la intención de generar titulares sobre ficticias investigaciones de Europa contra el Gobierno de España. Y lo hacen en ocasiones utilizando a militantes o incluso a cargos públicos de sus partidos camuflados de peticionarios para simular vulneraciones inventadas.

Por favor, dejen de usurpar el derecho de los ciudadanos que realmente nos necesitan, pero que no consiguen presentar sus reivindicaciones porque se admiten otros asuntos solo porque algunos no saben perder las elecciones.

Sé que no son todos, señorías, aquí se hace un magnífico trabajo. Se trata de una minoría de diputados, pero, por desgracia, hasta la fecha, tienen el apoyo de sus grupos para plantear estas cuestiones, lo que es sencillamente inadmisible y genera un grave daño a la Institución.

  Ulrike Müller, im Namen der Renew-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Unser Bericht spiegelt im Detail die Arbeit des Petitionsausschusses im letzten Jahr wider.

Die Petition ist neben der Stimmabgabe bei Wahlen die beliebteste Form demokratischen Handelns der Bürger. Wir unterstreichen die große Verantwortung unseres Ausschusses, insbesondere in solchen schwierigen Zeiten wie während der Pandemie. Wir haben zahlreiche Petitionen zu COVID-19 und zum Schutz der Rechte und Freiheiten unserer Bürger erhalten und haben diese dringlich behandelt. Jede Petition wurde ernst genommen.

Insgesamt wurden von unseren Bürgerinnen und Bürgern im Jahr 2020 mehr Petitionen eingebracht als in den Jahren zuvor, und die meisten kamen aus Spanien und Deutschland. Leider konnten die Petenten nur per Video zugeschaltet werden. Dies war eine Herausforderung für uns, denn das Petitionsrecht lebt nun einmal von der Präsenz der Petenten im Ausschuss.

Petitionen sind also ein wirkungsvolles Instrument für alle, die aktiv Politik mitgestalten wollen. Sie verschaffen uns den besten Überblick, wie Gesetze wirken und was geändert werden muss. Trotzdem ist es wichtig, dass man mit realistischen Erwartungen an seine Petitionen und Beschwerden herangeht. Leider können wir nicht jedes Mal helfen, und es bleibt die Frage, was wir besser machen können. Für mich heißt das vor allem, dass es am Ende ein konkretes Ergebnis geben muss und nicht nur Diskussionen. Deswegen müssen wir auch weiterhin an der Transparenz und Durchlässigkeit des gesamten Verfahrens arbeiten.

Ich bedanke mich ganz herzlich beim Berichterstatter und den Kollegen für die gute Zusammenarbeit und wünsche Ihnen frohe Weihnachten.

  Tatjana Ždanoka, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, I quote from this deliberations report, ‘Calls on the Commission to play a more active role in the Committee on Petitions to ensure the citizens receive a detailed and understandable response’. But has this call has appeared in the deliberations report for the first time? Not at all. It is becoming a bad tradition just to mention in the annual report of the Committee on Petitions (PETI) the need for better cooperation between the Committee on Petitions and the Commission.

In order to get rid of this tradition, we have to elaborate clear rules on the handling of petitions by the Commission, and now the current Interinstitutional Agreement does not cover petitions. Therefore, our proposal is to have a more binding agreement. We regret that this suggestion was rejected during the vote in the committee, and we also did not receive approval from the Vice-President’s side, when we spoke beforehand on this.

But we are sure that, without such a binding agreement, in future deliberations reports we will just copy and paste the very same problem for many years. Such a binding agreement would improve the transparency of the system and its effectiveness towards resolving the issues raised by European citizens in their petitions. The price of ineffectiveness is very big, as we know from Brexit, and using this opportunity, I also want to repeat that in this report we speak about the famous Article 51, and ask the Commission to accept it as broadly as possible.

  Stefania Zambelli, a nome del gruppo ID. – Signor Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, nell'anno 2020 il Parlamento europeo ha ricevuto oltre 1 500 petizioni, un numero in netta crescita rispetto agli anni precedenti.

La pandemia di COVID-19 ha contribuito a questo aumento: sono infatti 209 le petizioni riguardanti i ricoveri che la commissione ha esaminato.

Questo è sicuramente un segno che c'è preoccupazione da parte dei cittadini europei in materia di salute pubblica, in un periodo storico difficile come quello che abbiamo vissuto e stiamo purtroppo ancora vivendo.

Un altro tema di cui la commissione per le petizioni si è occupata riguarda la disabilità. Sono tantissimi i cittadini con disabilità che si rivolgono al Parlamento europeo per chiedere maggiori tutele, soprattutto in materia di lavoro. È nostro dovere ascoltare tutte le istanze che ci vengono rivolte e dare risposte immediate a tutte le problematiche.

Dobbiamo per questo impegnarci perché le petizioni siano di facile accesso a tutti i cittadini europei. Buon Santo Natale a tutti.

  Pernando Barrena Arza, en nombre del Grupo The Left. – Señor presidente, señor vicepresidente de la Comisión, quisiera comenzar mi intervención al hilo de lo manifestado por una de sus señorías y, una vez más, denunciar la excesiva mano política de la presidencia de la Comisión de Peticiones, que actúa reiteradamente al margen de la imparcialidad que se le supone, tal y como venimos denunciando diferentes diputados al Parlamento.

El texto acordado refleja la labor realizada por la Comisión de Peticiones en el año 2020, pero a la vez es notorio el desconocimiento público sobre el alcance del derecho de petición; por ello, la Comisión de Peticiones debe adoptar un enfoque más proactivo y una estrategia de comunicación más potente.

Quiero expresar mi inquietud, como miembro de la Conferencia sobre el Futuro de Europa, ante la versión diluida de la participación ciudadana que se está ofreciendo: se está perdiendo una oportunidad de oro para poner en marcha un verdadero proceso de abajo arriba para dotar de mayor adhesión ciudadana al proyecto europeo.

Y finalmente, quiero decir que celebramos que en el texto se recoja la necesidad de que la iniciativa ciudadana europea sea un mecanismo mucho más dinámico y atractivo para los colectivos y la ciudadanía en general. Las naciones sin Estado de Europa también tienen la necesidad de que se establezca un marco europeo para el ejercicio libre y con garantías del derecho a decidir, la necesidad de un mecanismo de claridad a nivel europeo, tal y como presentamos una serie de diputados y diputadas en octubre pasado.

  Alex Agius Saliba (S&D). – Mr President, the Committee on Petitions plays a crucial role as a bridge between EU citizens, Parliament and the EU institutions, and the right to petition is one of the fundamental rights of all EU citizens and also residents.

I would like, first of all, to thank my colleague Cristina Maestre for her excellent work on this important report, which outlines the increased number of petitions in 2020, with a large number of petitions voicing citizens’ concerns over public health issues, socio—economic emergencies resulting directly from the COVID pandemic.

This increased number clearly shows that, in times of crisis, our citizens rely on us and put their trust in us by directly addressing concerns and complaints. That is why it is extremely important to treat each and every petition that falls within the Union’s fields of activity in the most open, democratic and transparent way.

Moreover, we need to increase citizens’ awareness on the right to petition in our Member States and encourage them to exercise this fundamental right of tabling a petition by addressing their concerns directly to elected representatives at EU level.

  Yana Toom (Renew). – Mr President, many things have already been said, so I have to admit that the Committee on Petitions is my favourite committee, despite the fact that this is non—legislative. It is direct too and speaks to our citizens. It’s absolutely great.

In some countries, this is very popular, like in Spain, for instance. In some countries, like my home country, it’s still not that popular, but still every year we receive almost 2 000 petitions. However, only a few hundred of them are declared admissible, and only a few end up with an infringement procedure, despite the fact that Europeans are quite well aware of their rights.

For instance, they refer quite often to the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and to the European Pillar of Social Rights. What they are not aware of are the limits that are imposed on us by the Treaties. As Tatjana Ždanoka has already mentioned, Article 51, for instance, states that the European Charter of Fundamental Rights is mandatory to follow only if Member States apply European, not national law. This is a problem, and the idea behind the Committee on Petitions is pretty much the same as that behind the Conference the Future of Europe. Our committee is looking forward to efficient and clear results from the Conference on the Future of Europe.

This is absolutely a clear signal from European citizens. We need better cooperation with the Commission. We need the involvement of NGOs and we need to use the Citizens’ Initiative tool in the proper way. It’s absolutely unacceptable when the European Commission just sends the European Citizens’ Initiative to the bin. In other words, we need more Europe.

  Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, I would like to thank all the honourable Members, not only for their interventions in this plenary debate, but also for their very dedicated work throughout the year on petitions and in the Committee on Petitions. I would also like once again to thank our rapporteur, Mr Falcă.

I would like to underline once again that we take the work of this committee very seriously. I totally agree with the speakers, Mr Jahr and Ms Maestre Martín De Almagro, that you are indeed the committee in which the agenda is set directly by the citizens. I would like to assure you that, for the Commission and for myself, you are definitely a first—class committee, because you have a direct link with the citizens.

I would also like to underline that it’s extremely impressive, as Ms Ulrike Müller said, that despite the difficult circumstances of operating in this online world, you have managed to communicate with the citizens through this new means – through video calls – and you have demonstrated care for the concerns of our citizens, which is reflected in a quite impressive increase of almost 16% in petitions. I totally agree with you that there is nothing that can replace physical meetings, but in these very difficult COVID times, the fact that you switched to video calls and maintained links in that way is extremely impressive and very much appreciated.

If you allow me to reflect on the issues raised by Ms Ždanoka, I have to say that I very much appreciate her contributions. At the same time, I have to say that I very much agree with a vote of the committee on the interinstitutional arrangements, because I am deeply convinced that the current legal interinstitutional context is sufficient and appropriate to ensure that the Commission will do what it would ask us to do: to perform a deep analysis of the problems that petitioners bring to the attention of the European Parliament, to keep your committee informed of conclusions and developments, and to provide adequate explanations about how it intends to deal with a given issue.

I also agree with Mr Jahr that we can always – and we should – look at how we can improve things and how we can make sure that we provide a better service to our citizens. We have a few such ideas, and we will be very happy to share them with you. Establishing a direct link between your web portal and the Commission link which covers infringements would already provide better information and more clarity to citizens. I believe that it would improve the overall impression that citizens get from our cooperation.

On Article 51, which is an issue raised by Ms Ždanoka and also Ms Toom, I would like to reassure honourable Members that the Commission does not hesitate to take appropriate steps to address the infringement of rights as protected under the Charter. However, the Charter doesn’t extend the existing competences of the EU. This is not a matter of interpretation, but a matter of subsidiarity. However, we do our best to encourage close cooperation with NGOs and with the human rights bodies, and to contribute in this way to the protection of the human rights of European citizens.

Mr Barrena Arza referred to the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI), and this was also the point of reference of Madam Toom. I would like to inform you that, every time the organisers of the ECI initiatives file applications, we have political deliberations on these applications in our College. We always inform the Commissioner so it’s not done by services. We just wanted to make sure that every Commissioner is aware of what is proposed. Until now, if my memory serves me well, we have approved 15 or 16 of the ECIs and rejected only one. How did we achieve that improvement compared to the previous mandate? Because we are working actively with the organisers, providing them with advice and telling them how the questions should be formulated so they fall within the remit of our competences and within the limits of what the ECI was intended for.

But clearly, there is a lot to do, as Mr Agius Saliba underlined, to make sure that we continue next year to improve our service to the citizens and our response to the petitioners. We will do our utmost to stay within three months, which, as you know, was the time within which we are trying to respond to your petitions. In the overwhelming majority of cases, we achieve that result, but we will always be very willing to listen to your suggestions and your proposals about how to make things better.

Once again, thank you very much for the excellent cooperation throughout the year. I am looking forward to 2022, and because this is also my last intervention in the plenary this year, I would also like to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

  Πρόεδρος. – Η συζήτηση έληξε.

Η ψηφοφορία θα διεξαχθεί αύριο Πέμπτη 16 Δεκεμβρίου 2021.