Find a petition
Petitions do not appear instantly on the Petition Portal after their submission. They are published following their adoption by the Committee on Petitions. This processing takes some time as it depends on the number of petitions being processed at any given time.
The petitioner states that an EU-wide ban on Pigment Blue 15:3 and Pigment Green 7 would have a lengthy negative impact on the economic competitiveness of European tattooists and pigmenters vis-a-vis providers of those services outside the EU and would jeopardise the existence of that sector. Consumers could turn to providers abroad or switch to cowboy operators. Austria is named as an example. In Austria, the provision of tattooing / pigmenting services is governed by some of the strongest regulations in Europe. It is also standard practice to use products wrongly declared to be artists’ paint. This results in a situation whereby the statutory minimum requirements concerning sterility and compliance with threshold values with regard to organic and inorganic impurities no longer need to be monitored, as liability passes from the manufacturer to the tattooist/pigmenter.
The petitioner claims, in relation to Petition No 1072/2020, that tattoo inks should continue to be freely available for sale and use.
The petition was declared inadmissible by the Committee on Petitions on 16 October 2024: Matters seemingly not coming within the Union's fields of activity (List 3).
The petitioner requests that a European Mediator Statute be introduced as a way of resolving conflicts and as a viable alternative to legal action. This Statute should cover the governing principles of mediation, relations between mediators and those being mediated, relations between mediators and judicial administration, professional ethics, the training and specialisation of mediator, as well as rules imposing liability on them.
The petition was declared inadmissible by the Committee on Petitions in its meeting of 3 December 2015: matters seemingly not coming within the Union's fields of activity(list 3).
The petitioner outlines what she considers to be a political situation systematically at odds with the Constitution in Spain that has given rise to what she sees as a generalised climate of abuse of power, corruption, embezzlement of public funds and, ultimately, to rising totalitarianism of all kinds.
The petition was declared inadmissible by the Committee on Petitions on 30 November 2023: Incoherent reasoning with an unclear link to the Union’s fields of activity (List 3).
The petitioner highlights that in France around 800.000 adult persons are under protection measures, and that, according to him, in 75 % of the cases, maladministration, fraud, violence or abuse of power by the so-called protection officers or structures results in an economic misappropriation of goods of a value of several millions to the benefit of the mandated structure and to the detriment of the ‘protected’ beneficiaries. The petitioner also refers to the failing control mechanisms, as the services in charge of the verification of the related annual accounts do not have enough time nor staff available. The protection officer can represent the adult under protection for a specific number of acts or the representation can be global. The protection officer is appointed by the Court, after having heard the Opinion of the Civil prosecutor. The adult to be protected is not informed on the procedure. The petitioner further states that the appointment of the protection officer by the Court undermines the supervision activities by the same court, together with a legislation that allegedly has serious gaps, leaving the possibility to abuses widely open. The protection officer should be guided by the rule of diligence, but according to the petitioner, this is not the case. The relevant authorities allegedly systematically dismiss family members pointing at mismanagement related to their family members under protection. The petitioner refers to the Charter and the Convention on human rights, as he sees a number of absolute personal rights infringed, leading to the negation of the existence of the protected person. In this context the petitioner, based on the reporting received by the NGO, calls for the EU to examine the possibility to establish EU-wide a legal status for protection officers for adult persons as soon as possible, ensuring protection of the human dignity of the protected persons, intrinsic to their vulnerability.
The petitioner is complaining that beauty and cleaning products contain unnecessary artificial agents that are not biodegradable, such as sodium laureth sulfate and sodium lauryl sulfate. She proposes that any products (imported or made in the EU) that can end up being “washed down drain'' should be biodegradable and non-toxic. Therefore, she asks the EU to take steps to ban such ingredients being used, in order not to harm the environment and contaminate water.
The petitioner is complaining that European road haulage is based on fraud, tax avoidance and the exploitation of workers. He claims that the opening of the EU borders allows for tax evasion, the exploitation of workers and unfair competition. He explains that many transport companies relocate from Italy to Eastern Europe, in order to save on management and labour costs and taxes and that truck drivers are the only workers in the world who do not have access to sanitary facilities, neither on the working nor on the resting place.
The petitioner calls on the European Union to take action against the US President for having allegedly conspired against European interests in Africa. He appears also to blame President Obama for Europe’s economic and social crisis.
The petitioner complains about a series of irregularities in the award of a project for the conversion of military installations to establish the Centre for Migratory Birds and Global Change in the region of Tarifa. She says that, firstly, no Environmental Impact Assessment was drawn up, even though this is an area protected by the Natura 2000 Directive. Also the terms of use change are unclear, the concession is of limited duration (15 years ), the Ministry of Defence may revoke the concession for immediate use, while the construction area has been assigned to a private foundation (instead of a public body) , which received various funds from the EU. On this issue they have submitted a question to the Commission, which gave an answer, which, in their opinion, was excessively influenced by the local authorities, and was also partially irrelevant. Complaints to the local authorities have remained unanswered, while the latter have proceeded normally with publicity for a project, which in their opinion should not go ahead because it is in breach of Directive 92/43/EC.
The petitioner alleges that thousands of people have been defrauded by the company iDental and suffered health damage. The petitioner reports that the consumer and health authorities throughout Spain received numerous claims and complaints against this company . The petitioner considers that there has been a lack of adequate controls by the competent Spanish authorities. The petitioner requests an investigation on the provision of oral health care in Spain, and he considers that the Spanish State should provide full compensation for the losses incurred by the victims of the iDental fraud, including the damages to their physical and psychological health. The petitioner calls on the Spanish government to develop possible alternatives and to modify the General Healthcare Law, in order to allow the inclusion of dental care in the Spanish public health system.
The petition was declared inadmissible by the Committee on Petitions at the meeting of 9-10 November 2016: matter seemingly not coming within the Union's fields of activity (List 3).
The petitioner calls upon the European Union to introduce a minimum price level for intra-EU freight services. She argues that the current legislative framework (in particular Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 on common rules for access to the international road haulage market) is insufficiently effective in ensuring fair competition, combatting social and price dumping, and assuring respect for fundamental rights of employees (in particular, drivers from Eastern European countries). The petitioner also asserts that Regulation 1072/2009 has not been properly implemented nor uniformly transposed by most Member States, leading to under-enforcement. The petitioner claims that proper enforcement of Regulation1072/2009 is often impossible, due to limited resources of controlling authorities and the widespread abuse of the provisions on maximum entry periods by foreign drivers and freight service providers. She refers as an example to the competent German authority, the Federal Office for Goods Transport (Bundesamt für Güterverkehr), which is understaffed and overwhelmed by the rising number of infractions. The petitioner lists a number of justifications for the overhaul of the current legal and regulatory regime and the introduction of the minimum pan-European charge. These justifications include, inter alia, the achievement of a level playing field between the founding Member States of the EU and newer Member States, which still have largely differing tax regimes and substantial wage differentials; the assurance of higher levels of road safety for all European citizens; the assurance of the proper respect of fundamental rights of drivers who are often on the road for multiple weeks or months and live in squalid conditions; and the prevention of the bankruptcy of small and medium-sized enterprises in the founding Member States which cannot realistically compete with the price levels offered by freight service providers based in the newer Member States.
The petitioner alleges various irregularities and fraud during the recent Presidential elections in Poland. He points to the fact that some citizens did not get their mail-in ballot papers on time and therefore were dispossessed of their voting rights. Other citizens received their ballot papers without any official stamps and the counting of cast votes was allegedly fraudulent. The petitioner claims that the Polish authorities and police suppress liberties, threaten the media and make unlawful profit out of the EU funds.
On 22 October 2020, the Polish Constitutional Tribunal ruled that permitting the termination of a pregnancy in the case of severe disability or disease of the foetus is incompatible with the Polish Constitution. This changed the so-called ‘abortion compromise’, which had existed since 1993 after being introduced by the Act of 7 January 1993 on family planning, protection of the human foetus and the conditions for the permissibility of abortion, and which was supported by over 70% of the Polish population. According to the petitioner, this change violates women's rights to make autonomous decisions about their own bodies. Removing the ability to choose is, in the petitioner's opinion, contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland cited by the Constitutional Tribunal and directly infringes the dignity, freedom and right to life of a human being, as expressed in Articles 30, 31 and 38. The petitioner further alleges that a criminal offence of endangering the life and health of Polish citizens may have been committed by proceeding with the judgment in the current circumstances, as citizens repeatedly protested in crowds and exposed themselves to COVID-19 infection. According to the petitioner, in the light of the controversy surrounding the filling of posts of Constitutional Tribunal judges, this ruling cannot be enforced. He also requests an assessment of the legality of the selection of judges for the Constitutional Tribunal.
The petitioner claims that the parliamentary elections in Azerbaijan on the 9th of February 2020 were processed in a non-transparent and undemocratic way. The election and voting procedure, as well as the pre-election procedure were affected by many violations of the democratic principles. The ruling political power was in full control of the media and vote. He calls the EU to make the necessary attempts to restore the rights of candidates and citizens from Azerbaijan, violated during the past elections.
The petitioner complains that the 2020 presidential election in Belarus was conducted in breach of the democratic principles, in violation of the established procedural rules and of the principle of transparency. The petitioner alleges that the District Electoral Committees committed electoral fraud by swapping votes cast for the opposition candidates in favour of Mr. Lukashenko. The petitioner further highlights that many citizens and representatives of different sectors of the economy have called for the annulment of the election results and for the dissolution of the government. The petitioner requests the European Parliament not to recognise the election results, to deny Mr. Lukashenko the status of the president-elect and to impose sanctions and to ensure that the responsible high-ranking officials and their families are held accountable, including members of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the electoral committees, the local governments, the prosecution and investigation offices, the judiciary and the state media.
The petition was declared inadmissible by the Committee on Petitions on 2 April 2020: Matters seemingly not coming within the Union’s fields of activity (List 3).