What changed between the plenary report and the adopted text

Removed:EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

Removed:Pursuant to Rule 227 (7) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, the Committee on Petitions shall report annually on the outcome of its deliberations. The report aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the work carried out by the committee in 2019 and includes a statistical analysis of the petitions received and processed as well as a stocktaking of other parliamentary activities such as the adoption of reports and opinions, the organisation of hearings and the committee’s relations with other EU institutions. It is worth recalling that the core work of the Committee on Petitions generates from the right to petition the European Parliament exercised by EU citizens and residents under Article 227 TFEU and is not directly linked to the work programme of the Commission.

Removed:2019 was an important year for European democracy, as EU citizens were called on to renew the composition of the European Parliament. On 23-26 May 2019, more than 200,000,000 people in 28 EU countries went to the polls to elect members of the European Parliament. Following the European elections, in which 51% of voters - notably the highest turnout in twenty years - cast a ballot to choose their representatives, the new Parliament held its constitutive session on 2 July 2019.

Removed:The Committee on Petitions held its constitutive meeting on 10 July 2019 and elected Ms Dolors Montserrat as Chair, Ms Tatjana Ždanoka, as First Vice-Chair, Ms Yana Toom, as second Vice-Chair, Mr Ryszard Czarnecki as third Vice-Chair and Ms Cristina Maestre Martín de Almagro, as fourth Vice-Chair.

Removed:In order to enable the organisation of the European elections, a recess period took place from 19 April to 1 July 2019, during which parliamentary activities were interrupted. This explains the reduced number of reports, opinions, resolutions and hearings, which were adopted and took place in 2019. On the contrary, EU citizens and residents continued exercising their right to petition during the recess period as demonstrated by the continuous petitions’ flow registered in 2019, which significantly increased in comparison with the previous two years.

Removed:Statistical analysis of petitions received in 2019 compared to 2018

Removed:According to the statistics, the European Parliament received 1 357 petitions in 2019 which represents an increase by 11,23% compared to the 1 220 petitions submitted in 2018.

Removed:Users of the Petitions Web Portal have the possibility to support petitions. In 2019, 28 075 users acted as supporters. In 2018, 4 893 users of the portal supported one or several petitions as compared to 15 540 users in 2017 and to 6 132 in 2016. With the exception of the year 2018, statistics show a steady increase in the number of users supporting petitions in the web portal.

Removed:In 2019, 41 petitions were co-signed by one or more citizens, 8 petitions by more than 100 citizens and 3 petitions by more than 10 000 citizens. In 2018, 41 petitions were co-signed by one or more citizens, 14 petitions by more than 100 citizens, 5 petitions by more than 10 000 citizens and 2 petitions by more than 100 000 citizens.

Removed:Format of petitions

Removed:In 2019, almost 3/4 of the petitions were submitted via the Petitions Web Portal while 1/4 of petitions were submitted by post. The figures in the two tables reveal that in 2019 the number of petitions submitted via the Petitions Web Portal increased by 3.2% in comparison with 2018.

Removed:Status of petitions per calendar year

Removed:The following table shows the status of petitions from 2003 to 2019. It can be noted that in 2019, the majority of petitions were closed within a year after being received and examined by the committee. As a result of the comparison with the data on the status of petitions included in the annual reports from 2010 to 2018, it can be concluded that the majority of petitions are closed within a year after being received and examined. Very small percentages (from 0.3 % to 13.7%) of petitions from 2004 to 2015 remain open. Most of these open petitions relate to environmental issues and ongoing infringement procedures before the Court of Justice of the European Union or to issues that members of the committee want to follow closely.

Removed:Outcome of petitions

Removed:2019

Removed:2018

Removed:The tables show that the percentage of petitions declared inadmissible in 2019 is slightly lower than the percentage of petitions, which were declared inadmissible in 2018. Lower is also the percentage of admissible petitions (31.6 %), which were closed immediately by providing information to the petitioner in 2019, as compared to the 38.9 % in 2018. It follows that more petitions (37.4%) have been kept open in 2019 as compared to 2018, when 25.6% of petitions were kept open.

Removed:It is also to be noted that in 2019, almost half of the admissible petitions were sent to the Commission for opinion, which represents an increase by 12.5% as compared to 2018.

Removed:Finally, the percentage of petitions sent to other bodies for opinion was slightly higher in 2019, while the number of petitions sent to other bodies for information decreased by 14.2%.

Removed:Number of petitions by country

Removed:The following two tables illustrate in numbers and in percentage terms changes of petitions by country from 2019 to 2018. A large number of petitions submitted in 2019 and 2018 concern the EU. It means that these petitions either raise EU-wide issues or call for common measures to be implemented throughout the EU. Petitions concerning the EU may also relate to one or more Member States and are therefore registered under both the EU and the concerned Member State(s). This explains why the sum of the petitions concerning the EU and of those only related to Member States exceeds the total number of petitions submitted in 2019 and 2018.

Removed:Additionally, it is worth stressing that the nine countries mostly concerned by petitions remained the same in 2019 and in 2018. However, their order changed considerably. While the majority of petitions submitted in 2019 concern Germany, the number of petitions related to Spain and Italy decreased respectively by 3.6% and 3.5% in comparison with 2018.

Removed:Another remarkable difference concerns the United Kingdom. Petitions concerning the UK in 2019 increased by 3.2% in comparison with 2018. There were also some changes in the bottom of the list. While in 2019, Estonia, Slovenia and Latvia were the least countries concerned, in 2018, it was Malta, Estonia and Finland.

Removed:Finally, the proportion of petitions that concern non-EU countries slightly raised in 2019.

Removed:2019

Removed:2018

Removed:Languages of petitions

Removed:In 2019 and in 2018, petitions were submitted in 22 of the official languages of the European Union. While in 2017 and 2016, the majority of petitions were submitted in English, German became the most used language in 2019 and 2018. In addition, the tables illustrate that German, English, Spanish and Italian languages accounted for almost 3/4 (71.8%-71%) of the petitions received in both years. Slovak, Latvian and Slovenian were the least used languages in 2019 while in 2018 it were Swedish, Slovenian and Maltese.

Removed:2019

Removed:2018

Removed:Nationality of petitioners

Removed:As regards nationality, petitions submitted by German citizens represent the highest number in both years with an increase by 3% in 2019. By contrast, the number of petitioners from Spanish and Italian citizens decreased respectively by 2.5% and by 4.3% in 2019 in comparison with 2018. In addition, the tables below reveal an increase by 3.7% in the number of petitions submitted by British citizens in 2019. In 2019, 54 out of 88 petitions submitted by British citizens raised questions about Brexit.

Removed:2019

Removed:2018

Removed:Main subjects of petitions

Removed:The tables below include the top ten petition themes. From the tables it can be concluded that the main areas of concern for petitioners in 2019 and 2018 were environment, fundamental rights and justice. While the number of petitions on fundamental rights amounts to the same percentage, in 2019 petitions on environment and on justice increased by respectively 1.9% and 2.3%. By contrast, in 2019 petitions on internal market and health issues slightly decreased by respectively 1.9% and 0.7%.

Removed:Among the other themes, in 2019 the committee received a higher number (98) of petitions on constitutional affairs as compared to the 62 petitions received under the same theme in 2018. Under this category, petitioners expressed their concerns over a number of EU constitutional law issues, such as the UK withdrawal from the EU, EU citizenship and a few questions on the working of the EU institutions. As regards more specifically Brexit, in 2019, petitions raising questions about Brexit and its consequences amounted to 73.

Removed:Finally, it is worth recalling that in 2019, the European elections took place, which explains the reason why in 2019 the number of petitions on voting rights and elections was higher (49) than in 2018, when 13 petitions were registered under this theme.

Removed:Petitions web portal

Removed:The Petitions web portal, established at the end of 2014, has been further improved in order to make it more user friendly and more accessible for citizens. In 2019, important technical upgrades have been made. First of all, the portal has been developed into a responsive web design version compliant and in line with the new ‘look and feel’ of the European Parliament’s website (Europarl). The Portal has therefore become more responsive and can be used on any device. Secondly, the new privacy statement has been uploaded in all linguistic versions in the email templates and on the registration page and audio Captcha for registration of user accounts has been enabled. Finally, the Petitions web portal and ePetition have been further integrated by improving their synchronisation mechanism. However, the accessibility of the petitions web portal for petitioners with disabilities needs to be further enhanced.

Removed:Relations with the Commission

Removed:The Commission remains the natural partner of the Committee on Petitions in processing petitions as the responsible EU institution for ensuring the implementation of and compliance with EU law. The committee and the Commission have a well-established and consistently maintained level of cooperation. The main contact point in the Commission is the Secretariat-General, which coordinates the distribution of petitions to the relevant Commission’s services and transmits the Commission’s replies to the secretariat of the committee. While the Commission has stepped up its efforts to provide timely responses, the committee considers that the handling process of petitions by the Commission could be further improved. The committee, also, reiterates its calls for regular updates on developments in infringement proceedings and for access to relevant Commission documents on infringements and EU pilot procedures, which relate to open petitions.

Removed:Following the European elections and the establishment of the new Parliament, the commissioners-designate appeared before the parliamentary committees in their prospective fields of responsibility and took part in hearings to enable the recently elected MEPs to evaluate their competence and suitability for their positions. In this respect, the Committee on Petitions participated on 30 September 2019 in the hearing of the Vice-President-designate for Interinstitutional Relations and Foresight, Maroš Šefčovič, as associated committee. During the hearing, Mr Šefčovič pledged to improve the Commission’s handling of petitions. More specifically, he committed to work closely with the Committee on Petitions and to attend its presentation of the annual report. In addition, he promised to encourage the participation of the Commissioners responsible in the debate of those topics raised in a significant number of petitions. Finally, he pledged to do his utmost to submit accurate answers within the three-month deadline.

Removed:In its written question sent ahead of the hearing, the committee reiterated its concerns over the Commission’s practice of referring a significant number of petitioners to other bodies at national, regional or local level and put into question the compatibility of this approach with the Commission’s enforcement responsibility. While acknowledging that petitions provide a valuable contribution to Commission’s role as guardian of the Treaty, Commission’s Vice-President referred to the Commission’s new strategic approach to its enforcement policy announced in its 2016 communication ‘EU Law: Better Results through Better Application’, which aims at targeting the most important breaches of EU law affecting the interests of citizens and businesses.

Removed:Relations with the Council

Removed:Members of the Council’s Secretariat occasionally attended the meetings of the Committee on Petitions and Council’s participation in debates has been very limited. In this respect, the committee considers that a more active cooperation with Member States would be necessary to unblock those petitions requiring prompt responses and reactions from the national authorities. Nevertheless, the committee acknowledges the efforts by some Member States to actively contribute to the discussion on respective petitions in committee meetings. In this regard, it is worth recalling the participation of the Permanent Representation of Bulgaria in the discussion on petition No 0527/2018 on the impact of Struma motorway on Kresna Gorge and the region in Bulgaria at the committee meeting on 2 December 2019.

Removed:Relations with the European External Action Service

Removed:The Committee on Petitions and the European External Action Service have established a constructive cooperation. The committee called on the European External Action Service to provide its expertise for the treatment of a number of petitions having an external dimension, including the follow-up of the recommendation included in the report on the Fact-finding Visit to Famagusta, Cyprus (7-8.05.2018).

Removed:Relations with the European Ombudsman

Removed:The Committee on Petitions has very good working relations with the office of the European Ombudsman. In 2019, the Ombudsman, Emily O’Reilly, appeared before the Committee on Petitions on several occasions.

Removed:On 2 April 2019, the Committee on Petitions held an exchange of views with the European Ombudsman, Emily O’Reilly, on her proposed new prerogatives. The European Ombudsmn was invited to react on the European Parliament’s resolution of 12 February 2019 on the revision of the Statute of the European Ombudsman. Ms O’Reilly supported the need to align the Statute of the European Ombudsman with the Lisbon Treaty, while underlining the following essential elements of the Ombudsman’s Office: - independence; - strong inquiry powers; - the need for increased resources; and - cross-party support from the European Parliament.

Removed:The European Ombudsman also gave a keynote speech on Achievements and Challenges for EU institutions at the Workshop on ‘Conflicts of Interest - Integrity, Accountability and Transparency in the EU institutions and agencies’, which took place in the committee meeting on 2 April 2019.

Removed:In addition, she presented her Annual Report 2018 in the committee’s meeting on 4 September 2019.

Removed:Finally, on 18 December 2019, Emily O’Reilly was re-elected European Ombudsman for the 2019-2024 parliamentary term. She was backed by 320 MEPs in a secret plenary vote. The election of the new European Ombudsman took place following a public hearing of the candidates by the Committee on Petitions. On 3 December 2019, the committee heard the following five admissible candidates: Mr. Giuseppe Fortunato, Ms. Julia Laffranque, Mr. Nils Muižnieks, Ms. Emily O’Reilly and Ms. Cecilia Wikström. As a follow-up of the hearings, the committee sent a letter to the European Parliament’s President confirming that the hearings were conducted and that Parliament could proceed with the election of the European Ombudsman during the December Plenary session in Strasbourg in line with the provisions of Rule 231 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure. During the Petitions Committee’s public hearing on 3 December, Emily O’Reilly pledged to continue working to make the EU administration a role model for the whole EU, by putting citizens and their rights at the centre of its actions.

Removed:At its meeting on 12 November 2019, the committee adopted by a large majority the Report on the Annual report on the activities of the European Ombudsman in 2018. The Report highlights the Ombudsman’s work and commends her essential and fruitful dialogue with the Committee on Petitions, which constitutes an effective system of addressing the citizens’ concerns for guidance and help.

Removed:Fact-finding visits

Removed:In 2019, no fact-finding visits took place due to the European election recess period. However, the committee carried out the follow-up assessment of a number of previous fact-finding visits and adopted the reports on two fact-finding visits, which took place in 2018:

Removed: On 21 January 2019, the committee discussed the follow-up of the recommendations of the Fact-Finding Visit to Galicia in 2013 in the presence of the petitioners.

Removed: On 21 February 2019, the committee discussed the follow-up of the Fact-Finding Visit to London (5-6.11.2015), and of the Fact-Finding Visit to Slovakia (22-23.09.2016). In the presence of the petitioners, it also discussed the follow-up of the Fact-Finding Visit to Ebro and Tajo rivers (8-10.02.2016) and of the Fact-Finding Visit to Sweden (20-21.02.2017).

Removed: On 21 March 2019, the committee adopted the report on the Fact-Finding Visit to Doñana National Park, Andalucia, Spain (19-21.09.2018) recommending to close the storage, prospection and gas extraction projects in the Doñana National Park, following the ‘precautionary principle.’