PETI Journal

The newsletter of the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament

PETI JournalYear I

Issue # 3

Monthly

June 2011

June’s meeting of the Committee will call upon the members of PETIto adopt the Annual Report 2010, drafted by Willy Meyer MEP.This appointment has become even more important since the Lis-

bon Treaty has come into force, confirming the “right to petition”under Article 227 and introducing two fundamental novelties, with im-portant consequences on the activity of our own Committee: the Euro-pean Citizens Initiative (ECI) and the legally-binding value of theCharter of Fundamental Rights.

Concerning the first one, on several occasions it has been underlinedthe necessity to directly involve the Petitions Committee in the devel-opment of the Citizens Initiative, in light of its broad experience in deal-ing with citizens and their concerns. About the Charter of FundamentalRights, then, looking at the petitions received on this issue, it is clearhow high citizen’s expectations are, as well as the confusion createdon the application of the Charter. This is why our Committee decided toorganise a hearing on this issue in the fall of 2011.

In 2010 more than 1600 petitions have been received. The most activecitizens are the Spanish (about 16%), followed by the Germans (about15%) and the Italians (about 10%). Also the fields concerned have

been confirmed compared to last year: Environment, Fundamental Rights, InternalMarket, Justice. The work of petitioners in protecting the environment in the EU hasbeen particularly important, given that most petitions were connected to environmen-tal impact assessments, the natural environment, wastewater, water quality manage-ment, conservation of natural resources, air quality, noise pollution, wastemanagement or industrial emissions. The Petitions Committee travelled three timesduring 2010 for fact-finding missions and always in relation to environmental peti-tions: to Huelva, Spain, to investigate on the alleged contamination of the Huelva es-tuary; to Campania, Italy, in relation to the petitions received on the local wastemanagement issue; to Vorarlberg, Austria, to assess the situation of four new ski lifts

in the context of the connection of ski areas.

On another note, I would like to highlight the fact that the Commission declared 2013 to be the ‘EuropeanYear of Citizenship’ in order to give momentum to the debate on European citizenship and inform EU citizensof their rights and I hereby would like to confirm the availability of the Petitions Committee to get fully involvedin this initiative, especially in the light of the role that it is called to play directly by the Treaty and of the trustdaily expressed by the European citizens towards our activities.

Erminia Mazzoni

CHAIRMAN’s INTRODUCTION

“The workof petitioners inprotecting theenvironment in

the EU has beenparticularly im-

portant”

The Committee on Petitions’ Chair: Ms. Erminia Mazzoni

2 PETI Journal

When is a petition not a petition? The Latin origin of petition - petere - means to seek or to request. Apetition is a formal document which seeks a response from an official person or institution. The EUTreaty gives the responsibility for receiving petitions to the European Parliament.

Petitions which are admissible are those which meet the criteriaestablished, in accordance with the Treaty, and with Parliament'sRules of Procedure, notably Rule 201. They need to relate tosomething which falls within the field of activity of the EU and whichconcerns the author directly. Most of them deal with issues relatedto the application of EU law in the member States. They may besubmitted by any EU citizen or resident, association or business.

Members of the Committee, not the secretariat, are responsiblefor establishing the admissibility of a petition, the full text of whichis to be found in the ePeti database, based upon a summary doc-ument and its recommendations. Normally decisions are reachedby consensus although a petition may, under Rule 201 paragraph7, be declared admissible at the request of at least one quarter ofthe members of the Committee.

So far so good? What about inadmissible petitions? These arefiled and the petitioner is informed accordingly, perhaps with a sug-

gestion of a possible alternative means of redress. These are often appeals against court decisions, or onissues of the sole competence of Member State, or concerning another institution outside the EU like theCouncil of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights.

And non-petitions....? These vary; some are requests for information about decisions of Parliament takenby the plenary, perhaps in the form of resolutions; others may just be comments or observations on Parlia-ment's role or activity. In such cases the Correspondence with Citizens' Unit deals with them.

You must receive some really bizarre correspondence pretending to be a petition though! Not so many in fact;abusive, offensive or otherwise incomprehensible texts are simply not registered as petitions by the serviceresponsible, for obvious reasons. If there is any reasonable doubt we try to give the benefit of that doubt topetitioners in order not to undermine in any way the fundamental right of petition, contained in Article 44 ofthe Charter.

Next time: Petitions Vs. Complaints. David Lowe

THE PULSE

About the Committee’s Activities

The Committee on Petitions is an investigative committee, not a legislative committee; it tries to ensurenon-judicial remedies are possible for citizens when their claims are substantiated. It can organise fact-finding visits and report to plenary thus playing a vital role in reconnecting with European citizens and in

reinforcing the democratic legitimacy and accountability of the EU decision-making process. The right topetition, contained in the Treaty on European Union, is a fundamental right inextricably linked to its citizenship.It is an important and often effective way for people to be directly involved in the Parliament's activity and tohave their concerns, proposals or complaints specifically addressed by the Committee members (M.E.P.s).

The Committee often responds to petitions from EU citizens by working to resolve possible infringements ofcitizens' rights under the Treaty and by cooperating with national, regional and local authorities on issues relatedto the application of European laws on such subjects as the environment, social affairs, human rights, freedomof movement and so on. The Petition Committee besides being in charge of the Petitions has also responsabil-ities for organizing the election of the European Ombusdman and for reviewing and debating his Annual Reportand Special Reports. The European Ombusdman, currently Mr. P. Nikiforos Diamandouros, is based in Stras-bourg and is responsible for dealing with complaints and maladministration.

This newsletter, and its sister web-site, is where you will find updated contacts and current information aboutthe work and activities of the Committee.

Head of Petitions’ Committee secretariat: David Lowe

3PETI Journal

Next Committee’s Meeting

The Committee on Petitions’ next meetings will take place on:

Tuesday, 12 July, 15h00 - 18h30Wednesday, 13 July, 9h00 - 12h00

Both meetings will be held in room PHS P5B001 (5th Floor) of the “Paul-Henri Spaak” (PHS) building.

Highlights from the May Meeting

When the Committee on Petitions convened on May 23 and 24,it knew that the Agenda of the Meeting would have been par-ticularly proving and it became self-evident as the Commitee

moved through the points on the agenda and welcomed the many guestswho graced the floor this time around. The Chairwoman, Ms. ErminiaMazzoni, presented her notes and after approving the minutes of theprevious meeting (April 13-14 2011) moved right along and started thedebates. As it was stated on our last issue, the secretariat will adopt thesame macro-categorization used within the Agenda of the Meeting itselfwhich generally speaking should allow for this column to report the high-lights of the meeting in a rather logical and effective, it is hoped, way.

In the presence of the European Commission and before a very attentive audience, the President of the Committee,Ms. Erminia Mazzoni, gave the floor to the European Ombudsman, Mr. Niki-foros Diamandouros, who proceeded to provide a very engaging and lively

presentation, showing once again the utmost commitment with which the Om-budsman pursues its mission. The case at hand, his Annual Report for the year2010 (point 5 on the Agenda of the Meeting) stimulated targeted and lively re-actions, from the European Commission and from several M.E.P.s, emphasizingissues of transparency, necessary commitment to an ethical administration andintegrity.

The following petition (point 6 on the Agenda), 1772/2009 by Helena Mai-jala, on behalf of “Pro Hanhikivi” deals with the projected construction inFinland of a nuclear power station of concern to many local people. Both

the petitioner and a representative of the company which plans the power sta-tion, came to the meeting and after hearing the two sides, the Committee de-cided to keep the petition open while waiting for further information from boththe interested parties and the European Commission.

Petition 332/2010 by Eloi Nolla Subirats submitted the issue about the location of a temporary central nuclearwaste storage facility in Spain. The Commitee after much debating agreed to close the petition, with the notableexception of Ms. Auken, member of the Greens political group, although with the understanding that shall new el-

ements come to light the petition could always be reopened for further investigation.

ENVIRONMENT

continues on pag. 4

Speakers: Ms. Auken, Mr. BoullandResponsible Administrator: Ms. Leffler-Rothdownload the relevant files

In a nutshell

Speakers: Ms. Auken, Mr. Martínez Martínez, Mr. BoullandResponsible Administrator: Mr. Pinto download the relevant files

In a nutshell

Speakers: Ms. Mazzoni, Ms. Iotova, Ms. Auken, Mr. Iturgaiz Angulo, Ms. Nedelcheva, Ms. Ždanoka, Ms. Ko-larska-BobińskaResponsible Administrator: Mr. Heezen download the relevant files

In a nutshell

a view of the room of the meeting - P4B001

l tor: Ms. Mazzoni, Mr. Diamandouros, Mr. Catephoresand Mr. Iturgaiz

l tor: Ms. Maijala, Ms. Halmeenpää

4

Highlights ... continued

Point 8 of the Agenda of the Meeting tackled the issue raised by Mr. Christian Goralczyk - petition 1702/2008 -about the alleged failure, by the radio and television licenses agency in Germany, to enforce data protectionrules. The exchange of views was frank and thoughtful and the Committee decided there would be no solid ground

to keep the petition open thus proceeding to close it.

Under the heading “Discrimination”, the secretariat filed the petition 720/2008 (point 9 on the Agenda of the Meet-ing) submitted by a French national on alleged discrimination in connection with the request for inclusion on thepopulation register and electoral roll in Forio on the Italian island of Ischia. It was clear after a thorough discussion

that the petitioner did have a valid point. While it was not possible to have the citizen in the meeting-room, it was agreedthat she would follow the meeting in real time through the webstreaming that the Parliament sets up at each and everymeeting. The European Commission’s intervention proved quite thorough and most relevant to the meeting. HoweverMr. Boulland, who made the rounds of the discussion, stressed that the Committee, in the light of the facts illustratedby the European Commission, should be getting in touch with the local authorities and with the French citizen to expressthe Committee’s deepest appreciation of the way the question was raised and handled by the petitoner herself.

The fisheries section of the Agenda of the Meeting dealt with, point10, petition 725/2010 by an Italian citizen, Mr. Marco Noto, whichraised the sensitive subject of canned fish labels. A series of consid-

erations were voiced by the M.E.P.s which, regardless of their own respec-tive political agendas, coalesced around the point that the subject wouldrequire more attention by the Committee on Fisheries (PECH). However atthe end of the discussion an Italian M.E.P, Mr. Guido Milana, member of thePECH Committee made a point and stated with certainty that as thingsstand the legislation would allow, for example, tuna fished in radioactive wa-ters around Fukushima to be canned and sold in Europe without much has-sle. The figure of speech certainly raised its result as besides keeping thepetition open, a joint Oral Question (OQ) with the PECH Committee, wasdeemed appropriate to further investigate the matter. It should be noted that on the same subject - Traceability of fishproducts - only a few days later, the EPP group announced a special hearing on Wed. June 29, 2011 and the secretariatlooks forward to it.

On the fishery discussion, the first day of the Committee meeting came to an end and gave way to the Coordinatorsof the political groups that went “in camera” for their meeting while the discussion of the remaining points on theagenda, just as originally planned, would continue the following morning.

May 24, was the second and final day of the meeting. The first two points discussed (13 and 14 on the Agenda)were the voting, and therefore final, part of the procedure which saw the PETI Committee dealing with two Opin-ions. The Opinion on Mobility and inclusion of people with disabilities was requested by the Commitee on

Employment and Social Affairs (EMPL). After an introduction by the Rapporteur, Mr. Chichester of the ECR politicalgroup, the Committee members went on to vote by raising hands, a very characteristic view which translated very wellfor the people that were watching the works of the Committee through the dedicated webstreaming. The Opinion wasadopted by unanimity and 16 out the 27 amendements originally presented were voted in final version of the document.The following one was an Opinion on the Application of the Community Law relating to the 27th Annual Report onmonitoring the application of EU law. The Rapporteur - Ms. Margrete Auken of the Greens group - went on to presentthe work that had been done and the Committee cast the vote adopting the Opinion by unanimity and approving 8 outof the 17 amendments originally presented to the Opinion. Good work indeed and, as it is customary, congratulationsto the Rapporteurs!

PETI Journal

DATA PROTECTION

DISCRIMINATION

FISHERIES

Speakers: Ms. Mazzoni, Mr. BoullandResponsible Administrator: Ms. Chioti download the relevant files

In a nutshell

Speakers: Ms. Mazzoni, Mr. Milana, Mr. Martínez MartínezResponsible Administrator: Mr. Heezen download the relevant files

In a nutshell

Mr. Milana

5

Point 15 allowed the members to voice their priorities in relation to the 2010 Annual Report on the Activities ofthe Committee on Petitions. The floor became lively as Mr. Bostinaru invited the European Commission to bemore attentive to the requests made by the Committee, notably on issues relating to the environment, Mr. Jahr,

on another note, suggested to consider closing the petitions relating to very old cases pending before European courts- and which might still take years to be awarded a final verdict - and Ms. Auken vehemently stressed and highlightedthe need for “more transparency”. Mr. Willy Meyer, Vice-President of the Committee and Rapporteur, took note of thedebate and committed to vote on the 2010 Annual Report of the Committee on Petitions during the June meeting.

Under the Social Affairs heading, the Committee proceeded to discuss point 16 of the Agenda of the Meeting,dealing with petitions 475/2010 and 1326/2010, both concerning pen-sion rights of Spanish seamen who worked as crew members on ves-

sels flying the Norwegian flag. The issue was emotional as many casesdealing with pension rights are, however the collective experience of the Com-mittee and its members worked out a very stimulating action plan which willinvolve to liaise and exert institutional pressure on the Norwegian governmentwhile, at the same time, writing to both the Spanish and the Norwegian gov-ernment to foster bi-lateral dialogue which should end this not-so-pleasant ad-venture of the Spanish seamen. The petition was therefore kept open and itwill be looked after to make sure that positive results shall be reaped.

Arecord number of 47 petitions, some signed by dozens of Euro-pean citizens living in most of Spain's coastal and island regions,were back on the agenda, point 17, as many members consider

that this long-standing issue is far from being resolved. The so-calledLey de Costas which was voted in 1988 in order to protect the beautifuland extensive Spanish coastal areas not only seriously missed its orig-inal target, but also many petitioners feel it has come back with avengeance to deny many people the rights to their legitimately acquiredproperty, to threaten some homes with demolition - all of it appliedretroactively. The Auken Report of March 2009 (http://bit.ly/jfa2kK)touched on this issue when it exposed the lack of legal certainty of prop-erty acquisition in many parts of Spain as a result of extensive urbanisa-

tion, but now members want to take the matter further. With so many petitioners present, one speaker per region wasallowed to introduce the issue for three minutes each. The members then had their turn, each trying to make their pointin one minute before the remaining petitioners who wished, were able to respond and give their personal stories.

PETI Journal

Highlights ... continued

SOCIAL AFFAIRS

VOTING TIME

PROPERTY RIGHTS

Speakers: Ms. Mazzoni, Mr. Iturgaiz Angulo, Ms. Auken, Mr. Sánchez Presedo, Mr. Millán Mon, Mr. Jahr,Mr. Meyer, Mr. Boştinaru, Ms. AukenResponsible Administrator: Mr. Pinto download the relevant files

In a nutshell

Speakers: Ms. Mazzoni, Mr. Jahr, Mr. Boştinaru, Ms. Werthmann, Ms. Auken, Mr. MeyerResponsible Administrator: Ms. Leffler-Roth download the relevant files

In a nutshell

Speakers: Ms. Mazzoni, Mr. Chichester, Mr. WielandRapporteur: Mr. Chichester (point 13 of Agenda)Responsible Administrator: Ms. Chiotidownload the relevant files

Speakers: Ms. Mazzoni, Ms. Auken, Mr. KroegerRapporteur: Ms. Auken (point 14 of Agenda)Responsible Administrator: Mr. Mussadownload the relevant files

In a nutshell

l to r: Mr. Lustres MartÍnes, Mr. Lores Názara

Ms. Rosa Garcia Pose

6

The two-hour debate was passionate, challenging and often emotional, given theimportance of the subject for people's families, and although the Committee hadreceived last year a lengthy letter from the Spanish Environment Minister, no

representative from the Spanish political authorities who had been invited, agreed toattend. Members are curious to know whether any clear proposals are to be forthcomingfrom the Spanish Parliament or the Regional authorities which are expected to respondto such concerns as were so forcefully expressed at the meeting. The Coordinators ofthe Committee are to consider more detailed follow-up actions having given themselvessome further time for reflection on this most sensitive issue.

On a related note, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has rejected the casepresented by the European Commission concerning the application of the PublicProcurements Directive in Spain. This was referred to in one of the paragraphs

of the Auken Report. In case C-306/08, the ECJ rejected the Commission's claims thatcertain aspects of planning decisions contained in “Integrated Action Programmes” werecontrary to Directives 93/37 and 92/50. The Court stated "... the Commission has notproved that the main object of the contract concluded between the local authorityand the urban developer is a public works contract within the meaning of Direc-tive 93/37 or Directive 2004/18, which is a condition precedent to a declaration ofthe alleged failure to fulfil obligations".

Last, but not least, the May meeting hosted the debate about petition 1327/2010 (point18 on the Agenda of the Meeting). In the presence of petitioner, Mr. Wintz, the Com-mittee learned about a French Government decree, declaring work on the A35 Stras-

bourg great western bypass to be of public utility and urgently necessary. However, Mr.Wintz made the Committee aware that a number of endengered species, including the Eu-ropean hamster, are threatened by this project for which the European Commission is al-ready launching an infringement procedure The petition has therefore been kept openwhile monitoring closely future developments.

The Committee ended its May meeting by discussing the Secretariat’s proposals to close a number of petitions inthe light of the EU Commission’s written reply and/or other documents received. All of the proposals were approvedexcept points # 20, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 36, 40, 43 and 51 (the Agenda of the meeting can be downloaded here)

which will be kept open for further enquiry.

PETI Journal

Highlights ... continued

Schedule of Meetings 2011Monday, 24 January, 15h00 - 18h30Tuesday, 25 January, 9h00 - 12h30

Tuesday, 1st February, 9h00 - 18h30

Tuesday, 15 March, 15h00 - 18h30Wednesday, 16 March, 9h00 - 12h30

Wednesday, 13 April, 15h00 - 18h30Thursday, 14 April, 9h00 - 12h30

Monday, 23 May, 15h00 - 18h30Tuesday, 24 May, 9h00 - 12h30

Tuesday, 14 June, 15h00 - 18h30Wednesday, 15 June, 9h00 - 12h00

Tuesday, 12 July, 15h00 - 18h30Wednesday, 13 July, 9h00 - 12h30

Thursday, 8 September, 15h00 - 18h30

Monday, 3 October, 15h00 - 18h30Tuesday, 4 October, 9h00 - 12h30Tuesday, 4 October, 15h00 - 18h30

Monday, 21 November, 15h00 - 18h30Tuesday, 22 November, 9h00 - 12h30

Tuesday, 20 December, 9h00 - 12h30Tuesday, 20 December, 15h00 - 18h30

Speakers: Ms. Mazzoni, Mr. Iturgaiz Angulo, Mr. Meyer, Ms. Ferragut, Ms. Muñiz DeUrquiza, Mr. Martínez Martínez, Mr. Sánchez Presedo, Mr. Voss, Mr. Boştinaru, Mr. Jahr,Mr. Helmer, Ms. Auken, Ms. Jimenez-Becerril Barrio, Mr. Wieland, Mr. Bilbao Barandica,Ms. Andreasen, Ms. WerthmannResponsible Administrator: Mr. Lowe download the relevant files

In a nutshell

Speakers: Ms. Mazzoni, Ms. Bélier, Mr. Boştinaru Responsible Administrator: Mr. Mussa download the relevant files

In a nutshell

Mr. Maurice Wintz

l to r: Mr. Alonso, Mr. González

7PETI Journal

Meet the M.E.P.s (ENGLISH VERSION)

Coordinator of the Petitions Committee for the ALDE (Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe) political group andoutstanding member from her native Romania. Adina Vălean entered the European Parliament in 2007 after Romania’saccession to the EU and has been voted back in office as a result of the 2009 elections. Her activities and experience

in the European Parliament are varied and they have always been carried out with enthusiasm and determination, two qualitiesthat won her the appointment as Coordinator in the Petitions Committee. Other than the PETI Committee, Adina Vălean is VPof the ALDE Group, member of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and substitute member of the ENVI Com-mittee; she has been responsible for 3 major reports, on Roaming, Free Movements of Citizens and Investment Projects inEnergy Infrastructure. The Secretariat caught up with her and the resulting Q&A session proved very engaging. It is our beliefthat it will make for an interesting read.

PETI: How do you regard the right to petition and how well do you think is being interpreted by the European Parliament?

M.E.P. Vălean: First of all I would like to salute the initiative of publishing a monthly newsletter. I believe that it can be a usefultool for bringing citizens closer to our work .Returning to your question, the right to petition is fundamental and of utmost im-portance for citizens and for us, MEPs. Firstly, because it addresses complaints about the implementation or breach of EU lawand therefore we can have a feedback about how European legislation actually works in member states. This is serious andis treated as such by our Committee. Secondly, because it provides another bridge of interaction between MEPs and EU citi-zens, separately from the more rigid legislative process or constituency meetings. Yet there is a pity that often debates on pe-titions are used as a battle ground for national politics. It's difficult to fight this but not impossible - we might think at introducing

restrictions regarding the political conflict of interests. And another downside ofthe activity is the small number of MEPs actively involved with the Committee andeven smaller number of countries represented.

PETI: Have you participated in any fact-finding visit (FFV)? And if so what are the

main lessons learned from your experience?M.E.P. Vălean: I haven't yet taken part in a fact-finding visit with the Petitions Com-mittee but I did a lot of fact-finding visits for issues related to my former activity inLIBE. And I can say it is very useful to consolidate an opinion at first hand. It isalso important to discuss with local authorities on the site - from my experiencethis puts supplementary pressure on them to solve the problems. Such a visit withthe Italian authorities in Rome put an end in 2008 to planed abuses towards free-dom of movement of European citizens. More recently, a fact-finding visit in Cam-pania, Italy, identified the problems with the disposal of waste in this region, makingpossible to fundament the report on Waste Management. As a shadow RapporteurI'm happy we succeeded to put the issue on the European Parliament's agenda,as the report will be debated and voted in the plenary.

PETI: Often the object of the petitions stems from local original governments´ be-

havior that is questioned by local citizens’ groups. What would you think could bedone to improve local-governments´ compliance to a correct application of EU

Law?M.E.P. Vălean: I think it’s a matter of showing national governments that if they don’t comply with EU law, things will not remainpassive, that there is somebody watching and that a mounting pressure will be on them to provide in due time appropriate re-dress. We have legal, moral and political authority, doubled by increased media awareness particularly on some hot topics,like, in Romania, the one of the car tax or the freedom of expression. I also want to take the opportunity to endorse the EuropeanParliament decision not to include on the agenda legislative proposals without being complemented by correlation tables withnational law. It is extremely important and we should keep the pressure on the Council until they accept. It would be a new be-ginning for the consistency of the European laws and a supplementary guarantee for citizens that transpositions will be quickand correct.

PETI: Is there anything you would do to expand the scope, and powers, of the PETI Committee?

M.E.P. Vălean: I don’t think there is a problem in terms of scope and powers. In my view, what PETI needs is to make the mostof the construction provided by the Lisbon Treaty and be even more vocal and proactive in defending people’s rights. At thesame time, we should analyze ways of making the petition process swifter; now it may take several months, or even in excessof a year, so improvements can take place. It’s also important to increase the awareness on the petition process and do someexpectations management as well; these two steps should result in less petitions being dismissed for legal reasons. Last butnot least, I think there is a need for political will at the leadership level of the House for including Petitions Committee topics onthe general agenda and to entrust this Committee with opinions or its own reports.

PETI: What do you think are the best features of the PETI Committee’s activities?

M.E.P. Vălean: Its openness and transparency, as well as its periodic fact finding missions. All these show that PETI has agenuine connecting power, that MEPs are in listening mode towards citizens and that they do their utmost to safeguard theirrights, by working closely in this sense with the European Commission to investigate and correct breaches of EU law.

Ms. Adina Valean

8

Meet the M.E.P.s (ROMANIAN VERSION)

PETI Journal

Coordonator al Comisiei de Petitii (PETI) pentru grupul politic ALDE (Alianta Liberalilor si Democratilor pentru Europa) si unreprezentant remarcabil al Romaniei, Adina Vălean a venit la Parlamentul European in 2007, dupa aderarea Romanieila Uniunea Europeana, fiind realeasa in urma alegerilor din 2009. Activitatile si experienta ei in Parlamentul European sunt

variate si au fost mereu intreprinse cu entuziasm si hotarare, doua calitati care i-au castigat numirea ca si Coordonator la Comisiade Petitii pentru grupul sau politic. In afara de PETI, Adina Vălean este vicepresedinta ALDE, membra a Comisiei pentru Industrie,Cercetare si Energie si membru supleant al Comisiei pentru Mediu, Sanatate Publica si Siguranta Alimentara ; a fost responsabilade trei rapoarte majore, privind roamingul, libera circulatie a cetatenilor si proiectele de investitii in infrastructura energetica. Sec-retariatul a abordat-o iar sesiunea de intrebari si raspunsuri s-a dovedit foarte dinamica. Avem convingerea ca va fi o lectura in-

teresanta.

PETI: Cum apreciaţi dreptul de petiţionare şi cât de bine este pus în practică de către

Parlamentul European?M.E.P. Vălean: In primul rand, as vrea sa salut initiativa de a publica un newsletterlunar. Consider ca poate fi un instrument folositor de a aduce cetatenii mai aproapede munca noastra. Revenind la intrebarea dumneavoastra, dreptul de petitie esteunul esential si de cea mai mare importanta pentru cetateni si pentru noi, europar-lamentarii. In primul rand, pentru ca astfel sunt formulate plangeri in legatura cu im-plementarea sau incalcarea legislatiei europene, si deci putem avea un raspunsprivind felul cum functioneaza legislatia europeana in fapt in statele membre. Aces-tea sunt chestiuni serioase si sunt tratate ca atare de comisia noastra. In al doilearand, pentru ca ea ofera o alta punte de interactiune intre europarlamentari sicetatenii europeni, diferita de procesul legislativ, mai rigid, sau de orice alta intalnirein circumscriptie. Totusi, este pacat ca deseori dezbaterile privind petitiile suntfolosite ca teren de batalie pentru politica nationala. Este dificil sa luptam cu aceastatendinta dar nu imposibil – ne-am putea gandi la introducerea de restrictii in ceeace priveste conflictele de interese politice. Iar un alt aspect mai nefast al activitatiinoastre este numarul mic de eurodeputati activ implicati, in aceasta Comisie si nu-marul mic de state reprezentate.

PETI: Aţi participat într-o misiune de documentare? Dacă da, care sunt lecţiile prin-

cipale învăţate din această experienţă?M.E.P. Vălean: Nu am luat inca parte la o asemenea vizita cu PETI, dar am facut o serie de vizite in cadrul fostei mele pozitii inComisia pentru libertati civile a PE. Va pot spune asadar cat este de utila consolidarea unei opinii la fata locului. Este de asemeneaimportant sa discuti cu autoritatile locale la fata locului – din experienta mea acest lucru pune o presiune suplimentara pentru re-zolvarea problemelor. O asemenea vizita la autoritatile italiene, la Roma, in 2008, a pus capat unor abuzuri planuite la adresa lib-ertatii de circulatie a cetatenilor europeni. Mai recent, o misiune de documentare in Campania, Italia, a identificat problemelelegate de depozitarea deseurilor in aceasta regiune, facand posibila fundamentarea raportului cu privire la Gestionarea Deseurilor.In calitate de raportor din umbra sunt fericita ca am reusit sa aducem problema pe agenda Parlamentului European, pentru caraportul va fi dezbatut si votat in plenara.

PETI: Cel mai adesea obiectul unei petiţii porneşte de la comportamentul guvernelor locale şi de la nevoia de a remedia acest

aspect. Ce credeţi că ar trebui făcut în vederea îmbunătăţirii conformării guvernelor locale la normele Uniunii Europene?M.E.P. Vălean: Cred ca trebuie sa le aratam autoritatilor nationale ca daca nu se supun legislatiei europene, nu vom ramanepasivi, ca exista cineva care le urmareste actiunile si ca vor fi sub o presiune din ce in ce mai mare pentru a-si rectifica actiunilein timp util. Noi avem autoritatea juridica, morala si politica, dublata si de cresterea gradului de reflectare in media a unor subiectefierbinti, ca, de exemplu, in Romania, cele privind taxa auto si libertatea de expresie. Vreau de asemenea sa profit de aceastaoportunitate pentru a sustine decizia Parlamentului European de a nu include pe agenda propuneri legislative fara a fi aduse incompletare tabele de corelare cu legislatia nationala. Este un lucru extrem de important si trebuie sa pastram presiunea asupraConsiliului pana cand acesta va accepta. Ar fi un nou inceput pentru consecventa legilor europene si o garantie suplimentarapentru cetateni ca transpunerea va fi rapida si corecta.

PETI: Există ceva ce aţi dori să faceţi pentru a extinde domeniul de aplicare şi puterile Comisiei PETI?

M.E.P. Vălean: Nu cred ca este vreo problema in ceea ce priveste domeniul de aplicare si puterile. In opinia mea, PETI trebuiesa profite la maxim de cadrul oferit de Tratatul de la Lisabona si sa fie mai vocala si mai proactiva in apararea drepturilor cetateniloreuropeni. In acelasi timp, ar trebui sa analizam caile prin care am putea face procesul de petitionare mai rapid; acum, el dureazade la cateva luni la un an, deci este loc de mai bine. Este important totodata sa crestem gradul de cunoastere privind procesuluide petitionare si sa ajutam la gestionarea si calibrarea asteptarilor petitionarilor. Urmarea ar fi scaderea numarului de petitiirespinse din motive juridice. Nu in ultimul rand, cred ca este nevoie de vointa politica la nivelul liderilor din Parlament pentru in-cluderea chestiunilor PETI pe agenda generala si sa ofere acestei Comisii posibilitatea de a prezenta propriile sale avize sirapoarte.

PETI: Care credeţi că sunt cele mai bune caracteristici ale activităţii Comisiei PETI?M.E.P. Vălean: Deschiderea, transparenta si misiunile periodice de documentare. Toate acestea arata ca PETI are o autenticaputere de conectare, ca europarlamentarii sunt receptivi la problemele cetatenilor si ca fac tot posibilul sa le protejeze drepturile,lucrand in stransa colaborare, in acest sens, cu Comisia Europeana pentru a investiga si corecta incalcarile legislatiei europene.

Ms. Adina Valean

9PETI Journal

PETI of Ages

With the etymology of the word “petition” accounted for in the previous issue and the classical antiquity-phaseof the road to the modern “right to petition” already described, it is possible for this column to move right aheadin time. Before fast-forwarding to Roman times though let the secretariat spend a few words about the implicit

findings of this research. While it is virtually out of our reach to go back in history before ancient Egypt, at least in termsof historical evidence, what the existence of this right in such a distant age (let’s bear in mind that we are talking abouta period of time that spans between 3000 BC and 500 BC) implies, is that whenever a form of government, widely ac-knowledged by its population, existed, so did a formal way - how effective and to whom is up for debate and might bethe subject of a scholarly study - for the citizen to request a redress.

It could be argued that, though from another point of view, the sentiment that must have moved the great british poet,John Donne, many centuries later to write a masterpiece such as “No man is an island” is the same one that inspiredthe first monarchs, or Pharaohs in the case of the Egyptians, to create this lifeline-like tool amongsts their rights and in-stitutions, however primitive they might have been at that stage. Even the most obscurantist and authoritative leaderwould certainly imagine a way to formally allow for a redress procedure and that procedure might as well become hispride and joy in terms of “self-marketing”. However, it is understood that it was the fashion in which redress requestswere prescribed and handled by the bureaucrats to make all the difference.

In the macro-areas of history, just between the great civilizations based in the modern middle-east (Sumerians, Babylo-nians and Egyptians being the most renowned) and the then-surgent Roman empire, it must be noted that the cradle ofdemocracy is by most scholars defined as "Athenian democracy" (ca. 800 BC). And as one can imagine, significanttraces of the fundamental “right to petition” can be observed. As it happens every time, the end of the column is fastapproaching and on the next installment before plunging into the Roman part of this walk through the millennia, we willtry and give more anecdotal evidence. However, this time around, one very important proof will be left with our readershipto ponder on the ancient and noble heritage of this right. The leading evidence of this fundamentally democratic rightin “Ancient Greece” can be found in Plato’s opus called “Apology” (quite flattering isn’t it?) - where the eminent philoso-pher clearly describes the state of the right to petition when reflecting on the unjust incarceration of his teacher Socrates- and affirms that "there seems to be something wrong in petitioning a judge ... for an acquittal".

On this note the secretariat bids you goodbye, until the next installment that is. Do not forget that if you are a “petition”scholar or are very passionate about this fundamental right and want to contribute to our newsletter, the secretariatwould love to hear from you. Please contact us via email at:

peti-secretariat@europarl.europa.eu

This new column which will be called upon whenever there will be a chance to update the public on the direct resultsof the Committee’s actions, has been christened “Part and Parcel” because, indeed, every time the secretariatdeals with petitions based on solid ground and heavy evidences, its intrinsical mission, the “part and parcel” of its

daily job as a matter of fact, is to find its resolution, to which all of the other activities are ancillary. In order to achievethese goals the Committee on Petitions and the secretariat endures thorough fact-finding actions because every singleM.E.P. knows that the collective “weight” and influence of the Committee’s actions is only as strong as the evidence theCommittee submits and evaluates. And that is not all, once the Committee does collect and process valuable information,it tends to work in a “moral suasion” fashion, thus needing time for the actions to produce the desired effect. It is a longand winding road but the Committee and this secretariat tries at all times to keep its eyes on the prize knowing that ifthere is one “watchdog” (as a representative of the European Commission benignly defined us during the March meeting)that can champion the rights of the European “man on the street”, that is the Committee on Petitions!

Bearing all of the above in mind, it can be understood how appreciative we are when we hear, from any interested party,that our actions have indeed borne fruits. Petition 0551/2008 is such a case. It argued that the authorities of the Frenchtown of Guérande, infringed Directive 92/43/EEC by issuing a planning permission for the construction of 23 collectiveresidences, 30 individual residences and 1 senior citizens’ residence in the immediate vicinity of the local salt marshed.According to the petitioner, who wrote on behalf of the Salt Marsh Workers Union, the constructions planned would havehad a serious impact on on the ecosystem of the protected area concerned, which is situated within Natura 2000 zoneFR210090 established by a French ministerial decree on March 30, 2006. The French authorities at first challenged thepetiton but in light of the persuasion exerted by our Committee, and it should be noted here the very effective work putbehind it by the Chairwoman Ms. Mazzoni and by the French outstanding member Ms. Bélier, the project was officiallycancelled on March 29, 2011.

It is indeed a victory and not necessarily an obvious one. The Committee and its secretariat is very adamant in its mis-sion, takes it seriously and it is hoped that more reports about “successful” petitions will be featured on this very columnin future installments. (Read at http://bit.ly/mPOCa2 the original letter, in French, received by the President of theCommittee on Petitions)

Part and Parcel

10 PETI Journal

Out and About: what goes on at the European Parliament

Of the many columns that form the backbone of our PETIJournal, “Out and About” is one of the newest addi-tions and perhaps the livieliest one. The others are in-

teresting, factual and, hopefully, engaging but “Out and About”- filtered through an open mind and no preconceptions - pushesthe envelope to become challenging, even. Through it, the sec-retariat roams through the hundreds, literally, of meetings andworkshops that are staged at the European Parliament in thecourse of a year and looks for provocative thoughts and stim-ulating ideas to report on PETI Journal in order to further fos-

ter the relationship with our readers. This time around “Out and About” would like to highlight a workshopthat took place one very sunny morning in Brussels on May 26, 2011. In room 4Q1 of the Josef Antall(JAN) building at the European Parliament, the STOA department of the European Parliament inviteda panel of experts to comment and imagine about a com-plex and provocative interrogative: Can political com-munication via the Internet and e-participationcontribute to the emergence of a European publicsphere?

PETI Journal, led by its innate inquiring mind andhunger for knowledge, if only to report back to you, wasthere and as a pleasant surprise, the more the workshopwent on, the more appealing it became. The STOA de-partment at the European Parliament deals with “Scienceand Technology Options Assessment” and this particularworkshop was meant to reflect on the potentials and re-alistic prospects of Internet-based applications to contribute to the democratic practices of the evolvingpolitical system of the European Union and the subsequent formation of a European public sphere.The speakers, bearing witness of their own field of expertise, argued that there are examples of concretecases where positive effects of the Internet concerning the political process are visible (e-Petitionsamongst others were mentioned and PETI Journal obviously was appreciative of the reference). Howeverit became evident - as noted particularly by both Prof. Stijn Smismans from the Cardiff Law School atCardiff University and Dr. Andy Williamson from the London-based Digital Democracy Programme at

Hansard Society - that not all of the potentials of the new technology havebeen tapped and that the legal political and social issues involved in the processshould not lag behind the technological advance leaving the actual implemen-tation of it in some sort of public policy’s “no man’s land”. The panel, led by Dr.Georg Aichholzer, featured the above-mentioned Prof. Stijn Smismans, fromthe Cardiff University, the sociologist Dr. Sandra Gonzalez-Bailon, from theUniversity of Oxford, Jeremy Millard, from the Danish Technological Insti-tute, Dr. Andy Williamson and Dr. Georgio Pananagnou, consultant with UN-ESCO.

The secretariat of the Petions Committee listened carefully to the presentationsand found several remarks to be most pertinent. The consideration, first broughtforward by Mr. Millard, that it is chiefly the public administrations that frustratethe ePublic sphere for fear of an eParticipation that could, under certain con-ditions, provide inconvenient results.Much was said about the bottom-up civil

movements and the top-down communications that should in the near future be able to meet in appro-priate fora where it would be possible to create a synthesis, a key-factor of any widely accepted public-sphere. This could, in turn, inject new energy in a generally tired political environment, and especiallyin the life of the political parties who have recently witnessed a drop in membership. Their role andfunction as the organizations of choice to enable the public at large (stakeholders, civil society and

a general view of the meeting’s panel

l to r: Dr. Williamson, Mr. Millard, Dr. Aichholzer, Prof. Smismans, Dr.Gonzàlez-Bailòn

Mr. Jeremy Millard

11PETI Journal

citizens in general) to orient and to be part of the policy-making processes isalso under close scrutiny.

The phenomenon of the social networks that at this particular point in time seemto be the major tool to call upon for true bottom-up participation - and that PETIJournal follows with a careful eye given its own presence in the Twitter and Face-book world - was duly analyzed by Dr. Gonzalez-Bailon who made clear that the“two problems that a priori seem to taint social network activities and partic-ipation are somewhat contradictory: the first is that we still don’t know howto put together all those opinions that citizens are expressing online in a waythat makes sense ... [and] the other big problem is the lack of representative-ness (in demographic terms) of those opinions: because not everybody goesonline to discuss about politics, if we only monitor the opinions of those whodo, we will be missing a great deal of what the public thinks”. However, her lecture continued, al-though she did not have the big solutions to overcome these two problems, she told the audience whatresearchers have done so far to tackle them.

About Facebook’ and Twit- ter’s flow of information,for example, she stated in her presentation (whichthe most inquring minds can read in its integral version at the following addresshttp://bit.ly/lsywhN) that “each of the studies un-dergone at academic level, revealed relevantdata about different but complementary dimen-sions of what the public thinks or feels at agiven moment and over time; these dimensions

are not only comparable tomore traditional opinion polls, but also richer and more informative if onlybecause they give us a more immediate and dynamic picture of what is inthe mind of the public, a picture that technology allows us to assemblemore efficiently and to which representatives can therefore react morequickly”. She then went on to conclude that “the second problem mentionedbefore, or the lack of demographic representativeness in online conver-sations ... while it is true that not everybody goes on-line to discuss about politically relevant issues, whatthese empirical studies suggest is that those who do(and they are still hundreds of thousands) expressopinions that are representative enough of the opin-ions of society at large – this is why we can use thatinformation to predict offline events”.

At PETI Journal, where we are also trying to communicate and have people par-ticipate through our pages on both Facebook and Twitter, we realized that weneed to keep pursueing these avenues of communication with the citizens and weshall strive to get as much as we can from the enriching integration that this two-way dialogue allows for. Many others interesting points were made during thecourse of the workshop but, just as it was envisioned, there would be not enoughroom or time to review them all here. PETI Journal, will however share with its readers the webpage(http://bit.ly/mOsbef) where ALL of the presentations can be consulted and even downloaded and it issuggested to try and continue on this very fertile debate through the Facebook page of the PetitionsCommittee.

AD MAIORA!

Out and About ... continued

Dr. Andy Williamson

Dr. Georg Aichholzer

Dr. Sandra Gonzàlez-Bailòn

“[social networks]give us a more immediate

and dynamic picture ofwhat is in the mind of the

public”

12

Legal Disclaimer:The items contained herein are drafted by the Secretariat of the “Petition Committee” and are provided for general information purposes only. Theopinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position of the EuropeanParliament. The PETI Newsletter may contain links to external websites that are created and maintained by other organisations. The PETI Secretariatdoes not necessarily endorse the views thereby expressed.

About the editor:European ParliamentDirectorate General for Internal Policies (DG-IPOL)Petition Unit (PETI)Committee Head of Unit / Editor: David LoweResponsible Administrator: Francesco Calazzo

Newsletter Subscription:If you wish to receive this newsletter, please send an email to

peti-secretariat@europarl.europa.eu with subject "newsletter"

PETI web-site

submit a Petition

An “outcome” meeting of the Secretariat, which follows each Committee meeting

PETI Journal

Closure date of the current issue: 21 June 2011

For real-time updates, links, stories and commentary join the “PETI Journal” on:

About this publication

The on-going efforts, at the Secretariat of the Petition (PETI) Committee and, more in general, at the European Par-liament, head towards one single goal, that is both its mission and its vision: to serve the people of Europe effec-tively and respectfully. This new communication tool that you hold in your hands is fully serving its mission if it will

allow for two-way conversation. The PETI Journal is intended for both on-line and off-line fruition. The secretariat triedhard to maintain the same characteristics but in order to avoid very lengthy and hard-to-remember links all of the externalwebsites references are intended in an on-line, click-through, fashion. As a general thumbrule, external links and docu-ments are generally highlighted either by the presence of a discreet icon or through an underlining of the keywords/sen-tence.

If you picked up, or subscribed to, this newsletter it is because you want to know PETI’s activities better. The Secretariatwould like to get to know you better too. Yes indeed, you can petition the Parliament ONLY complying with the proceduresdescribed on our web-site and, let us be clear about this, petitions can be officially considered as such only if they aresubmitted through the appropriate means. However, that does not mean that a dialogue with the readers would hurt. Onthe contrary the Secretariat believes that the more the dialogue, the better it is for the Union, our Union.

Let the PETI Secretariat know who you are, where you are, what piques your interests and what you consider it mightbe an useful addition to the editorial content. The Secretariat cannot promise it will abide but will certainly consider thebest suggestions.

e-mail:peti-secretariat@europarl.europa.eu

browse through our thorough archives of PETI “meeting documents” - 7th Legislature (in all the languages of the EU)

stream or download to your PC the videos of all the PETI Committee meetings - 7th Legislature

most videos and documents are offered in all of the 23 official languages of the EU

list of all Parliamentary Committees

WWW homepageFacebook

Twitter

Follow us on: