Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-07-05-Speech-1-148"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100705.19.1-148"6
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, first of all, I want to thank the rapporteur for his very comprehensive report.
I have been a substitute member of the Committee on Petitions for six years and during that time, I have worked very closely with some petitioners and listened very carefully to others.
The first thing that always concerns me is that, in general, citizens have a very different perspective on the EU institutions than we do as MEPs or you do as Commissioner. I think we need to put ourselves in the shoes of petitioners. I think if we want a really effective, citizen friendly process, we need to set up some kind of panel composed of petitioners and then listen to what they have to say and use that as a catalyst for positive change.
For many citizens, petitioning the European Parliament is the last lap of a very long journey and they are often already very frustrated. We have a responsibility to smooth that path as much as possible and indeed, the proposal to convert the EU rights web page into a user friendly, one-stop shop is, I think, an excellent one. But we also need to be supportive of citizens throughout the process, with clear, timely explanations as to what is happening throughout the entire procedure.
The issue of inadmissible petitions comes up year after year and I think we need to be real about this. We are never going to fully explain to citizens what the competences of the Union are or are not, so I think what is more important is that, if a petition is inadmissible, then that is clearly and simply explained to the petitioner and, crucially, suggestions as to where they might turn next are also included in the response.
Two final points. I support paragraph 17, which calls on the Commission to deal with misleading directory companies. Year in, year out, small businesses in many, if not all, Member States are subject to harassment and legal threats from these misleading directory companies.
Finally, recital E speaks about the direct impact of EU legislation on citizens’ lives and how citizens are best placed to assess its effectiveness and shortcomings. We as legislators, and the Commissioners as initiators of legislation, need to listen to this and use it as part of a reinforcing loop that improves our effectiveness rather than a cul-de-sac."@en4
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Pane předsedající, nejprve bych ráda poděkovala panu zpravodaji za jeho velmi komplexní zprávu.
Šest let jsem byla náhradnicí Petičního výboru a v této době jsem velmi úzce spolupracovala s některými předkladateli petic a velice pozorně naslouchala všem dalším.
První věc, která mne vždy zaskočí, je to, že občané obecně vnímají orgány EU úplně jinak než my jako poslanci Evropského parlamentu nebo vy jako komisař. Myslím, že se musíme vžít do kůže předkladatelů petic. Domnívám se, že chceme-li skutečně účinný a k občanům vstřícný proces, musíme vytvořit nějaký panel tvořený předkladateli petic a pak si vyslechnout, co jim leží na srdci, a využít to jako katalyzátor k pozitivní změně.
Pro mnohé občany je podání petice k Evropskému parlamentu posledním úsekem velice dlouhé cesty a často jsou již velmi frustrováni. Je naší povinností jejich cestu co nejvíce usnadnit a myslím, že návrh, aby se internetové stránky o právech v EU proměnily v jediné správní místo, je opravdu skvělý. Musíme však být občanům oporou též v průběhu procesu a srozumitelně a včas jim po celou dobu, kdy probíhá, věc vysvětlovat.
Rok co rok se vracíme k tématu nepřípustných petic a myslím, že musíme být v této záležitosti realističtí. Nikdy občanům přesně nevysvětlíme, jaké jsou, či naopak nejsou pravomoci Unie, a proto je podle mne důležitější, aby předkladatel v případě nepřípustné petice obdržel jasné a jednoduché vysvětlení, přičemž je velmi důležité, aby součástí odpovědi bylo i doporučení, na koho se obrátit dál.
Poslední dvě poznámky: podporuji bod 17, který vyzývá Komisi, aby se zabývala podvodnými katalogovými firmami. Rok co rok jsou malé podniky v mnoha, ne-li všech členských státech terčem obtěžování a právních hrozeb ze strany těchto podvodných katalogových firem.
A konečně, bod odůvodnění E hovoří o přímém vlivu právních předpisů EU na životy občanů a o tom, jak právě občané nejlépe posoudí účinnost tohoto vlivu a případné nedostatky. My jako zákonodárci a komisaři jako iniciátoři právních předpisů musíme tomuto jejich názoru naslouchat a využít ho jako součást dlouhodobého procesu, který zvyšuje kvalitu naší práce, spíše než abychom to považovali za cestu, která nikam nevede."@cs1
"Mr President, first of all I want to thank the rapporteur for his very comprehensive report.
I have been a substitute member of the Committee on Petitions for six years and during that time I have worked very closely with some petitioners and listened very carefully to others.
The first thing that always concerns me is that, in general, citizens have a very different perspective on the EU institutions than we do as MEPs or you do as Commissioner. I think we need to put ourselves in the shoes of petitioners. I think if we want a really effective, citizen-friendly process, we need to set up some kind of panel composed of petitioners and then listen to what they have to say and use that as a catalyst for positive change.
For many citizens, petitioning the European Parliament is the last lap of a very long journey and they are often already very frustrated. We have a responsibility to smooth that path as much as possible, and indeed the proposal to convert the EU rights web page into a user-friendly, one-stop shop is, I think, an excellent one. But we also need to be supportive of citizens throughout the process, with clear, timely explanations as to what is happening throughout the entire procedure.
The issue of inadmissible petitions comes up year after year and I think we need to be real about this. We are never going to fully explain to citizens what the competences of the Union are or are not, so I think what is more important is that, if a petition is inadmissible, then that is clearly and simply explained to the petitioner and, crucially, suggestions as to where they might turn next are also included in the response.
Two final points. I support paragraph 17, which calls on the Commission to deal with misleading directory companies. Year in, year out, small businesses in many if not all Member States are subject to harassment and legal threats from these misleading directory companies.
Finally, recital E speaks about the direct impact of EU legislation on citizens’ lives and how citizens are best placed to assess its effectiveness and shortcomings. We as legislators, and the Commissioners as initiators of legislation, need to listen to this and use it as part of a reinforcing loop that improves our effectiveness rather than a cul-de-sac."@da2
"Herr Präsident! Zuerst möchte ich dem Berichterstatter für seinen äußerst umfassenden Bericht danken.
Ich war sechs Jahre stellvertretendes Mitglied des Petitionsausschusses und in dieser Zeit habe ich sehr eng mit verschiedenen Petenten zusammengearbeitet und anderen sehr aufmerksam zugehört.
Das Erste, was mich immer bewegt hat, ist die Tatsache, dass die Unionsbürger im Allgemeinen eine ganz andere Auffassung von den EU-Organen haben als wir Abgeordnete oder Sie als Kommissionsmitglied. Ich denke, wir müssen uns in die Rolle der Petenten versetzen. Wenn wir wirklich ein wirksames bürgerfreundliches Verfahren wollen, dann müssen wir eine Art Gremium aus Petenten bilden und hören, was sie zu sagen haben, und dies dann als Katalysator für einen positiven Wandel nutzen.
Für viele Bürger bedeutet die Einreichung einer Petition beim Parlament die letzte Etappe eines sehr langen Weges, und sie sind oft schon ziemlich frustriert. Wir haben eine Verantwortung, diesen Weg zu ebnen, und ich halte den Vorschlag, die Internetseite „Ihre Rechte in der EU“ zu einer anwenderfreundlichen, einzigen Anlaufstelle im Internet zu machen, wirklich für ausgezeichnet. Wir müssen die Bürger während des Prozesses aber auch mit klaren und zeitgerechten Erklärungen darüber unterstützen, was während des gesamten Verfahrens vor sich geht.
Das Thema der unzulässigen Petitionen taucht jedes Jahr wieder auf, und ich denke wir müssen hier realistisch sein. Wir werden den Bürgern niemals vollständig erklären, welche Befugnisse die Union hat und welche nicht; wichtiger noch ist aber, wenn eine Petition unzulässig ist, das dem Petenten dann klar und einfach zu erklären und – das ist ganz entscheidend – in der Antwort auch Vorschläge zu formulieren, wo er oder sie sich als nächstes hinwenden kann.
Abschließend noch zwei Punkte. Ich unterstütze Ziffer 17, in der die Kommission aufgefordert wird, sich mit irreführender Werbung durch Adressbuchfirmen zu befassen. Jahrein, jahraus sind kleine Unternehmen in vielen, wenn nicht allen Mitgliedstaaten Belästigungen ausgesetzt und vor die Androhung gerichtlicher Schritte durch die irreführende Werbung durch Adressbuchfirmen gestellt.
Schließlich ist in der Erwägung E davon die Rede, dass sich die europäischen Rechtsvorschriften unmittelbar auf das Leben der Bürger auswirken und dass die Bürger am besten ihre Wirksamkeit und ihre Unzulänglichkeiten bewerten können. Wir als Gesetzgeber und die Kommissionsmitglieder als Initiatoren der Gemeinschaftsgesetzgebung müssen das zur Kenntnis nehmen und eher als Element eines verstärkenden Kreislaufs zu nutzen, der die Wirksamkeit unserer Maßnahmen steigert, als eine Sackgasse zu sehen."@de9
"Mr President, first of all I want to thank the rapporteur for his very comprehensive report.
I have been a substitute member of the Committee on Petitions for six years and during that time I have worked very closely with some petitioners and listened very carefully to others.
The first thing that always concerns me is that, in general, citizens have a very different perspective on the EU institutions than we do as MEPs or you do as Commissioner. I think we need to put ourselves in the shoes of petitioners. I think if we want a really effective, citizen-friendly process, we need to set up some kind of panel composed of petitioners and then listen to what they have to say and use that as a catalyst for positive change.
For many citizens, petitioning the European Parliament is the last lap of a very long journey and they are often already very frustrated. We have a responsibility to smooth that path as much as possible, and indeed the proposal to convert the EU rights web page into a user-friendly, one-stop shop is, I think, an excellent one. But we also need to be supportive of citizens throughout the process, with clear, timely explanations as to what is happening throughout the entire procedure.
The issue of inadmissible petitions comes up year after year and I think we need to be real about this. We are never going to fully explain to citizens what the competences of the Union are or are not, so I think what is more important is that, if a petition is inadmissible, then that is clearly and simply explained to the petitioner and, crucially, suggestions as to where they might turn next are also included in the response.
Two final points. I support paragraph 17, which calls on the Commission to deal with misleading directory companies. Year in, year out, small businesses in many if not all Member States are subject to harassment and legal threats from these misleading directory companies.
Finally, recital E speaks about the direct impact of EU legislation on citizens’ lives and how citizens are best placed to assess its effectiveness and shortcomings. We as legislators, and the Commissioners as initiators of legislation, need to listen to this and use it as part of a reinforcing loop that improves our effectiveness rather than a cul-de-sac."@el10
"Señor Presidente, antes que nada me gustaría dar las gracias al ponente por su informe tan completo.
Fui miembro suplente de la Comisión de Peticiones durante seis años y durante ese período trabajé muy estrechamente con algunos peticionarios y escuché con gran atención a otros.
Lo que más me preocupa es que, en general, los ciudadanos tienen una perspectiva de las instituciones de la UE muy distinta de la de las diputadas y diputados del Parlamento Europeo o de la de usted, señor Comisario. Creo que debemos ponernos en la situación de los peticionarios. Me parece que si realmente queremos un proceso eficaz y favorable a los ciudadanos, tenemos que establecer algún tipo de grupo formado por peticionarios y escuchar lo que tienen que decir y usarlo como catalizador para introducir cambios positivos.
Para muchos ciudadanos, la petición al Parlamento Europeo es la última etapa de un viaje muy largo y a menudo se encuentran sumamente frustrados. Tenemos la obligación de facilitar este camino en la medida de lo posible, y la propuesta de convertir la página web de derechos de la UE en una ventanilla única de fácil uso me parece realmente una excelente idea. Pero también debemos prestar apoyo a los ciudadanos a todo lo largo del proceso con explicaciones claras y oportunas sobre lo que sucede durante este.
La cuestión de las peticiones inadmisibles se plantea año tras año y creo que debemos actuar con realismo al respecto. Nunca podremos explicar plenamente a los ciudadanos qué es competencia de la Unión y qué no lo es, por lo que creo que es más importante que si la petición es inadmisible, se explique clara y simplemente al peticionario y, lo que es más importante, que en la respuesta se incluyan sugerencias sobre las instancias a las que puede acudir.
Dos últimas observaciones. Estoy a favor del apartado 17 en el que se pide a la Comisión que haga algo respecto a los directorios de empresas engañosos. Año tras año, muchas pequeñas empresas de muchos Estados miembros, si no ya todos, son objeto de acoso y amenazas legales por parte de empresas que publican directorios engañosos.
Por último, en el considerando E se habla de los efectos directos que tiene la legislación de la UE en la vida de los ciudadanos y de la forma en que estos pueden evaluar su eficacia y deficiencias. Nosotros, en tanto que legisladores, y los Comisarios, en su calidad de iniciadores de la legislación, tenemos que escucharlos y utilizar sus opiniones para que nuestra intervención mejore nuestra eficacia en lugar de ser un callejón sin salida."@es21
"Mr President, first of all I want to thank the rapporteur for his very comprehensive report.
I have been a substitute member of the Committee on Petitions for six years and during that time I have worked very closely with some petitioners and listened very carefully to others.
The first thing that always concerns me is that, in general, citizens have a very different perspective on the EU institutions than we do as MEPs or you do as Commissioner. I think we need to put ourselves in the shoes of petitioners. I think if we want a really effective, citizen-friendly process, we need to set up some kind of panel composed of petitioners and then listen to what they have to say and use that as a catalyst for positive change.
For many citizens, petitioning the European Parliament is the last lap of a very long journey and they are often already very frustrated. We have a responsibility to smooth that path as much as possible, and indeed the proposal to convert the EU rights web page into a user-friendly, one-stop shop is, I think, an excellent one. But we also need to be supportive of citizens throughout the process, with clear, timely explanations as to what is happening throughout the entire procedure.
The issue of inadmissible petitions comes up year after year and I think we need to be real about this. We are never going to fully explain to citizens what the competences of the Union are or are not, so I think what is more important is that, if a petition is inadmissible, then that is clearly and simply explained to the petitioner and, crucially, suggestions as to where they might turn next are also included in the response.
Two final points. I support paragraph 17, which calls on the Commission to deal with misleading directory companies. Year in, year out, small businesses in many if not all Member States are subject to harassment and legal threats from these misleading directory companies.
Finally, recital E speaks about the direct impact of EU legislation on citizens’ lives and how citizens are best placed to assess its effectiveness and shortcomings. We as legislators, and the Commissioners as initiators of legislation, need to listen to this and use it as part of a reinforcing loop that improves our effectiveness rather than a cul-de-sac."@et5
"Mr President, first of all I want to thank the rapporteur for his very comprehensive report.
I have been a substitute member of the Committee on Petitions for six years and during that time I have worked very closely with some petitioners and listened very carefully to others.
The first thing that always concerns me is that, in general, citizens have a very different perspective on the EU institutions than we do as MEPs or you do as Commissioner. I think we need to put ourselves in the shoes of petitioners. I think if we want a really effective, citizen-friendly process, we need to set up some kind of panel composed of petitioners and then listen to what they have to say and use that as a catalyst for positive change.
For many citizens, petitioning the European Parliament is the last lap of a very long journey and they are often already very frustrated. We have a responsibility to smooth that path as much as possible, and indeed the proposal to convert the EU rights web page into a user-friendly, one-stop shop is, I think, an excellent one. But we also need to be supportive of citizens throughout the process, with clear, timely explanations as to what is happening throughout the entire procedure.
The issue of inadmissible petitions comes up year after year and I think we need to be real about this. We are never going to fully explain to citizens what the competences of the Union are or are not, so I think what is more important is that, if a petition is inadmissible, then that is clearly and simply explained to the petitioner and, crucially, suggestions as to where they might turn next are also included in the response.
Two final points. I support paragraph 17, which calls on the Commission to deal with misleading directory companies. Year in, year out, small businesses in many if not all Member States are subject to harassment and legal threats from these misleading directory companies.
Finally, recital E speaks about the direct impact of EU legislation on citizens’ lives and how citizens are best placed to assess its effectiveness and shortcomings. We as legislators, and the Commissioners as initiators of legislation, need to listen to this and use it as part of a reinforcing loop that improves our effectiveness rather than a cul-de-sac."@fi7
"Mr President, first of all I want to thank the rapporteur for his very comprehensive report.
I have been a substitute member of the Committee on Petitions for six years and during that time I have worked very closely with some petitioners and listened very carefully to others.
The first thing that always concerns me is that, in general, citizens have a very different perspective on the EU institutions than we do as MEPs or you do as Commissioner. I think we need to put ourselves in the shoes of petitioners. I think if we want a really effective, citizen-friendly process, we need to set up some kind of panel composed of petitioners and then listen to what they have to say and use that as a catalyst for positive change.
For many citizens, petitioning the European Parliament is the last lap of a very long journey and they are often already very frustrated. We have a responsibility to smooth that path as much as possible, and indeed the proposal to convert the EU rights web page into a user-friendly, one-stop shop is, I think, an excellent one. But we also need to be supportive of citizens throughout the process, with clear, timely explanations as to what is happening throughout the entire procedure.
The issue of inadmissible petitions comes up year after year and I think we need to be real about this. We are never going to fully explain to citizens what the competences of the Union are or are not, so I think what is more important is that, if a petition is inadmissible, then that is clearly and simply explained to the petitioner and, crucially, suggestions as to where they might turn next are also included in the response.
Two final points. I support paragraph 17, which calls on the Commission to deal with misleading directory companies. Year in, year out, small businesses in many if not all Member States are subject to harassment and legal threats from these misleading directory companies.
Finally, recital E speaks about the direct impact of EU legislation on citizens’ lives and how citizens are best placed to assess its effectiveness and shortcomings. We as legislators, and the Commissioners as initiators of legislation, need to listen to this and use it as part of a reinforcing loop that improves our effectiveness rather than a cul-de-sac."@fr8
"Mr President, first of all I want to thank the rapporteur for his very comprehensive report.
I have been a substitute member of the Committee on Petitions for six years and during that time I have worked very closely with some petitioners and listened very carefully to others.
The first thing that always concerns me is that, in general, citizens have a very different perspective on the EU institutions than we do as MEPs or you do as Commissioner. I think we need to put ourselves in the shoes of petitioners. I think if we want a really effective, citizen-friendly process, we need to set up some kind of panel composed of petitioners and then listen to what they have to say and use that as a catalyst for positive change.
For many citizens, petitioning the European Parliament is the last lap of a very long journey and they are often already very frustrated. We have a responsibility to smooth that path as much as possible, and indeed the proposal to convert the EU rights web page into a user-friendly, one-stop shop is, I think, an excellent one. But we also need to be supportive of citizens throughout the process, with clear, timely explanations as to what is happening throughout the entire procedure.
The issue of inadmissible petitions comes up year after year and I think we need to be real about this. We are never going to fully explain to citizens what the competences of the Union are or are not, so I think what is more important is that, if a petition is inadmissible, then that is clearly and simply explained to the petitioner and, crucially, suggestions as to where they might turn next are also included in the response.
Two final points. I support paragraph 17, which calls on the Commission to deal with misleading directory companies. Year in, year out, small businesses in many if not all Member States are subject to harassment and legal threats from these misleading directory companies.
Finally, recital E speaks about the direct impact of EU legislation on citizens’ lives and how citizens are best placed to assess its effectiveness and shortcomings. We as legislators, and the Commissioners as initiators of legislation, need to listen to this and use it as part of a reinforcing loop that improves our effectiveness rather than a cul-de-sac."@hu11
"Mr President, first of all I want to thank the rapporteur for his very comprehensive report.
I have been a substitute member of the Committee on Petitions for six years and during that time I have worked very closely with some petitioners and listened very carefully to others.
The first thing that always concerns me is that, in general, citizens have a very different perspective on the EU institutions than we do as MEPs or you do as Commissioner. I think we need to put ourselves in the shoes of petitioners. I think if we want a really effective, citizen-friendly process, we need to set up some kind of panel composed of petitioners and then listen to what they have to say and use that as a catalyst for positive change.
For many citizens, petitioning the European Parliament is the last lap of a very long journey and they are often already very frustrated. We have a responsibility to smooth that path as much as possible, and indeed the proposal to convert the EU rights web page into a user-friendly, one-stop shop is, I think, an excellent one. But we also need to be supportive of citizens throughout the process, with clear, timely explanations as to what is happening throughout the entire procedure.
The issue of inadmissible petitions comes up year after year and I think we need to be real about this. We are never going to fully explain to citizens what the competences of the Union are or are not, so I think what is more important is that, if a petition is inadmissible, then that is clearly and simply explained to the petitioner and, crucially, suggestions as to where they might turn next are also included in the response.
Two final points. I support paragraph 17, which calls on the Commission to deal with misleading directory companies. Year in, year out, small businesses in many if not all Member States are subject to harassment and legal threats from these misleading directory companies.
Finally, recital E speaks about the direct impact of EU legislation on citizens’ lives and how citizens are best placed to assess its effectiveness and shortcomings. We as legislators, and the Commissioners as initiators of legislation, need to listen to this and use it as part of a reinforcing loop that improves our effectiveness rather than a cul-de-sac."@it12
"Pone pirmininke, pirmiausia noriu padėkoti pranešėjui už labai išsamų pranešimą.
Šešerius metus buvau pakaitinė Peticijų komiteto narė ir per tą laiką labai artimai bendradarbiavau su kai kuriais peticijų autoriais bei labai atidžiai išklausydavau kitus.
Pirmas dalykas, kuris man visada kelia susirūpinimą, yra tai, kad piliečiai visiškai kitaip įsivaizduoja ES institucijas, nei mes, Parlamento, ar jūs, Komisijos, nariai. Manau, mums reikia pabandyti įsijausti į peticijų teikėjų vaidmenį. Manau, kad jei siekiame tikrai veiksmingų ir patogių piliečiams procesų, turime surengti ką nors panašaus į peticijų autorių forumą, įsiklausyti į jų mintis ir pasinaudoti jomis įgyvendinant greitesnes teigiamas permainas.
Daugelis piliečių siųsdami peticijas Europos Parlamentui griebiasi paskutinio šiaudo savo ilgoje kovoje ir dažnai jau būna labai nusivylę. Mums tenka atsakomybė kaip įmanoma labiau palengvinti šią kovą, ir iš tiesų pasiūlymas padaryti interneto svetainę apie ES piliečių teises patogią naudotis ir veikiančią vieno langelio principu, mano nuomone, yra puikus. Bet taip pat turime padėti piliečiams per visą procesą, aiškiai ir laiku paaiškindami jiems, kaip vyksta visa procedūra.
Nepriimtinų peticijų klausimas kyla kiekvienais metais ir, manau, reikia jį vertinti tikroviškai. Niekuomet nesugebėsime visiškai išaiškinti piliečiams, kokius įgaliojimus turi ir kokių neturi Europos Sąjunga, todėl manau, kad daug svarbiau, jei peticijos yra nepriimtinos, aiškiai ir paprastai paaiškinti tai jų teikėjams ir, svarbiausia, siunčiamame atsakyme nurodyti, į kokią instituciją jie galėtų kreiptis vėliau.
Du pastebėjimai pabaigai. Pritariu 17 punktui, kuriame Komisija raginama imtis veiksmų dėl klaidinančių žinynų leidėjų. Kiekvienais metais daugelyje, jei ne visose valstybėse narėse, klaidinančių žinynų leidėjai daro spaudimą smulkiajam verslui ir grasina dėl jų imtis teisinių veiksmų.
Galiausiai E konstatuojamojoje dalyje rašoma apie tiesioginį ES teisės aktų poveikį piliečiams ir pastarųjų sugebėjimą geriausiai įvertinti jų pranašumus ir trūkumus. Mes, teisės aktų leidėjai, ir Komisijos nariai, jų iniciatoriai, turime įsiklausyti į šiuos vertinimus ir pasinaudoti jais kaip tvirtinimo grandine, kuri sustiprintų mūsų veiksmingumą ir neleistų patekti į aklavietę."@lt14
"Mr President, first of all I want to thank the rapporteur for his very comprehensive report.
I have been a substitute member of the Committee on Petitions for six years and during that time I have worked very closely with some petitioners and listened very carefully to others.
The first thing that always concerns me is that, in general, citizens have a very different perspective on the EU institutions than we do as MEPs or you do as Commissioner. I think we need to put ourselves in the shoes of petitioners. I think if we want a really effective, citizen-friendly process, we need to set up some kind of panel composed of petitioners and then listen to what they have to say and use that as a catalyst for positive change.
For many citizens, petitioning the European Parliament is the last lap of a very long journey and they are often already very frustrated. We have a responsibility to smooth that path as much as possible, and indeed the proposal to convert the EU rights web page into a user-friendly, one-stop shop is, I think, an excellent one. But we also need to be supportive of citizens throughout the process, with clear, timely explanations as to what is happening throughout the entire procedure.
The issue of inadmissible petitions comes up year after year and I think we need to be real about this. We are never going to fully explain to citizens what the competences of the Union are or are not, so I think what is more important is that, if a petition is inadmissible, then that is clearly and simply explained to the petitioner and, crucially, suggestions as to where they might turn next are also included in the response.
Two final points. I support paragraph 17, which calls on the Commission to deal with misleading directory companies. Year in, year out, small businesses in many if not all Member States are subject to harassment and legal threats from these misleading directory companies.
Finally, recital E speaks about the direct impact of EU legislation on citizens’ lives and how citizens are best placed to assess its effectiveness and shortcomings. We as legislators, and the Commissioners as initiators of legislation, need to listen to this and use it as part of a reinforcing loop that improves our effectiveness rather than a cul-de-sac."@lv13
"Mr President, first of all I want to thank the rapporteur for his very comprehensive report.
I have been a substitute member of the Committee on Petitions for six years and during that time I have worked very closely with some petitioners and listened very carefully to others.
The first thing that always concerns me is that, in general, citizens have a very different perspective on the EU institutions than we do as MEPs or you do as Commissioner. I think we need to put ourselves in the shoes of petitioners. I think if we want a really effective, citizen-friendly process, we need to set up some kind of panel composed of petitioners and then listen to what they have to say and use that as a catalyst for positive change.
For many citizens, petitioning the European Parliament is the last lap of a very long journey and they are often already very frustrated. We have a responsibility to smooth that path as much as possible, and indeed the proposal to convert the EU rights web page into a user-friendly, one-stop shop is, I think, an excellent one. But we also need to be supportive of citizens throughout the process, with clear, timely explanations as to what is happening throughout the entire procedure.
The issue of inadmissible petitions comes up year after year and I think we need to be real about this. We are never going to fully explain to citizens what the competences of the Union are or are not, so I think what is more important is that, if a petition is inadmissible, then that is clearly and simply explained to the petitioner and, crucially, suggestions as to where they might turn next are also included in the response.
Two final points. I support paragraph 17, which calls on the Commission to deal with misleading directory companies. Year in, year out, small businesses in many if not all Member States are subject to harassment and legal threats from these misleading directory companies.
Finally, recital E speaks about the direct impact of EU legislation on citizens’ lives and how citizens are best placed to assess its effectiveness and shortcomings. We as legislators, and the Commissioners as initiators of legislation, need to listen to this and use it as part of a reinforcing loop that improves our effectiveness rather than a cul-de-sac."@mt15
"Mr President, first of all I want to thank the rapporteur for his very comprehensive report.
I have been a substitute member of the Committee on Petitions for six years and during that time I have worked very closely with some petitioners and listened very carefully to others.
The first thing that always concerns me is that, in general, citizens have a very different perspective on the EU institutions than we do as MEPs or you do as Commissioner. I think we need to put ourselves in the shoes of petitioners. I think if we want a really effective, citizen-friendly process, we need to set up some kind of panel composed of petitioners and then listen to what they have to say and use that as a catalyst for positive change.
For many citizens, petitioning the European Parliament is the last lap of a very long journey and they are often already very frustrated. We have a responsibility to smooth that path as much as possible, and indeed the proposal to convert the EU rights web page into a user-friendly, one-stop shop is, I think, an excellent one. But we also need to be supportive of citizens throughout the process, with clear, timely explanations as to what is happening throughout the entire procedure.
The issue of inadmissible petitions comes up year after year and I think we need to be real about this. We are never going to fully explain to citizens what the competences of the Union are or are not, so I think what is more important is that, if a petition is inadmissible, then that is clearly and simply explained to the petitioner and, crucially, suggestions as to where they might turn next are also included in the response.
Two final points. I support paragraph 17, which calls on the Commission to deal with misleading directory companies. Year in, year out, small businesses in many if not all Member States are subject to harassment and legal threats from these misleading directory companies.
Finally, recital E speaks about the direct impact of EU legislation on citizens’ lives and how citizens are best placed to assess its effectiveness and shortcomings. We as legislators, and the Commissioners as initiators of legislation, need to listen to this and use it as part of a reinforcing loop that improves our effectiveness rather than a cul-de-sac."@nl3
"Mr President, first of all I want to thank the rapporteur for his very comprehensive report.
I have been a substitute member of the Committee on Petitions for six years and during that time I have worked very closely with some petitioners and listened very carefully to others.
The first thing that always concerns me is that, in general, citizens have a very different perspective on the EU institutions than we do as MEPs or you do as Commissioner. I think we need to put ourselves in the shoes of petitioners. I think if we want a really effective, citizen-friendly process, we need to set up some kind of panel composed of petitioners and then listen to what they have to say and use that as a catalyst for positive change.
For many citizens, petitioning the European Parliament is the last lap of a very long journey and they are often already very frustrated. We have a responsibility to smooth that path as much as possible, and indeed the proposal to convert the EU rights web page into a user-friendly, one-stop shop is, I think, an excellent one. But we also need to be supportive of citizens throughout the process, with clear, timely explanations as to what is happening throughout the entire procedure.
The issue of inadmissible petitions comes up year after year and I think we need to be real about this. We are never going to fully explain to citizens what the competences of the Union are or are not, so I think what is more important is that, if a petition is inadmissible, then that is clearly and simply explained to the petitioner and, crucially, suggestions as to where they might turn next are also included in the response.
Two final points. I support paragraph 17, which calls on the Commission to deal with misleading directory companies. Year in, year out, small businesses in many if not all Member States are subject to harassment and legal threats from these misleading directory companies.
Finally, recital E speaks about the direct impact of EU legislation on citizens’ lives and how citizens are best placed to assess its effectiveness and shortcomings. We as legislators, and the Commissioners as initiators of legislation, need to listen to this and use it as part of a reinforcing loop that improves our effectiveness rather than a cul-de-sac."@pl16
"Mr President, first of all I want to thank the rapporteur for his very comprehensive report.
I have been a substitute member of the Committee on Petitions for six years and during that time I have worked very closely with some petitioners and listened very carefully to others.
The first thing that always concerns me is that, in general, citizens have a very different perspective on the EU institutions than we do as MEPs or you do as Commissioner. I think we need to put ourselves in the shoes of petitioners. I think if we want a really effective, citizen-friendly process, we need to set up some kind of panel composed of petitioners and then listen to what they have to say and use that as a catalyst for positive change.
For many citizens, petitioning the European Parliament is the last lap of a very long journey and they are often already very frustrated. We have a responsibility to smooth that path as much as possible, and indeed the proposal to convert the EU rights web page into a user-friendly, one-stop shop is, I think, an excellent one. But we also need to be supportive of citizens throughout the process, with clear, timely explanations as to what is happening throughout the entire procedure.
The issue of inadmissible petitions comes up year after year and I think we need to be real about this. We are never going to fully explain to citizens what the competences of the Union are or are not, so I think what is more important is that, if a petition is inadmissible, then that is clearly and simply explained to the petitioner and, crucially, suggestions as to where they might turn next are also included in the response.
Two final points. I support paragraph 17, which calls on the Commission to deal with misleading directory companies. Year in, year out, small businesses in many if not all Member States are subject to harassment and legal threats from these misleading directory companies.
Finally, recital E speaks about the direct impact of EU legislation on citizens’ lives and how citizens are best placed to assess its effectiveness and shortcomings. We as legislators, and the Commissioners as initiators of legislation, need to listen to this and use it as part of a reinforcing loop that improves our effectiveness rather than a cul-de-sac."@pt17
"Mr President, first of all I want to thank the rapporteur for his very comprehensive report.
I have been a substitute member of the Committee on Petitions for six years and during that time I have worked very closely with some petitioners and listened very carefully to others.
The first thing that always concerns me is that, in general, citizens have a very different perspective on the EU institutions than we do as MEPs or you do as Commissioner. I think we need to put ourselves in the shoes of petitioners. I think if we want a really effective, citizen-friendly process, we need to set up some kind of panel composed of petitioners and then listen to what they have to say and use that as a catalyst for positive change.
For many citizens, petitioning the European Parliament is the last lap of a very long journey and they are often already very frustrated. We have a responsibility to smooth that path as much as possible, and indeed the proposal to convert the EU rights web page into a user-friendly, one-stop shop is, I think, an excellent one. But we also need to be supportive of citizens throughout the process, with clear, timely explanations as to what is happening throughout the entire procedure.
The issue of inadmissible petitions comes up year after year and I think we need to be real about this. We are never going to fully explain to citizens what the competences of the Union are or are not, so I think what is more important is that, if a petition is inadmissible, then that is clearly and simply explained to the petitioner and, crucially, suggestions as to where they might turn next are also included in the response.
Two final points. I support paragraph 17, which calls on the Commission to deal with misleading directory companies. Year in, year out, small businesses in many if not all Member States are subject to harassment and legal threats from these misleading directory companies.
Finally, recital E speaks about the direct impact of EU legislation on citizens’ lives and how citizens are best placed to assess its effectiveness and shortcomings. We as legislators, and the Commissioners as initiators of legislation, need to listen to this and use it as part of a reinforcing loop that improves our effectiveness rather than a cul-de-sac."@ro18
"Mr President, first of all I want to thank the rapporteur for his very comprehensive report.
I have been a substitute member of the Committee on Petitions for six years and during that time I have worked very closely with some petitioners and listened very carefully to others.
The first thing that always concerns me is that, in general, citizens have a very different perspective on the EU institutions than we do as MEPs or you do as Commissioner. I think we need to put ourselves in the shoes of petitioners. I think if we want a really effective, citizen-friendly process, we need to set up some kind of panel composed of petitioners and then listen to what they have to say and use that as a catalyst for positive change.
For many citizens, petitioning the European Parliament is the last lap of a very long journey and they are often already very frustrated. We have a responsibility to smooth that path as much as possible, and indeed the proposal to convert the EU rights web page into a user-friendly, one-stop shop is, I think, an excellent one. But we also need to be supportive of citizens throughout the process, with clear, timely explanations as to what is happening throughout the entire procedure.
The issue of inadmissible petitions comes up year after year and I think we need to be real about this. We are never going to fully explain to citizens what the competences of the Union are or are not, so I think what is more important is that, if a petition is inadmissible, then that is clearly and simply explained to the petitioner and, crucially, suggestions as to where they might turn next are also included in the response.
Two final points. I support paragraph 17, which calls on the Commission to deal with misleading directory companies. Year in, year out, small businesses in many if not all Member States are subject to harassment and legal threats from these misleading directory companies.
Finally, recital E speaks about the direct impact of EU legislation on citizens’ lives and how citizens are best placed to assess its effectiveness and shortcomings. We as legislators, and the Commissioners as initiators of legislation, need to listen to this and use it as part of a reinforcing loop that improves our effectiveness rather than a cul-de-sac."@sk19
"Gospod predsednik, najprej bi se zahvalila poročevalcu za njegovo zelo celovito poročilo.
Šest let sem bila nadomestna članica Odbora za peticije in v tem času sem tesno sodelovala z nekaterimi vlagatelji peticij in zelo skrbno prisluhnila drugim.
Prva stvar, ki me vedno skrbi, je, da na splošno državljani precej drugače gledajo na institucije EU kot mi poslanci ali vi kot komisar. Menim, da se moramo postaviti v položaj vlagatelja peticije. Menim, da potrebujemo, če hočemo resnično učinkovit, državljanom prijazen postopek, vzpostaviti nekakšno komisijo, sestavljeno iz vlagateljev peticije, in jim nato prisluhniti, kaj imajo povedati, to pa nato izkoristiti kot spodbudo za pozitivno spremembo.
Za mnoge državljane je vložitev peticije pri Evropskem parlamentu zadnji korak na zelo dolgi poti in so zato pogosto že zelo razočarani. Naša odgovornost je, da čim bolj zgladimo to pot, predlog, da spletišče EU o pravicah spremenimo v uporabnikom prijazno spletišče z vsemi informacijami na enem mestu, pa je po moje odličen. Vendar pa moramo državljane podpirati v celotnem postopku z jasnimi, pravočasnimi razlagami tega, kaj se dogaja v celotnem postopku.
Vprašanje nedopustnih peticij se pojavlja leto za letom in menim, da moramo biti glede tega realni. Državljanom nikoli ne bomo popolnoma razložili, kaj so ali niso pristojnosti Unije, zato menim, da je pomembneje, da se vlagatelju jasno in enostavno razloži, če je njegova peticija nedopustna, in da se v odgovor vključi tudi predloge, kam naj se nadalje obrne.
Še zadnji dve pripombi. Podpiram odstavek 17, ki Komisijo poziva, naj ukrepa v zvezi z zavajajočimi podjetji za imeniške storitve. Leto za letom so mala podjetja v številnih, če ne vseh, državah članicah žrtve nadlegovanja in pravnih groženj teh zavajajočih podjetij za imeniške storitve.
Nazadnje, uvodna izjava E govori o neposrednih vplivih evropske zakonodaje na življenje državljanov in kako lahko državljani najbolje ocenijo njeno učinkovitost in pomanjkljivosti. Mi kot zakonodajalci in komisarji kot pobudniki zakonodaje moramo prisluhniti temu in to uporabiti kot del zanke pojačanja, ki izboljšuje našo učinkovitost, namesto slepe ulice."@sl20
"Mr President, first of all I want to thank the rapporteur for his very comprehensive report.
I have been a substitute member of the Committee on Petitions for six years and during that time I have worked very closely with some petitioners and listened very carefully to others.
The first thing that always concerns me is that, in general, citizens have a very different perspective on the EU institutions than we do as MEPs or you do as Commissioner. I think we need to put ourselves in the shoes of petitioners. I think if we want a really effective, citizen-friendly process, we need to set up some kind of panel composed of petitioners and then listen to what they have to say and use that as a catalyst for positive change.
For many citizens, petitioning the European Parliament is the last lap of a very long journey and they are often already very frustrated. We have a responsibility to smooth that path as much as possible, and indeed the proposal to convert the EU rights web page into a user-friendly, one-stop shop is, I think, an excellent one. But we also need to be supportive of citizens throughout the process, with clear, timely explanations as to what is happening throughout the entire procedure.
The issue of inadmissible petitions comes up year after year and I think we need to be real about this. We are never going to fully explain to citizens what the competences of the Union are or are not, so I think what is more important is that, if a petition is inadmissible, then that is clearly and simply explained to the petitioner and, crucially, suggestions as to where they might turn next are also included in the response.
Two final points. I support paragraph 17, which calls on the Commission to deal with misleading directory companies. Year in, year out, small businesses in many if not all Member States are subject to harassment and legal threats from these misleading directory companies.
Finally, recital E speaks about the direct impact of EU legislation on citizens’ lives and how citizens are best placed to assess its effectiveness and shortcomings. We as legislators, and the Commissioners as initiators of legislation, need to listen to this and use it as part of a reinforcing loop that improves our effectiveness rather than a cul-de-sac."@sv22
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Marian Harkin,"18,5,20,15,19,14,16,11,7,22,10,2,3,13,4,21,9,17,12,8
"on behalf of the ALDE Group"18,5,15,19,11,16,22,7,10,2,3,13,17,12,8
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples