Abstimmung im Europäischen Parlament

Beratungen des Petitionsausschusses im Jahr 2024

Fredis Beleris - Entschließungsantrag (gesamter Text)
Datum: 09.10.2025·Referenz: A10-0170/2025
Berichterstatter/in: Fredis Beleris

Gesamtergebnis

Angenommen
  • 535 Dafür
  • 24 Dagegen
  • 55 Enthaltung
  • 105 Nicht abgestimmt
Status und Verfahren

Ergebnis laut Europäischem Parlament.

Abgestimmt am
Zuletzt dokumentierter Schritt
Plenum · (vor 410 Tagen)
Nächster geplanter Schritt
In der Quelle ist kein weiterer Schritt geplant.

Verfahrensverlauf

2025/2114(INI) · INI

Dokumentierte Verfahrensschritte. Daraus folgt nicht, dass ein Gesetz in Kraft getreten ist.

  1. Dokumentiert: Ausschussberatung15 Tage bis zum nächsten Schritt
  2. Dokumentiert: Überweisung18 Tage bis zum nächsten Schritt
  3. Dokumentiert: Ausschussberatung84 Tage bis zum nächsten Schritt
  4. Zuletzt dokumentiert: Plenum410 Tage seit Beginn dieses Schritts
Dokumentierte Schritte (13)
  1. Ausschussbericht eingereicht
  2. Überweisung an den Ausschuss
  3. Änderungsanträge im Ausschuss eingereicht
  4. Änderungsanträge im Ausschuss eingereicht
  5. Ausschussbericht angenommen
  6. Einreichung für das Plenum
  7. Einreichung für das Plenum
  8. Einreichung für das Plenum
  9. Einreichung für das Plenum
  10. Einreichung für das Plenum
  11. Plenardebatte
  12. Plenarabstimmung
  13. Ergebnisse der Plenarabstimmung
Geplante Schritte (keine Bestätigung der Durchführung)
  1. Plenardebatte
  2. Plenarabstimmung

Verfahrensakte (OEIL) · Daten des Europäischen Parlaments
Abgerufen:

Quellen

Daten: EP Open Data API

Worum geht es?

  • Petitionsrecht als zentrales EU-Bürgerrecht gestärkt.
  • 40,25 % unzulässige Petitionen 2024 durch Unkenntnis der EU-Zuständigkeiten.
  • 1.518 Petitionen 2024 eingereicht – Anstieg um 4,3 % gegenüber Vorjahr.
Quelle: KI-Zusammenfassung mit Mistral

Verlauf der Änderungsanträge (7)

Wortlaut wie vom EP veröffentlicht, auf Englisch.

  1. Änderungsantrag 3Abgelehnt

    Paragraph 3 a (new)

    Eingereicht von Ana Miranda Paz · Verts/ALE

    Hinzugefügt: 3a. Strongly criticises the fact that the Commission cited a report by the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (LCIE) specialist group to justify the downgrading of the wolf’s protection in the EU, despite having previously used the same report as the basis for opposing a proposal with the same scope and despite no significant changes in wolf populations having been recorded; is deeply concerned that the decision to downgrade the protected status of wolves – which lacks sound scientific evidence, exacerbated by the lack of public access to documents and insufficient efforts to implement adequate preventive measures, and is at odds with the provisions of the Bern Convention – has created a troubling precedent endangering the overall approach to the conservation goals and management of wildlife and natural habitats;

  2. Änderungsantrag 4Abgelehnt

    Paragraph 4 a (new)

    Eingereicht von Ana Miranda Paz · Verts/ALE

    Hinzugefügt: 4a. Criticises the double standards used in the follow-up given to petitions, which exponentially increased in 2024; regrets that petitions were closed or not discussed in the Committee on Petitions, although drafted with solid, high-profile legal and analytical arguments, complemented by supporting documents that clearly explained the data and facts regarding the multiple violations of EU law affecting thousands of citizens, such as in the case of the petition on the environmental consequences of constructing a cellulose processing facility in Galicia, which would be highly detrimental to public health, the environment and the economy of the Galician territory concerned, while at the same time, some other petitions, which clearly fell outside the remit of EU law were not only considered admissible but also discussed on their merits;

  3. Änderungsantrag 5Abgelehnt

    Paragraph 5 a (new)

    Eingereicht von Ana Miranda Paz · Verts/ALE

    Hinzugefügt: 5a. Appreciates the work performed by the Committee on Petitions in urging the Commission to take action in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which confirmed that the current rough tests on pesticides, as set out in the relevant EU law’s provisions, are insufficient to assess and ensure the absence of long-term toxic effects for both human health and the environment, including for the mixture of the pesticides’ active substances declared as co-formulants, given that this mixture is generally more toxic than any active substance alone; underlines that the European Food Safety Authority acknowledged that it does not have any exhaustive methods to evaluate the effects resulting from the interaction between the different compounds of pesticides, which is what the petitioners asked about by petitioning Parliament;

  4. Änderungsantrag 6Abgelehnt

    Paragraph 6 a (new)

    Eingereicht von Ana Miranda Paz · Verts/ALE

    Hinzugefügt: 6a. Strongly criticises the Commission for its delay in handling the infringement procedure against Italy on the serious violations of EU law, notably the breach of the Industrial Emissions Directive1a, arising from the management of the ILVA steel plant, which is the biggest steel plant in Europe; regrets that, although the Commission launched the infringement procedure concerned (INFR(2013)2177) in 2013 and although the area surrounding the ILVA steel plant persistently recorded high levels of cardiovascular, respiratory and carcinogenic diseases, including in children, with fatal effects in many cases, as well as very high levels of air pollutants, in more than a decade the Commission never brought this case before the CJEU, a delay that has been repeatedly denounced by petitioners; ______________ 1a Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (OJ L 334, 17.12.2010, p. 17, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2010/75/oj).

  5. Änderungsantrag 7Abgelehnt

    Paragraph 7 a (new)

    Eingereicht von Ana Miranda Paz · Verts/ALE

    Hinzugefügt: 7a. Highlights the paramount activities by the Committee on Petitions in 2024 in dealing with petitions submitted by the Fossil Free Politics coalition, calling for the fossil fuel industry to be held to account for its role in the energy and cost of living crisis as well as for an end to the fossil-fuel industry’s influence in EU decision-making, in view of the substantial irrefutable evidence brought to light, showing that for many years the fossil fuel industry had full awareness about the dangers for the climate posed by its products and, rather than supporting a transition to a future based on renewable energy, chose to spread climate denialism and disinformation; underlines that, in a new report to the UN General Assembly in May 2025, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change called for criminal penalties against those peddling disinformation about the climate crisis and a total ban on fossil fuel industry lobbying and advertising, in order to start adequately safeguarding human rights and the planet from the catastrophic consequences of climate change;

  6. Änderungsantrag 11Abgelehnt

    Paragraph 15 a (new)

    Eingereicht von Nikos Pappas · The Left

    Hinzugefügt: 15a. Recalls the petitions submitted in relation to the tragic train accident in Tempi, Greece, which raised serious concerns regarding rail safety, infrastructure management, accountability in transport operations for civil servants and members of the government, the rule of law, and the misuse of EU funds; calls on the Commission and national authorities to assess systemic shortcomings in railway oversight and proper allocation of EU resources, ensure full transparency in investigations and strengthen EU-level safety standards; calls for the inclusion of petitioner feedback in policy debates on cross-border rail infrastructure, whistleblower protection, and accountability in transport governance;

  7. Änderungsantrag 13Abgelehnt

    Paragraph 9 a (new)

    Eingereicht von Ana Miranda Paz · Verts/ALE

    Hinzugefügt: 9a. Believes that each pro-European political group in Parliament must be given the chance to have at least one of its proposed petitions falling within the EU’s fields of activity included on the agenda of any meeting of the Committee on Petitions, through either the urgency or the ordinary procedure, in order to enhance the committee’s democratic functioning;

Abstimmung nach Fraktion

So haben die Fraktionen abgestimmt

Mitglieder

Anzeige 10 von 719

Stimmverhalten
NameLandFraktionStimmverhalten
DänemarkRenew
Dafür
IrlandGUE/NGL
Dafür
DänemarkPfE
Dafür
ItalienEPP
Dafür
ItalienEPP
Dafür
ItalienS&D
Dafür
RumänienECR
Dafür
ItalienECR
Dafür
TschechienPfE
Dafür
TschechienGreens/EFA
Beabsichtigte StimmeEnthaltungAbgebene Stimme: Dafür
Mehr anzeigen
Folge uns auf Instagram@checksomevotes@checksomevotes_en