Deliberations of the Committee on Petitions in 2024

Wording as published by the EP, in English.

1. Amendment 3Rejected

   Paragraph 3 a (new)

   Tabled by Ana Miranda Paz · Verts/ALE

   Added: 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. Amendment 4Rejected

   Paragraph 4 a (new)

   Tabled by Ana Miranda Paz · Verts/ALE

   Added: 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. Amendment 5Rejected

   Paragraph 5 a (new)

   Tabled by Ana Miranda Paz · Verts/ALE

   Added: 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. Amendment 6Rejected

   Paragraph 6 a (new)

   Tabled by Ana Miranda Paz · Verts/ALE

   Added: 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. Amendment 7Rejected

   Paragraph 7 a (new)

   Tabled by Ana Miranda Paz · Verts/ALE

   Added: 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. Amendment 11Rejected

   Paragraph 15 a (new)

   Tabled by Nikos Pappas · The Left

   Added: 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. Amendment 13Rejected

   Paragraph 9 a (new)

   Tabled by Ana Miranda Paz · Verts/ALE

   Added: 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;