Votación en el Parlamento Europeo

Deliberaciones de la Comisión de Peticiones en 2024

Fredis Beleris - Propuesta de Resolución (conjunto del texto)
Fecha: 09.10.2025·Referencia: A10-0170/2025
Ponente: Fredis Beleris

Resultado general

Aprobada
  • 535 A favor
  • 24 En contra
  • 55 Abstención
  • 105 No votó
Estado y procedimiento

Resultado según el Parlamento Europeo.

Votación celebrada el
Último paso documentado
Pleno · (hace 410 días)
Próximo paso previsto
La fuente no prevé ningún otro paso.

Desarrollo del procedimiento

2025/2114(INI) · INI

Actividades documentadas del procedimiento. No demuestran que una ley haya entrado en vigor.

  1. Documentado: Examen en comisión15 días hasta el siguiente paso
  2. Documentado: Remisión18 días hasta el siguiente paso
  3. Documentado: Examen en comisión84 días hasta el siguiente paso
  4. Último documentado: Pleno410 días desde el inicio de este paso
Actividades documentadas (13)
  1. Presentación del informe en comisión
  2. Remisión a comisión
  3. Presentación de enmiendas en comisión
  4. Presentación de enmiendas en comisión
  5. Aprobación del informe en comisión
  6. Presentación al pleno
  7. Presentación al pleno
  8. Presentación al pleno
  9. Presentación al pleno
  10. Presentación al pleno
  11. Debate en el pleno
  12. Votación en el pleno
  13. Resultados de la votación en el pleno
Actividades previstas (realización no confirmada)
  1. Debate en el pleno
  2. Votación en el pleno

Ficha del procedimiento (OEIL) · Datos del Parlamento Europeo
Consultado:

Fuentes

Datos: EP Open Data API

¿De qué se trata?

  • Fortalecimiento del derecho de petición como derecho fundamental de los ciudadanos de la UE.
  • 40,25 % de peticiones inadmisibles en 2024 por desconocimiento de competencias de la UE.
  • 1.518 peticiones presentadas en 2024 – aumento del 4,3 % respecto al año anterior.
Fuente: Resumen generado por IA con Mistral

Historial de enmiendas (7)

Texto tal como lo publica el PE, en inglés.

  1. Enmienda 3Rechazada

    Paragraph 3 a (new)

    Presentada por Ana Miranda Paz · Verts/ALE

    Añadido: 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. Enmienda 4Rechazada

    Paragraph 4 a (new)

    Presentada por Ana Miranda Paz · Verts/ALE

    Añadido: 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. Enmienda 5Rechazada

    Paragraph 5 a (new)

    Presentada por Ana Miranda Paz · Verts/ALE

    Añadido: 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. Enmienda 6Rechazada

    Paragraph 6 a (new)

    Presentada por Ana Miranda Paz · Verts/ALE

    Añadido: 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. Enmienda 7Rechazada

    Paragraph 7 a (new)

    Presentada por Ana Miranda Paz · Verts/ALE

    Añadido: 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. Enmienda 11Rechazada

    Paragraph 15 a (new)

    Presentada por Nikos Pappas · The Left

    Añadido: 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. Enmienda 13Rechazada

    Paragraph 9 a (new)

    Presentada por Ana Miranda Paz · Verts/ALE

    Añadido: 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;

Voto por grupo político

Cómo votaron los grupos políticos

Miembros

Mostrando 10 de 719

Posición de voto
NombrePaísGrupoPosición de voto
DinamarcaRenew
A favor
IrlandaGUE/NGL
A favor
DinamarcaPfE
A favor
ItaliaEPP
A favor
ItaliaEPP
A favor
ItaliaS&D
A favor
RumaníaECR
A favor
ItaliaECR
A favor
ChequiaPfE
A favor
ChequiaGreens/EFA
Voto previstoAbstenciónVoto emitido: A favor
Mostrar más
Síguenos en Instagram@checksomevotes@checksomevotes_en