Peti Pv(2014)03 19 20
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 2009 - 2014 Committee on Petitions PETI_PV(2014)03 19_20 MINUTES Meeting of 19 March 2014, from 9.00 to 12.30 and from 15.00 to 17.30, and 20 March 2014, from 9.00 to 12.30 BRUSSELS The meeting opened at 9.24 on Wednesday 19 March 2014, with Chrysoula Paliadeli (Vice- Chair) in the chair. 1. Approval of minutes of the meeting of: PV– PE527.915v02-00 FdR 1020678 20-21 January 2014 + annexes The minutes were approved. 2. Chairman's announcements The Chair informed members that: - Item 21 had been postponed until after the elections. - The annex to the Chair's Notes had been distributed. As no objections had been received it was considered approved and would be annexed to the minutes of the meeting. - On Thursday 10 April 2014 there would be a public hearing on the second successful European Citizens' Initiative. The lead committee would be the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Committee on Petitions would be associated with the organisation of the hearing. Other committees involved would be: ITRE, LIBE, ENVI, FEMM and DROI. 3. Any other business On a point of order Rainer Wieland commented on the committee's procedure for declaring petitions admissible/inadmissible. PV\1029946EN.doc PE532.356v02-00 EN United in diversityEN The Chair confirmed that this matter would be discussed at the meeting of the coordinators, which would be held at the end of the meeting day. The petitions were considered in the order as represented in these minutes 4. Petition 1229/2013 by K.Z. (German), on enforcement of a court judgement so as to allow him to exercise his visitation rights with his child (UK/Malta) Speakers: the Chair, Klaus Zinser (petitioner), Rainer Wieland, Tatjana Ždanoka, Joanna Serdynska (Commission), Vincent McGovern (petitioner) and Carlos José Iturgaiz Angulo The European Commission stated it had no competence in the financial aspects, that on the Brussels II A aspects the national courts were competent and that enforcement was a matter of national law. Members were disturbed by the lack of interest the European Commission showed in this matter. They agreed that the Commission should do more and should act pro-actively when it becomes aware of similar cases. Members also made it clear that the Commission should propose new legislation rapidly. Decision: petition to be kept open. The Commission is to report back on its attempts to obtain more information from the national authorities involved. 5. Petition 1655/2013 by Laila Brice (Latvian) on alleged discrimination in the United Kingdom on the grounds of ethnicity, religion and language Petition 1852/2013 by Maija Zargarjana (Latvian) on alleged discrimination in the United Kingdom on the grounds of ethnicity, religion and language Petition 2287/2013 by Ale Ambrasaite (Lithuanian), on alleged discrimination by UK authorities on the grounds of ethnicity, religion and language and violation of the European Convention on Human Rights Petition 2473/2013 by Ale Ambrasaite (Lithuanian) on alleged discrimination by UK authorities on the grounds of ethnicity, religion and language and violation of the European Convention on Human Rights Petition 2531/2013 by Emma Thomson (British) on alleged discrimination by UK authorities on the grounds of a mother's disability Petition 0543/2009 by Kees van Beek (Dutch), on alleged disregard for EU legislation by the Dutch Child Protection Council and Youth Welfare Office (Netherlands) Petition 0363/2011 by Barbara Anna Blaszak (Polish), on alleged arbitrary action and discrimination on the basis of nationality by the Dutch child and adolescent welfare service (Netherlands) PE532.356v02-00 2/20 PV\1029946EN.doc EN Speakers: the Chair, Laila Brice (petitioner), Maija Zargarjana (petitioner's daughter), Sabine Kurjo McNeill (on behalf of Ale Ambrasaite, petitioner), Sina Van den Bogaert (Commission), Zbigniew Zaleski, Tatjana Ždanoka, Vytautas Landsbergis, Kinga Göncz, Angelika Werthmann and Rainer Wieland Members expressed their concerns about what they had heard from the petitioners about the practices of youth welfare authorities in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands which removed children from "difficult" families, separated from their cultural background and mother tongue and kept contacts between the children and their parents to a minimum. Members saw a connection with the right to free movement in the EU as the most cases concerned EU citizens who had moved with their families to another EU Member State to live and work, and they urged the Commission to review and improve the relevant legislation. The Commission stated that it was not able to intervene in these cases. The Charter of Fundamental Rights did not apply, as in these cases no EU law was being implemented and in accordance with its Article 51 the Charter is only applicable to Member States when they were implementing EU law. Decision: petitions to be kept open. Letters would be sent to the municipal and national authorities in the Member States involved to invite them to give their reactions to the allegations made by the petitioners and to explain their actions. A letter would be sent to Commissioner Reding to urge the Commission to act and to study ways in which it could approach cases as had been brought to the attention of the Committee in the petitions and to propose legislation accordingly. 6. Petition 1707/2013 by Sabine Kurjo McNeill (German) requesting abolition of adoption without parental consent (UK) Speakers: the Chair, Sabine Kurjo McNeill (petitioner), the Chair (on behalf of Mariya Gabriel), Patrizia De Luca (Commission), Iñaki Irazabalbeitia Fernández, Victor Boştinaru and Willy Meyer The petitioner alleged that in the UK thousands of children were systematically removed from their families by social authorities to be put up for adoption. She urged the Commission to act on this issue. According to the EC representative the Commission was aware that in the UK there was a high level of adoption. However, there was no EU law which would allow the Commission to intervene. International cases of adoptions fell under the Hague Convention and national adoption under national law. Redress should be sought at national level (e.g. Ombudsman). Members suggested that a fact-finding visit be made to the UK to investigate the allegations made by the petitioner. They also suggested that a public hearing on these issues should be organised in the next legislature. Decision: petition to be kept open. Letters would be sent to the relevant national and local authorities in the UK, as above, to invite them to give their reactions to the allegations PV\1029946EN.doc 3/20 PE532.356v02-00 EN made by the petitioner and to explain their actions. The Members' request for a fact- finding visit to the UK and a public hearing would be referred to the coordinators. 7. Petition 1390/2012 by Krisztina Orosz (Hungarian) on enforcement of court ruling regarding cross-border parental responsibility and alleged infringement of her fundamental rights Speakers: the Chair, Krisztina Orosz (petitioner), Maria Vilar Badia (Commission), Kinga Göncz, Zbigniew Zaleski, Angelika Werthmann, Victor Boştinaru and Peter Jahr 8. Petition 0943/2012 by Jelena Antonova (Latvian), on discrimination and alleged violation of free movement of persons (Netherlands) Speakers: the Chair, Ilja Antonovs (on behalf of the petitioner), Monika Hochheim (Commission), Tatjana Ždanoka, Sina Van den Bogaert (Commission) and Maria Vilar Badia (Commission) Mr Antonovs (the petitioner's eldest son) showed a video he had made while his younger sister and brother were being removed from their family against their will by officers of the Dutch youth welfare office accompanied by policemen. He pointed out that his sister and brother were not allowed to speak their mother tongue and that they were treated badly in the institution where they now live. The Commission again stated that it was not able to intervene. The Charter of Fundamental Rights did not apply, as in this case no EU law was being implemented and, in accordance with its Article 51, the Charter is only applicable to Member States when they were implementing EU law. The Commission did point out however that Commissioner Reding had advocated abolishing Article 51 and that Parliament's support was needed to make that happen. Petition 1920/2012 by Anita Kaminska (Polish) on non-compliance of Poland with Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility (Poland/Ireland) Petition 1200/2007 by R.S. (German) concerning paternity rights (Germany/Greece) Decision: petitions under item 7 and 8 to be kept open. Letters would be sent to the relevant authorities in the Member States involved to invite them to give their reactions to the allegations made by the petitioners and to explain their actions. A letter would be sent to Commissioner Reding to urge the Commission to act and to study ways in which it could approach cases as had been brought to the attention of the Committee in the petitions and to propose legislation accordingly. The meeting continued at 11.47 with Carlos José Iturgaiz Angulo (Vice-Chair) in the chair. 9. Petition 1013/2012 by Eduardo Raya Retamero (Spanish), on the theft of a newborn at a hospital in Spain and the failure of authorities to properly investigate the case PE532.356v02-00 4/20 PV\1029946EN.doc EN Petition 1201/2012 by Rosalía Gutiérrez Valdivia (Spanish), on the theft of a newborn