Communication from the Commission to the European Council - The period of reflection and Plan D
Date: 2006-05-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Union, European citizenship, European integration, citizens' Europe, enlargement of the Union, globalisation, operation of the Institutions, public awareness campaign

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 10.5.2006 
COM(2006) 212 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION  
TO THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL 

The Period of reflection and Plan D 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION  
TO THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL 

The Period of reflection and Plan D 

***** 

1. 

Introduction 

Recent  years  have  seen  a  new  debate  on  the  future  of  Europe.  This  has  been  sparked  by 
Europeans  themselves,  but  the  European  Union  has  sought  to  give  direction  and  focus.  In 
December 2001, a year after the Treaty of Nice, the European Council adopted a Declaration 
on  the  future  of  the  European  Union,  committing  the  Union  to  becoming  more  democratic, 
more transparent and more effective. 

This  “Laeken  Declaration”  held  out  the  prospect  of  a  Constitution  for  Europe,  and  set  up  a 
Convention  bringing  together  representatives  from  governments  and  parliaments  across 
Europe, as well as the EU institutions. It agreed a draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for 
Europe. This was the basis for the text adopted in October 2004, signed in Rome by the Heads 
of State and government of all the Member States 

Last spring, whilst ten Member States had already approved the Constitution, the citizens of 
France  and  the  Netherlands  rejected  it.  Though  the  reasons  behind  this  vote  are  necessarily 
complex, opinion polls shed some light on what prompted voters’ choices and their attitude to 
European integration1. What influenced the choice of “no” voters in both countries the most 
were the concerns about the country’s economic and social situation. In France, “no” voters 
referred  first  and  foremost  to  socioeconomic  aspects  to  explain  their  choice:  fear  of  the 
harmful effect on jobs, the present economic and labour market situation, the impression that 
the Constitution leant too much towards the liberal or not enough towards the social. In the 
Netherlands,  it  appears  that  many  “no”  votes  were  also  motivated  by  inadequate 
understanding of the real impact and meaning of the Constitution, followed by fears of a loss 
of sovereignty. But this did not suggest a drop in support for the Union as a whole: 88% of the 
French and 82% of the Dutch still had positive perceptions of the Union. 

Following  the  negative  referenda,  the  European  Council  adopted  a  declaration  on 
the ratification  of  the  Treaty  establishing  a  Constitution  for  Europe,  by  which  the  Heads  of 
States and Government called for a period of reflection, during which a broad debate should 
take place in each country. This debate would involve citizens, civil society, social partners, 
national  Parliaments  and  political  parties.  European  institutions,  and  the  Commission  in 
particular, were invited to contribute to this debate. 

At  the  same  time,  the  ratification  process  continued  in  several  Member  States.  Since  June 
2005,  five  countries  have  approved  the  Constitution,  with  the  final  opinion  of  the  Finnish 
Parliament expected in the coming months. This could soon lead to a total of 16 ratifications. 

1 

Flash  Eurobarometer  171  and  172  –  European  Constitution: post-referendum  survey  in  France  and  in 
The Netherlands. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In  October  2005,  the  Commission  presented  a  “Plan  D”,  where  D  stands  for  Democracy, 
Dialogue  and  Debate2.  This  gave  new  impetus  to  the  debate  on  the  future  of  Europe  by 
encouraging new ways to draw citizens into the debate. 

Plan D was triggered by the French and Dutch referenda, but it is not a rescue operation for 
the  Constitution,  nor  is it  limited  in  time  to  the  reflection  period:  it  is  a  starting  point  for  a 
long term democratic reform process. The political thrust is to create a citizens’ ownership of 
EU  policies,  to  make  them  understandable  and  relevant,  and  to  make  EU  Institutions 
accountable and reliable to those they serve. This process will take time if tangible and lasting 
results are to be achieved, and it will require a genuine commitment primarily by the Member 
States, but also by the EU Institutions. The success will ultimately be measured by the EU’s 
capacity and willingness to listen, to process the feedback, and to subsequently deliver policy 
results. 

It should be recalled that Member States remain primarily responsible for the organisation of 
debates at national, regional and local levels. The role of the Commission in the framework of 
Plan  D  is  to  help  structure  the  debate,  if  necessary  providing  Member  States  with  financial 
and organisational support. A comprehensive stocktaking of the Plan D actions implemented 
by the Commission between October 2005 and April 2006 is presented in Annex 1. 

The intensity of the debate on the future of Europe has varied considerably from one Member 
State  to  another.  At  least  in  part,  this  is  a  natural  reaction  to  the  different  stages  Member 
States have reached with ratification – Member States which have ratified have already had a 
debate.  They  will  understandably  be  less  ready  to  launch  new  initiatives,  and  their  citizens 
less curious about the next steps. 

The period of reflection allowed for an overall assessment of the national debates to be made 
in  June  2006.  This  Communication  provides  a  synthesis  of  the  debates,  with  particular 
reference to the lessons that can be learnt from Plan D. It also includes details from a special 
Eurobarometer3 survey on the Future of Europe. These conclusions accompany “A Citizens’ 
Agenda - Delivering Results for Europe” as the Commission’s contribution to the European 
Council on the future of Europe4. 

2. 

Issues raised in the debates 

2.1. The economic and social development of Europe 

The Eurobarometer survey included questions designed to assess the general mood amongst 
Europeans.  It  suggested  that  Europeans  were  generally  happy  to  live  in  their  respective 
countries, and were in the main pleased with both their family life and their occupation. But 
they  had  a  generally  pessimistic  vision  of  the  future,  and  this  was  dominated  by  concerns 
about  economic  and  social  prospects.  Unemployment,  especially  amongst  young  people, 
remained a core concern. 

2 

3 
4 

The  Commission’s  contribution  to  the  period  of  reflection  and  beyond:  Plan  D  for  Democracy, 
Dialogue and Debate - COM(2005) 494. 
Eurobarometer 65.1 on the Future of Europe - May 2006. 
COM(2006) 211, 10.5.2006. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The impact of globalisation was a key issue in all national debates and on line discussions. 
Questions  raised  pointed  to  the  effect  on  employment  and  prosperity,  and  to  the  need  to  be 
more competitive and more productive in an ageing society. 

Elements of the media, trade unions, young people and the non-governmental sector pointed 
to an association between the European Union and globalisation. This was linked to fears that 
globalisation  could  have  a  negative  impact  on  social  protection  and  increase  wealth 
disparities. However, Eurobarometer showed a balance in the attitudes towards globalisation, 
though  those  considering  it  is  a  good  opportunity  for  national  companies  (37%)  were 
outnumbered by those considering it as a threat to employment and enterprises (47%). A lack 
of dynamism in the European economy was strongly criticised in several countries. 

Concerns  about  social  protection  focused  on  pension  reforms,  social  security  or  health 
systems.  Despite  its  prominence  in  European  politics,  the  liberalisation  of  services  had  less 
prominence.  In  general,  citizens  tend  to  consider  that  the  European  Union  could  use  the 
European social model to help protect against negative side-effects from globalisation, but see 
few concrete actions taking place. 

Freedom of movement for workers was a sensitive issue in almost all national debates. In 
some  old  Member  States,  fears  remained  of  job  losses  and  downward  pressure  on  wages 
resulting from opening the labour market for workers of the new Member States. At the same 
time,  the  remaining  restrictions  to  free  movement  of  labour  continue  to  be  perceived  as  a 
denial of the Union’s basic freedoms by citizens in the new Member States. 

In  the  new  Member  States,  there  were  two  additional  themes  of  significance.  Firstly,  the 
prospects  for  joining  the  Eurozone  were  an  important  goal  for  most  citizens.  Secondly,  the 
application of the Schengen system was a source of concern, on the grounds that it might set 
up new barriers for Member States’ neighbours. 

2.2. The European Union and its role 

National debates tended to confirm polling evidence that membership of the European Union 
is globally perceived as positive. Nevertheless, opinion polls show a decreasing support in a 
majority  of  Member  States  over  the  past  few  months,  with  particularly  drops  in  support  in 
Austria, Finland and the United Kingdom. 

Several new Member States saw citizens questioning the role of their country in the European 
Union, as well as the relations between old and new Member States. 

EU funding and the availability of structural and cohesion funds were frequently raised in 
the  debates.  These  were  mainly  seen  as  a  positive  opportunity,  with  some  criticism  of 
cumbersome  procedures.  The  reduction  of  EU  funding  is  of  particular  concern  in  Spain, 
where  there  is  a  perception  of  “losing  out”  with  the  most  recent  enlargement.  At  the  same 
time, citizens in countries like Sweden and the United Kingdom are critical about what they 
see as an unfair burden. 

Peace  amongst  the  Member  States  and  the  single  market  are  recognized  as  the  two  most 
positive achievements of European construction. Opinion polls also point to a favourable 
assessment of the Union’s efforts to foster cooperation in the field of research and innovation 
and to promote equal treatment of men and women. In addition, issues linked to safety, such 
as  environmental  safety,  food  safety,  transport  safety  and  passenger  rights,  energy  supply, 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
were outlined in several debates, with a largely positive perception of the Union’s work – 
particularly  strong  in  some  Member  States.  Occasionally,  the  need  for  a  common  policy  on 
immigration and asylum, taxation reform, education, European identity and cultural diversity 
were debated, as well as consumer rights and the future of the agricultural sector. 

Citizens  are  more  critical  towards  what  they  perceive  as  an  over-regulation,  excessively 
detailed  legislation  and  bureaucracy.  The  image  of  a  remote  EU  needlessly  interfering 
remains strong. In many countries, other critical comments focussed both on the democratic 
deficit  and  the  lack  of  transparency  of  European  institutions.  There  were  many  calls  for  a 
greater involvement by citizens in the decision making process. 

In addition, there is a perception in several countries that the Commission does not apply the 
same  treatment  to  all  Member  States.  This  perception  is  felt  most  strongly  in  small 
countries, with a sense that rules on excessive deficits or competition decisions are not applied 
fairly. The same perception is true with respect to the enforcement of Community law. 

Opinion polls demonstrated a very weak knowledge and understanding of the functioning 
of  the  Union,  its  institutions  and  their  role.  Nevertheless,  demand  exists,  and  over  recent 
months the Commission’s Representations in the Member States have noted a rise in requests 
from  students  for  information  about  European  institutions  and  about  studies  and  exchanges 
programmes in other Member States. 

The language issue appeared not to feature strongly in national debates but clearly emerged 
as a central issue on the “Debate Europe” forum, where people are directly confronted with 
the  challenge  to  communicate  with  citizens  from  other  cultural  backgrounds.  In  this 
discussion, most participants called for a common second language for all EU citizens. 

The debates showed how particular issues played strongly in some Member States and 
were  of  limited  interest  elsewhere:  Austrians  discussed  access  of  foreign  students  to 
Austrian  universities  as  well  as  Alpine  transit,  whilst  the  subsidiarity  issue  was  raised  on 
many occasions in regional German debates. In Denmark, citizens are discussing the possible 
abolition of Danish opt-outs. The reaction of the EU towards the Mohammed cartoon issue is 
also  at  the  centre  of  debates,  with  diverging  perceptions  of  the  European  Union’s  reaction. 
Finally, the approach to Turkey was of particular importance in Cyprus. 

2.3. The borders of Europe and its role in the world 

Enlargement remains one of the most widely discussed subjects in the debates. On average, 
55% of Europeans consider the enlargement of the EU to be positive. But 63% fear that a new 
enlargement  would  increase  difficulties  in  national  job  markets.  In  the  EU-15,  those 
expressing  doubts  sometimes  considered  that  past  enlargements  had  gone  too  far  and  too 
quickly, as well as questioning further enlargement in general, and the accession of Turkey in 
particular. These citizens seem to fear a loss of identity within a Europe with unclear borders 
and increased cultural differences. 

The  nature  of  the  debates  varied  from  one  country  to  another,  with  in  some  cases  a  strong 
reluctance to further enlargement and in other cases a more positive attitude (Slovenia, United 
Kingdom).  Historical  and  geographical  perspectives  tend  to  influence  citizens’  opinions  on 
this  issue.  Some  countries  are  more  favourable  to  Croatia  and  Western  Balkans  than  to 
Turkey. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
In several countries, citizens refer to the need for a strong Europe, with common initiatives 
in foreign policy and a further development of defence and security policy, whilst efforts in 
promoting peace and democracy in the world are quite broadly recognized. More particularly, 
Finns and Latvians expressed the need for more cooperation between the European Union and 
Russia. Improvement of EU capabilities for crisis management, as well as the intensification 
of transatlantic relations, were occasionally raised. 

2.4. The way the Union works: "Concrete actions, less words" 

There was a strong sense that EU action was essential, with strong expectations. The idea of 
Europe as a political project for peace and solidarity and as a place where freedom and justice 
are shared is accepted by the vast majority of citizens. For them, the European Union is well 
placed  to  defend  the  European  model  in  the  world,  to  fight  terrorism  and  to  tackle  other 
security challenges. 

Environment,  food  safety  or  energy  are  issues  citizens  feel  concerned  about  and  for  which 
they perceive the positive aspects of Community integration. In areas where the EU has good 
records, European public opinion considers that it should continue its work and see its power 
reinforced. This is particularly true for the promotion of democracy and peace in the world, 
cooperation in research and innovation and protecting the environment. 

But  there  is  also  a  perception  that  the  way  the  Union  works  can  get  in  the  way  of  policy 
delivery. Citizens are more critical on the way in which the European Union acts than on the 
policies followed, and wish to be more involved in Community decision-making. There was a 
wish for EU action to be translated into tangible results in areas where there was a recognition 
of real value added. 

In the debates, citizens tend to consider institutional questions abstract and complex and to 
show  more  interest  in  concrete  policies  affecting  their  daily  life,  such  as  employment, 
environment  or  energy.  However,  the  constitutional  dilemma  and  the  role  of  European 
institutions  were  an  important  issue  for  the  “Debate  Europe”  forum,  with  a  mix  of  positive 
and critical contributions. European public opinion also gave support (25%) to the view that a 
Constitution would be of benefit for the future of Europe, after comparable living standards 
and the introduction of the Euro in all Member States. 

3. 

Conclusion 

The  Commission’s  commitment  to  democracy,  dialogue  and  debate  will  not  end  with  the 
conclusion  of  the  period  of  reflection.  The  Commission  will  continue  to  implement  the  13 
actions decided in Plan D in October 2005, and is open to introducing new actions, wherever 
and whenever that is deemed appropriate. In so doing, it will depend on a continued close co-
operation  with  the  EU  Institutions  and  the  Member  States,  as  well  as  improved  efforts  and 
involvement from some of them. 

The  reflection  period  so  far  has  taught  us  a  few  valuable  lessons.  On  the  positive  side  it  is 
worth noting the apparent appetite for debate on where Europe should act, clearly showed by 
very  constructive  and  forward  looking  initiatives  taken  by  some  Member  States;  public 
debates and fora, an active outreach to national parliaments, to regions and to the local level. 
The EU would clearly benefit from more such initiatives being taken by more Member States. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
From  the  EU  Institutions’  side,  the  interparliamentary  forum  organised  by  the  European 
Parliament and the Austrian Parliament on 8 and 9 May, as well as a number of praiseworthy 
European  Parliament  committee  initiatives,  have  clearly  paved  the  way  for  the  necessary 
broad  discussion  and  involvement  at  the  parliamentary  level,  thus  further  connecting  the 
European project with people and their elected representatives. 

In  the  same  way  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  and  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee  have  set  up  structures  ensuring  that  regions  and  social  partners  not  only  are 
involved,  but  that  their  voices  are  heard,  and  that  their  views  are  taken  into  account  in 
formulating EU policies. 

However, it should be underlined that there is still a need for seeing these initiatives as more 
of  a  permanent  function  in  developing  European  affairs,  and  to  subsequently  ensuring 
structures  –  at  European,  national,  regional  and  local  level  –  for  allowing  a  continuous 
feedback  from  the  citizens.  It  is  particularly  important  to  involve  young  people,  as  they  are 
clearly determined to play a bigger part in the development of the European Union and thus 
develop their active European citizenship5. 

The period of reflection has shown that the citizens have a fairly low knowledge and interest 
in how the EU Institutions operate. On the same time they have high expectations on delivery 
and  policy  content.  This  puts  important  demands  on  the  EU  Institutions  to  better  involve 
citizens in the policy process at all levels. 

The Commission will play a special role in this regard, and will – with Member States and EU 
Institutions as vital contributors – have to ensure that the feedback process is taken seriously, 
and  that  listening  is  followed  up  by  concrete  action.  The  Commission  will  consider  how  to 
respond  to  this  feed-back  and  to  initiatives  coming  from  citizens,  in  the  process  of  policy 
formulation. 

The  Commission  stands  ready  to  supplying  the  Council  with  further  data,  analysis  and 
stocktaking of its continued efforts in this regard. 

5 

« Youth  takes  the  floor »  Young  Europeans’  concerns  and  expectations  as  to  the  development  of  the 
European Union, analysis from Standard Eurobarometer 63, publication December 2005. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
ANNEX  

Plan D – comprehensive stocktaking of the actions implemented by the Commission 

October 2005 – April 2006 

In addition to hundreds of visits to Member States, including over 100 visits by the President 
and  Members  of  the  Commission  to  national  parliaments,  the  Commission  has  organised  a 
series of special, high profile visits as part of its Plan D programme to engage in real debate 
with Europe’s citizens. Some of these activities are described below. 

1. 

Examples of actions implemented since October 2005 

Stimulating a wider public debate 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Visits by Commissioners to Member States: In addition to the normal range of 
Commissioner  visits,  five  specially-designed  Plan  D  visits  have  taken  place 
involving President Barroso, Vice-President Wallström, Vice-President Barrot 
and Commissioners Špidla, Ferrero-Waldner, Figel and Potočnik. These visits 
offered  a  unique  mix  of  meetings,  including  national  and  local  government, 
national  parliaments,  the  media,  representative  organisations  and  the  general 
public, to allow for an exchange with a genuinely comprehensive cross-section 
of society. 

The next Plan D visits in Denmark on 18/19 May and in Latvia and Lithuania 
in  June  will  take  the  total  to  eight Plan  D  visits  by  the  time  of  the  European 
Council. 

Commissioners’  availability  to  National  Parliaments:  In  2005,  almost  100 
contacts  or  visits  by  Commissioners  to  national  parliaments  took  place.  By 
April  2006,  Plan  D  had  added  more  than  40  Commissioner  visits  to  National 
Parliaments, covering almost all Member States. Some of these meetings were 
the first time that national parliaments had received the Commission President 
or Commissioners in plenary session. 

Representations open to the public & Europe Direct centres: All Commission 
Representations  in  Member  States  organise  monthly  or  weekly  “open  door 
days” for conferences, press briefings and thematic presentations. 

Promoting citizens’ participation in the democratic process 

– 

Promoting  more  effective  consultation:  The  White  Paper  on  a  European 
communication  policy  adopted  by  the  Commission  on  1  February  20066  will 
lead  to  a  more  concrete  action  plan  after  the  six  months  consultation  period, 
during  which  all  interested  European  citizens  and  stakeholders  are  invited  to 
express  their  views  (over  500  contributions  had  been  registered  by  the 
beginning of May 2006)7. 

6 
7 

COM(2006) 35. 
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/communication_white_paper/charter_code/index_en.htm 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
– 

– 

Support  for  European  citizens’  projects:  On  17  March  2006,  the  Commission 
launched  a  €  2  million  call  for  proposals  to  provide  financial  support  to 
projects  aiming  to  organise  trans-national  citizens’  events8  (i.e.  involving  at 
least 4-5 Member States per project). Projects are currently being selected. This 
call  for  proposal  aims  to  encourage  European  organisations’  initiatives 
promoting  public  participation  in  debates  on  topics  regarding  the  EU,  as 
described in Plan D. 

Greater  openness:  The  Commission  welcomed  the  Council’s  21  December 
2005  conclusions,  which  committed  the  Council  to  an  increasing  number  of 
public sessions, thus improving openness and transparency. In addition, it has 
set  up  a  public  register  of  the  expert  groups9  that  helps  the  Commission  in 
preparing  legislative  proposals  and  policy  initiatives,  accessible  on  line  since 
November  2005.  Also,  as  part  of  the  European  Transparency  Initiative 
launched in November 2005, on 3 May 2006 the Commission adopted a Green 
Paper  to  launch  a  debate  on  lobbying  and  on  the  introduction  of  legal 
obligations for Member States to publish information about the beneficiaries of 
funds under shared management, as well as on the Commission’s consultation 
practices. 

  Tools to generate a dialogue on European policies 

– 

– 

– 

Specific Eurobarometer on the Future of Europe: A quantitative and qualitative 
survey took place in all 25 Member States in February-March 2006. 

Internet:  The  Commission  launched  the  on-line  discussion  forum  “Debate 
Europe”  in  20  languages  on  27  March  200610.  On  4  May  2006,  5 354 
contributions had been posted by citizens. 

Targeted focus groups: “Spring Day Europe 2006”, launched in January 2006 
(thus  celebrating  its  5th  anniversary),  is  an  initiative  created  and  organised  – 
with  the  active  participation  of  Commissioners  –  to  stimulate  interest  and 
debates about Europe among young people. On 4 May 2006, 7 354 schools had 
participated in Spring Day.  

Partnership with the European institutions and bodies 

Smooth cooperation and synergies were at the heart of the Inter-institutional Group 
on Information (IGI) meeting on 17 January 2006. The meeting allowed translating 
this  partnership  into  practical  and  concrete  actions.  As  a  result,  members  and 
collaborators  of  EU  Institutions  and  bodies  took  part  in,  for  example,  visits  to  the 
Member  States,  and  contributed  to  the  “Debate  Europe”  on-line  forum.  They  also 
promoted  and  participated  in  activities  with  schools  through  the  Spring  Day 
initiative. Many 9 May events foreseen in the Member States were organised jointly 
by the Commission’s Representations and the European Parliament offices, while the 
interparliamentary forum with National Parliaments was organised in Brussels by the 
European  Parliament  and  the  Austrian  Parliament.  Furthermore,  the  Committee  of 

8 
9 
10 

http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/communication/grants/index_en.htm 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/regexp/ 
http://europa.eu.int/debateeurope/ 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
the  Regions  and  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  have  been  strong 
partners in the implementation of Plan D, making full use of their capacity to link at 
the local/regional level and with the social actors. 

Strengthened relations with the national parliaments 

Further efforts will be made in close co-operation with the European Parliament and 
the  national  parliaments,  for  example  in  exploring  ways  for  ensuring  proper 
information  on  the  Annual  Policy  Strategy,  as  well  as  the  Annual  Work  and 
Legislative Programme. The Commission also stands open to receive input from the 
national parliaments to initiatives at the pre-legislative stage, based on the provisions 
of the current Treaties.  

2. 

Assessment 

(cid:190)  Plan D is not a rescue operation for the Constitution 

Plan  D  aims  "to  encourage  a  wide-ranging  discussion  between  the  EU  institutions  and 
citizens".  It  intends  to  set  up  a  method  by  which  citizens  can  be  involved  in  the  European 
decision-making process. Contents of debates generated within the framework of Plan D can 
bring on the stage ideas both on policy substance but also on new instruments and tools, some 
of which are linked to an effective and accountable decision making. 

(cid:190)  A necessary involvement by Member States 

The Commission sees itself mainly as a facilitator. Six months after the adoption of Plan D, it 
must  be  pointed  out  that  the  involvement  of  the  Member  States  in  the  launch  of  national 
debates remains uneven. 

(cid:190)  A long-term exercise 

The Plan D activities started to taking off in the first half of 2006, and it is therefore too early 
to  draw  any  substantial  conclusions.  Plan  D  is  part  of  a  long-term  exercise,  using  new 
methods related to the communication with citizens. Setting up a constructive dialogue cannot 
be done from one day to the other. Furthermore, such a dialogue can not be carried out only at 
the  initiative  of  the  EU  Institutions  and/or  from  Brussels.  It  needs  to  go  local  and  have  the 
active support and involvement of the Member States. 

(cid:190)  Multilingualism 

From the Commission’s part, Plan D actions are undertaken in all the official languages of the 
EU  (on-line  discussion  forum;  Spring  Day  Europe),  while  initiatives  carried  out  at  the 
national, regional and local levels by the Commission’s Representations in Member States are 
undertaken in the respective language of the country. In this context, it must be stressed that 
multilingualism is a vital tool for enhancing a true dialogue with citizens. For this reason, the 
Commission  and  its  institutional  partners  are  striving  to  provide  information  on  the  web 
aimed at the general public in as many languages as possible. 

EN 

10 

   EN