Green Paper on a European Citizens' Initiative
Date: 2009-11-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU initiative, European Commission, European citizenship, civil society, participatory democracy, petition, proposal (EU)

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 11.11.2009 
COM(2009) 622 final 

GREEN PAPER 

on a European Citizens' Initiative 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
GREEN PAPER 

on a European Citizens' Initiative 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. 

II. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

III 

INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 3 

ISSUES FOR CONSULTATION........................................................................................... 4 

Minimum number of Member States from which citizens must come........................ 4 

Minimum number of signatures per Member State ..................................................... 5 

Eligibility to support a citizens' initiative - minimum age ........................................... 6 

Form and wording of a citizens' initiative.................................................................... 7 

Requirements for the collection, verification and authentication of signatures........... 7 

Time limit for the collection of signatures................................................................... 9 

Registration of proposed initiatives ........................................................................... 10 

Requirements for organisers - Transparency and funding ......................................... 11 

Examination of citizens' initiatives by the Commission ............................................ 12 

Initiatives on the same issue....................................................................................... 13 

HOW TO RESPOND ....................................................................................................... 13 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
I. 

INTRODUCTION 

The  Treaty  of  Lisbon,  which  was  signed  in  Lisbon  on  13  December  2007  and  amends  the 
Treaty  on  European  Union  and  the  Treaty  establishing  the  European  Community,  sought  in 
particular  to  reinforce  the  democratic  fabric  of  the  European  Union.  One  of  its  major 
innovations is to introduce the European citizens' initiative. It provides that "not less than one 
million  citizens  who  are  nationals  of  a  significant  number  of  Member  States  may  take  the 
initiative  of  inviting  the  Commission,  within  the  framework  of  its  powers,  to  submit  any 
appropriate  proposal  on  matters  where  citizens  consider  that  a  legal  act  of  the  Union  is 
required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties"1. 

It  also  provides  that  the  procedures  and  conditions  required  for  such  a  citizens'  initiative, 
including  the  minimum  number  of  Member  States  from  which  citizens  must  come,  shall  be 
determined in a Regulation to be adopted by the European Parliament and the Council on a 
proposal from the European Commission. 

The  European  Commission  welcomes  the  introduction  of  the  citizens'  initiative,  which  will 
give a stronger voice to European Union citizens by giving them the right to call directly on 
the  Commission  to  bring  forward  new  policy  initiatives.  It  will  add  a  new  dimension  to 
European democracy, complement the set of rights related to the citizenship of the Union and 
increase  the  public  debate  around  European  politics,  helping  to  build  a  genuine  European 
public  space.  Its  implementation  will  reinforce  citizens'  and  organised  civil  society's 
involvement in the shaping of EU policies.  

The  Commission  is  convinced  that  European  citizens  should  benefit  from  this  new  right  as 
quickly  as  possible  after  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Treaty  of  Lisbon.  The  Commission's 
ambition would therefore be to make it possible for the Regulation on the citizens' initiative to 
be adopted before the end of the first year after the entry into force of the Treaty and it trusts 
that the European Parliament and the Council will share that objective. Given the importance 
of the future proposal for citizens, organised civil society, stakeholders and public authorities 
in the Member States, citizens and all interested parties also need to have the opportunity to 
give their views on how the citizens' initiative should work. 

The purpose of this Green Paper is therefore to seek the views of all interested parties on the 
key issues that will shape the future Regulation. The Commission hopes that the consultation 
will encourage a wide range of responses. 

The experience of citizens, stakeholders and  public authorities in relation to  similar popular 
initiatives  that  are  in  place  within  the  Member  States,  would  be  of  particular  interest  in  the 
context of this consultation. 

The  Commission  also  welcomes  the  European  Parliament's  resolution  on  the  citizens' 
initiative, which was adopted in May 20092, as a valuable contribution to this debate. 

1 
2 

Article 11, paragraph 4, of the Treaty on European Union. 
European Parliament resolution of 7 May 2009 requesting the Commission to submit a proposal for a 
regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the  implementation  of  the  citizens' 
initiative - P6_TA(2009)0389 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
II. 

ISSUES FOR CONSULTATION 

While  the  principle  itself  and  the  key  features  of  the  citizens'  initiative  are  enshrined  in  the 
new  Treaty,  the  procedure  and  practical  arrangements  required  for  this  new  institutional 
instrument raise legal, administrative and practical issues. These issues are presented hereafter 
together with a number of questions to which citizens and stakeholders are invited to respond. 

1. 

Minimum number of Member States from which citizens must come 

The Treaty indicates that the signatories of a citizens' initiative must come from "a significant 
number  of  Member  States"  and  provides  that  the  Regulation  shall  establish  "the  minimum 
number of Member States from which such citizens must come". 

Several considerations need to be made in order to determine what the right threshold should 
be: 

Firstly, the reason for requiring that signatories come from a "significant number of Member 
States" is to ensure that an initiative is sufficiently representative of a Union interest. Whilst a 
high  threshold  would  indeed  ensure  that  the  initiative  is  sufficiently  representative,  it  would 
nevertheless make the procedure more burdensome. On the other hand a low threshold would 
render the initiative more accessible, but less representative. Therefore the right balance has to 
be struck between these two considerations. 

Secondly, the threshold should be determined on the basis of objective criteria, in particular in 
the light of other Treaty provisions, as to avoid conflicting interpretation. 

One option would be to require that the threshold be a majority of Member States. With 27 
EU  Member  States,  a  majority  would  currently  be  fourteen.  The  Treaty  would  not  exclude 
such an approach. Nevertheless the use of the term "significant number" appears to indicate 
that a majority was not intended. Moreover a majority would seem disproportionately high. 

Another option, at the lower end of the spectrum, would be to set the threshold at one quarter 
of  Member  States.  That  would  currently  be  reached  with  seven  Member  States.  This  is  the 
threshold that the European Parliament put forward in its resolution on the citizens' initiative, 
using  an  analogy  with  Article  76  of  the  Treaty  on  the  functioning  of  the  European  Union, 
which  provides  that  acts  relating  to  judicial  cooperation  in  criminal  matters  or  police 
cooperation can be adopted on the initiative of a quarter of the Member States. The European 
Commission  does  not  consider  that  this  precedent  offers  a  strong  analogy  for  the  citizens' 
initiative.  It  is  very  sector-specific  and  its  logic  differs  from  that  of  the  citizens'  initiative. 
Moreover, the Commission considers that one quarter of Member States would be too low a 
threshold to guarantee that the Union interest is adequately reflected. 

A  third  option  would  be  to  set  the  threshold  at  one  third  of  Member  States.  That  would 
currently be reached with nine Member States. This would match a number of provisions of 
the  Treaty  which  are  of  a  more  general  nature.  It  is  the  threshold  used  in  the  provisions  on 
"enhanced cooperation" which provides that "at least nine Member States" must participate3. 
One  third  is  also  used  as  the  threshold  for  the  number  of  national  Parliaments  needed  to 

3 

Article 20 of the Treaty on European Union. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
trigger the subsidiarity procedure provided for in Article 7(2) of the protocol on the principles 
of subsidiarity and proportionality, attached to the Treaties. 

The  figure  of  one  third  is  also  important  in  some  national  systems.  The  Austrian  Federal 
Constitution states that citizens' initiatives must receive the support of 100 000 voters or one 
sixth  of  the  voters  in  at  least  three  Länder,  which  represents  one  third  of  the  9  Austrian 
Länder. Outside the EU, the Swiss threshold for the number of cantons required for optional 
referenda is also close to one third. 

The  Commission  considers  that  a  threshold  of  one  third  would  strike  the  right  balance 
between  ensuring  adequate  representativity  on  the  one  hand  and  facilitating  the  use  of  the 
instrument on the other. 

Questions: 

Do  you  consider  that  one  third  of  the  total  number  of  Member  States  would  constitute  a 
"significant number of Member States" as required by the Treaty? 

If not, what threshold would you consider appropriate, and why?  

2. 

Minimum number of signatures per Member State 

In view of the fact that the Treaty requires that a citizens' initiative be supported by no less 
than a million citizens coming from a significant number of Member States, the Commission 
considers that it is necessary to set a minimum number of citizens that are required to support 
an initiative in each of the Member States involved. The reference to a "significant number of 
Member States" was introduced in order to ensure that a European citizens' initiative would 
have  a  genuine  European  flavour.  This  implies  in  turn  that  a  minimum  number  of 
participating citizens is needed across the minimum number of Member States to ensure that 
it reflects a reasonable body of opinion. It would be contrary to the spirit of the Treaty if an 
initiative could be presented by a large group of citizens from one Member State and only a 
purely nominal number of citizens coming from other Member States. 

Such  a  requirement  for  a  minimum  number  of  citizens  per  Member  State, would  of  course  only 
concern  the  minimum  number  of  Member  States  from  which  citizens  presenting  a  citizens' 
initiative must come. 

One approach in order to determine what the minimum number of citizens should be per Member 
State would be to set a fixed number of participating citizens for all Member States. This would 
have  the  advantage  of  being  clear  and  simple.  However  given  the  enormous  differences  in 
population between the Member States, ranging from 410 000 in Malta to 82 million in Germany, 
such a fixed number would penalize citizens coming from smaller Member States. 

Another more equitable option would be to set the threshold as a proportion of the population of 
each Member State. To fix this threshold, an analogy could be made with the proportion of citizens 
of the Union required to present a citizens' initiative. The population of the Union currently stands 
just  under  500  million  citizens.  Therefore  one  million  out  of  500  million  represents  0.2%  of  the 
population  of  the  Union.  0.2%  of  the  population  of  each  Member  State  where  signatures  are 
collected could therefore be taken as the minimum number of citizens required for that State4. This 

4 

This is the option favoured by the European Parliament in its resolution on the citizens' initiative. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
would currently represent around 160 000 for a country like Germany or 20 000 for a country like 
Belgium. 

It  is  worth  noting  that  the  proportion  of  citizens  required  to  support  an  initiative  in  most  of  the 
Member States where such an instrument is in place, is significantly higher than 0.2%. This is the 
case for instance in Austria and Spain where it is set at around 1.2% of the population, in Lithuania, 
where  it  is  almost  1.5%  of  the  population  and  Latvia  where  it  is  set  at  10%  of  the  population. 
Hungary, Poland, Portugal, and Slovenia also have thresholds above 0.2% of the population. 

Questions: 

Do  you  consider  that  0.2%  of  the  total  population  of  each  Member  State  is  an  appropriate 
threshold? 

If not, do you have other proposals in this regard in order to achieve the aim of ensuring that a 
citizens' initiative is genuinely representative of a Union interest? 

3. 

Eligibility to support a citizens' initiative - minimum age 

The  Treaty  provision  applies  to  all  citizens  of  the  Union.  It  seems  reasonable,  however,  to  fix  a 
minimum age for supporting a citizens' initiative. This is the case in all Member States where citizens' 
initiatives exist. 

There appear to be two different options: 

One would be to require that in order to be eligible to support a European citizens' initiative, citizens 
must be of voting age for the European elections in their Member State of residence5. This is the 
general practice in Member States: to support a citizens' initiative, citizens need to be eligible to vote. 
The voting age in all Member States is 18 with the exception of Austria where it is set at 16. 

Whilst this approach would mean that citizens in Austria would benefit at a younger age from 
the right to support a citizens' initiative, it would nevertheless mirror the existing practice for 
electing members of the European Parliament. 

Another option would be to set the minimum age for supporting an initiative in the Regulation 
itself,  e.g.  setting  it  at  16  or  18.  Setting  the  minimum  age  at  18  would  be  in  line  with  the 
voting  age  in  all  but  one  Member  State.  However,  it  would  exclude  those  citizens  who  are 
already  of  voting  age  at  16  in  Austria.  Setting  the  minimum  age  at  16  would  create  a 
significant administrative burden by diverging from existing systems for voter registration. 

Questions: 

Should the minimum age required to support a European citizens' initiative be linked to the 
voting age for the European Parliament elections in each Member State? 

If not, what other option would you consider appropriate, and why? 

5 

This is the proposal put forward by the European Parliament in its resolution on the citizens' initiative. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4. 

Form and wording of a citizens' initiative 

The text of the Treaty does not specify what form a citizens' initiative should take but merely 
that it should invite "the European Commission, within the framework of its powers to submit 
any  appropriate  proposal  on  matters  where  citizens  consider  that  a  legal  of  the  Union  is 
required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties"6. 

It nevertheless appears necessary to set out some requirements as to what form an initiative 
should  take,  in  particular  in  order  to  be  sure  that  citizens  and  the  Commission  can  clearly 
identify what the subject-matter and objectives of an initiative are. 

One option would be to require that a citizens' initiative take the form of a draft legal act with 
clearly  recognisable  legal  provisions.  Draft  laws  are  indeed  required  for  initiatives  in  some 
Member States (Austria, Italy, Poland and Spain). However, such a requirement appears to be 
unnecessarily  restrictive  and  burdensome.  Moreover,  the  wording  of  the  Treaty  does  not 
suggest that a draft legal instrument is the form required.  

On  the  other  hand,  an  unclear  or  insufficiently  detailed  text  might  be  misleading  for  the 
signatories and could make it more difficult for the Commission to give a precise and justified 
response.  Another  option  could  therefore  be  to  require  that  an  initiative  clearly  state  the 
subject-matter and objectives of the proposal on which the Commission is invited to act. Such 
an option would not exclude the possibility for citizens to annex a draft legal act for ease of 
reference. 

Questions: 

Would  it  be  sufficient  and  appropriate  to  require  that  an  initiative  clearly  state  the  subject-
matter and objectives of the proposal on which the Commission is invited to act? 

What other requirements, if any, should be set out as to the form and wording of a citizens' 
initiative? 

5. 

Requirements for the collection, verification and authentication of signatures 

In order to guarantee the legitimacy and credibility of citizens' initiatives, provisions will need 
to be made so as to ensure adequate verification and authentication of signatures, in line with 
the  relevant  national,  European  and  international  legislation  on  fundamental  rights,  human 
rights  and  the  protection  of  personal  data.  Since  there  is  no  body  at  EU  level  that  has  the 
competence  or  the  necessary  information  to  check  the  validity  of  signatures  and  to  check 
whether any given citizen of the Union is actually eligible to support a citizens' initiative, this 
task will need to be performed by the national authorities of the Member States7. The national 
authorities  would  therefore  be  responsible  for  verifying  and  certifying  the  results  of  the 
collection exercise within their country. 

However there are a number of considerations to be made in relation to how the verification 
should be carried out within the Member States and the extent to which common requirements 
should be set out at EU level. 

6 
7 

Article 11, paragraph 4, of the Treaty on European Union. 
This is also acknowledged by the European Parliament in its resolution on the citizens' initiative. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
All  Member  States  have  procedures  and  mechanisms  for  the  verification  of  electors  and  a 
large  number  of  them  already  have  verification  and  authentication  procedures  for  national 
citizens'  initiatives.  These  verification  and  authentication  procedures  vary  considerably, 
however,  from  one  Member  State  to  the  other:  some  Member  States  have  rather  strict 
requirements  in  place  as  regards  collection  procedures.  These  include  for  instance 
requirements that citizens may only sign initiatives in officially designated centers, or that a 
public  official  or  a  notary  must  be  present  to  authenticate  all  signatures  at  the  time  of 
collection,  or  requiring  that  a  certificate  of  voter  registration  be  issued  for  each  signatory. 
Other Member States, on the other hand, have lighter systems in place, which do not impose 
any  specific  requirements  for  the  collection  of  signatures  but  generally  require  ex-post 
verification of the signatures collected by the authorities, both in order to check the validity of 
the signatures and to verify the number of signatures collected. 

It seems clear that the ultimate objective of Community provisions in this regard should be to 
ensure that Member States can guarantee adequate verification of the eligibility of signatures 
collected  for  a  European  citizens'  initiative  within  their  country,  without  imposing  unduly 
restrictive requirements upon citizens or unnecessary administrative burdens. 

One option in order to achieve this objective would be to require that Member States put in 
place adequate measures to that effect, whilst leaving it up to them to decide on the level of 
regulation  of  such  procedures,  including  the  possibility  of  making  use  of  the  provisions 
already  in  place  for  national  citizens'  initiatives.  This  option  would  have  the  advantage  of 
offering considerable flexibility to Member States in the way they implement this provision. It 
would  also  greatly  facilitate  implementation  for  those  Member  States  that  already  have 
procedures for citizens' initiative in place. On the other hand, this could mean that one same 
initiative would be subject to considerably different procedural rules in the different Member 
States,  with  the  result  that  collecting  signatures  may  be  easier  in  some  Member  States  and 
more difficult in others. This option could therefore have the unintended consequence that the 
voice of citizens of some Member States would be easier to hear than that of citizens of other 
Member States. 

On the other end of the spectrum, another option could be to foresee a full harmonization of 
procedural  requirements  at  EU  level.  This  would  mean  in  practice  that  all  applicable 
procedural requirements would be set out in the EU Regulation and that the Member States 
would  neither  be  able  to  derogate  from  those  nor  impose  additional  national  requirements. 
This would have the advantage of ensuring a completely level playing field across the EU as 
regards  the  procedures  to  follow  for  preparing  a  citizens'  initiative.  Nevertheless  it  would 
impose considerable additional administrative and regulatory burdens on those Member States 
that already have procedures in place. Moreover there are specificities in national systems and 
procedures that an EU Regulation is unlikely to be able to fully take into account. 

Therefore  a  more  rational  option  could  be  to  set  a  number  of  basic  provisions  at  EU  level, 
including on the one hand certain minimum requirements for verification and authentication 
of signatures and on the other hand obligations for Member States to facilitate the collection 
process and remove unduly restrictive requirements. 

According to this approach, Member States would only be able to adopt additional measures 
within  the  framework  of  the  requirements  set  out  at  EU  level.  This  option  would  have  the 
advantage  of  combining  a  certain  level  of  flexibility  for  Member  States,  whilst  ensuring 
common features for the procedures across the EU. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
Such  an  approach  could  preserve  the  European-wide  nature  of  the  citizens'  initiative  by 
facilitating  the  simultaneous  collection  of  signatures  in  several  Member  States.  For  that 
purpose, consideration should be given to the use of certified and protected online tools.  

Any approach chosen would also need to allow EU citizens that reside outside their country of 
origin  to  support  citizens'  initiatives.  Member  States  can  draw  on  their  experience  in 
managing the right to vote of such citizens in European Parliament elections. 

There  are  a  number  of  important  issues  to  consider  that  relate  to  the  extent  to  which  the 
collection  of  signatures  is  regulated  and  the  nature  of  the  requirements  for  verification  and 
authentication. These are: 

–  whether any conditions should be imposed as to where and how signatures can be collected: 
e.g.  by  means  of  circulation  of  lists  to  be  filled  in  and  signed,  by  post,  in  officially 
designated centers, etc.; 

–  what  specific  requirements  for  verification  and  authentication  and  what  security  features 

would be needed in case of online collection of signatures; 

–  whether  a  citizen's  statement  of  support  for  a  given  initiative  should  be  checked  in  the 

Member State of which he/she is a national or in his/her Member State of residence; 

–  what  safeguards  in  view  of  the  protection  of  personal  data  should  be  in  place  for  the 

collection and processing of data. 

Questions: 

Do you think that there should be a common set of procedural requirements for the collection, 
verification and authentication of signatures by Member States' authorities at EU level? 

To what extent should Member States be able to put in place specific provisions at national 
level? 

Are  specific  procedures  needed  in  order  to  ensure  that  EU  citizens  can  support  a  citizens' 
initiative regardless of their country of residence? 

Should  citizens  be  able  to  support  a  citizens'  initiative  online?  If  so,  what  security  and 
authentication features should be foreseen? 

6. 

Time limit for the collection of signatures 

The  Treaty  does  not  foresee  a  time  limit  for  the  collection  of  signatures.  However,  in 
European countries that have citizens' initiatives in place, a time limit for collecting signatures 
is usually set. The time limits vary from a number of days (for example, thirty days in Latvia 
or  sixty  days  in  Slovenia)  to  several  months  (for  example,  six  months  in  Spain  or  eighteen 
months in Switzerland). 

In  addition,  several  reasons  would  justify  the  introduction  of  a  time  limit  for  the  European 
citizens' initiative: such initiatives are often linked to particularly topical issues and may refer 
to  problems  which,  if  there  is  no  time  limit,  or  if  the  time  limit  is  too  long,  lose  their 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
relevance; the context in which people sign may change if the period is too long (for example, 
if European legislation on the same subject is amended or adopted in the meantime). 

However, if a time limit is imposed, it must be reasonable and sufficiently long so as to allow 
a campaign reflecting the additional complexity of working throughout the European Union. 
This could be achieved by providing for a period of, for instance, one year8. 

Questions: 

Should a time limit for the collection of signatures be fixed? 

If so, would you consider that one year would be an appropriate time-limit? 

7. 

Registration of proposed initiatives 

Aside  from  the  length  of  time,  consideration  should  be  given  as  to  the  way  of  determining 
when  the  time  limit  starts  running  and  when  it  ends.  In  most  Member  States  the  time  limit 
generally begins following completion of the required publication or registration formalities; 
however there are cases where the time limit is determined by the dates of the signatures. 

The Commission considers that if a time limit is indeed set, it would be necessary to require a 
form of registration of the proposed initiative before the collection of signatures begins. Such 
registration could be done by the organisers of an initiative on a specific website provided by 
the Commission for this purpose. They would be required to upload all relevant information 
on  the  proposed  initiative  (e.g.  title,  subject-matter,  objectives,  background  etc.)  on  the 
website,  which  would  then  be  publicly  available.  The  system  would  then  provide  the 
organiser  with  confirmation  of  the  registration,  the  date  and  a  registration  number,  on  the 
basis of which the collection campaign could be launched. 

Such  registration  would  therefore  serve  to  set  the  clock  ticking  but  would  also  provide 
transparency as regards proposed citizens initiatives for which campaigns are running. 

However, the Commission does not consider that such a registration process should involve 
any  decision  by  the  Commission  as  to  the  admissibility  of  the  proposed  initiative.  Indeed  it 
does  not  consider  that  it  would  be  appropriate  for  the  Commission  to  verify  the  formal 
admissibility of proposed initiatives before any signatures have yet been collected9. Such an 
approach could lead to confusion, giving the impression that the Commission had given some 
form of green light to proposed initiatives on more than purely procedural grounds. It would 
require  checks  to  be  made  which  would  delay  the  moment  from  which  signatures  could  be 
collected. Moreover, the admissibility and substance of initiatives cannot be seen in isolation 
and  thus  it  would  not  be  appropriate  at  the  early  stage  of  registration  to  undertake  this 
examination. 

The  Commission  understands  that  there  may  be  some  reluctance  to  launching  an  initiative 
across  the  EU,  with  the  risk  that  it  may  ultimately  be  rejected  on  the  grounds  that  it  is  not 
admissible. However it should be noted that the admissibility criterion - that the proposal on 

8 

9 

One  year  is  the  time-limit  suggested  by  the  European  Parliament  in  its  resolution  on  the  citizens' 
initiative. 
In its resolution, the European Parliament was rather of the opinion that an ex ante admissibility check 
should be made. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
which  the  Commission  is  invited  to  act  should  be  within  the  framework  of  its  powers  -  is 
sufficiently clear and is known at EU level. In any event, organizers can normally be expected 
to  have  fully  assessed  whether  the  initiative  legally  falls  within  the  framework  of  the 
Commission's powers before launching an initiative. 

Questions: 

Do you think that a mandatory system of registration of proposed initiatives is necessary? 

If so, do you agree that this could be done through a specific website provided by the European 
Commission? 

8. 

Requirements for organisers - Transparency and funding 

Launching and organising a campaign for a proposed European citizens' initiative will in most 
cases require support from organisations and/or funding. 

In the interests of transparency and democratic accountability, the Commission considers that 
the  organisers  of  initiatives  should  be  required  to  provide  certain  basic  information  in 
particular in relation to the organisations that support an initiative and how the initiatives are 
or will be funded. This would be in the interest of the citizens considering signing up to an 
initiative;  this  would  also  be  in  line  with  the  Commission's  European  Transparency 
Initiative10. 

If registration is foreseen, such information could be provided on the register made available 
by the Commission. The Regulation could also require that organisers make publicly available 
all relevant information on funding and support during the course of the campaign. 

In relation to the issue of funding, it should be noted that, without prejudice to other forms of 
cooperation  and  support  for  civil  society  organizations,  it  is  not  foreseen  that  any  specific 
public  funding  would  be  provided  for  citizens'  initiatives.  This  is  also  in  the  interest  of 
preserving the independence and citizen-driven nature of initiatives. 

Aside  from  requirements  upon  organisers  relating  to  transparency,  it  should  be  noted  that 
many  national  systems  include  provisions  as  to  who  may  actually  act  as  an  organizer  of  an 
initiative.  These  generally  require  that  an  initiative  must  be  presented  by  citizens  or  by 
committees made up of a certain number of citizens. The Commission considers that such a 
requirement may be too burdensome at EU level and would therefore prefer not to impose any 
restriction as to who may present an initiative - i.e. organisers can either be individual citizens 
or organisations. The case of petitions to the European Parliament offers a useful analogy in 
this  context.  Indeed,  the  Treaty  provides  that  any  citizen  of  the  European  Union  and  any 
natural  or  legal  person  residing  or  having  its  registered  office  in  a  Member  State  have  the 
right to address a petition to the European Parliament11. 

10 

11 

In its resolution, the European Parliament considers that the organisers of a citizens' initiative must, for 
the  sake  of  transparency,  publicly  assume  accountability  for  its  funding  including  the  sources  of  that 
funding. 
Article 227 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Furthermore,  organisers  should  comply  with  the  obligations  relating  to  the  protection  of 
personal  data  according  to  the  relevant  national  law  implementing  EU  legislation  on  data 
protection. 

Questions: 

What specific requirements should be imposed upon the organisers of an initiative in order to 
ensure transparency and democratic accountability? 

Do  you  agree  that  organisers  should  be  required  to  provide  information  on  the  support  and 
funding that they have received for an initiative? 

9. 

Examination of citizens' initiatives by the Commission 

Once the required number of signatures for a citizens' initiative have been collected and that 
they  have  been  validated  by  the  relevant  Member  States'  authorities,  the  organizer  of  an 
initiative can formally submit the initiative to the Commission. 

The  Lisbon  Treaty  sets  no  time  limit  for  the  Commission  to  deal  with  a  citizens'  initiative, 
once  it  has  been duly submitted. In  part this could  be in  recognition  of  the fact that that an 
initiative  may  deal  with  complex  issues  and  the  Commission  would  need  some  time  to 
properly examine it before deciding on the action it intends to take: in certain cases, this might 
include the need to carry out an analysis of the merits and shortcomings of a proposed policy 
initiative. It should be noted that no specific time-limit is foreseen either for the examination 
of petitions by the European Parliament. 

However, there is a case for fixing a time limit in line with good administrative practice and 
also in order not to leave a long period of uncertainty as regards the Commission's response. 
If a time limit is set, it should be long enough to allow the Commission to carefully examine 
the content of the initiative submitted. On the other hand, it should ensure that the supporters 
of  an  initiative  are  informed  of  the  action  that  the  Commission  intends  to  take  within  a 
reasonable period of time. 

The  national  systems  operate  different  approaches  to  deadlines  for  considering  citizens' 
initiatives.  Whilst  some  systems  impose  deadlines  ranging  from  a  few  weeks  to  several 
months, other systems do not impose a specific deadline on the authorities. 

One could therefore foresee an obligation for the Commission to examine a citizens' initiative 
within a reasonable time-frame not exceeding 6 months. Such an approach would provide a 
time-limit  whilst  ensuring  that  the  Commission  has  enough  time  in  order  to  give  initiatives 
adequate consideration, taking into account the potential complexities that they may entail. 

This examination period would begin on the date of formal submission of the initiative to the 
Commission. This could be notified on the specific web-site mentioned under point 7. 

During this period the Commission would assess both the admissibility of an initiative - i.e. 
whether the initiative falls within the framework of its powers - and whether the substance of 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
the  initiative  merits  further  action  from  its  side12.  Once  the  Commission  has  examined  an 
initiative, its intention would be to set out its conclusions in relation to the action it envisages 
in  a  communication  which  would  be  made  publicly  available  and  notified  to  the  European 
Parliament  and  the  Council.  The  action  envisaged  in  the  communication  may  include,  as 
appropriate, the need to carry out studies and impact assessments in view of possible policy 
proposals. 

Questions: 

Should a time limit be foreseen for the Commission to examine a citizens' initiative? 

10. 

Initiatives on the same issue 

In  principle,  it  cannot  be  excluded  that  a  number  of  initiatives  on  the  same  issue  would  be 
presented. However if a registration system is put in place, the transparency provided could 
ensure that duplication would be avoided. 

This  nonetheless  leaves  the  potential  issue  of  successive  presentations  of  the  same  request, 
which would create undue burdens for the system and, in time, could undermine its reputation 
as a serious instrument for democratic expression. Therefore consideration should be given to 
whether some disincentives or time limits should be put in place to constrain the ability to re-
present  an  initiative  (for  instance  a  failed  citizens'  initiative  could  not  be  represented  again 
before a certain time limit has elapsed). 

However,  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  although  some  initiatives  may  regard  the  same 
subject-matter and contain some similar elements, they might not be identical. Moreover, the 
operational and financial resources required to the launch of an EU-wide initiative are likely 
to limit repetition and duplication. 

Questions: 

Is it appropriate to introduce rules to prevent the successive presentation of citizens' initiatives 
on the same issue? 

If so, would this best be done by introducing some sort of disincentives - or time limits? 

III 

HOW TO RESPOND 

Contributions to this consultation process should be sent to the Commission by 31st January 
2010,  either  by  email  to  the  address  "ECI-Consultation@ec.europa.eu",  or  by  post  to  the 
following address: 

European Commission 
Secretariat General 
Directorate E "Better Regulation and Institutional Issues" 
Unit E.l "Institutional Issues" 

12 

The European Parliament, in its resolution on the citizens' initiative, had suggested a two-step approach 
by which the Commission would first have 2 months to verify the representativeness of an initiative and 
then a further 3 months to examine and take a decision on the substance of the initiative. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
B - l049 Brussels 

The  contributions  received  will  be  published  on  the  internet,  unless  the  author  objects  to 
publication of the personal data on the grounds that such publication would harm his or her 
legitimate interests. In this case the contribution may be published in an anonymous form. 

Professional  organisations  responding  to  this  Green  Paper  are  encouraged,  if  they  have  not 
already  done  so,  to  register  in  the  Commission's  Register  for  Interest  Representatives 
(http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regrin/).  This  Register  was  set  up  in  the  framework  of  the 
European  Transparency  Initiative  with  a  view  to  provide  the  Commission  and  the  public  at 
large with information about the objectives, funding and structures of interest representatives. 

The  Commission  may  invite  contributors  to  a  public  hearing  on  the  subject  of  this  Green 
Paper. 

EN 

14 

   EN