Commission staff working document - Outcome of the public consultation on the Green Paper on a European Citizens' Initiative - Accompanying document to the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the citizens’ initiative {COM(2010) 119 final}
Date: 2010-03-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU initiative, European Commission, European citizenship, admissibility, participatory democracy, petition, power of initiative, proposal (EU)

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 31.3.2010 
SEC(2010) 370 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Outcome of the public consultation on the Green Paper on a European 
Citizens' Initiative 

Accompanying document to the 

Proposal for a 

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

on the citizens’ initiative 

{COM(2010) 119 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
I. 

INTRODUCTION 

One  of  the  major  innovations  of  the  Treaty  on  European  Union  as  amended  by  the  Lisbon 
Treaty,  is  to  introduce  the  citizens'  initiative.  The  Treaty  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. 

The procedures and conditions for such a citizens' initiative need to be set out in a Regulation 
of the European Parliament and of the Council to be adopted through the ordinary legislative 
procedure on a proposal from the Commission2. 

Given  the  importance  of  this  new  provision  of  the  Treaty  for  citizens,  civil  society  and 
stakeholders  across  the  EU,  and  considering  the  complexity  of  some  of  the  issues  to  be 
addressed, the Commission launched a broad public consultation with the adoption of a Green 
Paper on 11 November 20093. The consultation ended on 31 January 2010. A public hearing 
was also organised for all respondents to the Green Paper on 22 February 2010. 

The consultation was structured around 10 key issues for which the Green Paper outlined the 
possible  options  and  possible  advantages  and  disadvantages  of  these  options.  On  that  basis 
respondents  were  invited  to  indicate  whether  they  agreed  with  the  Commission's  initial 
assessment and whether they had alternative proposals and suggestions. 

The  consultation  elicited  329  replies  from  a  broad  range  of  stakeholders,  including  160 
individual  citizens,  133  organisations  and  36  public  authorities.  Many  interesting  and 
innovative ideas and suggestions were put forward by stakeholders. 

The responses broadly underlined the need for the procedures and conditions for the citizens' 
initiative to be simple, user-friendly and accessible to all EU citizens and that they should be 
proportionate to the nature of the citizens' initiative.  

The responses also confirmed that a number of requirements are needed in order to ensure that 
the instrument remains credible and is not abused and that these requirements should ensure 
uniform conditions for supporting a citizens' initiative across the EU.  

II. 

GENERAL COMMENTS 

Most of the contributions highlight the fact that the citizens' initiative is an important step for 
European democracy and the construction of a European public space. They consider that this 
new instrument of participatory democracy could potentially be a good opportunity to bridge 
the gap between the European Commission and EU citizens, encouraging a dialogue between 
them and stimulating the feeling of a European identity. 

1 
2 
3 

Article 11, paragraph 4, of the Treaty on European Union. 
Article 24 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 
Green Paper on a European Citizens' Initiative - COM(2009) 622. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

                                                 
Nevertheless, to fully take  advantage  of the opportunity offered by the citizens' initiative as 
the  first  transnational  instrument  of  participatory  democracy,  many  respondents  believe  that 
there  should  not  be  unnecessary  obstacles  which  could  make  the  use  of  the  instrument  too 
difficult  or  even  impossible.  That  is  why,  generally,  the  contributors  call  for  simple 
procedures accessible to all EU citizens; it should be easy to present and support an initiative.  

Considering  the  difficulty  in  fixing  thresholds  and  other  requirements  without  any  concrete 
experience,  several  contributors,  in  particular  among  the  organisations,  are  in  favour  of  a 
revision clause within the Regulation, which would give the possibility to make some changes 
after a certain period of time (2 to 5 years).  

III. 

OVERVIEW  OF  THE  RESULTS  OF  THE  CONSULTATION  FOR  THE  10  KEY  ISSUES 
RAISED BY THE GREEN PAPER 

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

Concerning the "significant number of Member States" required by the Treaty, many options 
are proposed by the contributors, from 1 to 27 Member States. Among them, the proposal of 
one third of the Member States enjoys considerable support among contributors. A number of 
respondents,  mainly  amongst  organisations,  also  support  a  lower  threshold,  primarily  one 
quarter of Member States.  

2.  Minimum number of signatures per Member State  

Respondents,  including  individual  citizens,  organisations  or  public  authorities,  generally 
favour a minimum number of citizens per Member State to ensure that a citizens' initiative is 
genuinely representative of a Union interest. A number of respondents agree that a threshold 
of  0.2%  of  the  total  population  of  each  Member  State  could  be  a  good  approach  although 
many support a lower threshold (0.1% in particular). Nevertheless, several respondents argue 
that there should not be this kind of threshold as it is not explicitly required by the Treaty.  

A system of sliding scale is also proposed by some contributors, with different modalities. In 
this  kind  of  flexible  system,  if  the  minimum  percentage  is  not  reached  in  the  minimum 
number of States, it can be compensated by a higher number of participating Member States.  

Finally,  a  number  of  respondents,  notably  amongst  the  smallest  and  largest  Member  States, 
advocate a different approach to setting the threshold altogether, arguing that a set percentage 
for  all  Member  States  is  not  equitable,  since  it  is  much  easier,  for  instance,  to  collect 
statements  of  support  from  1.000  citizens  (representing  0.2%  of  the  population)  in 
Luxembourg  than  160.000  in  Germany,  and  therefore  easier  to  count  small  Member  States 
than large ones. 

3. 

Eligibility to support a citizens' initiative - minimum age  

Respondents broadly support fixing a minimum age for supporting a citizens' initiative. Many 
consider that it should be linked to the age to vote in the European Parliament elections. Some 
respondents, however, consider that the minimum age should be the same in all the Member 
States,  either  16  or  18.  A  minimum  age  of  16  is  proposed  by  a  number  of  contributors, 
principally  citizens  and  organisations,  in  order  to  encourage  the  civic  participation  of  the 
younger  generation  and  foster  greater  interest  and  debate  among  young  people  in  European 
issues.  They  argue  that  the  citizens'  initiative  is  not  an  election  but  only  an  agenda-setting 

EN 

3 

   EN 

initiative, and that it could be a good way for young people to learn about citizenship and take 
part in the political debate and the decision-making process. 

4. 

Form and wording of a citizens' initiative 

Respondents tend to agree that the promoters of an initiative should state the subject matter 
and the objectives of their proposal in an unambiguous way. Thus, many respondents invite 
the  Commission  to  provide  a  template  to  be  filled  in  by  the  organisers  and  requiring  the 
necessary information. A significant number of contributors suggest that organisers should be 
required to provide the legal basis of the proposal. Many also think that there should be the 
possibility  to  add  a  draft  legal  act  but  that  it  should  not  be  mandatory  as  this  kind  of 
requirement would prevent ordinary citizens from participating in the debate.  

Moreover, many contributors think that the organisers should be offered neutral support and 
guidance, including legal advice, in the preparation of initiatives. In addition some consider 
that  the  translations  of  the  initiative  in  all  official  languages  of  the  Union  should  also  be 
provided. The respondents suggest different authorities to provide this support: the European 
Commission,  the  European  Parliament,  the  European  Ombudsman,  the  Commission 
representations in the Member States, the Europe Direct centres, and others. 

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

Respondents  broadly  support  the  idea  of  a  common  set  of  procedural  requirements  for  the 
collection, verification and authentication of signatures so as to ensure a uniform process and 
the same conditions across the EU and to preserve the European-wide nature of the citizens' 
initiative.  However,  others  think  that  priority  should  be  given  to  national  systems  already 
existing.  

For many respondents, there should not be different procedures in the 27 Member States in 
relation to the collection process, since it would make it too complicated for the organisers to 
comply with the different requirements. Furthermore, many contributors insist on the fact that 
the Member States should not be allowed to impose restrictions or requirements which would 
make the collection process more difficult. They consider that there should not be any specific 
restrictions placed on how statements of support are collected and they would like citizens of 
the  Union  to  be  able  to  sign  up  to  an  initiative  anywhere  –  for  example  in  the  street  - 
regardless of where they live or come from. 

The possibility of online signatures is called for almost unanimously, being in line with  the 
development of an e-society and since it would greatly facilitate the collection of signatures. 
Only  a  few  contributors  would  prefer  paper-based  signatures,  considering  that  online 
signatures are not secure enough. 

Those  in  favour  of  online  collection  of  signatures  propose  different  systems  to  ensure  the 
verification  and  authentication  of  the  signatures  and  to  avoid  multiple  signatures  from  one 
person  (CAPTCHA4,  e-mail  confirmation,  IP  address,  password  received  by  email  after  an 
online  registration  which  would  allow  the  authentication  of  the  person  by  means  of  the 
personal  data  provided,  etc.;  identification  by use  of  Passport  Number,  EU  Driving  License 
Number,  Voting  Roll  Number,  ID  Card  number,  etc.).    The  idea  of  a  European  citizen's 
smartcard allowing e-signatures is proposed several times to solve this problem.  

4  

Challenge-response test used in computing to ensure that the response is not generated by a computer. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
6. 

Time limit for the collection of signatures 

Almost all contributors among individual citizens, organisations and public authorities think 
that a time limit should be fixed for the collection of signatures. Most respondents agree that 
one year would be a suitable time limit although there are also many respondents who favour 
either  a  longer  period  (18  months)  or  a  shorter  one  (6  months).  Those  in  favour  of  a  short 
time-limit  (less  than  one  year)  think  that  given  the  possibilities  offered  by  Internet  and  the 
media,  it  should  be  possible  to  mobilize  people  and  collect  one  million  signatures  very 
quickly.  In  contrast,  those  in  favour  of  longer  time-limits  argue  that  a  campaign  in  27 
countries requires a lot of time and resources.   

7.  Registration of proposed initiatives 

Contributors generally favour a mandatory system of registration of proposed initiatives on a 
specific website provided by the European Commission. This website should work as a tool 
for  communication  and  transparency,  which  would  also  help  to  bring  the  European 
Commission closer to the citizens.  

Others  suggest  that  the  site  could  be  hosted  by  other  authorities  such  as  the  European 
Ombudsman, the European Parliament or the Court of Justice of the European Union. 

8.  Requirements for organisers - Transparency and funding 

Respondents generally consider that organisers of an initiative should provide information on 
the funding and support they have received to ensure that the citizens are fully aware of what 
and who is involved. Some contributors think that only financial support exceeding a certain 
amount should be declared to avoid overburdening the organisers.  

Moreover,  the  provision  of  information  on  funding  and  support  is  often  seen  as  a  means  to 
ensure that initiatives are of a citizen-driven nature.  

On  the  question  of  funding,  some  contributors,  mainly  among  the  organisations,  are  of  the 
opinion  that  the  European  Union  should  provide  financial  support  to  the  organisers  to  keep 
this  instrument  in  the  hands  of  citizens  and  to  prevent  it  from  being  dependent  on  private 
financing. For some of them, this could take the form of legal advice and / or assistance with 
the translation of the initiative.  

9. 

Examination of citizens' initiatives by the Commission 

Contributors  broadly  favour  a  time  limit  for  the  examination  of  the  initiative  by  the 
Commission once the required number of signatures has been collected. Many agree that a 6-
month time limit would be appropriate although some also suggest a shorter period. 

However,  the  consultation  generated  different  views  as  regards  the  issue  of  assessing  the 
admissibility of proposed initiatives.  

On the one hand, there is a tendency amongst respondents, in particular among organisations 
and  public  authorities,  to  consider  that  the  admissibility  of  a  citizens'  initiative  should  be 
checked  before  signatures  are  collected,  preferably  at  the  moment  of  the  registration  and 
within a fixed time limit. They believe that this would avoid a considerable waste of resources 
as  well  as  frustration  among  citizens  having  signed  up  to  successful  but  ultimately 
inadmissible  initiatives.  Some  also  favour  this  option  in  order  to  prevent  the  launching  of 

EN 

5 

   EN 

initiatives  that  would  be  contrary  to  the  values  of  the  Union  or  the  Charter  of  Fundamental 
Rights. There is also concern about public authorities having to make use of public resources 
in order to carry out checks for initiatives that ultimately would not be admissible. Some have 
pointed out that this would be particularly problematic for initiatives that would go against the 
values of the Union and of the constitution of their Member State. 

However,  amongst  those  who  support  such  an  early  admissibility  check,  there  are  different 
views as to who should be responsible for carrying out such a check, some considering that it 
should be the Commission and others favouring an independent body. 

On the other hand, others are against an ex-ante admissibility check altogether in the name of 
freedom of expression and considering that the debate created across Europe by an initiative 
is more important than the immediate result. They do not think it would be appropriate for the 
Commission to be able to prevent, from the outset, a public debate and campaign from taking 
place on a citizens' initiative, even if it is not within the framework of its powers. 

10. 

Initiatives on the same issue 

As  for  the  successive  presentation  of  citizens'  initiatives  on  the  same  issue,  respondents 
generally do not think it is necessary to regulate this issue. 

EN 

6 

   EN