Brussels, 20/07/2010 (Agence Europe) - Olivier Chastel, Belgian Secretary of State for European Affairs, representing the Belgian Presidency of the EU, held informal talks with the deputy chairwoman of the European Parliament (EP) constitutional affairs committee Zita Gurmai (S&D, Hungary) to discuss the “general approach” agreed by the Council on 14 June on the draft Commission regulation on implementing the citizens' initiative. Gurmai is the co-rapporteur, along with Alain Lamassoure (EPP, France), on the citizens' initiative. Both Council and Parliament want to get a first reading agreement, if possible before the end of the year. “The Belgian Presidency intends to adopt the decision on the citizens' initiative before the first anniversary of the Lisbon Treaty,” that is, before 1 December, Chastel said on Tuesday. “It is important to shape a useful and accessible instrument for all European citizens,” he added. The Council might have amended the initial proposal from the Commission on several points, including on the admissibility and registration of an initiative (see EUROPE 10160) but the EP is not prepared to accept the Council's political agreement of 14 June without changes. The two rapporteurs have drafted a working paper which will be discussed in the constitutional affairs committee in September.
Admissibility check. The rapporteurs believe that the first check of the admissibility of a European citizens' initiative (ECI) should be carried out by the Commission, once the organisers have gathered 5,000 signatures. The Council, however, wants the trigger to be set at 100,000 signatures from at least three member states (in its initial proposal, the Commission suggested 300,000 signatures). The joint rapporteurs say that “this symbolic figure ensures the representation of genuine pubic support and in the meantime it would prevent an overburdening of the Commission without the organisers spending too many resources on the process”. They reject the Commission and Council positions of a check taking place after 100,000 or 300,000 signatures have been collected “as this would rightfully cause great frustration to organisers”. In order to protect the Commission from being accused of deciding on the admissibility of an ECI on political, rather than legal, grounds, Gurlai and Lamassoure believe it might make sense if the Commission were not the only body responsible for such a decision. It might be appropriate, they say, to appoint an “ad hoc wise people committee”, made up of experts, academics and/or jurists, so that they would be as impartial as possible. Nine of the ad hoc committee would be appointed by the institutions: three by the Commission, three by the Council and three by the EP, the rapporteurs suggest. There would also be a representative of the Commission - the commissioner in charge of institutional affairs of his/her representative - and possibly a representative of the rotating Presidency of the Council and an MEP. The two rapporteurs agree that improper initiatives should be rejected, “but the wording of the Commission's proposal needs to be improved”. In their working paper, the rapporteurs also consider if it would be appropriate to ask organisers to seek the support of a number of directly elected representatives for the initiative. They also raise the possibility of asking organisers to pay a deposit which would, of course, be returned to them if the ECI managed to gather the required 1 million signatures from at least three member states.
Collection of signatures. The rapporteurs do not challenge the threshold of 1 million signatures, but feel they should come from at least one quarter (25%) of member states rather than from one third as proposed by the Council in its 14 June text (currently that would mean from nine countries). They also propose to limit the time allowed for the collection of signatures to 12 months: “a longer period might jeopardise the “momentum' . Indeed, citizens will lose interest if the procedure takes too much time,” they suggest.
Final decision and ECI follow-up options. If an ECI is successful, the Commission has two options, according to the EP rapporteurs: - either it might decide to bring forward a legislative proposal of the issue of the ECI, and, if it chooses so to do, it must be within a certain time limit which might be the same for all ECIs or decided on a case-by-case basis; - or it might decide not to present a proposal. In this event, the recourse available to the organisers must be clearly set out “to avoid disappointment and to ensure that citizens feel that they have been listened to,” Gurmai and Lamassoure say. (H.B./transl.rt)