Brussels, 30/11/2010 (Agence Europe) - The Council, the European Parliament (EP) and the Commission held the first formal meeting of the “trialogue” in the evening of Monday 29 November to discuss the draft regulation on implementing the European Citizens' Initiative (ECI). The ECI, introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, allows a request, if backed by a million citizens, to be put to the Commission to propose new legislation. Chances of coming swiftly to a first reading agreement are good, especially since the EP constitutional affairs committee, on Tuesday, unanimously approved a negotiating position which gives every chance for compromise with the Council. The target is still to have the regulation passed by the Council and the EP before the end of the year. “This unanimously adopted report gives us a very strong position in negotiations with the Council,” four EP joint rapporteurs, Alain Lamassoure, Zita Gurmai, Gerald Häfner and Diana Wallis told press on Tuesday. “Our demands are consistent in seeking to make the citizens' initiative simpler, easier and more transparent for citizens,” Lamassoure said.
Admissibility, “committee of citizens”. The EP is calling for the admissibility of an ECI to be checked at the very outset, when in it is registered on the Commission web site, rather than after 100,000 signatures have been gathered, as the Council wants (the Commission went as far as to propose after 300,000 signatures). An early, single check would avoid having citizens signing initiatives later declared inadmissible, the EP argues. The Council would seem prepared to accept this, but is likely to insist that it is spelt out in the regulation that no ECI can seek to amend the treaties. In order to ensure the appropriateness and European dimension of proposed ECIs, the EP suggests putting in place a “citizens' committee” made up of at least seven members from seven different member states, to register an initiative. “Instead of the 300,000 signatures initially proposed, only seven would be needed to launch an initiative,” explained Lamassoure. Most member states would appear prepared to accept this idea.
Assistance for citizens. The EP also wants the Commission to be required to provide the organisers of an ECI with administrative and legal assistance as necessary. Every time the Commission declares a proposal for an ECI inadmissible, it should have to give reasons for its decision and indicate possible legal and out-of-court recourse available, the EP says.
Number of states. The Parliament is not for budging on its position with regard to the minimum number of states from which statements of support for an ECI come. The Council wants the threshold set at one third, which, at the moment, would mean nine member states. The EP wants a fifth (20%). The Council, it would appear, is prepared to negotiate which could mean that the final figure could be a quarter (25%). The age at which citizens may support an ECI is no longer a matter for debate. While the EP petitions committee argued for allowing young people aged 16 and over to take part, the constitutional affairs committee aligned itself with the Council, which wanted the age for taking part in an ECI to be the same as that at which voting is allowed in European elections (the rules vary from country to country). Diana Wallis (ALDE) regretted this shift in the EP's position. “We are missing an opportunity to extend a hand to Europe's youth and our future,” she said.
Transparency. MEPs also stressed the need for transparency. “Anyone can give a citizens' initiative direct or indirect financial or political support. The organisers of the initiative have an obligation to be totally transparent about this support. It is wrong to deceive or mislead citizens who are being asked to sign a petition,” Lamassoure stated.
Public hearing. Every successful ECI, that is, one which gathers one million or more signatures from at least a fifth of member states in the space of 12 months, will have to be debated in a public hearing organised by the Commission and the EP within three months of its successful completion. The Commission will not be allowed simply to transmit its response by letter, the EP says. Whatever the Commission response, whether positive or negative, it will have to set out its reasons at a public hearing.
Identity card or not? The thorniest point in negotiations with the Council is likely to be the issue of whether those citizens wishing to give their signature in support of an initiative will have to give their identity card number. While the Council is divided (nine member states do not want to see this become a requirement and the others wanting it), the EP is unequivocal: “no identity card”, citizens should simply have to provide their surname, first name, address and date and place of birth. The Council has already flagged up that the room for manoeuvre on this issue is very limited (see EUROPE 10265). If some countries take the view that they really need to have identity card numbers to be able to check the authenticity of the signatures, they may ultimately be allowed to do so, “but this must remain the exception to the rule,” according to the EP joints rapporteurs. (H.B./transl.rt)