On Wednesday 10 May, the General Court of the EU overturned the European Commission’s decision to refuse to register the proposed European citizens’ initiative (ECI) entitled 'Stop TTIP' (case T-754/14).
This ECI aims to put an end to the negotiations for the transatlantic trade and investment partnership between the EU and the United States and to block the EU’s conclusion of a global economic and commercial agreement with Canada (see EUROPE 11194). Contrary to the Commission’s arguments, the European judges found that this initiative does not constitute “unacceptable interference” in the procedure, but triggers a democratic citizens’ debate in a timely fashion.
The proposal in question, which was presented in June 2014 by a committee of citizens supported by the left flank of the European Parliament (see EUROPE 11123), called upon the Commission in particular to make a recommendation to the Council of the EU to cancel the mandate granted by the latter in 2013 to open negotiations for a free-trade agreement with the United States (TTIP) and to refrain from concluding the agreement with Canada (CETA), on which the negotiations were practically closed. It contained several objections to the planned agreements: - investor/state dispute settlement procedure undermining democracy and the rule of law; - opaque negotiations leading to a watering-down of social rights and environmental protection, consumer privacy, deregulation of public services and culture, etc.
In a decision of 10 September 2014, the Commission refused to register this proposal, arguing in particular that it was outside the remit within which it is entitled to present proposed legal acts of the Union for the purposes of the application of the treaties. This decision deprived the citizens’ collective of the possibility to gather the million signatures needed to formalise their ECI and ensure that the Commission took full account of the proposals put forward in it. The promoters therefore decided to challenge this decision before the General Court.
Deciding to negotiate an international agreement constitutes a legal act
The General Court found in their favour. In particular, it rejected the Commission’s argument that the decision to withdraw its authorisation to open the negotiations for the TTIP could not be the subject of the European citizens’ initiative. The Commission claimed that such a decision does not come under the notion of a “legal act”, as the authorisation in itself is not covered by this notion due to its preparatory nature and its lack of effects with regard to third parties.
The European judges responded to this by stating that under the principle of democracy and the objectives of an ECI (improving the democratic functioning of the EU by involving the citizens), the decision to open negotiations for the conclusion of international agreements which, like the TTIP and the CETA, aim to change the legal order of the EU, must be considered a “legal act” and that such acts cannot be excluded from the democratic debate.
They also rejected the Commission’s argument that the acts envisaged by the proposed ECI would lead to “unacceptable interference” in the unfolding of the legislative procedure underway (restricted at this point, it states, to negotiations between itself and the Council). Here again, the judges invoke the purpose of the ECI, which is to afford the citizens greater involvement in the democratic life of the EU, particularly by submitting in full the questions raised by the initiative to the Commission and calling upon it to submit a proposed legal act of the EU.
The judges explained that accepting this possibility does not infringe the principle of institutional balance, as it does not call into question the ability of the Commission to decide whether or not to find in favour of the citizens’ initiative, but simply requires it subsequently to lay out, in a communication, the reasons that prompted it to agree to the proposed acts, or not.
Finally, there is nothing stopping the Commission from making a proposal to the Council for the acts referred to in the proposal (withdrawing the negotiating mandate) and subsequently negotiating and concluding new draft transatlantic free-trade agreements on the basis of a new one. (Original version in French by Francesco Gariazzo)