Although the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) and the Committee of the Regions (CoR) consider that the European Commission’s proposal for reforming the European Citizens' Initiative (ECI) is a step in the right direction, they have both formulated two additional recommendations.
The ECI was introduced in 2012 but has so far not met its expectations. This instrument allows for 1 million EU citizens to request the Commission to present a legislative proposal on a given subject. So far, however, only four initiatives have managed to obtain the required number of signatures, of which two, have produced follow-up measures at a European level.
On 13 September 2017, the European Commission presented its draft revision of the 211/2011 regulation on “unused potential” (see EUROPE 11863). This proposal includes a centralised online collection system, a collaborative platform that helps to provide better advice to the organisers, an opportunity for the partial registration of an initiative and the lowering the minimum age for supporting an ECI to 16.
In an own initiative adopted by the CoR on 23 March 2018 and in an opinion dated 14 March 2018 and adopted by the EESC, these two organisations both reaffirm the hopes that they have placed in the ECI. They also welcomed certain aspects of the revision proposed by the Commission. Nonetheless, at a more general level, the two committees regretted the lack of ambition in the Commission proposal. Luc Van den Brande, the CoR’s rapporteur on this reform, therefore regretted the fact that, “The attitude adopted by the Commission remains too defensive”.
The two opinions criticise what Mr Van den Brande describes as “a Commission monopoly at every stage of the procedure”. The CoR therefore identifies the “conflict of interests confronting the Commission. The latter is both a support structure and main destination for the ECI”. The EESC is also critical of this concentration of power and considers that, “it will be necessary to separate the role of the institutional guide from that of decision maker during registration. These two roles are currently carried out by the Commission".
Bolstered by its own experience, the EESC has proposed that it can itself fulfil the role of “facilitator and institutional guide” instead of the Commission. The CoR has called for a “committee of the wise” to be set up that would be responsible for the registration phase.
The two consultative assemblies both think that the Commission's power should also be shared more effectively with the European Parliament. The CoR argued that, “the latter should be the only organisation responsible for the public hearings the ECI organisers are invited to when presenting their initiative”. The EESC goes as far as asking whether, “the ECI should be debated during European Parliament plenary sessions in order to provide the citizens' initiatives with the necessary political dimension".
The two committees also highlighted the need to increase dialogue with ECI organisers. The CoR has requested that the deadline for obtaining the million signatures should be extended from 12 to 18 months. (Original version in French by Mathieu Solal, trainee)