The Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), Michal Bobek, in his Opinion of Monday 29 July in Case C-418/18 P, considered that the European Commission was not required to present a proposal following the presentation of a 'successful' European Citizens' Initiative and, therefore, that the institution was within its rights not to submit a legislative proposal as part of the European Citizens' Initiative 'One of us'.
The Treaty on European Union allows one million European citizens from at least a quarter of the Member States to take the initiative to invite the Commission to make a legislative proposal. Before collecting signatures, the organisers of this 'European Citizens' Initiative' must register it with the Commission, which then examines in particular its purpose and objectives.
The European Citizens' Initiative entitled 'Uno di noi' ('One of us'), aimed in particular at ending the direct or indirect funding by the Union of activities related to the destruction of human embryos, collected more than one million signatures and was presented to the Commission in 2014 (see EUROPE 11029/22). On 28 May of the same year, the institution indicated in a communication that it would not make a legislative proposal to this effect (see EUROPE 11090/18).
Representatives of this European Citizens' Initiative then requested the annulment of this communication before the General Court. In an April 2018 judgment, the latter declared the action inadmissible for the entity 'European Citizens' Initiative One of Us', but admissible concerning the applicants, considered that the communication could be the subject of an action for annulment, and then dismissed the pleas in law put forward (see EUROPE 12007/21).
The applicants then appealed to the CJEU seeking the annulment of the judgment of the General Court and the Commission's communication. In his submissions, Mr Bobek considers that the appeal must be dismissed.
First, it notes that the 'One of us' initiative is the first European citizens' initiative to be the subject of a case before the Court and one of only four to have obtained the required number of signatures.
Mr Bobek then noted that the European Citizens' Initiative, set up with the Lisbon Treaties, was not designed or drafted to impose an obligation on the Commission to present a proposal. If that were the case, the Advocate General notes that the legislative institutional balance would be disturbed, in that one million citizens would have a greater power of initiative than the European Parliament or the Council of the European Union. This is despite the fact that this tool constitutes an "institutional vehicle" to give citizens direct access to the Commission, forcing it to seriously and publicly examine and evaluate policy issues of concern to them through a 'successful' European Citizens' Initiative.
In addition, Mr Bobek considers that the Commission's communication meets the requirements of the Regulation on the European Citizens' Initiative. And it considers that the review of a communication concerning the Commission's decision on a European Citizens' Initiative must be limited, given the very broad discretionary power of the institution, thus vindicating the General Court.
Rejecting the other pleas in law, Mr Bobek therefore concludes that the Commission was under no obligation to submit a proposal following the tabling of the European Citizens' Initiative 'One of us'. (Original version in French by Lucas Tripoteau)