The EU Court of Justice, in a judgment delivered on Thursday 19 December (Case C-418/18 P), dismissed the appeal brought by the organisers of the ‘One of us’ European Citizens’ Initiative (‘ECI’) against the judgment of the General Court (see EUROPE 12307/11). The General Court dismissed the action brought by the organisers of the ECI seeking to annul the European Commission’s decision not to submit a proposal after the ECI was registered.
Mr Patrick Grégor Puppinck and six other individuals form the citizens’ committee of the ECI ‘One of Us’, which registered with the Commission in 2012. Its aim is to prohibit and put an end to EU funding of activities that involve the destruction of human embryos, including the funding of abortion.
After its registration, the ECI ‘One of Us’ collected the required one million signatures before being officially submitted to the Commission in early 2014. On 28 May 2014, the Commission stated in a Communication that it did not intend to take any action in response to this ECI. The organisers of the ECI then sought the annulment of the Commission’s communication before the General Court of the European Union, arguing, inter alia, that the Commission is obliged to submit a proposal for a legal act of the Union in response to a registered ECI. The General Court upheld the Commission’s decision.
On appeal, the Court first noted that, according to Article 11(4) TEU, the ECI is intended to ‘invite’ the Commission to submit an appropriate proposal for the purpose of implementing the Treaties and not to oblige that institution to undertake the action or actions envisaged by the ECI. It added that various provisions of Regulation 211/2011 (on ECIs) indicate that, when it receives an ECI, the Commission shall present the action it intends to take, if any, as well as the reasons for taking or not taking action, thus confirming that the submission by the Commission of a proposal for a Union act in response to an ECI is optional.
The Court went on to point out that the power of legislative initiative conferred on the Commission by the Treaties implies that it is for that institution to decide whether or not to submit a proposal for a legislative act, unless it is required to do so by Union law.
The Court also confirmed the General Court’s reasoning that the Commission, on the basis of a publication of the World Health Organization (WHO), had not committed “any manifest error of assessment” by considering that the Union’s financing of a package of safe and effective health services, including abortion services, contributed to reducing the number of unsafe abortions and, consequently, “the risk of maternal mortality and illness”. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)