Under this heading, though, the Commission also discusses the question of whether it should check admissibility. It does not deem an ex-ante admissibility check appropriate, because, to quote:
Such an approach could lead to confusion, giving the impression that the Commission had given some form of green light to proposed initiatives on more than purely procedural grounds. It would require checks to be made which would delay the moment from which signatures could be collected. Moreover, the admissibility and substance of initiatives cannot be seen in isolation and thus it would not be appropriate at the early stage of registration to undertake this examination. The Commission understands that there may be some reluctance to launching an initiative across the EU, with the risk that it may ultimately be rejected on the grounds that it is not admissible. However it should be noted that the admissibility criterion - that the proposal on which the Commission is invited to act should be within the framework of its powers - is sufficiently clear and is known at EU level. In any event, organizers can normally be expected to have fully assessed whether the initiative legally falls within the framework of the Commission's powers before launching an initiative.
The Commission understands that there may be some reluctance to launching an initiative across the EU, with the risk that it may ultimately be rejected on the grounds that it is not admissible. However it should be noted that the admissibility criterion - that the proposal on which the Commission is invited to act should be within the framework of its powers - is sufficiently clear and is known at EU level. In any event, organizers can normally be expected to have fully assessed whether the initiative legally falls within the framework of the Commission's powers before launching an initiative.
(the treaties also include objectives for policy areas, like agriculture or environment which broadly outline to which ends the powers attributed to the EU are to be used)
In Colman's story we already discussed this issue. Migeru noted:
This whole citizen initiative process will backfire on the EU if the first few attempts which are successful in collecting 1 million signatures are then dismissed on the grounds that they ask for things that the Commission cannot do according to the treaties.
They need a process for pre-approval or something. An advice service.
Say, after a petition achieves 100 thousand signatures by some "informal method" the Commission provides legal advice and centralizes signature collection?
I don't think so. As Frank indicates, it will take a lot of organising power in order to get such an initiative off the ground as I expect some difficult distribution among the 27 Member States, only certified written signatures allowed, etcetera. This means that only the currently already networked civil society and lobbies will be able to use the instrument (or rich folks who'd want to waste some money). Those folks will have a legal affairs department look at it before they launch anything.
I think the Commission should use its registry to also provide information on the requirements for admissibility, and, just as important, on the national requirements for the collection of signatures. I don't think they should set up a dedicated service that gives legal advice or centralises signature collection.
Such an approach could lead to confusion, giving the impression that the Commission had given some form of green light to proposed initiatives on more than purely procedural grounds.
The obvious solution is that the admissibility check should not be conducted by the Commission itself. For example, like in several EU member countries, some court or a special election authority could do it.
[Migeru] Say, after a petition achieves 100 thousand signatures by some "informal method" the Commission provides legal advice and centralizes signature collection?
If you collected 100,000 signatures and the legal advice forces a change in the text, you'll have to re-do those 100,000 signatures.
[nanne] ...only the currently already networked civil society and lobbies will be able to use the instrument (or rich folks who'd want to waste some money). Those folks will have a legal affairs department look at it before they launch anything.
I am sceptical on that. And some of the networked lobbies and civil society would be very much capable of launching an inflammatory petition even if they know of legal problems (say, what about a pro-death-penalty one?) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
If you collect 100,000 signatures and then you get legal advice that what you propose is incompatible with the treaties, then what? En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
One possibility is analogous to the way running for Parliament works in the UK. If I am not mistaken, you are required to submit a large number of signatures or pay a deposit of £500 which is refunded if you get more than a rather small amount of votes.
So, for instance, a petition might have to pay the Commission for the ex-ante legal advice, with the cost of the advice (1000 euros, give or take ?) being refunded if the petition obtains more than (say) 100,000 signatures. En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
