Questions: Do you think that a mandatory system of registration of proposed initiatives is necessary? If so, do you agree that this could be done through a specific website provided by the European Commission?
Do you think that a mandatory system of registration of proposed initiatives is necessary?
If so, do you agree that this could be done through a specific website provided by the European Commission?
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
A much lower threshold should apply to have the right to solicit the opinion of that bureau (say a request by citizens from at least 4 countries and 1,000 signatures). In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
For each measure placed on the ballot, the Voter Information Guide contains a great deal of useful information for voters. Each measure in the guide is accompanied by an impartial analysis of the proposal and the potential costs to taxpayers as prepared by the Legislative Analyst's Office, arguments in favor and against it prepared by proponents and opponents, the text and a summary prepared by the Attorney General or the Legislature, as well as other information.
So, it would not be unreasonable for the Commission to set up an impartial advisory office analogous to the "Legislative Analyst's Office" that would be required to produce similar documentation for a citizen's initiative once it has passed a given threshold of eligibility. 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
The Legislative Analyst's Office has been providing fiscal and policy advice to the Legislature for more than 65 years. It is known for its fiscal and programmatic expertise and nonpartisan analyses of the state budget. The office serves as the "eyes and ears" for the Legislature to ensure that the executive branch is implementing legislative policy in a cost efficient and effective manner.
There are a few consequences of this. One is that the Commission will have to create a rather extensive service to be able to handle the petitions - maybe around 30 people if you also want translations done and replies given in the original language.
Another part is that if the Commission would be obliged to take some kind of action, its test of the admissibility of an initiative will be expansive (which it might be at any rate) and should be open to appeal at the Court of Justice (in my opinion). Giving legal advice on admissibility beforehand should then be separated from the Commission (requiring the creation of a new quango) and should focus on narrower issues, e.g. whether the power exists, and should not be binding.
I think it is preferable to have the initiators themselves check whether their proposal concerns an issue on which the Commission can initiate legislation. It should only take about 500 to 1000 euros to have a lawyer give an informed opinion.
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.
To limit the cost and frequency of proposals for ECI's the Commission could ask the ECJ or its legal office to give a "preliminary finding" on the admissibility of any ECI's which meet a much lower threshold - similar as already suggested - to a few thousand sigs or refundable Euros - which would effectively constitute a lower initial threshold before a putative ECI is registered on a central database. notes from no w here
