Case T‑646/13

Bürgerausschuss für die Bürgerinitiative Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe

v

European Commission

(Law governing the institutions — European citizens’ initiative — Protection of national and linguistic minorities and strengthening of cultural and linguistic diversity in the European Union — Refusal of registration — Commission manifestly lacking legislative powers — Obligation to state reasons — Article 4(2)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011)

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber), 3 February 2017

1.      Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Commission decision refusing to register a proposal for a European citizens’ initiative — Commission pleading manifest lack of legislative attributions in relation to the measures proposed — Commission not identifying the measures regarded as outside its competence or stating its reasons for that conclusion — Infringement of the duty to state reasons

(Arts 24, first para., TFEU and 296 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 211/2011, first recital and Art. 4(2)(b), and (3), second subpara.)

2.      Citizenship of the Union — Rights of the citizen — Presentation of a citizens’ initiative — Regulation No 211/2011 — Conditions for registration — Information having to accompany a proposal — Information on the subject-matter, aims and context — Optional — Consequences of sending that information — Obligation on the Commission to examine

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 211/2011, Art. 4(2), and Annex II)

1.      The second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 211/2011 on the European citizens’ initiative, which provides that the Commission is to inform the organisers of the reasons for any refusal to register a proposed European citizens’ initiative (ECI), gives specific expression to the obligation to state reasons in so far as citizens’ initiatives are concerned under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU. In that regard, since the fact that a proposal for an ECI is not registered may impinge upon the very effectiveness of the right of citizens to submit a citizens’ initiative that is enshrined in the first paragraph of Article 24 TFEU, such a decision must disclose clearly the grounds justifying the refusal. The citizen who has submitted a proposal for an ECI must be placed in a position to understand the reasons why it was not registered by the Commission, so that it is incumbent on the Commission, when it receives such a proposal, to appraise it and also to state the different reasons for any refusal to register it, given the effect of such a refusal on the effective exercise of the right enshrined in the Treaty. That follows from the very nature of this right which, as is pointed out in recital 1 of Regulation No 211/2011, is intended to reinforce citizenship of the Union and to enhance the democratic functioning of the European Union through the participation of citizens in its democratic life.

The Commission fails in its duty to state reasons if it does not indicate, in a decision refusing registration for non-compliance with the condition under Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011, those of the measures which, amongst those set out in the annex to a proposal for an ECI, do not fall within its competence or the grounds in support of that conclusion. Where the Commission acts in that way, the organisers are not placed in a position to be able to identify those of the proposals formulated which, according to the Commission, fall outside the framework of its powers, within the meaning of Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011, or to know the reasons which led to that assessment and, therefore, are prevented from challenging the merits of that assessment, just as the Court is prevented from exercising its review of the legality of the Commission’s assessment. Moreover, failing any complete statement of reasons, the possible introduction of a new proposed ECI, taking into account the Commission’s objections on the admissibility of certain proposals, would be seriously compromised, as would also be the achievement of the objectives, referred to in recital 2 of Regulation No 211/2011, of encouraging participation by citizens in democratic life and of making the European Union more accessible.

(see paras 15, 17, 18, 29, 34)

2.      Annex II to Regulation No 211/2011, entitled ‘Required information for registering a proposed citizens’ initiative’, to which Article 4(2) of that regulation refers, has binding force identical to that of the regulation. In that regard, the information described in the said annex is not limited to the minimum information which must be provided under that annex for the purpose of registering the application. The right under Annex II to Regulation No 211/2011 of the organisers of the proposed initiative to provide additional information, and even a draft legal act of the European Union, has as a corollary an obligation for the Commission to consider that information as any other information provided pursuant to that annex, in accordance with the principle of sound administration, including the duty of the competent institution to examine carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of the individual case and, therefore, to state reasons, in accordance with the relevant requirements and subject to review by the Courts of the European Union, for its decision in the light of all of that information.

(see paras 31, 32)