Introduction

The European Citizens' Initiative, rooted in the principles of civic participation and democratic legitimacy, is a significant achievement of the European Union. It grants European citizens the right to have a stronger voice and actively participate in EU policymaking.

The European Parliament played a significant role in shaping the ECI instrument during the years leading up to the adoption of the ECI Regulation in 2011. For instance, in 2009 Parliament proposed a detailed ECI implementation plan, which laid out the five stages of the ECI, the format for relations between organisers and the Commission from registration to final response, and the time limits to be observed, among other things. After the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty later that year, Parliament actively contributed to negotiations on the ECI Regulation, making the instrument more accessible¹ and user-friendly. Parliament advocated for reducing the minimum number of Member States needed for support, ensuring admissibility checks before registration, and extending the right to sign an ECI to all EU citizens and residents, regardless of their nationality.

Since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the right to submit a citizens' initiative has been enshrined in Title II – Provisions on Democratic Principles of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). Article 10 TEU underlines the will to ensure the implementation of three fundamental principles: democratic equality, representative democracy and participatory democracy. Article 11(4) TEU establishes the basic framework for that right:

not less than one million citizens who are nationals of a significant number of Member States may take the initiative of inviting the European Commission, within the framework of its powers, to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required

Article 24(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) sets out the general principles for an ECI regulation, defining the specific procedures and requirements related to the instrument. The proposal for a regulation was the result of extensive consultation. At the end of 2009, the Commission issued a green paper to seek the views of stakeholders on key issues that would shape the future regulation. Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 was adopted in 2011 and entered into force on 1 April 2012.²

Over time, Parliament's Constitutional Affairs and Petitions Committees has pushed for simplifying the procedures applicable to the ECI and improving its impact. In 2015, Parliament called for a revision to streamline personal data requirements and provide funding for ECI organisers. In September 2017, the Commission presented a legislative proposal to revise the ECI. Following interinstitutional negotiations, the final agreed act was signed on 17 April 2019 and published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 17 May 2019. The new ECI rules (Regulation (EU) 2019/788) repealing Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 have applied since 1 January 2020, following ongoing efforts to improve its accessibility and effectiveness in response to the Commission's roadmap of 2017. In the new regulation, the improvements proposed by the Parliament were considered to make the ECI more accessible. Later on, in its resolution of 13 June 2023, Parliament committed to further exploring ways to make the ECI more accessible and effective in the possible context of a future revision of the Treaties.

This briefing presents the ECI process and provides some examples of successful ECIs. It then presents its main advantages and challenges.

The ECI process

The role of key players

Examples of answered ECIs

To date, 10 initiatives have received an answer ('Water and sanitation are a human right! Water is a public good, not a commodity! (Right2Water)'; 'One of Us'; 'Stop Vivisection'; 'Ban Glyphosate'; 'Minority SafePack'; 'End the Cage Age'; 'Save Bees and Farmers'; 'Stop finning – stop the trade'; 'Save Cruelty-Free Cosmetics'; 'Fur-Free Europe').⁸ The 'Cohesion policy for the equality of the regions and sustainability of the regional cultures' ECI has been declared valid by the Commission but not yet answered. Three other ECIs are at the verification stage (however, according to the Commission, 'Stop extremism' seems to have been abandoned by the organisers at the stage of verification of the statements of support). The number of signatures collected has exceeded by far the one million threshold in a couple of instances (see Figure 1 below).

Moreover, there are seven ECIs for which the collection of signatures is still ongoing.

Data source: ECI Forum Infographic, May 2024; ECI website, European Commission.

Based on the analysis of existing ECIs, it seems that ECI campaigns often do not require EU-wide mobilisation to succeed. Instead, they need strong support in a few populous Member States to reach the minimum per country and one million total support signatures. In contrast, campaigns that spread resources too thinly across many countries, like the UBI ECI, have struggled to meet the thresholds.

The case of 'Water and sanitation are a human right! Water is a public good, not a commodity! (Right2Water)'

Right2 Water, the very first ECI to fulfil all ECI conditions, asked the Commission to propose legislation implementing the human right to water and sanitation as recognised by the United Nations, and promoting the provision of water and sanitation as essential public services for all. The proposed EU legislation would have required EU institutions and Member States' governments to ensure sufficient and clean drinking water and sanitation for all citizens. Water supply and the management of water resources were to be excluded from 'internal market rules', and water services from liberalisation efforts. Finally, the initiative proposed that the EU increase its efforts to achieve universal access to water and sanitation. The organisation behind this ECI was the European Public Services Union (EPSU), a Belgian federation of 260 trade unions that based its campaign largely on grassroots organisations. Its success came through media coverage; as Louisa Parks⁹ explains: 'In late January 2013, a German comedian and satirist featured material about the right to water and the privatisation of water supplies on his television programme, ending the piece with information about the ECI and how it could contribute to safeguard publicly owned water supplies in the country. This led to a significant jump in the numbers of signatures' (1 236 455 in Germany alone).

In response to this initiative, the Commission declared its commitment to taking concrete steps and working on a number of new actions in areas of direct relevance to it, and to reaching its goals by reinforcing the implementation of its water quality legislation, building on the commitments outlined in the 7th environment action programme (EAP) and the Water Blueprint. The Commission also promised to launch an EU-wide public consultation on the Drinking Water Directive, with a focus on improving access to quality water in the EU and enhancing transparency in urban wastewater and drinking water data management. It emphasised the potential benefits of benchmarking water quality and fostering a structured dialogue among stakeholders on transparency in the water sector. Finally, the Commission promised to promote and share best practices among Member States, identify new opportunities for cooperation, and advocate for universal access to safe drinking water and sanitation as a priority area for future sustainable development goals.

In 2015, Parliament adopted an own-initiative report and amended the Drinking Water Directive to improve the monitoring of drinking water across the EU. The amendment entered into force on 28 October 2015. On 1 February 2018, the Commission proposed a further revision, adopted by the co-legislators in December 2020. In January 2024, new EU-wide minimum hygiene standards for materials and products used in drinking water distribution were adopted.

The case of 'One of Us'

'One of Us' aimed to ensure 'the juridical protection of the dignity, the right to life and of the integrity of every human being from conception in the areas of EU competence in which such protection is of particular importance'. According to the organisers, any patent on invention had to respect the fundamental principles safeguarding the dignity and integrity of the person. They referred to the Brüstle case, in which the human embryo was defined as the beginning of the development of a human being. They also claimed that to ensure consistency in areas of its competence where the life of the human embryo is at stake, the EU should establish a ban and end the financing of activities that presuppose the destruction of human embryos in the areas of research, development aid and public health. According to the organisers, the Brüstle case clarified that human life begins at fertilisation and that, out of respect for human dignity, it excludes the possibility of patenting any procedure that involves the destruction of a human embryo. The CJEU stated that: '...the legal protection of biotechnological inventions must be interpreted as meaning that any human ovum after fertilisation, any non-fertilised human ovum into which the cell nucleus from a mature human cell has been transplanted, and any non-fertilised human ovum whose division and further development have been stimulated by parthenogenesis constitute a ''human embryo''. It is for the referring court to ascertain, in the light of scientific developments, whether a stem cell obtained from a human embryo at the blastocyst stage constitutes a ''human embryo'' ...'. This highly sensitive issue from an ideological and religious point of view received its highest number of statements of support in Italy, Poland, Spain, Germany and Romania. It was also the second ECI to reach the minimum signatures threshold since 2012.

In its communication of May 2014, the Commission explained that it had decided not to submit a legislative proposal, stating that 'the EU Financial Regulation¹⁰ ... already ensures that all EU expenditure, including in the areas of research, development cooperation and public health, must respect human dignity, the right to life, and the right to the integrity of the person'. The organisers, insisting that the Commission should act after a successful collection of signatures, decided to contest the decision. The lawsuit was unsuccessful before the General Court in April 2018, and before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice in December 2019. Some argue that this effectively grants the Commission a veto power over any ECI it does not wish to support.

The case of 'Stop Vivisection'

'Stop Vivisection' called for an EU legislative framework to repeal Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. It also proposed a ban on animal testing, advocating for the mandatory use of data directly relevant to the human species. The organisers urged the phasing out of animal experiments, backing their request with ethical objections and solid scientific evidence that challenges the effectiveness of the 'animal model' for predicting human responses. This ECI demonstrated that collecting a minimum of one million signatures is feasible, as shown by the successful gathering of signatures in just a few Member States. Its organisers strategically focused on populous Member States to increase their chances of success. 'Stop Vivisection' concentrated its efforts on Italy, where it gathered 690 000 statements of support, capitalising on the country's robust animal rights movement and political networks. Italy has a long history of animal rights activism, with influential organisations like LAV and LEAL leading efforts against animal experimentation (the world's first known petition against animal experimentation was organised in Florence in 1863¹¹). Furthermore, the campaign received political support from MEP and animal rights advocate Sonia Alfano. Finally, media coverage of the Green Hill scandal, where mistreated dogs were bred for experiments, also helped to raise public awareness.

In its response to this ECI, the Commission stated that it 'shares the Citizens' Initiative's conviction that animal testing should be phased out. This is the goal of EU legislation.', but that it did not share the view that scientific principles invalidate the 'animal model' and refused to replace the 2010 directive, arguing that 'during a time of transition, [animal testing is] still necessary'. Consequently, in 2016, the organisers complained to the Ombudsman, who concluded that there was no case of maladministration by the Commission. The Ombudsman considered that the Commission 'has complied with its duty to explain, in a clear, comprehensible and detailed manner, its position and political choices'; therefore, it had not 'failed to comply with the spirit and logic of the ECI rules'.

Main achievements and remaining challenges

The ECI has encouraged and stimulated political engagement by allowing citizens to raise issues they feel are important but may not otherwise receive attention at the EU level. This has helped promote active citizenship and civic involvement, which are crucial for a healthy and democratic society.¹² Even when an ECI does not gather enough support, it can still serve as an effective tool for raising awareness and stimulating political debate about specific issues. Successful campaigns often bring attention to important topics, mobilise public opinion and influence political discourse, as demonstrated by the examples above. In fact, as shown in Figure 2 below, a majority of answered ECIs have easily met the minimum threshold of signatures in more than a quarter of Member States, with one in two reaching the threshold in more than half of the Member States.

Data source: ECI Forum Infographic, May 2024; ECI website, European Commission.

The ECI strengthens the EU's legitimacy by allowing citizens to participate in the political process in a more direct way than traditional methods like voting. It demonstrates citizens' commitment to participating in setting the political agenda, which can enhance the EU's democratic credentials.¹³ By allowing citizens to have a direct say in the legislative process, the ECI fosters a sense of empowerment and participation in EU democracy, similar to other instruments of direct democracy such as referenda or citizens panels. It provides a platform that helps bridge the gap between EU institutions and citizens. Heidelberg University Professors Jale Tosun and Simon Schaub argue that:

instead of developing the ECI into a legislative instrument, the ECI might also continue to be an agenda-setting tool, which simply serves to draw attention to certain issues. If so, then its registration process should be designed in a less restrictive fashion so as to allow more initiatives to reach the political elites ¹⁴

The ECI also fosters cooperation and solidarity across borders by requiring signatures from different EU Member States. Finally, the 2019 reform enabled the digitalisation of the ECI process (registration, dedicated website, signature collection system), starting a path towards a genuine e‑democracy scenario. In this spirit, in her 2020 study Agnieszka Parol suggested improving democratic practices through online tools, also based on a digitally enhanced citizen participation tool that Professor Kalypso Nicolaidis developed as part of the Democratic Panopticon.

Today, 13 years after the ECI came into existence, far too many EU citizens remain unaware of this instrument of direct democracy or do not know how to use it effectively. Despite its potential, it has not been widely used, and many people do not understand how they can get involved in the process or how it could influence EU legislation. Young people, in particular, seem unaware of the ECI's existence; none of the organisers of the 10 ECIs that successfully met all criteria and received a formal response from the Commission were between 18 and 21 years old (see Figure 3 below).

Data source: ECI Forum Infographic, May 2024; ECI website, European Commission.

To address these difficulties, the Commission has launched a dedicated web page listing ongoing ECIs, created a newsletter, established the ECI Forum and supported the network of ECI Ambassadors – mainly representatives of civil society organisations who voluntarily promote the instrument – as well as a broader network of ECI multipliers. Some experts argue that the rules on the ECI's form and substance remain too strict, and that transparency could be further improved.

Moreover, the requirement to gather signatures from at least seven EU Member States can be an obstacle, as the process is often complex, time-consuming and expensive. Meeting the five criteria to register an ECI under Article 6(3) of the 2019 ECI Regulation can also be seen as restrictive by the public, especially the limitation of the ECI scope because the subject must strictly fall under the framework of EU powers.

These legal hurdles can discourage participation and make the process intimidating for citizens without prior experience in advocacy or lobbying.¹⁵ While an ECI can lead the Commission to consider a legislative proposal, it has no legal obligation to act on it. This limits the potential of the ECI as a genuine tool for shaping EU law. Indeed, many ECIs are not followed by concrete legislative action, which undermines their effectiveness and the trust citizens place in the process.

Some initiatives struggle due to a lack of funding, media support and institutional backing. While grassroots organisations can campaign effectively, the lack of infrastructure and resources, compared to well-funded lobby groups, can hinder the success of many ECI campaigns.

Critics argue that the scope of an ECI is also too limited in practice and that the need for multinational support can make it difficult to achieve widespread public engagement. The diverse political landscapes across the EU mean that public opinion on a single issue may vary widely across countries, making it harder to gain traction across different Member States. Finally, an ECI cannot put forward proposals to modify the EU Treaties, which arguably limits its impact.

According to several academics, '(t)he Commission is by far the most important player in the ECI'. Considering its role as the promoter of the general interest of the Union (Article 17(1) TEU) and its (quasi-)monopoly of legislative initiatives (Article 17(2) TEU), the Commission plays a key part in the ECI procedure. By performing the functions of assistance, organisation, supervision and decision-making, it therefore leads and controls all key stages of the ECI cycle.

On one hand, legal scholars have criticised the (allegedly) strict and legalistic interpretation and application of the admissibility test laid down in Article 6(3) of the 2019 ECI Regulation by the Commission. On the other hand, the almost monopolistic power of the Commission in the law-making process remains the biggest challenge of the ECI. After her empirical study of cases, the conclusion of another academic, Anna-Angela Kandyla, echoes several scholars' opinions. She argues that the Commission should 'politically commit' to bringing the successful initiatives' legislative requests to the legislature. Additionally, one could argue that Parliament, the only EU institution directly elected by the EU citizens, would be more legitimate than the Commission to decide on the registration of an ECI. Finally, academics like Carsten Berg propose to transform the ECI into a popular initiative tool that would trigger an EU-wide referendum.

To sum up, while the ECI is a significant step towards increasing direct democratic engagement in the EU, its practical challenges often undermine its effectiveness. It has succeeded in raising awareness and fostering political participation, but the barriers to success (such as the complex task of organising an ECI, low public awareness and the lack of binding outcomes) have limited its real impact on the actual EU policymaking process. To make the ECI a truly effective tool for citizens, improvements in accessibility and support for initiatives are essential. Enhancing its visibility and removing bureaucratic hurdles could help unlock its full potential as a meaningful tool for active citizenship in the EU. Ultimately, the main challenge would be to ensure concrete follow-up after a successful ECI by including, in a modification of the Treaties,¹⁶ a new binding obligation for the Commission to act on a successful ECI.