Everyone is invited to the European Parliament in Brussels and campaign for a citizen-friendly ECI. The next hearing on the European Citizens’ Initiative – this time organised by the European United Left/Nordic Green Left group (GUE/NGL) – will take place from 15.00 to 18.30 on Wednesday 15 .  For registration until Sept 8 and programme:

If you decide to participate, you need to copy paste and  fill in the registration form below. Then  send it  by E-Mail to: mette.tonsberg@europarl.europa.eu and brian.carty@europarl.europa.eu

Registration Form

Deadline for Registration is Wednesday 8 September 2010

First Name:

Last Name:

Country of Residence:

Function/Organisation:

Address:

Email:

I require a pass to enter the European Parliament:

 Yes  No

If you require a pass to enter the European Parliament we will need the following information:

Date of birth: ../../19..:

Passport or ID-Card Number:

Please send the registration by E-Mail to: mette.tonsberg@europarl.europa.eu and brian.carty@europarl.europa.eu

Draft Programme

Why would Europeans be coming to California, seeking advice?

Well, a group of European scholars and ECI-Campaign activists were coming last week to learn as much as they could about the Californian initiative process. Our goal? Learn what to do (and perhaps not to do) as we design a new initiative process of our own in Europe. At the same time Americans show an increasing interest, as the recent New York Times piece shows, covering the European Citizen’s Initiative, including ECI-Campaign. Enjoy reading the report by Carsten Berg, coordinator of the ECI-Campaign, on some of the Californian lessons to learn for a citizen-friendly designed ECI.

As only a few know, California has a 99 years old experience with direct citizens’ involvement. The instrument in question is the Californian Citizens’ Initiative, also called the “initiative-process”, permitting the people to introduce legislation and even put a measure on the ballot (referendum). Similar to ECI, about one million citizens need to sign such an initiative in California – the precise participation quorum depends on the last election turnout.

Thanks to our study tour leader Joe Mathews from New America Foundation, we had the chance to meet with legislators, authors of citizens’ initiatives, consultants, scholars, election administrators and others in Sacramento and San Francisco to talk about how the Californians conduct the initiative process.  We could directly observe and learn what it needs to run a Campaign, how signatures are gathered and verified and how the Californian Government deals with citizens’ initiatives. After this study trip we presented ECI-Campaign at the Global Forum in San Francisco and ran a workshop on transnational democracy together with Angelika Gardiner and MEP Gerald Häfner, one of the four rapporteurs in the European Parliament.

California’s love-hate relationship with citizens’ initiatives

Californians have a love-hate relationship towards their “initiative-process”. They strongly support it and would never give it up, but they don’t like how it is conducted, as we learn from Kim Alexander, founder of the California Voter Foundation and a great person, who has opened our eyes for California’s “initiative process” through our entire stay. See her article about the  “Ten Things to Know About California’s Initiative Process”.
According to a recent study Californians think, that there are too many initiatives on the ballot at one time, and say the wording of initiatives is too complicated and confusing for voters, in order to understand what happens if the initiative passes.

Another fundamental problem and reason why many Californians want to reform their “initiative-process” has to do with the fact that it is too much driven by money. Essentially this is due to the too short time limit of only five months to collect the required number of signatures. Only the big and very wealthy people/organisations can afford to manage to collect the minimum number of signatures within such a short time period. For the European Citizens’ Initiative we have learned, that we need to extend the time limit of one year, as proposed by the EU-Commission and Council, to at least 18-24 months, as is the case for example in Switzerland, where the process is less money driven and much more open for a deeper deliberative communication process due to this different notion of time for the initiative process.

In California it takes at least one million U$ to collect the required number of signatures. Californian ballot-initiative organizers even pay up to 150 million U$ in just one single campaign, especially for TV-adds and paid signature collectors. The latter are given up to 12 $ per signature. Grass-root NGOs without money fail to collect the required signatures in such a short time period. However while you cannot win an initiative campaign without money, we have also learned that you cannot win with money alone. A rich person with a million dollars is able to collect the required signatures. But it always takes a broad coalition of support for the final vote. Without a supporting alliance any initiative fails at the ballot box.

In Sacramento we analysed a concrete citizens initiative example, the case of Proposition 16 on the June 2010 ballot. A company alone, Pacific Gas and Electric, led a 46 million dollar effort (!) to make it more difficult for Californians to obtain public power services in their communities.  Opponents raised and spent only less than $100,000. “This was clearly a David and Goliath contest in money terms, yet the measure was still defeated, with 47 percent of voters voting yes, and 53 percent no” explains Kim Alexander.

Making use of an E-signature will reduce the costs for organizers

We also got in touch with the newest technological developments in California and visit Wikimedia Foundation, the place of Wikipedia. There we reflect how their participatory way of developing communication and knowledge could be used in the preparatory phase for citizens-initiatives. Moreover ECI-Campaign is present on the San Francisco panel “Are You Dreaming of an Electronic Signature?”. Here we get to know Michael Marubio, co-founder of Verafirma, explaining their invention of an electronic signature for an iPhone, which is already tested for voter registration in California. We think this could be a tool to make ECI more usable, citizen friendly and last but not least, reduce costs for any future ECI-organizers. See how it works in their video:

In Europe we don’t have e-collecting systems in place, only electronic voting systems as for example in elections in Estonia and for referendums in Switzerland. But collecting verifiable signatures in an electronic way is a much bigger practical challenge, as in most member states there is no population or voter registry, that includes signatures of its citizens, in order to compare them with the respective signature expressed on a statement of support of a citizens’ initiative.

Citizens’ initiative text translated in seven languages!

We also get to know the Secretary of State, Debra Bowen,  the chief elections officer of California, and learn that they prepare information guides in the state’s seven most common languages (English, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Tagalog and Vietnamese) including the text of the citizens’ initiatives as well as analyses and arguments for and against each measure. We are wondering why this should not be guaranteed for a European Citizens’ Initiative as well? Living in a European Union with more than 23 languages, it remains inconceivable, why Council and the EU-Commission have not taken up this idea. The European Parliament’s debate sounds more promising here.

Our Workshop in San Francisco on Transnational Democracy

We started with the observation, that today many political and economic issues have gained transnational characteristics and, therefore, can no longer be tackled on the national level alone.

In order to assure the capacity to shape modern politics, national governments feel the pressure and need to cooperate within the international and transnational order. New international institutions were therefore created such as  the IMF, the World Bank or the EU.

But this, at the same time, seriously decreases the capacity for national citizenries to participate within the political process, as these organisations lack democratic legitimacy. Decision-  and policy-making processes on a growing number of crucial issues are shifted to new transnational layers of political authority, where they are excluded from national public control. This “democratic dilemma” challenges the current development of democracy. Here ECI was strongly welcomed and appreciated in our San Francisco workshop as the first participatory democracy element at transnational level in world history.

One of our participants, Joel Marsden, went a step further and calls for a global vote, he produced an interesting film, for which he travelled all around the world, see the trailer:

As a good background source on Transnational Democracy, you can download the book “Global Citizens in Charge”, in which Saskia Hollander assesses “The prospects for Transnational Direct Democracy”.

Welcome to the Campaign for a citizen-friendly European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI). Citizens’ initiative rights to be workable need to be designed in a citizens-friendly and useable way. This is what this campaign is all about now. Read more about the essential specifics and get engaged as well in this decisive phase.

What needs to be changed in the ECI regulation to make the ECI usable?

Within the next months to come, the European Parliament will finally come up with its own ECI proposal, which then needs to be negotiated with the EU-Commission and Council. In order to ensure that the ECI can fulfil its potential to democratize the EU and engage citizens in EU issues, we urgently suggest the following seven modifications to the draft ECI regulation, which was proposed as a compromise by the EU-Commission and Council on June 14^th.

1. Clarify the European Commission’s follow-up to successful ECIs

The draft ECI regulation is silent on the most important phase of the ECI: the Commission’s response to a successful ECI. This needs to be clearly detailed in the regulation. Each successful ECI should result in a public hearing process where the Commission explains its response to the ECI in a transparent way directly and in exchange with the organizers of an ECI. As is the case for a legislative initiative from the European Parliament, the Commission should also be given a time limit in which to issue a legislative proposal.

2. Simplify the signature form and eliminate ID number requirements

In the draft regulation, each person supporting an ECI would be required to give not only his or her name, address and signature but also date and place of birth and personal identification card number (ID card, passport, social security card). The ID number requirement could effectively render the ECI unusable by raising public fears of violation of privacy and identity theft. Such intrusive personal data requirements clearly deter supporters and thus significantly raise costs for signature collection. After six EU member states have already rejected this in their country, the requirement of providing a personal identity card number should be removed in all member states.

3. Simplify the admissibility check procedure

The Commission currently suggests a double-admissibility check of an ECI. First, after registration of an ECI, EU-officials shall make a “value-check” and test, if the ECI is “abusive” or ‘manifestly against the values of the Union’ (Art 4.4). Secondly, after 100.000 signatures are collected, the Commission shall decide, if the ECI is legally admissible (Art. 8). While point one is questionable as such, it certainly needs to be specified, in order to avoid misuse by the Commission. Secondly, the requirement of first obtaining the large number of 100,000 signatures is excessively costly for organisers of ECIs, which will later be deemed inadmissible. In order to avoid huge frustration, we therefore urge the institutions to do the legal admissibility check in the beginning after successful registration (as proposed by MEP Wallis and MEP Häfner). In other words, the two admissibility checks shall be merged; otherwise this instrument remains too bureaucratic and non-transparent.

4. ECIs that propose treaty amendments are admissible

It needs to be explicitly clarified, that ECI may not be restricted to secondary law (policy proposals). Otherwise citizens would be denied to participate in the most important political issues. Given that the Commission may propose treaty amendments, it should be possible to launch ECIs requiring treaty amendments to implement.

5. Extend the time limit to 24 months

The proposed maximum time period of 12 months to collect one million signatures from nine countries is considerably insufficient. Often 24 months will be needed, especially for ECIs coordinated by smaller organisations without a huge budget or for issues that are not yet well known or understood by the general public.

6. Reduce the minimum number of Member States to five

The proposed requirement of a minimum number of signatures from nine Members States (1/3) is far too high. A European Party only needs members from seven Members States. Given that this is simply an agenda-setting initiative that will later follow standard EU legislative procedures, signatures from at least 1/5 member states would be sufficient.

7. Provide practical support to ECI organiser

Given the huge practical challenges inherent in collecting one million signatures at transnational level, ECIs should have the right to formal support as is the case for citizens’ initiatives in Member states. Support prior to signature collection should include comprehensive information on how to conduct an ECI and legal advice. Once the ECI has been declared admissible, official translation of the text into all 21 EU official languages should be provided. To promote transnational citizen involvement, travel vouchers and free meetingspace for citizens from different countries to meet to discuss the ECI topic should also be provided.

The preparations for a citizen-friendly designed ECI-regulation are under way. These days ECI-Campaign has been invited to various public ECI-debates in Brussels and is in intensive exchange with all three institutions, the European Parliament, EU-Commission and Council. The institutions have signalled that they still are in their examination and brainstorming phase and that more time is needed than they first thought.  As ECI-Campaign, we strongly welcome this move and draw the attention to the seven most important points, in order to make ECI a useable and citizens-friendly instrument.

In the meantime the European Parliaments’ rapporteurs of the Petition Committee Diana Wallis & Gerald Häfner have produced a working document on ECI, which so far is the most citizen-friendly proposal of all institutional players. You can read their interesting position paper below.

Position Paper  from  14th July 2010 .

Concerning the Draft Regulation on the European Citizens’ Initiative

Rapporteurs: Diana Wallis & Gerald Häfner.

The European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) is the first instrument of transnational citizen participation in EU politics. It allows citizens to intervene in European politics by proposing new legal acts, and makes the EU institutions aware of their wishes and concerns.

This new instrument, which was originally proposed by civil society organisations and was adopted by the European Convention and later enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty, gives European citizens the means to raise issues directly at the European level.  When one million Europeans support such an ECI, the Commission is obliged to respond seriously to the extent, of where appropriate bringing forward legislative proposals.

The ECI is therefore an agenda-setting tool put directly in the hands of all Europeans, which can both initiate trans-European debate and inspire and instigate EU level legislation or regulation. If the ECI is designed in a citizen-friendly way and in an accessible manner, then it should contribute to raising the awareness of citizens about European issues as well as raising the institutions’ awareness of the wishes and concerns of the people of Europe. It can and should further contribute to bringing the EU institutions closer to the citizen and thus strengthen the dialogue between them.

In order to become a really positive agenda-setting tool, which should be clearly differentiated from the existing right to petition, the ECI must be implemented in a way that is simple, accessible and not bureaucratic. While equipped to prevent possible misuse, it should also aim to avoid creating frustration. In achieving this, and whilst maintaining the clear distinction, much can be learned from the experience of the petitions process in the European Parliament notably as regards best practice, transparency, questions of admissibility and active involvement of citizens. The implementing rules of this new instrument, unlike the petition must clearly oblige the Commission to enter into direct and serious dialogue with citizens.

The objective of this working Document is therefore to set out the co-rapporteurs’ views on the ECI angled towards achieving a working instrument that accords as fully as possible with the aspirations of Europe’s citizens for real direct involvement in European affairs. It is a document which is open for discussion with the shadow rapporteurs and all members involved in this process. It proceeds by outlining the main characteristics of the new instrument in a step-by step approach following the various stages of an ECI.

I. Setting up an initiative: the pre-registration stage and requirements for organisers

1. Original supporters of an ECI

Your co-rapporteurs suggest that for practical organisational reasons an ECI should name a minimum of 7 persons as ‘original supporters’, coming from a minimum of 3 Member States, who should have the authority to speak and decide on behalf of the supporters of the initiative. There should be a single address in one of the Member States, plus a single electronic address, to facilitate all official communication between the ECI spokespersons and the institutions, which will be necessary at different stages in the procedure. This basic provision requires those instigating an ECI to put some effort and thought into the process before it can be registered. In this way it would help to avoid possibly immature or unreasoned initiatives from being submitted.

II. Registration and Admissibility

2. Registration

The Commission must provide the facilities for the official registration of a Citizens’ Initiative which should cover the possibility of either electronic or manual submission. For registration of electronic submissions, a dedicated multi-lingual web portal should be established to facilitate the procedure. This should include a section providing a clear explanation of the procedures and requirements for the correct submission of a Citizens’ Initiative, an FAQ section, acknowledgement of receipt and a section itemising Citizens’ Initiatives which have been registered and declared admissible, for information. The same information should be available in offline paper form.

In addition to the obligatory sections covering the names of the original supporters and contact details the form should include a declaration in relation to any sponsors who provide financial support for the ECI above the level of 2000 euros. The text of the initiative itself should be clearly written in one of the official languages and there should be a maximum length restriction.  An explanatory statement may also be given, settings out the aims and objectives of the proposal. Overall, it is suggested that the registration form should not go beyond 3 sides.

Given the importance of the layout and requirements of the registration form to the ECI process it is submitted that it should in annex form an integral part of the Regulation for approval by the co-legislators.

3. Admissibility

The co-rapporteurs agree that there indeed should be a mechanism for excluding citizens’ initiatives, which are not in the competence of the EU or violate fundamental rights respected by the EU.

The admissibility of an ECI should be verified once by the Commission, directly following registration.

Upon such verification an ECI should be rejected if it does not meet the requirements as to form and content, is not within the competence of the EU, or if it is in breach of Art. 6 TEU or the general principles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention of the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

There should also be appropriate certain legal criteria that allows for the rejection of initiatives which are completely lacking in serious intent or manifestly vexatious.

Decisions on admissibility may be subject to appeal only to the European Court of Justice, and or to the European Ombudsman if there appear to be justifiable grounds on which a case of maladministration can be made.

If, as proposed, a decision on admissibility by the Commission is taken swiftly following registration, this will mean that the organisers have the certainty from the outset that if they are able to fulfil the one million signatures from several Member States that their initiative will be ultimately be properly considered by the Commission.

III. Collecting signatures and verification.

4. Who can sign?

Your co-rapporteurs suggest that in line with the right of petition, any citizen of the Union and any natural residing in a Member State, regardless of age, should have the right to sign a Citizens’ Initiative. This suggestion is made taking account of the number of signatures required and the fundamental wish to stimulate debate and participation. Against this background it would be inconceivable that this right should available to fewer citizens than the right to petition; the objective is to increase participation not restrict it and young people especially have a huge role to play in that process. Again, the experience of petitions has not shown such permissive criteria to be problematic.

5. How many Member States?

In order to guarantee European character of the initiative, instead of national issues, and at the same time in order to ensure the right to initiative is accessible for ordinary citizens and not just for powerful lobbyists, there should be a stipulation that supporters must come from a minimum of one fifth of the Member States. Currently that would imply six Member States.

6. How many signatures from each Member State?

A threshold that is digressively proportional to the population of each state as proposed by the EC makes sense. This is an equitable approach which takes account of the widely divergent population numbers in the twenty-seven member States. A table in the annex to the regulation will make this clear and the necessary numerical requirements should figers prominently in the information available at registration.

7. What is required from the signatory?

For the signature collection, only the following data should be necessary:

Name, Address, Nationality, Signature

This is sufficient to ensure that a person who has signed exists and has not signed twice.

8. How should signatures be collected?

All possible legal and technical ways to collect signatures should be allowed. This includes the collection of signatures on paper as well as online. For the online collection, as indicated above, the Commission should provide a suitable web-portal that:

• allows easy access to sign the initiative
• ensures that only existing and legitimated persons sign,
• ensures that those who signed did this only once
• guarantees protection for the personal data given by citizens.

Furthermore, organisers could also have the possibility to collect signatures on paper and on their own website, which must however be subject to verification by the verifying authorities – see below.

9. What time limits should be established?

The time limit for the collection of signatures should be 18 months following the official registration date. Transnational initiatives need enough time for communication, meetings, travelling, translation and mobilizing support in a significant number of states – especially if they are not initiated by large and established NGOs. Therefore one year is probably insufficient. The deadline does not mean that citizen initiatives could not be handed in earlier if they have already gained the necessary support. It cannot be excluded that at the time of registration, one million signatures may already have been collected. However, normally, following registration, the collection of signatures should begin within a six month period and the Commission informed accordingly, otherwise the technical decision on admissibility should become void. The 18 month period is to run from the commencement of signature collection, that is up to 6 months from the date of successful registration or earlier depending upon the effective start date advised by the original supporters to the Commission.

10. How should signatures be verified?

Verification of signatures should be dealt with by the designated authorities of the Member States within 3 months of final submission. The Commission will set down the criteria to ensure that these authorities all adhere to the same standards (objectivity, data protection and so on) but the decision as to which authority carries out the checks will be left to the Member States.

A verification of every single signature is not necessary. Random examination is sufficient to prove whether a sufficient amount of valid signatures has been reached.

The decision will be subject to appeal to the ECJ, as for other provisions of the Regulation.

IV. Follow-up: the role of the European Institution.

In contrast to the detailed rules and provisions that ECI-organisers have to follow, the Commission in its draft regulation is very short on its own obligations in dealing with a successful ECI. In Article 11 of the draft it only stipulates that it will “examine the citizens’ initiative and, within 4 months, set out in a communication its conclusions on the initiative, the action it intends to take, if any, and its reasons for doing so.

However, this stage of the procedure is extremely important for effectively designating the ECI as a legitimate debate provoking instrument which leads to the formulation of policy and possibly to European regulation or legislation. Thus there must be clear provisions on what happens after an ECI has successfully collected one million signatures.

The co-rapporteurs consider that organisers of Citizens’ Initiatives should, when the whole procedure has been completed, be entitled to be heard and make their case in public. In particular there should be a right to be heard by the Commission in a public hearing. The Commission shall be obliged to discuss the proposal made by the ECI and consider the ways in which it could act to achieve those aims.

In addition to that, and bearing in mind the ECI’s direct right of response from the Commission, at the discretion of the organisers of the ECI and of the European Parliament, a public hearing may also be conducted in the forum of the Petitions Committee of the European Parliament with Commission and Council present and fully involved.

The Commission should be obliged to formally communicate the conclusions of the public hearing or hearings to the organisers of the ECI, the European Parliament and the Council setting out the type of legislative or regulatory action to be taken and in the event of no action being proposed to give clear reasons why not.

The grounds for suggesting a possible additional hearing before the Petitions Committee of the European Parliament, is because the experience of this committee makes it ideally suited for such an activity. Due to the fact that it would not be involved in any subsequent legislative procedure it could provide a useful representative and democratic forum for ECIs to be heard and debated in the presence of, and indeed with the participation of the Commission, Member States representatives and other interested parties.

Such an additional parliamentary hearing need not necessarily form part of the Regulation as Parliament’s Rules of Procedure could be amended to provide for such a possibility, especially if there was to be an inter-institutional consensus on this point.

It would however be unreasonable to make this an obligation on either the organisers of the initiative itself, or the institution concerned. The primary addressee of the ECI is and must remain the Commission, as it is the Commission that is obliged to engage and respond, and in this respect the Regulation must lay down clear and definitive timescales and procedures

It could also be possible for Parliament, at an earlier stage in the process to champion an ECI which could result in the delivery of a Parliamentary initiative to the Commission in the same or similar terms. This may require a minor modification to the existing Rule 41 in Parliament’s Rules of Procedure.

Another issue relates to what happens with unsuccessful Citizens’ Initiatives. The EP, its committee on petitions and other parliamentary committees, are at any time free to put the issue on its agenda, to invite organisers, stakeholders, commission, council and ombudsman for a hearing. This would especially make sense with ECIs that did not completely reach the 1 Mil. signatures in the set timeframe but cover an important issue. Furthermore, if an ECI has been found not admissible the organisers could bring it to the notion of the Parliament in the form of a Petition, where it would be acted according to the established procedures for petitions.

The intention of all institutions should be to encourage citizens to take a greater interest and also participate where possible in the activity of the Union and its institutions. Consequently, care must be taken throughout the process covered by the Citizens’ Initiative not to de-motivate citizens from acting responsibly.

V.        Further considerations:

Initiatives also must have the right to receive professional help especially for translation purposes and for advice on the legal design and the admissibility of an initiative.

Therefore the Commission could provide a help desk for ECIs in order to support organisers and to enter into a dialogue with them at an early stage of the process. Also the Commission and Parliament offices in the Member States should be obliged and equipped to offer help and advice.

Knowing that many initiators who want to force the commission to take up their proposal will not see the commission itself as the best (and independent!) advisor and that it might be difficult if the same institution that helped with advice and formulations will later on be the one to decide on the same proposal your rapporteurs would like to discuss the creation of an independent body for advice and support of initiatives. This could lead to a very useful focal point for citizens’ engagement and citizens’ participation. It could be led by an authorized EU- appointee for citizens’ participation that will be funded by the European Union, elected by the EP and controlled by a board with representatives not only of the council, the commission and the parliament but, in majority, of the civil society.

Furthermore, due to its specific role and composition as a representation of civil society, the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) could play an important role when it comes to the necessary support for Citizens’ Initiatives.

There should be a facility for the Petitions Committee to champion an ECI and offer help and advice to the organisers, should it decide to do so. It can act as a forum to offer organisers feedback and guidance.

The functioning of the ECI should be reviewed by the Commission, in consultation with the Parliament and Council after two years.

As announced earlier, Diana Wallis and the Liberal group have recently hosted an ECI-seminar with all stakeholders from civil society and institutions, including Vice-President of  the European Commission Maros Sefcovic and Carsten Berg from ECI-Campaign on the panel. The Members of the European Parliament present at this meeting decided to take the time to properly examine the compromise proposal of the Commission and Council.
Carsten Berg from ECI-Campaign has straightforward asked Mr. Sefcovic, why one could not delete the ID-number requirement in all countries, after six countries have dropped this burdensome requirement already. Mr. Sefcovic said, that the proposed ECI-regulation must be indeed improved. Greenpeace representative Jorgo Riss said, that they would not make use of ECI,  if this instrument will not be designed more citizen-friendly. Another output of this seminar was to start a survey on the data required, when citizens are asked to sign a European citizens’ initiative, see here.   For a report on this ECI-Seminar, see article in EU-Observer.

This survey is conducted by ECAS, one of the 120 supporting NGOs and Foundations of the campaign for a citizens-friendly European Citizens’ Initiative right.

On Monday, 14^th June, the Council agreed on a draft ECI regulation which next will be negotiated with Parliament. According to Carsten Berg, Coordinator of the ECI Campaign, “this first provisional compromise regulation still remains too bureaucratic and non-transparent to make this new instrument truly workable for citizens”.  

On a slightly positive note, the number of signatures required to trigger an admissibility check has been lowered from 300,000 to 100,000, which however is still much too high.  Similarly, the ECI regulations will be reviewed in three years rather than five.

Unfortunately, the requirement of signatories to an ECI to provide personal ID card numbers has been retained as a requirement in all countries except for a small number of countries where this is against national data protection laws and/or cultural traditions. This includes Finland, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Ireland and Denmark.

According to Carsten Berg of the ECI Campaign, the ID number requirement would effectively render the ECI unusable. First, in a time where identity theft is a growing concern, the collection of such sensitive personal data as ID numbers would deter many citizens from signing an ECI. Officials clearly underestimate this issue. Second, in many countries, including Germany, individuals are not required to carry an ID card at all times. In practical terms, this would often make it impossible to collect ECI signatures in public locations. Third, and perhaps most importantly, the retention of the ID number requirement contradicts the  recommendations of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) which stated:

“The EDPS takes the view that the mandatory information fields in the model form are all necessary for the purpose of organising the citizens’ initiative and securing the authenticity of the statements of support, except for the personal identification number.….The EDPS therefore recommends deleting this information field from the model form in Annex III.”

The retention of the ID number requirement in some Member States but not all countries, even where not technically needed to verify identity, also violates paragraph 4 (introduction) of the proposed regulation which states that “citizens of the Union are subject to similar conditions for supporting a citizens’ initiative regardless of the Member State from which they come”.

In order to truly guarantee similar and usable requirement for ECIs, the personal ID number requirement urgently needs to be deleted for every Member State. As this is a feasible option for some Member States, it should be for all. Citizens signing the ECI should therefore only be required to provide name, address, signature and birth date.

The ECI Campaign strongly urges the European Parliament to now take responsibility for rescuing the ECI by removing the requirement to provide personal ID numbers and by improving other important aspects such as the scope of an ECI (referring to treaty amendments) and the still unclear follow-up of an ECI, as described in our press release March 31^st 20010.

The ECI Campaign is a coalition of democracy advocates, including more than 120 European NGOs and foundations. For more information contact Carsten Berg at +49-1764-3064365 or visit http://www.citizens-initiative.eu

In preparing the ECI regulation, the Commission committed itself to consult the opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS). Fortunately the EDPS shares the view of the ECI-Campaign that ID numbers should not be required when an individual signs an ECI.  Specifically:

“The EDPS takes the view that the mandatory information fields in the model form are all necessary for the purpose of organising the citizens’ initiative and securing the authenticity of the statements of support, except for the personal identification number.….The EDPS therefore recommends deleting this information field from the model form in Annex III.”

According to Carsten Berg, coordinator of the ECI-campaign, “this is a first sign of hope that the ECI will become a truly workable and accessible instrument for citizens. However, there is still a challenging birth process in front of us.”

The COREPER working group (Council of Ministers) has been intensively working on the ECI (see video from 26.4.10 + video from 14.6.2010 both General Affairs Council meeting)  and negotiating with the Commission behind closed doors. It’s encouraging to see that many Member States agree with ECI-Campaign requests, especially to remove the ID number requirement, extend the time to collect signatures and reduce or eliminate the requirement to collect 300,000 signatures to trigger an admissibility check. However, we still have to analyse the whole document and then come to conclusions.  For the moment, the only news is that Council prefers to have 100,000 signatures instead of 300,000 for the admissibility check, which still is much too high.  More info will follow, for the moment see: Euractive article from 15.6.2010.

Today, 15 June 2010, also the Parliament’s Constitutional Affairs Committee will meet the EU Ombudsman to debate the ECI. The European Parliament must come up with its own proposal and plans to vote on it in autumn.

Decisions made now on the detailed technicalities to implement the ECI will determine if the citizens’ initiative right really is workable. Now is the time to act and contact decision-makers in both the Parliament, Council and Commission.

www.citizens-initiative.eu

http://www.facebook.com/citizens.initiative

Please register with Pekka Eskola.  If you need a badge to get in please provide name,  date of birth and your ID-number before 18.06.2010

Carsten Berg, Coordinator of the ECI-Campaign, is invited as ECI-expert and will present our proposals published earlier on this website. Also EU-Commissioner Sefcovic will particiapte in this  seminar and try to explain the Commission’s proposal. To get an overview on the Commission’s proposal  click on the flowchart:

Sefcovic has recently given another speech on ECI.  Hardly anybody within Civil Society or in Parliament and Council does understand how Sefcovic can say with a straight face that his proposal is “simple, understandable and easy to use”.  Considerable improvements still are necessary, if ECI really is to be workable and for this we need sufficient time.  As ECI-Campaign we repeat our credo “quality should go before speed”.  Thus let’s keep on our long work for a citizen-friendly ECI-design and develop a truely workable European Citzens’ Initiative patiently.