The General Court dismisses Romania’s action against the Commission's decision to

register a citizens' initiative on the equality of regions and the protection of regional
cultures

On 18 June 2013, a proposal for a European Citizens' Initiative (ECI) entitled "Cohesion
Policy for the Equality of Regions and the Sustainability of Regional Cultures" was submitted
to the European Commission, with the aim of ensuring that the European Union pays
particular attention in its cohesion policy to regions that are distinguished from their
surrounding regions by national, ethnic, cultural, religious or linguistic specificities.

On 25 July 2013, the Commission rejected the request for registration of the contested
proposal on the grounds that it was clearly outside the Commission's competence to submit a
proposal for an EU legal act for the purposes of implementing the Treaties. The General Court
later dismissed the action for annulment of the decision, however, on further appeal, the Court
of Justice set aside the judgment of the General Court and annulled the decision.

On 30 April 2019, the Commission adopted a new decision registering the contested ECI
proposal. Romania has brought an action for annulment of this decision before the General
Court. In its judgment issued on 10 November 2021, the General Court rejected Romania's
application and, for the first time, explicitly addressed the question of whether a Commission
decision to register an ECI proposal can be challenged. The General Court also clarified,
firstly, the nature of the review exercised by the Commission in order to adopt such a decision
and, secondly, the nature of the review of legality carried out by the General Court in respect
of that decision.

The position of the General Court

The General Court first examined the admissibility of the action and pointed out that the
contested decision is intended to produce binding legal effects on the organisers, institutions
and Member States concerned. For the organisers, the decision on registration allows them to
begin collecting statements of support and grants them the right to submit the ECI to the
Commission and to present it in detail, the right to require the Commission to issue a
communication setting out “its legal and political conclusions on the citizens’ initiative, the
action it intends to take, if any, and its reasons for taking or not taking that action”1 and the
right to present the ECI at a public hearing before the Parliament. However, these rights
conferred on the organisers also impose obligations on the institutions concerned, since the
Commission must receive the organisers and issue a communication on the ECI and the
Parliament must organise a public hearing. Meanwhile, the Member States concerned are
obligated to authorise the collection of statements of support, to verify and to certify them.

According to the General Court, the decision registering an ECI proposal also does not
constitute a preparatory or intermediate act, the purpose of which would be to prepare the
adoption of the aforementioned communication of the Commission. The legal assessment of
the ECI necessary for the registration is thus independent from the assessment the
Commission carries out in the context of the communication which contains “legal and
political conclusions”. As such, the contested decision is considered the result of a specific
stage in the ECI process which produces binding legal effects distinct from those contained in
the ECI communication and, similarly to that communication, constitutes an act which is open
to challenge under Article 263 TFEU.
1
Article 10(1)(c) of Regulation 211/2011
As regards the merits of the case, the General Court first examined the conditions for
registration of a proposal for an ECI and, in particular, the condition that such a proposal must
fall within the competence of the Commission. In that context, the General Court recalled the
characteristics of the examination which the Commission must carry out on the basis of that
condition for registration of a proposal for an ECI.

The General Court first recalled that, in order to ensure easy access to the ECI, the
Commission may refuse to register such a proposal only if, having regard to its subject-matter
and objectives, it manifestly falls outside the competence of the Commission to submit a
proposal for a legal act of the Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties.

Second, the General Court clarified that a distinction must be made between the examination
which the Commission must carry out on the basis of the registration condition as to whether
the proposal for an ECI falls within the competence of the Commission and the examination
which that institution must carry out in the context of the communication on the ECI. Thus, in
the context of the examination of this registration condition, the Commission must confine
itself to examining whether, from an objective point of view, the measures proposed under the
ECI in question are admissible under the Treaties and is not required to examine whether all
the facts relied on are in evidence or whether the proposal and the reasoning on which it is
based are sufficient. The decision to register a proposal for an ECI implies the completion of
an initial legal assessment of that initiative and does not prejudge the assessment carried out
by the Commission in the framework of the Communication on the ECI, which sets out the
Commission's final position on whether or not it should be submitted under the ECI in
question, Consequently, the Commission can only refuse to register a proposal for an ECI if,
in assessing whether the registration condition relating to the ECI falls within its competence,
it concludes that it is completely precluded from submitting a proposal for an EU act for the
implementation of the Treaties. On the contrary, if the Commission cannot reach such a
conclusion, it is obliged to register the proposal for an ECI in question in order to allow for
the political debate within the institutions which will start after this registration.

Second, as regards the question whether the Commission correctly determined the content of
the contested proposal for an ECI, the General Court found that the contested decision
correctly describes that proposal and that no distortion of the content of the proposal can be
established. The Commission examined the measures proposed at an abstract level from an
objective point of view and, in essence, merely stated that the proposal fell within the scope of
the Union's cohesion policy.

Thirdly, the General Court rejected the objection based on some reservations in the
Commission's assessment. The General Court pointed out that the Commission may, where
appropriate, adapt, qualify or even partially register an ECI proposal, as long as it states its
reasons for doing so and does not distort the content of the proposal. This procedure allows
the Commission to register a proposal for an ECI in a qualified manner instead of outright
refusing to register it.

Finally, in deciding whether Article 174 TFEU to Article 178 TFEU could serve as the basis
of the contested ECI proposal, the General Court pointed out that the Commission did not err
in finding in the contested decision that the proposal – which concerns the submission by the
Commission of legislative proposals defining the tasks, priority objectives and organisation of
the Structural Funds and provided that the measures to be financed lead to the strengthening
of the economic, social and territorial cohesion of the Union – is not manifestly outside the
Commission's competence.

The judgment of the General Court is available HERE.