[Grem] A törvényes életvédő eur. petíciót a !!nem demokr.!! EU.Bizottság elvetette, ápr.23-án dönt az Eur.Bíróság

[Emoke Greschik]

*Do you remember One of Us? * *Launched in 2012, this petition was the
largest citizens’ initiative **in the history of the European Union (EU)* *and
collected nearly 2 million signatures* from across Europe! It was driven by
civil society, dozens of associations, and thousands of volunteers worked
to collect signatures across Europe. *It called for a ban on* *European
funding **for programs involving the destruction of human embryos and
foetuses *(See the hearing at the European Parliament here
<https://eclj.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=567507fce24ff5f4d84cc3e33&id=6eea8c330a&e=20cba54488>
).


* Presented as an instrument to democratize the EU, the European Citizens’
Initiative (ECI) sought to bring the Union closer to the citizens.* It was
introduced by the Lisbon Treaty in 2007 and Regulation No 211/2011 of the
European Parliament and the Council. The ECI was intended to overcome the
lack of democracy in a Union which, since its origin, left the legislative
initiative monopoly to the sole "bureaucratic" power of the Commission. The
purpose of the ECI was to break into that monopoly and share the power of
initiative with European citizens.


But, despite the political expediency of *One of Us’ *legislative
proposal, *the
Commission simply refused to **follow up on the One of Us initiative*. The
Commission certainly did not expect the greatest citizens’ initiative to be
one *that defended human life ...*


* Prior to launching its campaign*, *the ECI, One of Us, was examined and
then admitted **by registration before the Commission*. *Why, then, did the
Commission let European citizens waste their time * gathering millions of
signatures if in the end *the Commission was going to arbitrarily dismiss
the ECI’s proposal,* when it could have done so from the beginning? Such
absolute power undermines the utility of the ECI by *giving false hope** to
**Europeans as the citizens’ initiative* *only artificially activates
people’s participation in European political life without providing any
means of real change.*


*One of Us challenged **the Commission’s decision **at the European Court
of Justice.* *The hearing was held on 16 June 2017
<https://eclj.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=567507fce24ff5f4d84cc3e33&id=5a74ae28d2&e=20cba54488>,
and the judgment will be rendered Monday, 23 April 2018.* As such, now is
an important opportunity for an update on the important issues at stake in
this case.


In contesting the Commission's decision before the General Court, *One of
Us *asks the judges to make the ECI mechanism effective by recognizing that
the Commission's decision is subject to judicial review. *Through this
case, the Court has the opportunity to democratize the European Union by
ending the monopoly of legislative initiative enjoyed by the European
Commission.*


Here are the different positions that the General Court could adopt and the
consequences that would follow:

   - If the Court declares the Commission's refusal to comply with the ECI
   is proper, it solidifies the Commission's monopoly of initiative and
   validates the Commission's power to dismiss, without any possible recourse,
   initiatives supported by millions of people.
   This instrument of participatory democracy would then be purely
   fictitious: a democratic illusion.


   - On the other hand, if the judges consider that the Commission's action
   is open to challenge and therefore agree to take a decision on the merits,
   they will then give real effectiveness to the mechanism of the European
   Citizens' Initiative. This would be a profound institutional upheaval for
   the Union: the European Commission would lose its monopoly on legislative
   initiative and would have to share it with the European citizens, under the
   supervision of the Court!

A new alternative would then be available to the Court: if it acknowledges
the decision of the Commission is challengeable, it will find it
satisfactory, then dismissing *One of Us *on the merits, or unsatisfactory,
then condemning the Commission.

   - If the Tribunal agrees with *One of Us *on the merits of the case,
   this will be a major victory but not yet final, because it would be very
   likely that the Commission would appeal immediately.


   - Conversely, if the Court agrees with the Commission's merits, it will
   breach the monopoly of the latter's legislative initiative without giving
   the Commission the opportunity to appeal. The democratic functioning of the
   Union would be greatly improved. Strategically, this would be a wise
   decision by the Court.


Thus, ultimately, whatever the outcome of the judgment, the European
Commission loses, and *One of Us *wins.
--------- következő rész ---------
Egy csatolt HTML állomány át lett konvertálva...
URL: <http://turul.kgk.uni-obuda.hu/pipermail/grem/attachments/20180421/618a120c/attachment.html>