Thesis-Anne-Vos-Masters-SBR-and-EU-Law-3

a situation must be avoided in which a Commission proposal could be challenged in the Court on the
grounds of alleged lack of consultation of interested parties. Such an over-legalistic approach would
be incompatible with the need for timely delivery of policy, and with the expectations of the citizens
that the European Institutions should deliver on substance rather than concentrating on
procedures. 283
It could be questioned how this point of view relates to the now included Article 11 in the Lisbon
Treaty. This Article sets out the following:
1. The institutions shall, by appropriate means, give citizens and representative associations the
opportunity to make known and publicly exchange their views in all areas of Union action.
2. The institutions shall maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with representative
associations and civil society.
3. The European Commission shall carry out broad consultations with parties concerned in order to
ensure that the Union's actions are coherent and transparent.
4. 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
for the purpose of implementing the Treaties.
The procedures and conditions required for such a citizens' initiative shall be determined in
accordance with the first paragraph of Article 24 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union.
Craig & De Búrca state that this article is 'mandatory language'. 284 Also, a Regulation (no.
211/2011) has been adopted with regard to the citizen initiative of Article 11(4). Craig & De Búrca
point out that it is now the question whether this will result in any change in the position of the
Commission and the CJEU. They argue:
The ECJ may choose to interpret the Article narrowly, thereby effectively leaving the matter to the
political institutions, but this would be regrettable and problematic. It does not sit well with the
wording of Article 11 TEU and would send a very negative message about the nature of participatory
democracy in the EU. It would risk turning a provision that was emant to convey a positive feeling
about the inclusive nature of the EU and its willingness to engage with its citizenry into one that
carried the opposite connotation. 285
Article 15(1) TFEU also states that in order to promote good governance and ensure the
participation of civil society, the Union's institutions, bodies, offices and agencies shall conduct
their work as openly as possible. Thus, the transparency principle contributes to the achievement
of the participation principle. Moreover, Article 10(3), under Title II on democratic principles,
repeats that every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union.
In a research for the Council of Europe, Addink has researched the application of the participation
principle from a decentralised level. In the context of public administration, he describes
participation as the participation of citizens to (planned) behaviour of administrations and public
bodies. 286 Addink distinguishes, with reference to literature, four motives for participation which can
provide an indication: democratic (influence rule- and decision-making), rule of law (individual
protection), corporatist (realisation of responsibilities of CSOs) and administrative motives (serving
the administrative body itself). Participation can occur in different grades and in different
compositions. The starting point of the research of Addink is formed by three forms of participation:
citizen initiative, citizen panels and referenda. But also public consultation (inspraak) is of
importance. Citizen initiatives are a form of minimum-participation, since the normal procedure
283
COM (2002)704, p. 10.
284
Craig & De Búrca (2011), p. 522.
285
Craig & De Búrca (2011), p. 522.
286
Addink (2009), p. 99.
63