Extended Briefing Note No.3

Creating a European Civil Society House

European Citizen Action Service

April 2011

 

[0]

About ECAS

ECAS was created in 1991 as an international non-profit organization, independent of political parties,

commercial interests and the EU Institutions. Our mission is to enable NGOs and individuals to make their

voice heard with the EU by providing advice on how to lobby, fundraise, and defend European citizenship

rights.

We are a large cross-sectoral European association bringing together members from different areas of

activity: civil liberties, culture, development, health and social welfare, as well as general civil society

development agencies.

For more information, please visit our webpage: www.ecas-citizens.eu

About this Briefing Note

This briefing note is a revised and updated version of the ones produced in May and December 2010.

Author: Tony Venables

Editor: Elisabeth Victoria Lasky

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all those who replied to the survey and made some valuable comments. This

project has grabbed the attention of the young generation: much is due to the trainees and volunteers at

ECAS: Britney Wehrfritz, Aleksandra Czajkowska, William Trott and Monica Tiberi.

 

[1]

Contents

I. Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 2

II. Progress made so far ..................................................................................................................................... 5

a. What ECAS has done to promote and create the European Civil Society House .............................. 5

Resources............................................................................................................................................... 5

Voluntary and pro-bono work ............................................................................................................... 6

Evidence of support through the survey ............................................................................................... 6

Meetings held to discuss the European Civil Society House and the results ........................................ 7

Steering group ....................................................................................................................................... 9

b. What can be learned from other initiatives to create “virtual” or “physical” networking facilities

and resource centres? ............................................................................................................................. 10

Virtual resource centres ...................................................................................................................... 10

Physical resource centres .................................................................................................................... 11

Creation of national contact points ..................................................................................................... 13

c. What support can be expected from the European Institutions? ................................................... 14

III. Development of the concept ...................................................................................................................... 16

The gap between the EU and the citizens ........................................................................................... 16

The gap between insiders and outsiders ............................................................................................. 17

The gap between bottom-up and top-down initiatives ...................................................................... 17

IV. Specific functions........................................................................................................................................ 19

C1. Civil Society .................................................................................................................................... 19

C2. Citizens’ rights ............................................................................................................................... 20

C3. Citizen Participation ...................................................................................................................... 25

V. Proposal for an awareness raising campaign and helpdesk on citizens’ initiatives .................................... 27

List of tasks for the helpdesk ................................................................................................................... 29

VI. Survey results ............................................................................................................................................. 31

VII. Conclusions and next steps ....................................................................................................................... 42

Annex I. Mapping exercise. ............................................................................................................................. 45

Annex II. Calendar of past meetings ................................................................................................................ 50

Annex III. Steering Group Members. ............................................................................................................... 51

Annex IV. Technical requirements for citizenhouse.eu ................................................................................... 54

[2]

I.ExecutiveSummary

The European Union has a new Treaty and a Charter of Fundamental Rights. The instruments are there to

bridge the gap between the EU and the citizens. There is no denying however that that still appears a

formidable task. A Union closer to the citizen means creating a European public sphere.

One answer is the European Civil Society House (ESCH) as part of such a sphere. This should take the form

in 2011 of a virtual house, accessible from anywhere in the EU and neighbouring countries through the

online platform citizenhouse.eu, in order to facilitate cross-border dialogue and networking. In 2012 a start

should be made on physical facilities bringing together associations particularly in the areas of human rights

and democratic participation.

This project has encouraged research into different models and generated ideas and proposals. What is

innovative in adapting this approach to the European level is the emphasis on the use of social networks

and ICT to create both a virtual and physical space as well as the broad definition of civil society to

include citizens.

The house will be built on 3Cs:

C1. Civil Society: For local community groups or associations, there is a demand for networking and

cross-fertilisation of projects, and structured dialogue to find solutions to

common problems. This will be met by using existing social network

websites, such as Ning (www.ning.com) or Facebook. This participation space

should be backed up by access to expertise. A resource centre should be

developed beginning with a collection of central databases, open to Civil

Society Organisations (CSOs) and EU Institutions alike, and leading

publications on European funding, social innovation and citizen participation.

C2. Citizens’ rights. The European Commission is in favour of the “one-

stop shop” for citizens’ rights, but there is still some way to go before this is

achieved. The main mechanisms for citizens to raise issues with the EU are scattered across different

institutions. There are choices to be made among the channels towards the EU which can also be often

linked despite the scattered way they are presented. This may be one explanation for why they are

underused. Another possible reason is that there are few links made towards international petitioning

websites which are growing exponentially or to the national equivalents of the 5 EU procedures. And yet,

those most likely to petition the EU are those already most active back home. By creating a clearer focal

To establish priorities in

the setup of the ECSH,

ECAS has launched a

survey on the creation of

the House. More than

550 people have replied

[3]

point and links towards national procedures, the European Civil Society House should increase both the

quantity and quality of requests to the EU. A critical mass of citizen input is the only way to support the

reforms necessary for an EU which genuinely puts peoples’ concerns ahead of those of powerful lobbies.

There will be a single access point and helpdesk for the various mechanisms available for citizens to make

their voice heard with the EU: complaints, access to documents, petitions to the European Parliament,

requests to the European Ombudsman as well as the new right of initiative1 (CAPRI), where by over a

million people from across the Union can demand EU legislation.

C3. Citizen Participation. In the wake of the rejection in the French and Dutch referenda of the

Constitutional Treaty, there was a period of experimentation with new participatory ways to reach citizens

under Plan D for “democracy, dialogue and debate”. The “Europe for Citizens’ Programme”2 was launched.

The European Parliament created the Agora, a forum where citizens and representatives of civil society are

invited to discuss EU policies with the Parliament3. The protagonists of Plan D were aware of the need to go

beyond experimentation, hence their call for a European public sphere.

Creating the European Civil Society House and bridging the gap between them should be in the

interest of both citizens and the EU Institutions:

- Civil society is largely missing out on the opportunities Europe can offer. Despite the growth in

European associations, the EU still seems a speciality for “insiders”. Commercial and producer

interests still make up 85% of the estimated 2,600 associations and 15,000 lobbyists round the

EU4. Citizens still find the EU complex and remote and that efforts taken in the direction of

coming closer to them are not proving to be bearing expected results5. As one respondent to

the survey put it, “a Europe of lobbies is not a proper Europe”.

ECAS was formally created as an international non-profit organisation under Belgian law in 1991. At that

time, the emphasis was on the creation of new European associations and networks. ECAS itself housed

several European associations in its early days and has helped to create new ones in areas such as public

health and culture when these activities were added to the EU Treaties. Now practically every civil society

activity is reflected in one or more European association or network. Substantial progress has been made

with the Europeanisation of civil society, but there is still a long way to go to involve such a vast and

scattered sector. Two needs stand out:

1 The Lisbon Treaty introduces a new, more empowering but also more challenging instrument – the citizens’ initiative

whereby over 1 million people from a significant number of member states can demand a legislative proposal from

the Commission. Please visit http://www.ecas-citizens.eu/content/view/343/341/ for more information. 2 For more information, please visit http://ec.europa.eu/citizenship/index_en.htm

3 For more information, please visit http://forum.agora.europarl.europa.eu/jiveforums/category.jspa?categoryID=9

The most recent meeting of the Agora certainly showed the need for more promotion to increase the number of

participants and back-up for preparation and organisation, which are could be provided by a facility such ECSH. 4 Estimates provided by the Association of Accredited Lobbyists to the European Parliament (AALEP). Please visit

http://www.eulobby.net/ for further information. 5 As pointed out in the Green Paper on the European Transparency Initiative COM(2006) 194 final, available online at

http://europa.eu/documents/comm/green_papers/pdf/com2006_194_en.pdf

[4]

- There are local community or special interest issues which do not necessarily find their

place in an organised European civil society, or need a permanent association. What emerges

from the survey is less the need to lobby the EU Institutions than to create cross-border links of

like-minded people and issues. The internet makes it possible (as never before) for disorganised

civil society and citizens to get organised. As one respondent to the survey said, “a social or

networking space especially to bring together like-minded people who might not otherwise

meet and engage”.

- When it comes to European associations, the need is less to create new ones than it is to

bring existing organisations together to increase capacity. This is being done through

the emergence of broad sectoral groupings such as the “European Social Platform”6. Although

there is nothing new in the suggestion of existing organisations coming together, what is more

recent is the idea of sharing facilities under one roof, even if there are some EU-related

examples, especially in the environmental and cultural sector. As one respondent to the survey

stressed, it is about “establishing communication and networking NGOs from all over Europe to

synchronise efforts and measures to advance and further develop civic rights, liberties,

participation etc.”.

The ECAS Board of Directors has made the creation of a European Civil Society House the priority of ECAS

and set up a steering group for this purpose (see annex III for the composition of the steering group).

Throughout 2010, the concept of the European Civil Society House was being developed through a survey,

the results of which are described in section VI. In parallel, a major preoccupation for the EU institutions

was the preparation and adoption of the legislation on citizens’ initiatives. There will still be a year of

preparation before citizens can begin to collect one million signatures starting on 1 April 2012. Naturally

there is a strong link between citizens’ initiatives and the creation of the European Civil Society House. It

was because of this that in early 2011 the steering group for the house and the ECAS Board of Directors

decided to make a start with a web platform on C2, European citizens’ rights. This means the creation of a

one-stop shop for all the five mechanisms now available for citizens to make their voice hear with the EU:

complaints, access to documents, petitions, requests to the Ombudsman and initiatives.

6Available online at http://www.socialplatform.org/

[5]

II.Progressmadesofar

In this section, progress is described under 3 headings:

a. What ECAS has done to promote and create the European Civil Society House

There is widespread support for this venture within and outside the EU Institutions. One of the main

attractions is that people are able to read into the proposal all

kinds of ideas of their own since what is proposed is a new and

open facility. A considerable amount of sharing of new ideas

and knowhow can be accumulated therefore in the

developmental process. The creation of a European Civil

Society House is a good practical way to open up a discussion

and draw in research and proposals on how citizens and civil

society can strengthen their European capacity and how the EU can bridge the gap to the citizen. At the end

of the survey in part VI a selection of the comments and proposals can be found.

Resources

For this reason alone, the resources devoted so far to the project are well spent. ECAS is grateful to the

Rowntree Charitable Trust for their support through an annual grant of 30,000 euro in 2009

and 40,000 euro in 2010. For 2011, Rowntree will make an application to NEF (Network of

European Foundations) to enlarge the support from other foundations either in cash or in

kind. This should provide the funding to recruit a full-time co-ordinator. Under the “Europe

for Citizens” programme, a project in 2010 for the European Civil Society House worth 50,000 euro has

allowed ECAS to develop a certain number of products and a prototype of the Virtual House, described

below. In 2011, a larger scale project again under the Europe for Citizens programme called “Carrousel” for

258,000 Euro will allow for the development of the Virtual House and the creation of national contact

What ECAS has done to develop and promote

the creation of the European Civil Society

House

What can be learned from other initiatives to

create “virtual” or “physical” resource

centres

What support can be expected from the EU

Institutions

“People are able to read into the

proposal all kinds of ideas of their own

since what is proposed is a new and

open facility”

[6]

points in a selection of EU Member States. The Commission grants represent 60% of the two total amounts

quoted.

Voluntary and pro-bono work

It should be stressed however that this project is not solely dependent on grants. It has also generated

support from volunteers either on their own initiative or through the European Voluntary Service (EVS).

This is a young peoples’ venture. As one of the respondents to the survey

pointed out: “I think this is the germ of a brilliant idea, but to achieve the scale

of change envisaged will require a stronger ambition to engage with active social

partnering organisations such as, in my case, universities, but realistically also commercial organisations as

well since they too have responsibilities to facilitate the citizenship of their employees.” Deloitte has

already contributed by producing a business plan which was presented to a meeting of MEPs in Strasbourg

on 7 September 2010.7

Evidence of support through the survey

When ECAS took this project to the European Parliament after the June 2009 European elections, MEPs

emphasised the point that the house should not be too centralised on Brussels and they asked for evidence

of support from civil society organisations. A survey was carried out8, the results of which are given in part

VI. The overall level of support, as mentioned above, is significant. Moreover, what is equally significant is

that the support comes from all Member States and beyond. The respondents reflect the diversity of civil

society ranging from local and regional to national organizations, practitioners, academics and policy

makers. Of the 596 who replied, only 29% of them work full time on European affairs. The majority have

some involvement but want more. They need this additional facility to increase support and their

networking capacity – hence within the more detailed questions asked in the survey the strong emphasis

placed on the idea of having a resource centre and access to data bases. On the basis of this updated

briefing note, the survey will be re-launched to gather more suggestions.

In a way any survey can be biased because of the “political correctness” with which people will tend to

answer “yes” to any idea about which there is no reason to have strong objections except on grounds of

cost and feasibility. From the results, the comments and discussions about this project, ECAS and the

steering group are convinced nevertheless of the depth of the support and for a number of good reasons:

- In a period of economic uncertainty, there is pressure on all organisations to explore

new ways of maximising their activity and output without increasing costs. Better

sharing of ideas, office space, sinking or swimming together rather than aiming at self-

sufficiency are becoming part of the strategy of civil society organisations.

7 Available online at http://www.ecas-

citizens.eu/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=674&Itemid= 8 The survey is available online at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/europeancivilsocietyhouse

[7]

- Particularly in the new Member States of the EU, this project has significant support.

Structures for dealing with the European dimension of civil society activities are less settled

than in old Member States. In particular, the broad definition of civil society to include citizens

is relevant. Associations as well as funders recognise that considerable efforts have been

devoted to training civil society leaders, but not enough to their followers and to civic

engagement, which remain at a low level.

- Even for people who are sufficiently well informed and have some involvement with European

affairs, there is a sense of being “outsiders” and not part of some inner circle permanently

established round the EU Institutions. There is a sense of willingness to do more for

Europe and being frustrated in the process.

Meetings held to discuss the European Civil Society House and the results

Several meetings were held to discuss this project and a complete list is given in the annex. The project has

become better known in and around the EU Institutions. The meetings have also provided significant input

and advice on new contacts, sources of inspiration, funding and priorities. The input is from a diverse range

of organisations (the Danish Board of Technology, the IEEA financial mechanism, Ethical Properties ltd.,

Realdania, to mention just a few). In addition, there have been five European events about the European

Civil Society House9:

- On 4 December 2009, Monica Frassoni chaired a first public kick-off meeting about the Civil Society

House at Mundo B in Brussels. A number of offers of support were made. The general conclusions

were that enforcement of European rights should be a priority both for the facility being

created as well as for the European Commission. At the time, it was known that with the Lisbon

Treaty in force, the Charter of Fundamental Rights would be legally binding. The new Commission was

expected to appoint a Commissioner responsible for Fundamental Rights and Citizenship. This new

function would need support from citizens. To start this project, the Virtual House should be first

created. This was an idea subsequently validated by the steering group (see below). The next steps

were then to undertake a widespread survey and set up a steering group.

- On 2 June 2010, Jean Lambert MEP hosted a meeting in the European Parliament, which had a high

turnout since it brought together European associations, think tanks and delegates at the European

9 Reports of these four meetings can be found at http://www.ecas-citizens.eu/content/view/172/241/

• First Public meeting

• Presentation of the ECSH

Dec 2009

• Survey carried out

• Meeting in the European Parliament

June 2010• Debate on the PH vs

VH

July 2010

• Business plan

• Video is produced

• A newspaper on the ECSH is produced

Sept 2010• Conference on

European Citizens' Initiatives

March 2011

[8]

Foundation Week. The basis for discussion was the first version of this Extended Briefing Note with the

results of the survey. One of the main points to emerge from this discussion was that the European Civil

Society House would in no way compete with established European associations. It would not be a

membership structure claiming any representativity but an open facility for civil society

organizations and citizens alike. The corollary of this was that the steering group should develop a

statement of values to make sure that the services to be set up would be as open and inclusive as

possible whilst being able to reject requests which were against the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The

Green group was sufficiently convinced by the progress made to put down a budget amendment (see

below).

- On 1 July 2010, during the ECAS general assembly, another debate was held on a different aspect.

Philip Weiss of ZN strategy and Janice Thompson of INVOLVE presented the case respectively for

and against the “Virtual” and “Physical house”. What was helpful about this debate was that it

generated a sense of the scope and also the limits of both options. It also showed that in the end the

two have to come together. The development of the Virtual House should be pushed as far as possible

since it is now possible to carry out most functions necessary for citizen participation online rather than

on the spot and face-to-face. In turn this would create a demand to meet, but not necessarily in

Brussels – which would give a wrong top-down signal. Janice Thompson accepted the argument whilst

stressing that genuine involvement had to bring people together not just in the same space, but in the

same room. This would not necessarily mean having large premises. Her idea was that the Physical

House should be providing the back-up for the web-platform and desk sharing for people visiting

Brussels.

- On 7 September, Jean Lambert MEP and Gerald Häfner MEP hosted a meeting in the European

Parliament in Strasbourg. This allowed for ECAS and the steering group to present a number of

products which would be component parts for the launch of the virtual house in 2011 and the further

development of the project:

o Business plan by Deloitte. Marc Hoessels presented the business plan which contains a SWOT

analysis, which showed that the risks of starting with the Virtual House are certainly less than

those of becoming involved with renting and organising office and meeting room space.

Nevertheless the “Virtual House” requires not only a significant up-dated web-

platform but also a promotional effort and resources to back it up, even though there

are often easier technical solutions to reducing risks.

o The mock-up of the Virtual House. ZN Strategy presented ideas, a mock-up for the web-

platform and also a video. Philip Weiss of ZN put the emphasis on fully exploiting

www.citizenhouse.eu as a domain name but also existing social networks such as

“causes” on Facebook. The mapping exercise done by ZN which helped to define key words

and use of e-questions and answer tools as well as e-petition practices.10

o The newspaper on the project. ECAS ran a stand during the September Parliamentary session in

Strasbourg which both showed the video and distributed a newspaper about the European Civil

10

The mapping exercise is available at http://www.ecas-

citizens.eu/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=701&Itemid=

[9]

Society House. This is intended to be a short, easy-to-read version of the Extended Briefing

Note no.2.11

- On 17 March 2011, ECAS conference “Getting Citizens’

Initiatives started” showed that much remains to be

done before the first citizens’ initiatives are launched

after 1 April 2012, to put European and national

procedures in place for signature collection in order to

eliminate red tape, ensure that an even more user

friendly regime is supported by effective helpdesks

and finally set up a communication campaign to make

citizens aware of this new European right. A hotline on European Citizens’ Initiatives was launched

as a result of those needs.

These meetings paved the way for the creation of the Virtual House in 2011.

Steering group

The main vehicle to bring this process about is the steering group set up by the ECAS Board of Directors. At

its meeting on 11 November 2010, the ECAS Board of Directors noted that the steering group which was

created to guide the ECAS project to build a European Civil Society House should now be formally

established and be given a mandate.

- In order to create the European Civil Society House, the Board recognizes the need to bring together on

an informal basis a multi-disciplinary steering group. This membership is not fixed and may change as

requirements change.

- The mandate of the steering group is as follows:

o To provide advice and support to the ECAS staff and Board on all aspects of the development of

the European Civil Society House;

o To help develop the first stage of the virtual house and look for opportunities to establish a

physical headquarters in Brussels:

o To work on creating national contact points;

o To draw up draft guidelines for the governance structure of the ECSH.

The steering group will be chaired by Tony Venables, ECAS Director and the staff will provide assistance.

The steering group is free to decide its own composition, the frequency of its meetings and take all useful

initiatives. The Board shall receive the minutes and all the documents of the steering group so it or its

members can intervene at any time.

11

The documents are available at http://www.ecas-citizens.eu/content/view/172/241/

It will soon be possible to carry out

most European civil society linking

online for which specific tools are being

developed or already exist.

[10]

The steering group plays an essential role in drawing in a number of skills: internet and outreach strategy,

civil society and citizen involvement, social entrepreneurs who have developed resource centres, corporate

social responsibility and more links towards the EU Institutions and Brussels local authorities. The members

of the steering group are listed in the annex III.

b. What can be learned from other initiatives to create “virtual” or “physical”

networking facilities and resource centres?

Virtual resource centres

For the start of the project and the specific mapping exercise done by ZN Strategy, research has been

carried out on social networks and the extent to which they create social capital12. This line of inquiry is

necessary to establish whether there is to be a cost-effective way of creating a European Civil Society

House accessible from anywhere in the Union. To some extent, the jury is still out but it will not be out for

much longer. For the Commission, where citizens’ participation projects are still focused on meetings and

seminars, this line of inquiry is also of interest since far more people could potentially be involved at far less

cost in EU-wide citizen’s consultations. More research and technical developments will be driven by putting

into place the regulation on citizens’ initiatives, which includes the possibility to gather electronic

signatures. To this whole debate, the digital mapping findings by ZN on e-government and e-participation

online make a contribution on how to inform, consult, involve, collaborate with and empower citizens13.

Together with earlier research done by ECAS volunteers on online helpdesks and increasing evidence of

legal services on the internet, we have now assembled a number of signposts for creating the Virtual

House:

- On the basis of an extensive key word search submitted to

Google for performance assessment, when narrowed

down in terms of volume, we learned that the rankings do

not necessarily follow the assumptions on which

European information and advice services are based14.

- “Answer” is a key word for finding models to develop the Virtual House, with its different versions

of services ranging from Just Answer, Yahoo! Answer, Answer bag etc. where twin functions of

contacting an expert and creating online communities can be carried out.

- It is necessary to compare different services from Google – the most successful in terms of

simplicity to the possibility of more detailed research to examining a number of others: LinkedIn,

12

Social capital development on the internet via social networking websites such as Facebook tends to be bridging

capital according to one study, though "virtual" social capital is a new area of research. Cf Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C.,

& Lampe, C. (2007). 13

See note 10 on the mapping exercise. 14

See Annex I.

The Virtual House will be launched

in 2011

[11]

your Europe, direct.gov.uk and then to look at strengths and weaknesses of the different e-

participation tools and the lessons to be learned from them.

Physical resource centres

ECAS can learn from others. In Brussels there are many examples of instances of organisations or regions

from the same country sharing premises. There are important cross-border sectoral initiatives for example

to promote culture. Advice and inspiration has been taken from three initiatives in particular:

- Mundo B, the Sustainable House at 26 Rue Edinbourg, Brussels near the European Parliament, is a

good example of how the environmental movement is generally ahead15. This venture of Ethical

Properties Ltd which has launched similar initiatives in Oxford, London and Namur brings together a

European social enterprise and a group of tenants who are not only “encouraged to take advantage of

well-resourced facilities” but also create synergy among themselves by meeting together and sharing

information about campaigns and advocacy. According to one respondent to our survey, there is a

waiting list of over a year for Mundo B, so demand for this type of facility is high. Moreover, Mundo B

includes the “Hive”, which consists of several workstations available for personalized periods to be

used by organisations visiting Brussels.

- Another facility with similar features is “the Hub”16

, located in 12 international cities across 4

continents; it offers space to social entrepreneurs to share ideas and launch projects in an international

environment of interconnected open-plan offices. Its Brussels location can be found on Rue du Prince

Royal, 37.

- European Foundation House is a plan launched by a group of foundations at the European

Foundation Centre (EFC) General Assembly which took place in Rome in May of 200917. The Realdania

Foundation from Copenhagen18 is exploring the possibilities of creating such a House in Brussels with

EFC as a tenant and possibly with ECAS, which in January 2010 moved next door to the EFC to develop

synergies. The interest of the foundations to invest in property following the collapse of stock markets

in autumn of 2008, as well as to share premises to reduce costs, was evident at the Rome event.

15

For more information, please visit http://www.mundo-b.org/ 16

For more information, please visit http://brussels.the-hub.net/public/ 17

For more information, please visit

http://www.efc.be/AgaConference/Pages/FightingPovertyCreatingOpportunities.aspx 18

For more information on Realdania, please visit http://www.realdania.dk/English.aspx

[12]

- The House for Democracy and Human Rights in Berlin is an interesting model. Gerald Häfner

MEP was a leading player in this development before he was elected to the European Parliament.

Although the House is a special result of German history around the story of the fall of the Berlin wall, it

has much to offer to a possible European counterpart. ECAS hopes to attract organisations working in

the area of democracy and civil liberties. To a large extent, the services needed to help organisations in

these areas are similar to those needed to develop both citizen participation and respect for

fundamental and European rights. One feature of the Berlin House is that each tenant is encouraged to

organise at least one public meeting there each year to publicise its existence.

From the research and meetings devoted to examining Virtual and Physical Houses, it has become apparent

that the social entrepreneurs behind them are only vaguely aware of each other’s existence, even though

they share many preoccupations. One project for 2011 is to bring together the promoters of this particular

aspect of strengthening civil society and citizen participation which has not received attention so far at the

European level. On the other hand there is a federation of non-profit resource centres in the US.19 This is

one example of where this venture leads to fresh thinking about using existing structures to create a

European public sphere, rather than necessarily creating something out of nothing.

A major constraint is that the European Civil Society House should be near the Institutions, where rents are

much higher than in the rest of Brussels. At the same time, the European quarter is undergoing change with

ambitious plans for the transformation of the Rue de la Loi and the immediate proximity with European

Institutions. Because of this period of transformation and the uncertain and very uneven state of the

neighbourhood, it is estimated that 20% of office space is vacant. From time to time, buildings come on the

market from the public sector, like those in Rue Wiertz, just behind the European Parliament, which may

be turned into European artists’ residences20.

Although general feedback has shown a strong support for the Virtual House, others stress that there is

actually no substitute to giving civil society organisations and citizens an opportunity to see and sense the

European Institutions as they are, and to interact with each other. As one respondent to the survey put it,

“the fact that a physical place exists can help enormously to focus attention on this issue”. The steering

group has come up with the idea that the actual European Civil Society House could be on a modest scale

provided that there was some access offered by the EU institutions for meeting space.

Support to establish a foothold in the European quarter for the first operation of the European Civil Society

House might for example come in the form of access to one of the EU buildings for Civil Society meetings.

Interest has been shown by members of the Economic and Social Committee and the Commission in ways

in which the resources and meeting spaces of the Institutions might be opened up to this project free of

charge to keep costs down. A similar suggestion came from the survey: “I wonder if the Parliament in

Strasbourg could provide some logistics for citizen deliberation and conference projects to trim costs for

the European Civil Society House (ECSH) project”. The Steering Group has stressed that if the House

operates out of more than one location, it should have a strong brand and maintain its independence.This

immediately raises the question of what support can be expected from the EU institutions, to which there

is no clear answer yet. However, in a letter to Jean Lambert MEP, Viviane Reding Vice-President of the

19

For further information, please visit http://www.nprcenter.org/ 20

The “Foundation Atéliers d’Artistes sans Frontières” is setting up such facility, which should be operational in the

medium term. Please visit http://www.quartier-europeen.eu/La-Fondation-Ateliers-d-Artistes for more information.

[13]

European Commission floated the idea that a revamped visitors’ centre might be used for certain civil

society activities.

Creation of national contact points

The concern expressed by members of the European Parliament that this project should not be too

focussed on Brussels was echoed in the survey. Many respondents stressed this danger and argued for a

decentralised bottom-up approach. The emphasis on the virtual house accessible from anywhere is part of

the response, but that is not enough.

Virtual and physical national contact points are also necessary. Setting them up across 27 member

countries of the EU as well as possible candidate and neighbouring countries is a huge task, which cannot

be achieved quickly. On the other hand, once set up a national contact point may well be the most cost-

effective and natural way to overcome the formidable issue of the language barriers.

The emphasis on Europeanization and the broad definition of civil society to include citizens should be a

common feature of all national contact points.

The steering group should be the forum for exchanging ideas on initiatives to set up national contact

points, but it cannot be too prescriptive given the differences in size, structures and interests of civil society

across the Union. For example there is still a gap between new and old member states in terms of civil

society development and levels of volunteering and civic engagement.

Bearing this in mind, there are a number of steps which will have to be taken regardless of the size of the

non-profit sector and how it is organised, particularly on European affairs:

- set up a multidisciplinary steering group of both stakeholders and potential supporters and

funders, some of whom have already come forward;

- do a needs assessment through a questionnaire about the proposal to establish priorities for the

services of the house;

- organise national and, where appropriate, regional meetings to explore the idea further;

- carry out a mapping exercise of what exists because national contact points rarely have to be

created from scratch and can bring together existing structures and services;

- Council presidencies are a valuable opportunity because before and during the 6 months the

country has the presidency of the Council there is more public debate or should be, about the

degree of involvement and various channels of communication towards European networks.

Some of the MEPs ECAS has discussed this project with would be more than willing to give support for

setting up national contact points.

Once more countries have expressed interest and taken the first steps, it will be necessary to work out a

democratic governance system among the national contact points for the European Civil Society House.

[14]

c. What support can be expected from the European Institutions?

ECAS took the idea of creating the European Civil Society House to the European Parliament with success

after the European elections in June 2009. Jean Lambert, MEP for London, tabled an amendment on behalf

of the Greens proposing an amount of 350,000 euro to carry out a feasibility study. This addition to the

budgetary procedure was considered by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs on 31 August 201021. A

majority of MEPs supported the idea, but some wondered whether there was sufficient demand from

NGOs, whether it was too Brussels-centred and what would be the attitude of the new European

Commission. These were reasonable doubts, which led the Committee to reach a compromise: the main

political groups voted in favour of creating a new budget line but without the amount - a pro memoria. This

position was supported by the Chairman of the Budget Committee, Alain Lamassoure MEP, who drafted a

report for the French Presidency in 2009 on the citizen and the application of community law22 and by the

Committee as a whole. ECAS closely followed this process and considers that the outcome was fair, leaving

open the possibility to go back to the Parliament and convince

MEPs to add funds to the budget line.

In 2010, a new amendment was tabled by the Greens for

350,000 euro with an indication that the majority of funds

would be used for a helpdesk and awareness campaign on

Citizens’ Initiatives. The amendment was narrowly defeated

by 12 votes to 9 in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs on

6 September. There was some hesitation about the budget for

the House and a sense that in a period of budget austerity the funds particularly for citizens’ initiatives

should come from the Commission’s existing communication budget.

A new amendment to add 100,000 euro to the budget line was tabled with more narrowly defined

functions and commitments. The request was reduced by 250,000 euro, because in the original

amendment that was the amount considered necessary for the awareness campaign and helpdesk on

Citizens’ Initiatives. This was not voted down but was victim of a decision by the Budget Committee to rule

out “earmarking” or name organisations in all preparatory actions.

It was not the purpose of the majority of MEPs who voted against the different versions of the amendment

to vote against the project. For example, the general rapporteur on the budget, Sidonia Jędrzejewska MEP,

was prepared to support an amendment in the Budget Committee which had not been supported by the

specialised committee. The decision may not have a big impact on the resources for the House since many

MEPs appeared to feel that this was a responsibility of the Commission and could be funded by them

through projects. However, it is not thought to be feasible to create this project on such an ambitious scale

only through Commission-funded projects alone. In the long run, it will be necessary for the European

21

To access the document, please visit

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/afco/dv/2010_afco_budg_amends_txt_/2010_afc

o_budg_amends_txt_en.pdf 22

Lamassoure A, ‘Le citoyen et l’application du droit communautaire, rapport au Président de la

République,’ (2008) available at http://www.alainlamassure.eu/liens/817.pdf .

During the budgetary procedure the

Civil Society House gained considerable

cross-party support, particularly in the

Budget Committee.

[15]

Parliament and the other institutions to add core funding by “putting their money where their mouth is”.

Until this happens, the budget line will simply remain in place.

[16]

III.Developmentoftheconcept

The European Civil Society House aims to fill 3 gaps.

The gap between the EU and the citizens

The starting point for this initiative is to decide which method would be best in order to adapt the familiar

formula of sharing common facilities and building to increase capacity, whilst simultaneously encompassing

the additional requirements of working across countries, languages, and at a European level. This has led to

the realisation that the gap to be filled is not so much between the EU and civil society but above all with

citizens. Recent institutional developments might help fill this gap. On one side, the European Charter of

Fundamental Rights has become legally binding with the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty; on the

other, the new Treaty’s article 11 increases the capacity of the European Union to relate to citizens through

the “European Citizens’ Initiative”23. There is also the requirement to give both citizens and representative

23

Art. 11: “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. (continues on the next page)

the gap between the EU and the

citizens

the gap between top-

down and bottom-up initiatives

the gap between

insiders and outsiders

[17]

associations the opportunity for European dialogue. This gives this project a strong legal basis, but no-one

really believes that the Treaty and the Charter are enough: it all depends on how they are implemented.

The gap between insiders and outsiders

By definition, the more the objectives of Article 11 can be achieved across language and cultural barriers,

the more there will be a shift towards a virtual civil society linked to creating networks and building trust in

people outside one’s immediate circle. Online and face-to-face communication should ideally reinforce

each other, and as the capacity of Internet technologies progresses, the distinction between the two is

diminishing significantly - though it will never disappear completely24. Access must be open for all. This

means from the local level, from countries bordering on the Union, and by third country nationals residing

in the Union, not just European citizens. As one respondent points out: “Both a physical European Civil

Society House and a Virtual European civil society web platform should be developed to avoid

geographically limiting access to the global project.”

The emphasis on the Virtual House is also important to reduce the gap between civil society organisations

represented in Brussels and to get people involved with European and cross-border activities without

interaction with EU Institutions. The notions of a resource centre, connecting local initiatives and

networking received most emphasis in the responses to the survey.

The gap between bottom-up and top-down initiatives

Filling the gap is also about positioning this new facility. An

intermediary approach is being proposed, which is neither

bottom-up nor top-down. In proposing that citizens should

have their own space, more is expected than just relying on

market forces to create a European public sphere, that could

work in some sectors and for some issues whilst leaving out

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.”

With regards to the regulation of future ECIs, the Commission launched a green paper and consultation exercise and

held a hearing in February 2010 before presenting its draft regulation on March 31st, 2010. The pre-legislative debate

has focused primarily on how to strike a compromise between making this new instrument for collecting 1 million

signatures to support an initiative as citizen-friendly as possible, whilst at the same time setting minimum conditions

for the number of countries, the time limit for collecting signatures, and their verification procedure. In the

discussions and over 300 submissions to the consultations, a common theme has been how to make this a genuine

instrument for citizens, not just for powerful lobbies and well-structured NGOs across the Union. Few have, though,

come up with ideas for a “supporting citizens’ infrastructure,” and have concentrated instead on the basic legislative

requirements. How much citizen support will be required should emerge after the first initiatives have begun. The

regulation on the European Citizens’ Initiative right (Regulation EU 211/2011) was published on 11 March 2011. 24

In 2008, The Economist published a comprehensive report analysing the status of e-government versus off-line

government indicating the way to go. Please visit

http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displayStory.cfm?story_id=10638002 for further information.

“The house must find an original and

complementary role in the already

dense landscape in favour of civil

society in Brussels.”

[18]

others. On the other hand, when the Institutions attempt to fill the gaps by setting up agencies lacking

independence, these often appear as artificial creations distant from citizens. Some respondents clearly

fear that this initiative could end up as just “another European top-down initiative”25. An open facility is

being created, not another umbrella body for civil society. As one respondent stated, “The house must find

an original and complementary role in the already dense landscape in favour of civil society in Brussels.”

An advice and problem-solving facility is being created, not another information service. Eurobarometer

opinion polls reveal an information deficit about how the EU works and lack of awareness of European

rights, as well as a high demand for more information26. It should be the responsibility of public authorities

and not of this initiative, to meet these needs. The European Civil Society House should operate at the next

stage: associations and individuals are already informed, but have a problem to be solved, an idea to

pursue or a network to create. The basis is promoting active citizenship rather than passively feeding civil

society with information.

A strong component could be an alliance between civil society and academics. Among those making

detailed comments on this initiative, there is the following proposal: “lecturing - meeting point where

academics and citizens dialogue with each other, where political scientists, sociologists, anthropologists,

philosophers, environmental scientist etc. provide citizens and organizations with first-hand information of

academic research and ideas”. This could be done in collaboration with various European Universities and

academic organizations. The spirit should be it is never too late to learn something. Being well informed

before one voices his or her opinion. The “Europe for Citizens Programme” provides support for both civil

society organisations and European think-tanks.

25

Comments on the survey are available in the Annex I. 26

For example, see the Special Eurobarometer 256 on “The Future of Europe”, published in May 2006. To access the

document, please visit http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_251_en.pdf . The same concerns were

stressed in the Flash Eurobarometer 213 on “European Citizenship” published in February 2008, available at

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_213_en.pdf

[19]

IV.Specificfunctions

We will now consider functions for the Virtual and Physical house under the 3 C’s in more detail:

C1. Civil Society

For civil society organisations responding to the questionnaire, the Virtual House is the priority if only for

cost reasons which would be involved in travelling to Brussels. In the business plan by Deloitte, the SWOT

analysis shows that the risks are far less with the Virtual than the Physical House. Moreover, the demands

are not necessarily focused on “Brussels”. In a wider EU of 27 countries with a number of candidate and

potential candidate countries, more and more policy initiatives and funds have a regional or decentralised

dimension. From the response to the survey, it appears that

finding examples of how a given problem – i.e. an

environmental, public health or particular governance issue –

is tackled in communities with similar characteristics in other

countries is a priority. Once the Virtual House has been set up

and demand tested, the next stage should be to look for

premises.

The European Civil Society House should aim to bring together a core group of associations

which are medium-sized in terms of European organisations. 10-15 people is ideal in the sense that

they are large enough to make a contribution but not large enough to be self-sufficient. Potentially, there

are several facilities that can be shared: not only the building, meeting rooms and a shared receptionist, but

also press and information work and databases.

Many organisations which have expressed interest are smaller in size and want either to share an office or

just a desk – full-time or part-time. Thus, the “hive” concept is an interesting model. The challenge is to find

like-minded organisations working within the themes of fundamental rights, active citizenship and

democratic participation, which remain relatively under-developed at the European level. Such

organisations, as well as national or regional groupings visiting Brussels need more than just office facilities.

Ideally, they should be able to consult online helpdesks when they are not in Brussels. Here, there is a

strong link between the Physical and the Virtual house.

The first stage should be to respond to the clear priority shown by the survey for the creation of a resource

centre on European civil society. Assembling contact databases could be useful both for citizens and civil

society organisations and the EU Institutions. The survey shows a demand to create contact points in

Member States relevant for a particular issue or proposal. Behind the different civil society facades

of lay or religious organisations, single issue pressure groups or more general purpose associations, finding

Civil society demands may not be

focussed only on Brussels but also on a

cross-border local dimension

[20]

the right contacts is not at all evident. This could be achieved online through search and assistance from

the European Civil Society House.

This could also be useful for the EU Institutions when they seek to consult widely, and particularly beyond

the immediate audience concerned with the issue. Response to the Commission’s consultations among civil

society organisations and in particular by citizens is on the low side. When large-scale events are organised,

outreach is far from always achieved, whether for civil society events organised round Council Presidencies,

Commission conferences or European Parliament hearings. A resource centre is needed to develop general

information and contacts on European civil society.

In 2011, it will be necessary to start the web platform on a selective basis. The survey showed that despite

all the information available, a significant priority is given to European funding and projects. ECAS already

provides an annual funding guide and regular updates of Commission calls for proposals. The resource

centre should gradually build up its capacity to provide

updated and good quality information of civil society

developments in other areas. For example, social innovation

and citizen participation are new areas of concern for civil

society development and fit the functions under the 3Cs.

One important question to consider is the extent to which

there could be a demand for training programmes, particularly

with the possibility to make use of the virtual house’s online

platform.

C2. Citizens’ rights

The proposal to create the European Civil Society House fits well with the priority given by the Commission

to enforcement and the appointment of Viviane Reding to a new post as Vice President responsible for

Justice, Citizenship and Fundamental Rights.

On 27 October 2010, the Commission published the communications “An area of freedom, security and

justice serving the citizen”27 and “Towards a single market act”28. In the consultation document issued

before the communications were published, the Commission points out that “Union citizenship marked a

clear departure from the market logic that had initially characterized European integration” and that

according to the European Court of Justice, it is “destined to be the fundamental status of nationals of the

Member States”. The Commission remarks that “there remains a gap between the applicable legal rules

27

To access the documents, please visit http://www.eucitizenship-conference.net/init.xhtml?event=19 28

To access the document, please visit http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/smact/docs/single-market-act_en.pdf.

Other relevant documents are: “ Report on progress towards effective EU citizenship 2007-2010” (COM (2010) 602/2,

available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/citizenship/docs/com_2010_602_en.pdf ), “EU Citizenship report

2010. Dismantling the obstacles to EU citizens’ rights” (COM (2010) 605/49, available at

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/citizenship/docs/com_2010_603_en.pdf). On 19 October, the Commission

published a strategy for the effective implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, available at

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/news/intro/doc/com_2010_573_4_en.pdf

The resource centre should be used as a

preparatory phase to gradually build up

capacity and provide services in a

number of areas which have been

identified by the survey

[21]

and the practical reality citizens are faced with in their daily life, in particular in cross-border situations”.

For its part, ECAS has produced a report with the help of a high level panel of practicing and academic

lawyers, chaired by Sir David Edward, former judge of the European Court: “Mind the gap: towards a better

enforcement of European citizens’ free movement rights”29.

Furthermore, the Commission asks questions in this

consultation exercise, the answers to which will also help

shape this aspect of the European Civil Society House: “What

are the main obstacles European citizens currently face in the

exercise of their rights resulting from Union citizenship? What

could be done to address these obstacles (for example, by

providing citizens better and simpler access to information,

advice and problem-solving, assistance, etc.)?” The

Commission has provided its answers in the communication of

27 October which identified 25 barriers. At the information

meeting on the House held in December 2009, Monica Frassoni, a former rapporteur for the European

Parliament’s legal committee, placed emphasis on the need to improve enforcement.

As the summary below shows, EU procedures which can be used by citizens have the advantage of being

easily accessible and free of charge. They are however slow and some lack transparency. The European

Commission is in favour of the “one-stop shop”, but there is still some way to go before this is achieved.

The main mechanisms for citizens to raise issues with the EU are scattered across different institutions.

There are choices to be made between the channels available to citizens which can also be linked despite

the dispersed way they are presented.

- Complaints to the Commission. Europe Direct and its contact points deal with about 100, 000

requests per year. This is not a high number and suggests that the majority of European and cross

29

To access the document, please visit http://www.ecas-citizens.eu/content/view/291/113/

Complaints to the EC

• 100,000 questions to Europe Direct

• 2,900 complaints and infringements

• Delays in answering

Access to documents

• Around 8,000

• Mostly in the hands of academics and lobbyists

• Individual citizens do not figure as such

Petitions to the EP

• 1924 in 2009

• Many are insufficient in substance or comprehension

Requests to the European Ombudsman

• 3098 complaints in 2009

• Its powers could be enlarged through the ECFR

European Citizens' Initiative

• The regulation puts a heavy organisational burden on the

organisers

• The European Commission will provide only limited help to the

organisers

A helpdesk for citizens should seek to

improve access to European

mechanisms, especially the right to

access to documents, petitions and

application of the Charter of

Fundamental Rights

[22]

border complaints are handled by local advice services. Your Europe Advice handles some 12,000

questions per year. Fostering cooperation between European and national services is one aim for

the civil society house. Only about 2% of the questions to the Commission become formal

complaints. If a citizen considers that there is a violation of his or her European rights, it is relatively

easy to send a complaint using the official form provided .This is not compulsory and a letter can be

enough. The real problem however is that what happens next is in the hands of the Commission

which has wide discretionary power to decide whether or not to act on a complaint. The

Commission’s freedom as guardian of the Treaty is protected by the European Court of Justice.

- Access documents of the EU Institutions and agencies is an effective instrument, but it is used

mostly by interest groups and law firms rather than by individual citizens for whom it was intended.

If documents are refused, the citizens may appeal to the European Ombudsman or the European

Court of First Instance. Currently negotiations are re-starting for the adoption of a new regulation

on access to documents. Now is the time to consider ways to make the system more citizen friendly,

not just an instrument for lobbies and stakeholders. The Commission handled 5,055 applications in

200930 and the Council 2,66631. Both the annual report of the Commission and that of the Council

point to the relatively high number of requests coming from Belgium (over 20%) “because of the

number of enterprises, law firms, associations and NGOs operating at European level.” The

breakdown of requests for Council documents puts researchers and academics at the top of the list

followed by lawyers and interest groups. Applications from journalists represented only 6%.

Individual citizens do not figure as such. Yet, the right of access to documents to the EU Institutions

is a significant right backed by clear deadlines for response and a system of appeal. An instrument

to bridge the gap with the citizen has failed to do so.

- Petitions to the European Parliament – some 1,924 in 200932 – are classified by the Committee

as “campaign type”, “influence type” (usually in the form of mass petitions or more citizen-oriented,

relating to the application of EU law) and “individual rights”. Selected petitioners are heard in the

Petitions’ Committee (PETI), which can put pressure, but not much else, on the Commission and

Member States. The advantage is that everything is public, which is certainly not the case with the

Commission’s system for handling complaints which lacks transparency. However, there are

problems especially with the introduction of electronic petitions, many are “insufficient in

substance or comprehension” according to the annual report of the Committee for 200833. In

2009, 65% petitions were received in electronic form.

- Requests to the European Ombudsman. Citizens also need advice about the scope and limits

of the European Ombudsman’s remit about which there is confusion34 . It is limited to

30

The report is available at

http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/access_documents/docs/rapport_2009/COM2010351_EN_ACT_part1_v1.pdf 31

The report is available at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/librairie/PDF/EN_access-2009.pdf 32

Please visit http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/FindByProcnum.do?lang=en&procnum=INI/2009/2139 for more

information. 33

The report is available online at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-

//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-418.130+01+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN 34

To access the document, please visit

http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/showResource?resourceId=1272294789807_ar_2009_en.pdf&type=pdf&downlo

ad=true&lang=en

[23]

maladministration by the European Institutions and does not extend to the Member States when

they apply EU law, which is the source of two thirds of complaints received from citizens. On the

other hand, the Charter of Fundamental Rights does apply to Member States on issues within EU

competence and contains a new right to good administration. This could result in a de facto

enlargement of the European Ombudsman’s remit working together with his national counterparts.

Although the Ombudsman’s findings on complaints are not legally binding, his reports carry

authority and are generally followed. However, the process takes at least one year. In 2009, the

European Ombudsman received 3,098 complaints.

- The European Citizens’ Initiative regulation was welcomed with concerns from Civil Society

because of its cumbersome requirements (such as signature collection) and the short timeframe for

collecting signatures (12 months instead of the 18-24 months proposed by both the European

Parliament and civil society organisations). Pilot initiatives showed that it will be extremely difficult

for the organisers of an initiative to be successful under the requirements. Although the

Commission will provide a contact point for organisers, it has become clear that help and guidance

will be needed in several other aspects (see chapter V).

The Charter of Fundamental Rights now becomes legally binding and will generate increasing

numbers of complaints about violation of Human Rights. The Lisbon Treaty also provides that the Union

should adhere to the European Convention on Human Rights thus strengthening the European architecture

for protecting fundamental rights. These developments will lead to an increase in complaints. It will be

difficult to meet citizens’ expectations and explain that the remit of the Charter is narrowly focused on the

EU and that it is not a general recipe for all human rights in Europe. However, if citizens recognize the real

scope of the Charter it will offer substantial support to enhancing European rights.

For the reasons listed above, there is a growing risk of disappointing expectations as official channels at the

national and European level are often slow, cumbersome, and fail to solve practical issues. Citizens can find

themselves in an impasse, faced with no option but to go to Court or make official complaints for which

there is increasing demand. The success of citizens, or more likely groups of citizens, with the use of these

official channels is often achieved by combining more than one – i.e. a complaint to the European

Commission and a petition to the European Parliament – and by showing unusual persistence backing up a

strong case with good evidence.

Therefore, the European Civil Society House will test a new way of approaching European citizen advice and

problem-solving which was already recommended by Alain Lamassoure in his report on “the European

Citizen and Implementation of Community Law”. He wonders whether it would not be more efficient and

cost-effective in some instances for citizens to share experiences on social media about the best way to

overcome obstacles to the exercise of their European rights (i.e. how to get around “red tape”, appeal or

find sources of good advice). At the moment, European information and advice are handled on a one-to-

one basis between the citizen and a call centre or experts, so the system is not participatory. A more

participatory approach is in any case needed when the barriers to free movement become serious and

reflect a general administrative malpractice by Member States so that isolated complaints are insufficient.

The best possible chance of success for citizens is often to group together and make their voice heard with

the European Commission and the European Parliament.

[24]

The aim of the project is to pioneer the one-stop shop approach towards the EU35 , whereby the citizen

finds in one place everything he/she needs, or at least links towards what is needed rather than being

sent from one service to the next.

Citizenhouse.eu will test the ground for such a one-stop shop by providing citizens with three possibilities:

1. There will be a FAQ section covering all the procedures and the European rights, with a special

emphasis on providing examples and good practice cases. In this way, citizens will be better

equipped to know where in the EU to take their concerns, and which procedures are best suited to

their particular case. A special emphasis will be placed on how to succeed with the new instrument

of citizens’ initiatives which will come into force in early 2012.

2. There will be a discussion forum for testing out European concerns and possible campaigns so

that they come together across borders before necessarily rushing individually to the EU36. In case

of more serious obstacles, preparatory networking for collective action would give citizens

greater weight with the EU and national authorities. Citizens’ initiatives are a form of collective

action which hopefully will spill over and strengthen other procedures.

35

The European Commission is making progress towards the one-stop shop. There is a long way to go however before

there is an EU one-stop shop covering all the different Institutions. The current promotional efforts still give the

appearance of a scattered and complex environment in which citizens have to find their way. As the extended briefing

note and the relevant annual reports of EU Institutions make clear, the various services which exist are, as a

consequence, underused. 36

In a report done for the French Presidency of the Council in 2008, Alain Lamassoure MEP proposed that in this way,

citizens could find their own solutions to making Europe work better by sharing experience and knowledge of how to

overcome the barriers. The document is available at http://www.alainlamassure.eu/liens/817.pdf .

5 key areas

•Complaints to the EC

•Access to documents

•Petitions to the EP

•Requests to the Ombudsman

•Citizens' Initiatives

3 ways of interaction

•FAQs

•Discussion forum

•Helpdesk

Citizenhouse.eu

[25]

3. A helpdesk drawing on ECAS’ experience will provide the necessary back-up. The helpdesk will be

provided by ECAS staff with the support of volunteer work. ECAS runs Your Europe Advice (YEA) for

the European Commission. YEA handles 10,000 – 12,000 questions per year in all languages. There

will be the possibility of drawing on the multilingual team of 60 legal experts for more difficult

questions. The leading law firm “Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer” already does pro-bono work for

ECAS. Citizenhouse.eu is more to do with problem solving, the next stage after people have studied

the possibilities in relation to their issue. Requests for prior information and advice will be directed

towards the relevant EU services. The expectation is that the main emphasis will be on design,

testing and a launch in 2011. The search should be for good quality requests to be made to the

helpdesk rather than quantity. Of a likely 1000 requests, our estimation is that about 10% would

require research and back-up from legal experts. After 2011 more resources will be needed for the

helpdesk.

By creating a clearer focal point and links towards national procedures, the web platform citizenhouse.eu,

should increase both the quantity and quality of the use of the CAPRI instruments37.

C3. Citizen Participation

Citizen participation should not only depend on collecting over 1 million signatures. When Margot

Wallström was in charge of the European Commission’s Communication policy, experiments were

encouraged under “Plan D” with citizens’ summits, consultations, deliberative polling, panels and e-

participation38. It is a paradox that whilst the European Union gives citizens the possibility to defend their

interests with a number of community bodies and to take their case to national courts, other channels of

communication are weak when it comes to citizens not just defending their rights, but wanting

to have a say in European affairs and hold their elected representatives to account.

In theory consultation mechanisms are open to ordinary citizens, but the perceived feeling is that they are

dominated by more prominent and influential stakeholders. Following a project funded by the “Europe for

Citizens” programme bringing together panels of citizens to discuss these issues, ECAS has published a

policy research paper, “How the participatory toolbox can make the European Union less remote from

citizens”.39 This will help to develop the Resource Centre and shape the future activities of the House. The

37

A separate document on CAPRI is available on ECAS website, http://www.ecas-citizens.eu/content/view/285/295/ 38

For more information, please visit http://ec.europa.eu/archives/debateeurope/index_en.htm 39

To access the document, please visit http://www.ecas-

citizens.eu/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=652&Itemid=

For further information, please consult the Citizens ‘consultation “Learning from the past, looking towards the future”

workshop on the 27th November 2009, organised by the Directorate General for Communication; the “Evaluation of

Plan D/Debate Europe projects” by Eureval, Matrix and Rambøll –Management; the IFOK GmbH consultation

contribution as part of the European Citizens’Panels; Danish the INVOLVE publication “Governance of the European

Research Area: The Role of Civil Society”; the booklet “Citizens as partners – OECD Handbook for governments on

information, consultation and public participation in policy-making” and “Participatory and deliberative methods

toolkit. How to connect with citizens - A practitioner’s manual” presented at the EFC annual General Assembly, May

2006 in Brussels.

[26]

organisation of pan–European citizen events has been shown to work and should now be

placed on a more structured basis.

In 2011, a “Europe for citizens” project called Carrousel will help manage the Virtual House on European

citizens’ rights. Its name comes from an innovative technique for citizen deliberations that will be used

throughout the project. Four national level and one European level panels will be organised. They will build

up a picture of the virtual ECSH including an integrated help-desk function. The national panels will

examine the different instruments for citizens to make their voice heard with the EU: Complaints to the

European Commission, Petitions to the European Parliament, Requests to the European Ombudsman,

Access to documents as well as the new right of Citizens’ Initiative.

The steps are as follows:

- Preparatory work is being done by ECAS on contents (preparation of the FAQs covering the 5

instruments, drafts for webpages and links);

- Toute l’Europe, one of the partners in the Carrousel project, will identify a web developer and guide

the process of creating the website according to the requirements in the annex. These will be

discussed at a partners meeting on 18 April. A further partners’ meeting with the web developer

and the steering group for the European Civil Society House will take place in May to examine first

results. The partners will streamline the virtual component during the panels. The creation of the

website and help-desk will be announced to the citizens and discussed at the panels, so they will be

able to give suggestions on how to make these services more user friendly;

Each of the four national panels will meet for one day examining the one-stop shop and the European Civil

Society House as a whole, as shown below:

4.06

Budapest

The partner NIOK will concentrate on access to

documents

11.06

Sofia

OSI will concentrate on creating a national contact

point for Bulgaria

18.06

Paris

Toute l’ Europe will devote their event to citizens’

initiatives

28.06

Warsaw

The Robert Schuman Foundation will give

prominence to the role of national and European

ombudsmen in defending European rights

[27]

V.Proposalforanawarenessraising

campaignandhelpdeskoncitizens’

initiatives

The Citizens’ Initiative has its legal basis in Article 11 paragraph 4 of the Treaty of Lisbon: “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 regulation on the European Citizens’ Initiative (EU regulation 211/2011) was officially

signed in March 201140, after an intense year of work by the Institutions (notably the European Parliament,

which appointed four rapporteurs, two from the Petitions’ Committee and two from the Constitutional

Affairs Committee) and civil society organisations.

Before the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon, pilot initiatives were launched as early as in 2006, sometimes

breaking the 1 million signatures threshold41.

The regulation’s key components are:

1. The initiative must be within the powers of the European Commission to propose legislation

under the Treaties and is not manifestly frivolous or contrary to the Union’s values.

2. The organisers must form a citizens’ committee of at least seven members and designate one

representative and one substitute as contact persons. They should, like the future signatories,

be citizens of the Union eligible to vote in the European elections.

3. Before collecting signatures, the organisers request registration of the initiative with the

Commission using the standard form for this purpose, and annexing further justification and a

legal text if they so wish.

40

The regulation is available online at http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:065:0001:0022:EN:PDF 41

In the 2008 Initiative and Referendum Institute (IRI) publication “Initiative for Europe. Handbook 2008”, Carsten

Berg enumerates a total of 20 European Initiatives launched since 2006, three of which received more than one

million signatures, namely: the “One seat initiative” to establish Brussels as the only seat for the EP, the “Labelling of

Genetically Engineered Food” by Greenpeace and the “Initiatives of Applied Anthroposophy” by Aktion Eliant. For the

complete publication, please visit the website

http://www.iri-europe.org/en/publications/handbooks/

[28]

4. Within two months the Commission either registers the initiative or rejects it for failing the

tests under 1, and informs the organisers of the reasons and of all possible judicial and

extrajudicial remedies open to them.

5. The 1 million signatures should come from at least one quarter of the member states. The

number of signatures for each member state is equal to the number of members of the

European Parliament multiplied by 750. The minimum number for each country is in Annex 1.

6. On registration and throughout the process, organisers must declare and ensure full

transparency about their sources of funding.

7. It will be possible to collect signatures on-line for which a certificate has to be obtained or on

paper. Organisers face different national procedures for signature registration and verification.

Of 27 member states, 18 require an ID or passport number with the signature, 9 do not.42

8. The timeframe for collecting signature certificates and meeting the conditions is limited to 12

months before it is submitted to the Commission.

9. The citizens’ committee can present the initiative in person to the Commission “at an

appropriate level” and there will be a hearing in the European Parliament. Within 3 months,

the Commission will publish a communication setting out its legal and political conclusions and

reasons for acting or not doing so.

10. The organisers of citizens’ initiatives and the authorities are subject to data protection rules to

ensure that personal data is only collected for the purpose of the initiative, for no other reason

and destroyed thereafter. The organisers are also liable to penalties for any other breach of

the regulation, such as fraudulent signatures.

Taking into consideration all the requirements listed above, it

emerges that the regulation will set high demands on the

organisers of European Citizens’ Initiatives. During the

public hearings organized by different political groups in the

European Parliament, the European Commission was requested

to provide some advice and help to the organisers of a Citizens’

Initiative. However, there will be many important issues left

aside that could be tackled by setting up an external,

independent facility.

2011 is a preparatory year, during which several groups will

consider preparing an initiative. Independently from the

conditions in the regulation, a helpdesk will be needed; without a citizens’ infrastructure many good ideas

42

The nine are Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Netherlands, Slovakia, Finland and the United Kingdom.

ECAS carried out a survey which suggested that there could be resistance from citizens to providing their identity

number.

The Virtual House will create a

Resource Centre with links to Citizens’

Initiatives on the Europa site, those of

other CSOs and think tanks, as well as

include the EU regulation and the

legislative process in full, background

and comments, national examples,

European initiatives already tried and

academic research.

[29]

could fail or never get off the ground or this new instrument will be captured by powerful lobbies rather

than genuine citizens’ interests.

The Virtual House will create a resource with links to Citizens’ Initiatives on the Europa website, those of

other CSOs and think tanks, as well as include the EU regulation and the legislative process in full,

background and comments, national examples, European initiatives already tried and academic research.

This should be backed by a promotional media campaign to raise awareness of the helpdesk. For this, a

taskforce is needed. Such a task force should be assembled from two different backgrounds: people with

sufficient professional experience on the workings of the EU in fields relevant to the proposed initiative and

experts in techniques of direct democracy, organisation of debates, campaigns and fundraising as well as in

the collection of signatures face-to-face or online. ECAS sees the task force as a group formed by different

organisations and coalitions such as the “ECI campaign”43 experts and resource centres in direct and

participatory democracy.

List of tasks for the helpdesk

The helpdesk task force should be a hands-on accompaniment through all stages of the process.

- The idea stage. This is primarily for the organisers. Outside assistance can be brought in to advise

on certain aspects such as legal analysis, promotional tools or procedures.

- Admissibility of the initiative. The helpdesk should give an opinion on whether the initiative

proposed is in the legal competence of the European Union and Treaty articles which will be cited

as a basis. Help with drafting may be necessary to meet the requirements of meeting EU legislative

criteria.

- Outreach strategy. The helpdesk may be a useful sounding board for testing ideas about

motivating existing networks or setting up new ones to collect signatures. Advice on media and

communication strategy and external support can also be useful. In particular, the helpdesk should

43

For more information, please visit www.citizens-initiative.eu

The Idea Stage

Admissibility of the

Initiative

Outreach strategy

FundraisingSignature collection

Submission of the

initiative

Alternatives to Citizens’ Initiatives

Evaluation and next

steps

[30]

assist with adding contacts in countries where the organisers have none or where they are too

weak to deliver a significant number of signatures.

- Fundraising. This is likely to be the main issue for most genuine Citizens’ Initiatives. Fundraising

can be targeted at a large number of objectives, such as help with translation and dissemination,

organising public debates, supporting the work of volunteers, and so on. The helpdesk itself should

be prepared to do fundraising for the organisers.

- Signature collection. The helpdesk should draw in different kinds of expertise. For example,

there are those who can assist the organisers in making sure that the signature collection

techniques - face-to-face or online - meet the national and European criteria, so that the initiative is

not rejected on procedural grounds when verification of signatures takes place.

- Submission of the initiative. There is no doubt that the organisers, especially if they are not

already established in Brussels, will need advice and support at this stage. This could mean for

example: sustaining efforts to make sure that the right decision-makers in the Institutions know

about the Initiative, organising an awareness raising event in Brussels, establishing contacts with

European associations and so on.

- Alternatives to Citizens’ Initiatives. Article 11 of the Treaty is a fine instrument giving citizens

the chance to debate, form coalitions across borders and not just react to the EU, but propose to

the EU in their own terms. However, this is not always an achievable aim. The danger is that the

organisers and the EU Institutions start to see collecting over 1 million signatures as a “sine qua

non” and then create considerable disappointment. One of the most valuable tasks for a helpdesk

would be to help manage expectations and possibly advise on alternative ways to get an issue on

the EU agenda. In the case of initiatives already launched and not meeting their objective, the

helpdesk should also advise about the possibility of appeal to the European Ombudsman or the

Court of First Instance if it can be shown that the Commission is guilty of maladministration in its

treatment of the Initiative.

- Evaluation and next steps. The work load involved in collecting over 1 million signatures is not to

be underestimated. In order to help the organisers, its own future work and others taking up this

challenge, an evaluation of the steps taken up to the submission of the initiative and the reaction to

it is essential. In this way, know-how can be accumulated for future Citizens’ Initiatives. Evaluation

is also necessary so that lessons are learned by EU decision-makers when the regulation is open for

revision 3 years after its entry into force.

The issues of support by the Commission and the other institutions on one hand and ideas for a civil society

house helpdesk on the other were discussed at the ECAS Conference on 17 March 201144.

44

To access the documents from the conference, please visit http://www.ecas-citizens.eu/content/view/375/1/

[31]

VI.Surveyresults

On 11 April 2011, a total of 596 respondents had completed the survey in either English or French.

63 different nationalities were registered, with the totality of the European Union covered. The

combined statistics of the two versions of the questionnaire are here displayed, based on answered

questions; unanswered questions are not taken into consideration.

The average respondent profile was of a EU national (81%) frequently (41%) or full-time (29%)

involved in European affairs.

Results show that there are minor differences in the importance granted to Civil Society Development

(most important for the 48 % of the respondents), Citizens’ rights and better enforcement (49%) and

Citizen Participation (50%).

A convergence of answers about the key features of the Physical (PH) and Virtual (VH) Houses is

highlighted. Respondents underlined that the ECSH should:

- provide advice about European citizens’ rights (54% VH, 48% PH) for the enforcement of

Citizens’ Rights;

- be a meeting place between citizens and the EU institutions to reinforce dialogue and

results (51% VH, 54% PH) for enhancing Citizen Participation;

- offer European funding advice and assistance with filling in applications (49% VH, 48% PH)

for Civil Society Development as well as foster European Coalition Building for projects and

advocacy in its virtual components (49% VH).

Finally, the ECSH received an overall 93% approval rate. 94% of the respondents have asked to be kept

informed about the future developments of the house, and 75% have shown active interest in collaborating

for its setup.

[32]

81%

10%

9%

Q1. Respondents by country

EU 27

Wider Europe; Accession and

Potential Accession Candidate

Countries, EES)

Rest of the World

29%

41%

22%

8%

Q2. What is the extent of your own and/or your

organizations involvement in European Affairs?

Full time

Frequent

In-Frequent

Never

[33]

Civil Society Development and the EU

Citizen’s rights and better enforcement

Citizen Participation and initiatives

21.17%

17.63%

14.71%

30.64%

33.16%

35.64%

48.19%

49.21%

49.65%

Q3. In what order of importance would you rank

the following 3 subjects?

1 - most important

2 - important

3 - least important

European funding advice and assistance with

filling in applications

Lobbying the EU Institutions and promotion

of your organization

European Coalition building for projects and

advocacy

17.51%

27.90%

15.16%

33.66%

42.83%

35.43%

48.83%

29.27%

49.41%

Q4. Which of the following services would you

consider most important to have available online

in the Virtual House? C1. Civil Society

Development:

1 - most important

2 - important

3 - least important

[34]

Advice about European citizen’s rights and

civil liberties for NGO’s and Individuals

Helping formulate complaints and following

them up with the European Commission

Researching and campaigning on generic

issues such as application of the Charter of

Fundamental Rights

12.57%

25.35%

27.63%

33.27%

40.79%

42.15%

54.16%

33.86%

30.22%

Q5. C2. Citizens' Rights:

1 - most important

2 - important

3 - least important

Providing advice and a clearing house on

citizens deliberations and citizens initiatives

A meeting place between citizens and the

EU institutions to reinforce dialogue and

results

Support for the promoters of citizens

initiatives under article 11 of the Lisbon

Treaty

20.98%

13.65%

23.08%

41.37%

35.09%

38.26%

37.65%

51.27%

38.66%

Q6. C3. Citizen Participation:

1 - most important

2 - important

3 - least important

[35]

European funding advice and assistance with

filling in applications

Lobbying the EU Institutions and promotion

of your organization

European Coalition building for projects and

advocacy

19.62%

28.05%

17.89%

32.28%

39.61%

42.24%

48.10%

32.33%

39.87%

Q7. Which of the following services would you

consider most important to have available face to

face in the physical House in Brussels? C1. Civil

Society Development:

1 - most important

2 - important

3 - least important

Advice about European citizens’ rights and

civil liberties for NGO’s and Individuals

Helping formulate complaints and following

them up with the European Commission

Researching and campaigning on generic

issues such as application of the Charter of

Fundamental Rights

16.29%

22.73%

36.84%

35.52%

38.86%

39.47%

48.19%

38.41%

23.68%

Q8. C2. Citizens' Rights:

1 - most important

2 - important

3 - least important

[36]

For “other”, please see Infra (point 1.1)

Providing advice and a clearing house on

citizens deliberations and citizens initiatives

A meeting place between citizens and the

EU institutions to reinforce dialogue and

results

Support for the promoters of citizens

initiatives under article 11 of the Lisbon

Treaty

25.17%

11.79%

34.85%

41.43%

34.28%

34.42%

33.41%

53.93%

30.74%

Q9. C3. Citizen Participation:

1 - most important

2 - important

3 - least important

30%

17%

11%

14%

18%

10%

Q10.What would be the most important facility at

the physical Civil Society House in Brussels?

Resource centre on Civil Society in

Europe

Bringing together a group of

European associations to share

premises and facilities

Providing a desk and a fully

equipped office for visiting

organizations

Meeting room facilities for NGOs

and citizens

Training courses

Other

[37]

For “other”, please see infra (point 1.2)

92.70%

3.22%

4.08%

Q12. Do you think it is a good idea to create a

European Civil Society House?

Yes

No

N/A

46%

27%

24%

3%

Q11. What aspect of this project in your opinion

would be most advantageous for the EU

Institutions seeking to improve access for citizens?

Resource centre on civil society with

a database of organizations which

can be consulted or invited to

events

Support to citizens so that their

requests and complaints are better

directed and easier to handle

An intermediary organization to

support citizens initiatives (the 1

million signatures) and citizens

deliberations

Other (please specify)

[38]

75%

25%

Q14 Would you like to become actively involved

and discuss possible cooperation or partnership

with us?

Yes

No

94%

6%

Q13. Would you like to be kept informed of future

developments on this project?

Yes

No

[39]

1.1 Supplement to question 10. “In what order do you rank the following

facilities offered in the Physical House?” Free comments.

a. Coordination, networking and debate

• A social or networking space, especially to bring together like-minded people who might not otherwise meet and

engage.

• Le bureau ne devra pas que accueillir mais être en connexion Internet permanente avec tous les services de l'UE tant sur

le territoire belge que dans tous les pays de l'UE ce qui sous-entend, qu'une maison virtuelle doit être installée dans

chaque pays, pas uniquement a Bruxelles.

• Networking with other European NGOs and Development Agencies.

• To work with other NGO outside EU countries, especially in third-world countries.

• Establishing communications and networks of NGOs from all over Europe to synchronize efforts and measures to

advance and further develop civic rights, liberties, participation etc.

b. Advice and Support

• Advice centre of for certain association areas, such as Fundraising, PR etc.

• Helping organizations in small towns. (Education and equipment)

• Helping small organizations to their capacity building.

• It should give priority to legitimate NGOs which do not have yet offices in Brussels!

c. Relationship with the EU Institutions and with EU Member States

• An office for NGOs representing the country of the rotating Presidency of the EU.

• Giving proposals to the Member States for systematic use of the possibilities which the EU makes available.

• Provide meeting places with European employees and R&D project implementers to understand how to help them

develop and implement projects in a consistent manner, i.e. facilitate implementation.

• To be able to provide opportunity for the NGO's representatives to represent the group in EU meetings.

d. Resources and information centre

• Bulletin d'échange d'information + 3 séances annuelles d'échange d'information sur les sujets de plaidoyer, les

collaborations entre Organisations de la société civile et l'Etat de lieu du dossier.

• European Civil Society Library, Consultancy Centre for European Funding.

• Informer sur les directives qui ont des conséquences pour les associations et fondations.

• Lecturing - Meeting point where academics and citizens dialogue with each other; Political scientists, Sociologists,

Anthropologists; Philosophers, Environmental scientist etc. providing citizens and organizations with first-hand

information of academic research and ideas. This could be done in collaboration with various European Universities

and academic organizations. The spirit should be it is never too late to learn something. Being well informed before

one voices his or her opinion.

• Resource centre on research and social action that takes place in each member state to allow common initiatives.

• Sharing best practices and lesson learned.

[40]

e. Relationship with citizens

• Meeting rooms we can find anywhere, the house in Brussels should be a very strong representative house of the citizens,

not an info point!!!

• Should be staffed walk-in resource centre which can make citizens welcome and provide study facilities and support.

• Organize study tours.

1.2 Supplement to question 12. “Do you think it is a good idea to create a ECSH?”

Free comments.

a. Role of the ESCH in the civil society landscape

Civil society is a very broad term and we would be keen to ensure that the voice of local voluntary and community action is best

supported as it can often be lost amongst the big players of civil society. If this is about changing cultures and supporting

participation rather than being a club for specific interests then this is key.

• Excellent idea, also because in the majority of cases CSOs are now represented through the different platforms like

Concord and many organizations are excluded.

• It is crucial to make the European Civil Society House a house for the emerging European Civil Society. If, on the contrary,

it becomes a house for the national civil societies and their umbrella organizations, it could - potentially - do more harm

than good.

• It’s important it to have a proactive role.

• It should be a real added value and coordination between all existing civil society voicing expertise or similar initiatives.

• It would be a good opportunity to share experiences and learn by each other best practice in order to strengthen the Civil

Society.

• La Maison de la Société Civile doit trouver une place originale et complémentaire dans le paysage, déjà important, des

organisations en faveur de la société civile a Bruxelles. Il me semble important que la Maison puisse réussir a désenclaver

la société civile actuelle qui reste une Elite et qui est encore identifiée par les "simples citoyens" comme une Elite proche

des "technocrates" et députes "de Bruxelles".

• It would be important that this Civil Society House is not a monolithic institution that crowds out other civil society

initiatives. Careful attention would have to be paid to its representativeness, transparency and independence,

especially the latter if it is to be funded throughout the EU budget.

• Such a house could considerably contribute to strengthening of common European identity, citizenship, values and spirit.

It could launch even operative projects and programme in this field, undertake joint campaigns; it could be co-funded by

not only EU but by all European countries, even symbolically.

• Voluntary activities should be stressed more as a means and an expression of European active citizenship in the concept

of the House.

• Yes, as long as it is open to organizations based outside Brussels and especially on the periphery of the EU.

b. Relationship with the EU Institutions

• I think it is important that the Civil Society House builds links with the EU representations in each member state and in

third countries. Several Member States are turning their EC representations into 'Europe Houses' with the idea of

welcoming civil society and citizens more into their space, and moreover the representations often do not know where

to direct citizens and civil society which come to them with questions about funding, about campaigning, about

creating partnerships with other organizations.

[41]

• It is the first project aimed at streamlining the participation of the European citizens in the formulation of EU policies and

at helping the same citizens of making full profit of their rights.

• Only if it is a support center for citizens who are interested in engaging with the EU and not another Brussels-based

umbrella body for civil society/NGOs.

• The Initiative with the European Civil Society House is a very promising one and the public citizens really need to be

more involved in the decision making process.

c. Virtual and Physical Houses

• Both physical European Civil Society House and virtual European Civil Society Web Platform should be developed as to

avoid geographically limiting access to the global project.

• The fact that a physical place exists can help enormously to focus the attention on the issue

• The House shall have a small (if any) staff but very clear functions and rules. It shall be easily accessible and open for even

small organizations and citizen groups.

• Un centre physique avec quelqu'un de compétant en face de nous pour nous expliquer n'est un projet qu'on peut

considérer comme une très ingénieuse idée.

[42]

VII.Conclusionsandnextsteps

A sound basis exists for setting up a European Civil Society House, since the European

Parliament has created a budget line for this purpose. Thanks to grants from the Joseph

Rowntree Charitable Trust45, ECAS has been able to do exploratory work through several

meetings and a survey in 2009-2010. The results of the survey are encouraging. 93% of

people that participated like the idea, and the different activities foreseen under

the 3Cs – civil society, citizens’ rights and citizen participation – score rather

equally. What stands out is the support for the Virtual House which would be accessible

from anywhere in the Union and the idea of a user friendly resource centre for civil society

and the Institutions alike. The results of the survey and some of the individual comments go

in a similar direction to that of some MEPs during the budgetary procedure in 2009 who

warned against the house being too centralised in Brussels. There is also considerable

political support which has yet to become an organized critical mass to realise an ambitious

vision. As one respondent to the survey put it, “Such a house could considerably contribute

to strengthening of common European identity, citizenship, values and spirit. It could launch

even operative projects and programme in this field, undertake joint campaigns; it could be

co-funded by not only EU but by all European countries, even symbolically”.

We call the European Civil Society House a win-win scheme for citizens and the EU

Institutions because over time the European Civil Society House will increase citizen

engagement with the EU. An increase in the number of petitions and complaints will provide

the EU with more feedback of citizens’ concerns and evidence of where European law is not

working well. Citizens have more European rights than they imagine but there is a gap when

it comes to enforcement, which they and the EU Institutions have an evident interest in

closing. The EU Institutions would benefit from more collective cross-border rather than

scattered individual complaints; in turn this will strengthen the citizen position. Finally, if

45

For more information, please visit http://www.jrct.org.uk/

Continuing the survey work

Creating the Virtual House

Helpdesk on Citizens' Initiative

Looking for a coordinator

[43]

access to the EU is free and quick, follow-up is cumbersome and slow. The helpdesk should

develop a follow up role to chase up the Institutions and follow-up complaints on behalf of

citizens at different geographical levels. A daunting task!

With this type of venture, there is an element of unpredictability. For example, suitable

premises might be found near the EU Institutions next month or not until next year.

In opting for a first launch of the Virtual European Civil Society House on a specific theme, it

will be easier to predict and keep costs under control. In the annex IV, technical

requirements for citizenhouse.eu are described.

The basic plan for 2011 is as follows:

- Continue with the survey and gathering of proposals by creating a forum of all

people involved so far;

- Look for a full-time coordinator for the European Civil Society House project;

- Create the prototype of the Virtual House through the Carrousel project;

- Start to build an online resource centre with material on EU funds, social innovation

and citizen participation;

- Create the helpdesk on citizens’ rights to encourage a more collective approach to

enforcement as well as a helpdesk on Citizens’ Initiatives;

- Make a start with encouraging National Contact Points, for example in Hungary and

Poland, the countries holding the Council Presidency in 2011.

Some aspects of the plan for 2011 reflect priorities revealed by the survey, such as the idea

of a resource centre, others follow more the timetable and the priorities seen from the

perspective of the EU such as creating the helpdesk on Citizens’ Initiatives.

Looking for a coordinator

The creation of the European Civil Society House moves in 2011 from a conceptual to an

operational phase. To support this process, a fulltime coordinator will be recruited. This

person will be responsible for making a success of the first examples of what the European

Civil Society House will do, whilst at the same time furthering the development of the

project as a whole.

The coordinator will work closely with ECAS Director and have the following functions:

- Assist the work of the steering committee by preparing its meetings and following

them up;

- Recruit and oversee the work of volunteers.

- Ensure that there is continuity from one project to the next and that results are

maximised and put to practical use;

[44]

- Keep the web platform up to date and actively promote the development on social

networks and with the media;

- Promote the website in order to keep the instrument alive and functioning.

[45]

AnnexI.Mappingexercise.

Answers sites

− Just Answer (http://www.justanswer.com/). US-based pay-per-use e-answer site.

Users can ask questions in over 100 categories to experts via email, text message, or

as notification on the site.

− Yahoo! Answer (http://answers.yahoo.com/). Free Community-driven question-and-

answer (Q&A) site launched by Yahoo! that allows users to both submit questions to

be answered and answer questions asked by other users. The site gives members

the chance to earn points as a way to encourage participation. Yahoo! Answers is

available in twelve languages.

− Answers.com (http://www.answers.com/). Answers.com is a Q&A website, which

includes Wiki Answers and Reference Answers. It generates monthly more than 56

million visitors in the USA and 83.0 million worldwide. WikiAnswers is an ad-

supported website where knowledge is shared freely in the form of questions and

answers. Anyone can ask a question and anyone from anywhere in the world can

answer it. This sharing of knowledge in turn becomes part of a permanent

information resource. Each question has a "living" answer, which is edited and

improved over time by the WikiAnswers.com community. WikiAnswers.com uses an

Alternates System – where every answer can have dozens of different Questions

that "trigger" it. When a Contributor asks a question similar to an existing one, the

system connects the question to it as an "alternate". This prevents duplicate entries

in an effort to promote cohesive answers and a better user experience.

− Answer bag (http://www.answerbag.com/). Answer bag is a collaborative online

database of FAQs, where questions are asked and answered by users. Instead of the

one question—one answer model, multiple answers to a given question are

presented, in descending order of user ratings. A user who has created an account

can ask and answer questions, comment on answers, rate questions and answers,

and suggest new categories. Users can rate both questions and answers by giving

positive or negative points, from plus or minus 1 for beginners, to plus or minus 6 for

very experienced users. Through their contributions to the site, users can "level up"

and earn the right to give or take away more points from other users' questions and

answers. Users can also accumulate points by flagging questions and answers as

"Wrong Category", "Nonsense", "Spam/Offensive", and "Duplicate”.

[46]

− Directgov.co.uk (http://www.direct.gov.uk/). Directgov is the UK government's

digital service for people in England and Wales. It delivers information and practical

advice about public services, bringing them all together in one place. Directgov is

accessible on the web, on mobile phones or on the television.

− LinkedIn answer (http://www.linkedin.com/answers/). Q&A Service available in five

languages. Like Yahoo! Answers, it allows everyone to become an expert through an

answer rating system. The Community is composed of professional experts whose

profile is available on the LinkedIn platform.

Citizens’ advice online

− Europe Direct

(http://ec.europa.eu/europedirect/write_to_us/mailbox/index_en.htm). General

information about EU matters in any of the official EU languages as well as practical

information on different subjects: for example, how to get qualifications recognised

or how to complain about unsafe products.

− Citizens Advice International (http://www.citizensadvice-international.org/).

Citizens Advice International is an umbrella organisation enabling a global fast

growing network of Citizens Advice Bureaux and other information and advice

services to identify, share, apply and promote the best practices in empowering

people to exercise their rights and in shaping social policy making. They attend 7

million questions a year.

− Community legal advice (http://www.communitylegaladvice.org.uk/ ). This website

offers free, confidential and independent legal advice for residents of England and

Wales.

Virtual communities with potential for civil society empowerment

− Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/). Facebook is an online social platform which

can help co-workers share documents and ideas. It is used within major companies

for developing online collaboration.

− Twitter (http://twitter.com/). Micro-blogging site which allows constant updates on

a variety of topics. It is widely used in journalism and by civil society platforms.

E-Democracy and Participation

[47]

− e-Practice (http://ePractice.eu/) is a portal created by the European Commission. It

is an interactive initiative that empowers its users to discuss and influence open

government, policy-making and the way in which public administrations operate and

deliver services.

− Civil Society Network web portal of UN (http://esango.un.org/irene/). A web portal

devoted to non-governmental organizations and to members of United Nations

agencies, funds and programmes in order to share and promote best practices in the

field of economic and social development, as well for the purpose of establish

collaborative development solutions and partnerships among these groups.

− e-Participate (http://www.eparticipate.eu/). It enables accessible and transparent

communication between government and citizens through a cost-effective

multimedia webcasting system. The system is now being launched in 8 Member

States.

− PloneGov (http://www.plonegov.org). This initiative is a collaborative software

ecosystem, where government organizations, non-profits and the private sector

work together to share the cost of enhanced capabilities. The project currently has

its centre of gravity in Europe and spans over 4 continents reaching more than 20

countries.

− Buitenbeter (http://springwise.com/government/buitenbeter/). A mobile phone

based application to enhance citizens’ dialogue with the local government in

Dordrecht, Netherlands.

− e-Response®, Dordrecht town hall (http://cms.dordrecht.nl/). The public

administration in the city of Dordrecht provides the citizens with a code (ticket) in

order to enable them to follow the status of their applications, inquiries, documents

and so on.

− SIMAC (http://www.gva.es). SIMAC (Integral and Multi-Channel Citizen Service

System, Valencia, Spain) is a project that includes several performance lines in order

to achieve intelligent, interconnected, integrated, efficient and high quality

administration focused on the citizen. It receives more than 10 million information

requests annually through its different channels.

− PIC (http://www.pic.si/). The Legal informational Centre for NGOs in Slovenia aims

to Build NGO capacity by providing legal expert support, increasing NGOs knowledge

on public participation mechanisms and raising awareness on the importance of

public participation in public affairs.

− Momentum (http://www.ep-momentum.eu/) The project aims to monitor the

existing and on coming e-participation projects co-funded by European Commission,

to consolidate their results and provide feedback to them and to the respective EC

bodies and other designated stakeholders, advancing the high-level political and

[48]

institutional engagement. Their goals include promoting the output of European

Union eParticipation projects and initiatives towards stakeholders in the various

member states and internationally, processing and disseminating the results and

achievements of the projects in a way that citizens can understand, interact with the

projects as well as utilising their already developed networking and knowledge

management infrastructures. The project consortium consists of 5 partners from 4

different EU member states, bringing together the innovative know-how of

academic and research institutions, the deployment capabilities of the IT industry

and the administrative experience of highly specialized consulting firms. Twenty

initiatives have been included so far in the project.

Virtual/physical houses

− Mundo-b (http://www.mundo-b.org/). Mundo-B is a key focal for environment and

development NGOs lobbying the European Parliament and Commission. The centre

provides for 25 organisations as well as shared facilities including six meeting rooms,

a conference suite with translation booths, social cafe, reception, garden and

storage as well as space for 200 workstations for NGOs and charities in the city.

− The Hub (http://brussels.the-hub.net/public/). Award-winning incubator for social

innovation. It offers access to collaborative work and meeting spaces for

entrepreneurs and people with imaginative ideas.

− House for Democracy and Human Rights, Berlin

(http://www.hausderdemokratie.de/). The House of Democracy and Human Rights

is a workplace for creation and implementation of the civil and human rights,

bringing dozens of associations and NGOs under one roof. It organizes seminars,

exhibitions, conferences around the topics of democracy and human rights. It also

serves as a temporary workspace for visiting associations.

− House of Democracy and the Rule of Law, The Hague (http://www.democratie-

rechtsstaat.nl/). The house for Democracy and the Rule of Law will be an

independent foundation in the Hague aiming to involve people in issues like the

Constitution, the history of Dutch democracy, the Kingdom of the Netherlands,

Europe, law and human rights through simulations, visits, tours, debates, exhibitions

and courses. It will be operative in 2014.

E-petition sites

− Number 10 Downing Street (http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/). E-petitions

website that allows UK citizens to send their petitions to the British Prime Minister.

[49]

− E-petition, European Parliament

(https://www.secure.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/petition/secured/submi

t.do?language=EN). EU citizens can submit their petition to the European Parliament

on a secured website.

− Causes (www.causes.com). Causes was founded in 2007 as an online advocacy and

fundraising application within Facebook, which is the world's largest online social

network. Causes is the world's largest platform for activism with 100 million installed

users and $25 million raised for nonprofits. The platform enables users to create

grassroots groups that take action on a social issue or support a specific non-profit

organization. These groups, individually called a "cause," are building blocks for most

activity on the site.

− Avaaz (http://www.avaaz.org/). Avaaz.org is an international civic organization

established in 2007 that promotes activism on issues such as climate change, human

rights, and religious conflicts. Its stated mission is to "ensure that the views and

values of the world's people inform global decision-making." The organization

operates in thirteen languages, and claims more than five million members

worldwide. Avaaz together with Greenpeace collected over one million signatures

for GMO ban in Europe, becoming the first organization to potentially meet the

requirements for a Citizens’ Initiative.

[50]

AnnexII.Calendarofpastmeetings

04.12.2009 First meeting open to the public on the European Civil Society House

19.01.2010 Presentation of the report of the high level panel “Mind the Gap:

towards a better enforcement of European Citizens’ rights to free

movement”

04.02.2010 Meeting with the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust

25-26.02.2010 Citizens panel on participatory democracy at the EU level: final event

12.03.2010 Participation in NCVO meeting for the European network of National

Associations

24.03.2010 Meeting with the Danish Board of Technology and Realdania

Foundation

08.05.2010 Stand for the European Civil Society House at Europe Day

27.05.2010 First meeting of the steering group

02.06.2010 Meeting hosted by Jean Lambert, MEP, in the European Parliament

09.06.2010 Meeting with the civil society contact group

01.07.2010 ECAS General Assembly and open discussion on the European Civil

Society House

07.09.2010 Meeting in the European Parliament and Helpdesk for MEPs

(Strasbourg)

22.06.2010 Meeting in Strasbourg with MEPs

03.11.2010 ECAS Conference “Mind the gap: towards a better enforcement of

European citizens’ rights of free movement”

09.02.2011 Steering group for ECSH

16.03.2011 Informal brainstorming meeting about helpdesks for European

Citizens’ Initiatives (ECI)

17.03.2011 ECAS Conference on citizens’ initiatives

[51]

AnnexIII.SteeringGroupMembers.

Carsten Berg

- Journalist

- Director of the Initiative for the European Citizens’ Initiative www.citizens-

initiative.eu

- Representative to the EU/Media Relations, Initiative and Referendum Institute

Europe

Joseph Carew

- Project Manager, European Platform for National Non-Profit Umbrella

Organisations and for National Associations of General Interest (CEDAG)

Monica Frassoni

- Former President of the European Coordinating Bureau of Youth' NGOs.

- Former advisor on institutional issues, internal rules and immunity fighting for a

democratic constitution of the European Union by championing the cause of

European citizenship and fundamental rights.

- Member of the European Parliament (1999-2009)

- Former Co-President of the Green/EFA Group in the EP, together with Daniel

Cohn-Bendit (until 2009). Member of the Conference of Presidents.

Marc Hoessels

- Deloitte Partner with focus on Tax Management Consulting

- Advisor for companies with setting up their business plan, assisting with the

finding the financing and the right business partners

- EU Commission tenders specialist in the field of VAT EU Directive

implementation as well as the harmonization of the e-invoicing throughout

Europe.

- Member of the OECD working group regarding the use of the Standard Audit File

for Tax

[52]

Assya Kavrakova

- Director of the European Policies and Civic Participation Program at the Open

Society Institute – Sofia

- Former Public Policies and Outreach Director at the Democracy Network

Program (DemNet) of the United States Agency for International Development.

- Former Executive Director of Transparency without Borders Association, the

national branch office of Transparency International.

Laetitia Sedou (observer)

- Coordinator of the Civil Society Contact Group

Dr. Stefan Schepers

- former director general of the European Institute of Public Administration,

Partner EPPA

- Stefan Schepers concentrates on facilitating convergence between public policy

and business strategy to create win-win outcomes for both the private and the

general interest.

Corinna Schulze

- Governmental Programs Executive IBM Europe, Middle East and Africa

Rachel Sheppard (observer)

- Parliamentary Assistant to Jean Lambert MEP

Malachy Vallely

- Specialist in NGOs management

- Former president of CICEB (now EUNIC Brussels) – the umbrella organisation for

national cultural institutes with a permanent presence in Belgium.

[53]

- Former president of the Europe of Cultures Forum which promotes respect for

cultural diversity.

- Honorary treasurer of the Vlaamse Volksport Centrale.

Philip Weiss

- Director, ZN, eCommunications agency for global organisations.

- Devising online strategy for European HQ.

Christelle Werquin

- Head of partnerships and Communication of the French Internet media for

European policies Touteleurope.eu

Richard Wilson

- Founder and director of Involve (www.involve.co.uk)

- He has designed and delivered 100's of public engagement programmes for

governments and businesses across the world including: the European

Commission, the BBC, most UK government departments, the French treasury

and the State of California.

- Creator or IZWE, online tool for e participation (http://izwe.us/)

[54]

AnnexIV.Technicalrequirements

forcitizenhouse.eu

For the setup of the Virtual House, ECAS’s strategy will be focussed on three actions:

1. Build on the results of the ZN website mock-up;

2. Give the House an overall one-stop shop feeling;

3. Maintain a similar approach while designing the content of each one of the five

instruments.

The website will be developed bearing in mind that the average user is aware to some

extent of European procedures and in the spirit of not reduplicating existent platforms, but

rather guiding the user to the right instrument through an interactive approach.

1. Build on the results of the ZN website mock-up

In 2010, ECAS partnered with an e-strategy company, ZN, to create a mock-up of the house

available at www.citizenhouse.eu. This pilot project was useful to gather a first insight into

different models and methods, from which ECAS will retain:

- The “look and feel” of the website, that is to say, its branding and structure;

- The overall helpdesk design. As shown in the mock-up, a helpdesk will be available

as overarching structure.

It is important to recognize that the ZN pilot covered the project as a whole, but it can

inspire this more narrowly focussed approach.

2. Give the House an overall one-stop shop feeling

As stated above, the focus will be put on promoting a one-stop shop feeling, where different

functions and instruments are easy to browse and use. More in detail, the website will

feature:

- A meta engine built on the page will recollect relevant information found on the website

and external platforms through search engine optimization (SEO), giving the user the

possibility to explore more results both within and outside the Virtual House.

- A toolbar will be available on each page. Through this toolbar, it will be possible to

browse a topic both vertically (in the same section) and horizontally (in different

instruments).

[55]

3. Maintain a similar approach while designing the content of each one of the five

instruments.

3. The website will be a comprehensive resource on the five different instruments for

citizens and Civil Society Organizations (CAPRI) to interact with European and national

institutions:

• Complaints to the European Commission;

• Access to documents;

• Petitions to the European Parliament:

• Requests to the European ombudsman;

• Citizens’ Initiatives.

It will be possible to access the five different sections of the Virtual House directly (by

clicking on the corresponding link). Every instrument will be presented with a short

description. Case studies and links to Europa and national sites will be made available. It will

be a feature of the website to link European instruments and the equivalent national ones to

the maximum extent possible.

1. The FAQ section will be easy to browse by inserting key words into the toolbar. A

wide choice of keywords will we made in order to optimize the results. Should it be

the case, the engine will also display results from the discussion forum, thus

avoiding posting already answered questions.

2. A major transversal feature of the Virtual House will be the networking aspect. This

will work both actively (by taking part in the social network,

www.citizenhouse.ning.com launched in an earlier stage of the project) and

passively through Social Media Optimisation (SMO). Content and users will be put in

correlation through RSS feeds, social news and sharing buttons, user rating and

polling tools. Suggestions for each users (both content and user wise) will be

available when browsing according to its search history on the website. Trans-

operability of the different components will be guaranteed. The issues of

confidentiality and liability will be treated according to legislation.

3. The “ask a question/discussion forum” will be open to both citizens and CSOs, in the

fashion of a community driven question-and-answer (Q&A) site. In this section, users

will be allowed to post and tag their requests. Answers will be rated by the

community, making the most exhaustive ones appear on the top of the page. The

content will be moderated by a legal expert in order to avoid false or misleading

answers. The community will also be allowed to flag incorrect or inappropriate

answers and report them to the webmaster.

4. The helpdesk will be accessible remotely via email, Skype, fax and telephone. It will

predominantly provide answers to concrete questions regarding content, but also

cover more technical questions. Skype is a good way to reduce the gap between e-

communication and face-to-face. It will be important to build in assurance of

confidentiality and data protection.

77, Avenue de la Toison d’Or B-1060 Brussels Belgium

Tel: +32 2 548 04 90 Fax: +32 2 548 04 99 Email: info@ecas.org

Website: http://www.ecas-citizens.eu/