Europarättslig tidskrift nr 1 2026
ISSN (ONLINE): 2002-3561
LEDARARTIKEL
ARTIKLAR
Open Access
From Petition to Policy: An Analysis of the Ten Successful European Citizens’ Initiatives
The European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) was introduced by the Lisbon Treaty as the EU’s first instrument of transnational participatory democracy, designed to bring citizens closer to the Union’s legislative process. Yet more than a decade after its launch, doubts persist about its practical influence. This article examines the extent to which the legal framework governing the ECI obliges the European Commission to act, and how effective successful initiatives have been in shaping Union legislation. It argues that while the ECI formally secures citizens a procedural right to be heard, it does not confer a substantive right to obtain legislation. Through an analysis of ten initiatives that have met all procedural thresholds since 2012, this article identifies three recurring patterns in the Commission’s practice. First, policy alignment allows initiatives to influence existing legislative agendas. Second, constitutional and competence limits prevent action in ethically or legally sensitive areas. Third, temporal deferral enables the Commission to meet procedural obligations while postponing substantive commitments. Together, these patterns show that the Commission’s discretion both enables and constrains participatory democracy. The ECI functions less as a tool of direct lawmaking than as a mechanism of constitutional mediation. It channels citizen input into structured institutional dialogue, increasing visibility and accountability without displacing institutional prerogatives. The conclusion reflects on what this balance between inclusion and discretion means for the EU’s democratic legitimacy and the evolving relationship between citizens and institutions.
Open Access
How Swedish Courts Give Reasons when Deciding not to Refer
This article examines how Swedish courts justify decisions not to refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). It is based on an analysis of 668 non-referral decisions across all court types and levels. By identifying the reasons provided, this article evaluates the explanations judges consider legitimate for nonreferral, and compares these with the legal obligation to give reasons. The findings reveal a nuanced picture of how Swedish courts approach reasons-giving within the preliminary ruling procedure (PRP), highlighting both commendable and questionable practices. Courts of last instance predominantly rely on the CILFIT exceptions, particularly the irrelevance of EU law, followed by acte éclairé, while acte clair is used only infrequently. Lower courts commonly resort to vague formulations such as “no reason to refer”. Such minimal reasoning may reflect reluctance to engage with the PRP, thought it may also stem from legalistic considerations. In any event, a few more words explaining why no questions were sent could go a long way in building trust in how the Swedish judiciary handle the PRP, both from the perspective of the parties and the Union legal order.
