On 5 March, the Court of Justice of the European Union heard the case brought by the organisers of the End the Cage Age European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) against the European Commission. The case could have important implications for the credibility and future use of the EU’s main instrument of participatory democracy.
Facts and procedure
The case examines whether the European Commission failed to act after the timeline it set in its 2021 Communication responding to the Initiative expired without a legislative proposal or an updated timeline.
In March 2024, following the absence of a proposal to phase out the use of cages, the organisers of the Initiative asked the Court to determine whether the Commission had an obligation to provide an updated timeline and grant them access to documents related to the Initiative. In Court, the Commission rejected this interpretation and argued that the timeline it announced back in 2021 was only “indicative” and that it has no legal obligation to update it.
The applicants’ arguments were supported by intervening organisations: including Eurogroup for Animals, LAV and Animal Equality, as well as by the wider animal protection community, including Compassion in World Farming (CIWF).
At stake is not only the future of legislation to phase out cages in animal farming but also the EU Commission’s response to successful European Citizens’ Initiatives.
Legal framework
The case is brought under Article 265 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which allows applicants to challenge an EU institution that has failed to act where it is under a legal obligation to do so.
It also concerns the interpretation of Regulation (EU) 2019/788 on the European Citizens’ Initiative, in particular Article 15, which requires the Commission to set out the action it intends to take in response to a successful initiative, including an indicative timeline.
A dispute over timelines
The End the Cage Age Initiative gathered 1.4 million signatures across the EU, calling for legislation to phase out cages in animal farming.
In its 30 June 2021 Communication, the European Commission stated that it intended to propose legislation by 2023. When that deadline passed, the organisers wrote to the Commission requesting clarification on how it intended to proceed and asking for an updated timeline. The Commission’s reply indicated that preparatory work was ongoing but did not address the question of timing. As a result, the Citizens’ Committee brought an action for failure to act before the Court of Justice.
During the hearing, the applicants’ lawyer argued that the purpose of the ECI Regulation is to provide citizens with clarity about what happens after a successful Initiative. The applicants submitted that allowing a stated timeframe to lapse without further clarification risks undermining the effectiveness of the European Citizens’ Initiative. They therefore maintain that, once that timeframe had passed, the Commission was required to clarify how it intended to proceed.
The Commission on the defence
The European Commission disputed that it had failed to act.
The Commission argued that the timeline set out in its 2021 Communication was merely indicative and did not create any binding obligation.
According to the Commission, Article 15 of the ECI Regulation only requires it to provide a timeline when adopting the Communication responding to the Initiative, which it did in 2021. There is, the Commission argued, no legal obligation to update that timeline subsequently.
The Commission also maintained that work on the revision of EU animal welfare legislation has continued and that the organisers were kept informed through updates in the ECI register. It further pointed to changing circumstances since 2021, including the economic and geopolitical consequences of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and concerns around food security.
Judges probe the limits of discretion
Several judges pressed the Commission on the practical implications of its interpretation.
Judges questioned what value the timeline requirement would have if the Commission could simply allow it to expire without providing any update. They also raised questions about why providing a revised timeline would be difficult, particularly in light of the importance of transparency, accountability and democratic participation in the EU legal order.
These exchanges suggest the Court is examining whether the timeline requirement has practical effect, or whether it risks being rendered meaningless in practice.
The exchanges highlighted a key tension in the case: the balance between the Commission’s discretion in preparing legislative proposals and the expectation of transparency and follow-up when citizens successfully mobilise through an ECI and receive a positive response.
A case about more than cages
Lawyers supporting the applicants argued that the case goes far beyond animal welfare policy.
Without clear timelines, they said, successful citizens’ initiatives risk being left in political and institutional limbo. One lawyer described the situation as a form of uncertainty that leaves the initiative without clarity about its future.
For campaigners, the case raises broader questions about the credibility of the ECI instrument itself.
Olga Kikou, Director of Animal Advocacy & Food Transition and an
organiser of the ECI, said the case raises fundamental questions about
trust in EU institutions:
“The End the Cage Age European Citizens’ Initiative is not an ordinary policy request. It is the only ECI to date that received a fully positive response from the European Commission on all its asks. It was backed not only by 1.4 million citizens, but also supported in a European Parliament resolution voted by a majority of MEPs and by the Committee of the Regions.
Failing to follow through on that commitment does not only affect millions of animals who remain in cages. It casts doubt on the credibility of the ECI instrument itself. If even the most successful ECI does not lead to action, what message does that send to European citizens?”
A ruling with wider implications
The Court’s judgment, expected in the coming months, will determine whether the Commission had a legal obligation to clarify how it intended to proceed once the original timeframe had passed.