In brief

  • The European Commission has refused the registration of the European citizens’ initiative entitled „Is Europe ready for the First Contact? Preparing mankind for the possibility of encountering extraterrestrials”. Implementing Decision (EU) 2026/2171, adopted at Strasbourg on 15 September 2026 and published on 28 September 2026, has a single substantive article: the initiative „shall not be registered”.
  • The reason invoked is a single one, point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 6(3) of Regulation (EU) 2019/788. The Commission shows in recital (5) that the objectives of the initiative rest on unestablished assumptions, and in recital (6) that the initiative is, consequently, manifestly unfounded. The Commission did not find that the initiative fell outside its powers, which is the other usual ground of refusal.
  • The practical consequence is that no signature is collected. Statements of support may be collected only after registration, under Article 6(1) of the same regulation, so the procedure stops before the first signatory. The addressees of the decision are the organisers, represented by Gian Elio DE MARCO and Jean-Pierre SAULNIER. For citizens and for the authorities in Romania nothing changes.
Act: Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2026/2171 of 15 September 2026 on the request for registration, pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2019/788 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of the European citizens’ initiative entitled Is Europe ready for the First Contact? Preparing mankind for the possibility of encountering extraterrestrials
Published: Official Journal of the European Union, L series, 2026/2171 of 28 September 2026, pages 1-2
In force from: the decision is addressed to specified addressees and takes effect upon their notification, under the third subparagraph of Article 297(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The act gives the number under which the notification was made, C(2026) 8560, but not its date; the text became public on 28 September 2026, with the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union

The European Commission has rejected the request by which a group of citizens asked the Union to prepare for a possible encounter with extraterrestrial forms of life. Implementing Decision (EU) 2026/2171 was adopted on 15 September 2026 and appeared in the Official Journal of the European Union on 28 September 2026. The instrument the organisers had turned to is called the European citizens’ initiative and resembles, as an idea, the citizens’ legislative initiative in Romanian law: a large number of people ask, by signature, for an authority to put a subject on the table. The filter at the entrance is a different one, however, and that is exactly where the present request stopped.

The European mechanism works in stages. A group of at least seven persons, resident in at least seven different Member States, submits a request for registration to the Commission. The Commission has two months in which to decide, under the third subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EU) 2019/788. Only after registration does the collection of signatures begin. If the initiative gathers enough, the Commission replies publicly, in writing.

Registration is not agreement by the Union with the idea put forward. This is where the misunderstanding is most common. At this step the Commission does not weigh whether the subject is worthwhile or whether the proposal is a good one. Article 6(3) requires it to register the initiative if five filter conditions are met: the organisers have submitted the documents proving the requirements in Article 5, the legal entity, if there is one, has been properly set up, no part of the initiative manifestly falls outside the Commission’s powers to submit a proposal for a legal act of the Union, the initiative is not manifestly abusive, frivolous or vexatious and it is not manifestly contrary to the values of the Union. These are negative thresholds, framed with „manifestly”, so the Commission may reject only what leaps to the eye. Where the conditions are met, registration is mandatory, however unusual the theme.

In the present case, the Commission found in recital (4) that the first condition is met: the organisers submitted all the documents required by Article 5(1) and (2) and designated the contact persons. The refusal comes from the fourth condition. Recital (5) shows that the objectives of the initiative start from unestablished premises, namely the discovery of extraterrestrial forms of life or of intelligence and the existence of a technologically advanced extraterrestrial civilisation, and that the initiative asked the Commission to use several legal bases for proposals and for funding, although there is no evidence of a real possibility of establishing such contact. Hence the conclusion in recital (6): the initiative is manifestly unfounded, within the meaning of point (d).

What the organisers had asked for is read in recital (3). The text asks the Commission „to propose a coordinated European framework” for preparing the Union for future scientific discoveries concerning life in the universe, and in concrete terms: European interdisciplinary programmes for studying the scientific, social, cultural, ethical and diplomatic implications, cooperation between Member States for gathering and exchanging knowledge, common protocols for responsible public communication and the promotion of education. The request had an annex, an additional document and a draft legal act.

What it changes in practice

The main effect is the stopping of the procedure. Under Article 6(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/788, statements of support are collected only after the initiative has been registered by the Commission. Without registration there is no collection period, no signature form in the public register and no online collection system made available by the Commission. A signature given outside that framework has no legal value.

The second effect concerns the addressees. The decision is addressed to the group of organisers, represented by the two contact persons named in Article 2, and takes effect upon notification. Only the Italian text is authentic, so the English version published in the Official Journal of the European Union is an official language version, not the text that is authoritative.

The third effect is one of transparency. The regulation obliges the Commission, through Article 6(7), to communicate to the organisers the reasons for the decision and to inform them of all the judicial and extrajudicial remedies available to them, and then to publish in the register and on the public website of the European citizens’ initiative all decisions taken on requests for registration. Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union adds a second place where the text can be checked by anyone.

For Romania, the direct effect is zero. No Romanian authority receives any task from this act. The verification and certification of statements of support, the job that Article 12 of the regulation gives to the Member States, is triggered only for registered initiatives that reach the end of the collection.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

Until 15 September 2026, the request submitted on 25 July 2026 was under examination. The two-month deadline provided for by Article 6(2) was to expire on 25 September 2026, and the Commission decided ten days earlier. From 15 September 2026 the file is closed, and the initiative can no longer enter the public register in the form in which it was submitted.

The one opportunity to reply that the organisers were given has also been used up. Recital (2) shows that on 17 August 2026 the Commission communicated its preliminary assessment to them and invited them to submit observations by 21 August 2026, and they did not reply by the deadline. The decision was therefore taken without their written position, although the preamble to the decision records that they were given the opportunity to make their views known.

What has stayed unchanged deserves to be said just as firmly. Regulation (EU) 2019/788 has not been amended in any way; the decision is an individual act, addressed to a group of people, and it creates no new rule for future initiatives. The text of the regulation contains no prohibition on submitting a fresh request on the same subject, with other objectives or with a different wording. The refusal closes the file submitted in July 2026, not the theme.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • The filter worked fast. Between the submission of the request, on 25 July 2026, and the decision, on 15 September 2026, 52 days passed out of the approximately 62 that the regulation makes available to the Commission.
  • The statement of reasons is published in full and can be checked by anyone, because the act appeared both in the register of the European citizens’ initiative and in the Official Journal of the European Union.
  • The decision separates the conditions from one another. Recital (4) recognises that the group of organisers met the formal requirements, so the refusal does not rest on an incomplete file and does not give the impression that the organisers got a piece of paper wrong.
  • The instrument stays protected from overload. A registered initiative obliges the Commission to translate its text into all the official languages of the institutions of the Union, under Article 4(4), and the Member States to verify the signatures later, costs borne by the budget of the Union.
  • The organisers received a preliminary assessment before the decision, although the regulation does not require that step where the ground is point (d).

What remains a problem

  • The deadline for observations was four days, from Monday 17 to Friday 21 August 2026, in the middle of the summer. Where the ground for refusal is that the initiative falls outside the Commission’s powers, Article 6(4) gives the organisers two months for the same operation.
  • Point (d) has no safety valve of the kind provided for point (c). There is neither an amendment of the initiative nor partial registration, so the objectives that do not depend on the existence of extraterrestrial life, such as education, cooperation between Member States and the public communication protocols, fall together with the rest.
  • The wording of the reason is not the one in the regulation. Recital (6) says „manifestly unfounded”, while point (d) of Article 6(3) says, in the English version of the regulation, „manifestly abusive, frivolous or vexatious”. The reader who puts the two texts side by side does not find the same words.
  • The decision does not say which provisions of the Treaties the organisers had invoked. Recital (5) speaks of „several legal bases”, without naming them, although point 3 of Annex II to the regulation requires them to be indicated in the request.
  • The text of the decision shows neither what remedy the organisers have nor within what time they may use it, although Article 6(7) obliges the Commission to inform them of that. The information is given separately, and the reader of the published act is left without it.

Practical advice

  1. Check in the Commission’s public register whether an initiative is registered, before signing it or collecting signatures for it. A statement of support given for an unregistered initiative does not count, because Article 6(1) ties the collection to the registration.
  2. Remember the thresholds, if you are interested in an initiative that did get past registration: one million signatories from at least a quarter of the Member States, that is, at least seven of the 27. In each of those States the minimum number in Annex I to the regulation is needed, obtained by multiplying the number of the State’s Members of the European Parliament by the total number of Members of the European Parliament. For Romania, the figure in the annex is 23,760.
  3. Do not expect one million signatures to bring a European law automatically. Article 15(2) obliges the Commission to publish, within six months, a communication with its legal and political conclusions and with the measures it intends to take, or with the reasons for taking none. A proposal for a legal act remains its own choice.
  4. If you are preparing an initiative, treat the preliminary assessment as a deadline that can be very short. The present case shows that it can be four days, so someone in the group has to be available the whole time the request is with the Commission.
  5. Write the objectives so that each one stands on its own. An objective tied to an unproven premise may drag down the neighbouring objectives too, which would have passed the filter, because for point (d) the regulation does not provide for partial registration.
  6. Indicate in the request the provisions of the Treaties on which you rely, as point 3 of Annex II requires. They are the only things that show the Commission that the proposal falls within its powers.

Frequently asked questions

Does registering a citizens’ initiative mean that the Union agrees with it?
No. Registration is a procedural step. Under Article 6(3) of Regulation (EU) 2019/788, the Commission has to register the initiative if the five filter conditions are met, whatever it thinks of its content. The Commission’s substantive position is expressed only at the end of the procedure, through a communication published on the basis of Article 15(2).
Why was this initiative refused?
For a single reason, the one in point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 6(3). The Commission shows in recital (5) that the objectives rest on unestablished assumptions, such as the discovery of extraterrestrial forms of life or of intelligence, and that the scientific evidence that would give the request a rational basis is missing. The conclusion, drawn in recital (6), is that the initiative proves to be manifestly unfounded.
Can signatures still be collected for it?
No. The collection of statements of support is permitted only after registration, under Article 6(1). Without registration there is no collection period, no official form and no online collection system, and the decision contains no start date and no address at which one could sign.
How many signatures would have been needed in Romania?
23,760, the figure in Annex I to Regulation (EU) 2019/788. It is obtained by multiplying the number of Members of the European Parliament elected in Romania, 33, by the total number of Members of the European Parliament, 720. The threshold per Member State counts, however, only together with the two general conditions in Article 3: one million signatories in total and reaching the threshold in at least a quarter of the Member States, that is, in at least seven.
What would have happened if the thresholds had been reached?
The organisers would have submitted the initiative to the Commission, which would have published it and forwarded it to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the national parliaments. Within three months a public hearing would have been organised at the European Parliament, and within six months the Commission would have published a communication with its conclusions. Even then there is no obligation to propose a legal act.
Does the decision change anything for citizens in Romania?
No. The act is addressed to the group of organisers and creates no rights or obligations for anyone else. No Romanian authority receives any task from it.
Can the organisers still do anything?
The Commission has the obligation, laid down in Article 6(7), to communicate to them the reasons for the decision and to inform them of the judicial and extrajudicial remedies available to them. The published text of the decision does not list them, so the information is given by another route. The regulation does not prohibit the submission of a fresh request on the same subject.

Editorial analysis

The decision is short, coherent and names its legal basis exactly. The references check out: point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 6(3) of Regulation (EU) 2019/788 exists and concerns initiatives that are manifestly abusive, frivolous or vexatious, and the third subparagraph of Article 6(3), invoked in recital (7), is precisely the one that requires the Commission to refuse registration where one of the conditions is not met. Its core lies in the door the Commission chose to use.

The calendar says something that cannot be seen by reading the act from start to finish. The request reached the Commission on 25 July 2026, and the decision was adopted on 15 September 2026, that is, after 52 days out of a legal deadline of two months that was to expire on 25 September. Within that same period, the organisers had four days for observations, from Monday 17 to Friday 21 August 2026. The ratio between the time the administration reserved for itself and the time it granted the addressee is thirteen to one. The comparison becomes clearer if it is put next to Article 6(4): there, where the possible ground for refusal is that the initiative falls outside the Commission’s powers, the organisers get two months in which to amend, maintain or withdraw the initiative. The same operation, a deadline fifteen times longer, simply because the point invoked is a different one.

The second observation comes from combining two provisions. The choice of point (d) does not only give the reason for the refusal; it also closes the only safety valve the regulation provides. Article 6(4)(b) allows partial registration where a part of the initiative, including its main objectives, remains within the Commission’s powers, but that mechanism works exclusively on point (c). Yet of the four objectives listed in recital (3), at least three do not depend on the existence of extraterrestrial life: cooperation between Member States for the exchange of knowledge, the common protocols for public communication and the promotion of education about the role of humanity in the universe. They could have been weighed separately on the criterion of competence. On the route chosen by the Commission, they never get weighed at all.

The third observation is about words. The refusal is reasoned, in recital (6), by the phrase „manifestly unfounded”, which appears nowhere in the English version of the regulation. Point (d) speaks of initiatives that are „manifestly abusive, frivolous or vexatious”. Since only the Italian text is authentic, the difference is a matter of language version, not of the substance of the decision, and the point invoked is stated expressly, so the attentive reader reaches the correct provision anyway. There remains, however, a crack in verification for anyone reading the English version of both acts, which is the version within reach of readers outside Italy.

What should be changed

  • A minimum deadline for observations on the preliminary assessment. The regulation sets none where the ground for refusal is point (d), and the result here was a deadline of four days in August. Fifteen working days, written into the regulation, would make the right to make one’s views known mean something in practice.
  • Extending partial registration beyond point (c). If an initiative has objectives that stand up even without the contested premise, they ought to be assessed separately. Otherwise a single questionable objective also takes out of play the part that would have passed the filter.
  • Indicating in the decision the provisions of the Treaties invoked by the organisers. Point 3 of Annex II requires them in the request, but the decision does not reproduce them. Without them, the reader cannot check for themselves whether the initiative fell within the Commission’s powers or not, which is precisely the ground the Commission chose not to use.
  • Mentioning the remedies and the time limit in the published text itself. The duty to inform already exists, in Article 6(7), but it is discharged between the Commission and the organisers. A final paragraph in the decision would show any reader what can still be done and by when.
  • Aligning the wording of the reason with the words of the regulation. When the recital that gives the reason for the refusal uses terms other than those of the point invoked, verification becomes harder in every language in which the act is not authentic. Repeating the phrase from the regulation would cost a word and would close the matter.

Original text of the legal act

The text below is reproduced in Romanian, the official form of publication.

Show the full legal textHide the full legal text

Decizia de punere în aplicare (UE) 2026/2171 a Comisiei din 15 septembrie 2026 privind cererea de înregistrare, în temeiul Regulamentului (UE) 2019/788 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului, a inițiativei cetățenești europene intitulate „Este Europa pregătită pentru primul contact? Pregătirea omenirii pentru o posibilă întâlnire cu extratereștrii”

EMITENT: Comisia Europeană

Publicat în: Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene, seria L, 2026/2171 din 28 septembrie 2026, paginile 1-2

[notificată cu numărul C(2026) 8560]

(Numai textul în limba italiană este autentic)

COMISIA EUROPEANĂ,

având în vedere Tratatul privind funcționarea Uniunii Europene,

după ce a oferit grupului de organizatori posibilitatea de a-și face cunoscute punctele de vedere,

având în vedere Regulamentul (UE) 2019/788 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului din 17 aprilie 2019 privind inițiativa cetățenească europeană (1), în special articolul 6 alineatul (3),

întrucât:

(1) La 25 iulie 2026, Comisiei i-a fost prezentată cererea de înregistrare a inițiativei cetățenești europene intitulate „Este Europa pregătită pentru primul contact? Pregătirea omenirii pentru o posibilă întâlnire cu extratereștrii”.

(2) La 17 august 2026, Comisia a informat grupul de organizatori cu privire la evaluarea sa preliminară și l-a invitat să prezinte observații până la 21 august 2026. Grupul de organizatori nu a prezentat observații până la termenul indicat.

(3) Scopul inițiativei, astfel cum este formulat de organizatori, este de a solicita Comisiei „să propună un cadru european coordonat în vederea pregătirii Uniunii pentru viitoarele posibile descoperiri științifice privind viața în univers și pentru eventualele implicații care derivă din revelarea unor noi forme de viață sau de inteligență extraterestre”. În particular, organizatorii inițiativei solicită „instituirea unor programe europene interdisciplinare dedicate studierii posibilelor implicații științifice, sociale, culturale, etice și diplomatice care derivă din eventualele noi evidențe; consolidarea cooperării între state membre pentru culegerea și schimbul de cunoștințe; elaborarea de protocoale comune pentru a asigura o comunicare publică responsabilă; promovarea educației și reflectării asupra rolului umanității în univers”. O anexă la inițiativă oferă detalii suplimentare cu privire la contextul, tema și obiectivele sale. De asemenea, organizatorii au prezentat un document suplimentar și un proiect de act juridic ca parte a cererii lor de înregistrare.

(4) Grupul de organizatori a furnizat toate documentele necesare pentru a dovedi că îndeplinește cerințele prevăzute la articolul 5 alineatele (1) și (2) din Regulamentul (UE) 2019/788 și a desemnat persoanele de contact în conformitate cu articolul 5 alineatul (3) primul paragraf din regulamentul respectiv.

(5) Comisia consideră că obiectivele pe care inițiativa le propune au la bază ipoteze și premise care nu au fost stabilite, cum ar fi descoperirea unor forme de „viață sau de inteligentă extraterestre” și posibila descoperire a unei „civilizații extraterestre avansate din punct de vedere tehnologic”. Inițiativa invită Comisia să utilizeze mai multe temeiuri juridice pentru a prezenta diferite propuneri, inclusiv să pună la dispoziție finanțare, deși nu există nicio dovadă a posibilității reale de a stabili contactul cu forme de viață sau de inteligență extraterestre. În lipsa unor evidențe științifice care să ateste existența vieții extraterestre, nu există nicio bază rațională pentru a solicita Comisiei să ia măsuri de pregătire pentru o astfel de întâlnire.

(6) Din aceste motive, conform articolului 6 alineatul (3) primul paragraf litera (d) din Regulamentul (UE) 2019/788, inițiativa intitulată „Este Europa pregătită pentru primul contact? Pregătirea omenirii pentru o posibilă întâlnire cu extratereștrii” este în mod vădit lipsită de fundament.

(7) Prin urmare, în conformitate cu articolul 6 alineatul (3) al treilea paragraf din Regulamentul (UE) 2019/788, cererea de înregistrare a inițiativei intitulate „Este Europa pregătită pentru primul contact? Pregătirea omenirii pentru o posibilă întâlnire cu extratereștrii” ar trebui refuzată,

ADOPTĂ PREZENTA DECIZIE:

Articolul 1

Inițiativa cetățenească europeană intitulată „Este Europa pregătită pentru primul contact? Pregătirea omenirii pentru o posibilă întâlnire cu extratereștrii” nu se înregistrează.

Articolul 2

Prezenta decizie se adresează grupului de organizatori ai inițiativei cetățenești intitulate „Este Europa pregătită pentru primul contact? Pregătirea omenirii pentru o posibilă întâlnire cu extratereștrii”, reprezentat de Gian Elio DE MARCO și Jean-Pierre SAULNIER, care acționează în calitate de persoane de contact.

Adoptată la Strasbourg, 15 septembrie 2026.

Pentru Comisie
Maroš ŠEFČOVIČ
Membru al Comisiei

(1) JO L 130, 17.5.2019, p. 55, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/788/oj.

Sursă: EUR-Lex, Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific situations, consult a licensed attorney or tax advisor.