ClientEarth contribution to the European Commission’s Call for Evidence EU Civil Society Strategy

ClientEarth argues that CSOs in the EU, particularly those focused on environment and climate, face a deteriorating environment characterized by shrinking civic space, legal harassment (SLAPPs), and financial insecurity. The document criticizes the European Commission for restricting public access to documents and prioritizing corporate interests in 'strategic dialogues' over civil society. It calls for a binding framework for civil dialogue, systemic consultation at all legislative stages, and increased funding for protection mechanisms like the Aarhus Rapid Response Mechanism. Specific national examples of repression are cited in Poland, France, Italy, Germany, and Hungary, while Finland and Denmark are noted for positive engagement models.

• CSOs in the EU, especially those working on climate and environmental issues, are facing a restrictive environment marked by 'shrinking civic space, legal, political and administrative restrictions, smear campaigns and targeted attacks, abusive lawsuits, surveillance, and increasing financial insecurity.'
• The European Commission is accused of marginalizing CSOs by limiting public consultation and reducing transparency, including amending rules of procedure to 'prevent the public from accessing crucial documents related to ongoing negotiations.'
• There is a significant rise in Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) used to silence activists, with 1,049 such cases filed across Europe between 2010 and 2023, notably in Italy and Romania.
• Environmental activists are facing criminalization and state repression in several member states: France has used the 'separatism law' to make subsidies contingent on 'republican' principles; Germany has seen over 5,000 criminal proceedings and more than €1 million in fines against Last Generation activists; and Italy introduced the 'Ecovandalism' law.
• Current EU-level engagement mechanisms, such as 'reality checks' and 'strategic dialogues,' are described as a 'tick-the-box' approach that prioritizes multinational corporations over CSOs and SMEs.
• Public funding for CSOs is hindered by complex, time-consuming application processes and low cost-recovery rates, which particularly disadvantage smaller organisations lacking dedicated grant management staff.
• Existing protection mechanisms, such as the Aarhus Rapid Response Mechanism (RRM) and the Aarhus Convention Compliance mechanism (ACCC), are useful but lack sufficient fixed funding from the EU.

APA

ClientEarth (2025). ClientEarth contribution to the European Commission’s Call for Evidence EU Civil Society Strategy. https://www.clientearth.org/media/4lqn5ix1/eu-civil-society-strategy-clientearth-contribution-to-the-european-commission-s-call-for-evidence.pdf

Chicago

ClientEarth. ClientEarth contribution to the European Commission’s Call for Evidence EU Civil Society Strategy. 2025. https://www.clientearth.org/media/4lqn5ix1/eu-civil-society-strategy-clientearth-contribution-to-the-european-commission-s-call-for-evidence.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |author=ClientEarth |title=ClientEarth contribution to the European Commission’s Call for Evidence EU Civil Society Strategy |date=September 2025 |url=https://www.clientearth.org/media/4lqn5ix1/eu-civil-society-strategy-clientearth-contribution-to-the-european-commission-s-call-for-evidence.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{clientearth2025clientearth, author = {{ClientEarth}}, title = {{ClientEarth contribution to the European Commission’s Call for Evidence EU Civil Society Strategy}}, publisher = {ClientEarth}, year = {2025}, month = sep, url = {https://www.clientearth.org/media/4lqn5ix1/eu-civil-society-strategy-clientearth-contribution-to-the-european-commission-s-call-for-evidence.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }