REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD OPINION Proposal for a Council directive laying down detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to vote and stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament for Union citizens residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals (recast) Proposal for a Council directive laying down detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections by Union citizens residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals (recast)

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Brussels, 1.10.2021
SEC(2021) 576 final
REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD OPINION
Proposal for a Council directive laying down detailed
arrangements for the exercise of the right to vote and stand as a
candidate in elections to the European Parliament for Union
citizens residing in a Member State of which they are not
nationals (recast)
Proposal for a Council directive laying down detailed
arrangements for the exercise of the right to vote and to stand as
a candidate in municipal elections by Union citizens residing in
a Member State of which they are not nationals (recast)
COM(2021) 732
COM(2021) 733
SWD(2021) 357
SWD(2021) 358
Offentligt
KOM (2021) 0732 - SEK-dokument
Europaudvalget 2021
________________________________
This opinion concerns a draft impact assessment which may differ from the final version.
Commission européenne, B-1049 Bruxelles - Belgium. Office: BERL 08/010. E-mail: regulatory-scrutiny-board@ec.europa.eu
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Regulatory Scrutiny Board
Brussels,
RSB
Opinion
Title: Impact assessment / Electoral rights of mobile EU citizens
Overall opinion: POSITIVE
(A) Policy context
EU citizens who live in another EU Member State than their country of origin have the
right to vote for and stand as candidates in European Parliament elections and in municipal
elections in the country in which they reside.
Council Directives 93/109/EC and 94/80/EC provide detailed arrangements for the
exercise of the electoral rights of mobile EU citizens in European and municipal elections,
respectively. This is an initiative to revise the current framework, in order to address
shortcomings identified and support the electoral participation of mobile EU citizens.
(B) Summary of findings
The Board notes the useful additional information provided in advance of the
meeting and commitments to make changes to the report.
The Board gives a positive opinion. The Board also considers that the report should
further improve with respect to the following aspects:
(1) The scale of the problem is not presented clearly. The report is not clear about
the factors influencing the electoral behaviour of EU mobile citizens and their
relative importance.
(2) The structure and the presentation of the policy options does not bring out
clearly the key policy choices.
(3) The assessment and the comparison of the policy options does not sufficiently
take into account subsidiarity and proportionality considerations. The report
does not present how the policy options will affect individual Member States.
(C) What to improve
(1) The report should present more clearly the factors influencing the electoral behaviour
of mobile EU citizens. Accordingly, it should identify the modest scale of the problem in a
more realistic and balanced way. The relative importance of the problem should be better
2
assessed and presented, to make clear who is primarily affected or not.
(2) The presentation and the structure of the policy options should bring out more clearly
the available policy choices. Apart from presenting cumulative options, the report should
clarify how the options and their measures represent real alternatives. Measures that are
already part of the current policy-mix should be integrated in the baseline scenario.
(3) The respect of the subsidiarity and proportionality principles should be better reflected
in the assessment and comparison of options, including by highlighting policy options that
have been discarded in this respect. The report should assess how Member States will be
affected differently by the proposed measures. It should better reflect the likely limited
impact of the initiative.
(4) The monitoring and evaluation provisions should be more precise. The description of
the specific objectives should outline the expected achievements. Future evaluation of the
initiative and its timing should be presented. The proposed indicators should permit
success to be measured.
The Board notes the estimated costs and benefits of the preferred option in this initiative,
as summarised in the attached quantification tables.
Some more technical comments have been sent directly to the author DG.
(D) Conclusion
The DG may proceed with the initiative.
The DG must take these recommendations into account before launching the
interservice consultation.
If there are any changes in the choice or design of the preferred option in the final
version of the report, the DG may need to further adjust the attached quantification
tables to reflect this.
Full title Initiative on the revision of the framework governing the
electoral rights of mobile EU citizens
Reference number PLAN/2020/8645 & PLAN/2020/8646
Submitted to RSB on 01 September 2021
Date of RSB meeting 29 September 2021
3
ANNEX – Quantification tables extracted from the draft impact assessment report
The following tables contain information on the costs and benefits of the initiative on
which the Board has given its opinion, as presented above.
If the draft report has been revised in line with the Board’s recommendations, the content
of these tables may be different from those in the final version of the impact assessment
report, as published by the Commission.
I. Overview of Benefits (total for all provisions) – Preferred Option
Description Amount Comments
Direct benefits
Reduced costs for
mobile EU citizens
Less time needed to register and reduced
number of documents necessary to be
provided.
Simplified access to clear information on
national procedures and requirements.
Applies to mobile EU citizens
seeking to vote in the host Member
State.
Reduced
opportunities for
multiple voting
Multiple voting is prohibited and reduced
technical possibilities for multiple voting
will lead to fewer occurrences.
Applies to mobile EU citizens voting
in multiple Member States.
Efficiencies for
administrations
Simplified registration procedure will
result in efficiencies for administrations.
Host Member States’ administrations
Indirect benefits
Integration of
mobile EU citizens
in host country
The integration of mobile EU citizens in
the host Member State can have positive
economic effects.
Applies to the host Member State’s
economy.
II. Overview of costs – Preferred option
Citizens/Consume
rs
Businesses Administrations
One-off Recurre
nt
One-off Recurrent One-off Recurrent
Harmonis
ation of
the data
sets
exchanged
Direct costs The exact costs
for national
administrations
depend on the
interconnection
between the
The ongoing
costs are
expected to be
minimal and
entail the
ongoing
4
electoral register
of the country
and the
population
register.
cooperation with
DGIT.
Indirect
costs
Optimisati
on of the
technical
tool for
the
exchange
of data
Direct costs The costs to
upgrade the
crypto tool will
depend inter
alia on whether
they are done
internally or
externally.
Assuming 3 to 4
months for
development
and 4 to 5
months for tests
and support
leads to a rough
estimate of
around EUR
100,000
annually.
The maintenance
costs are
expected to be
relatively low, in
the realm of the
current cost of
around EUR
30,000.
Indirect
costs
Increase
awareness
and
understan
ding of the
fact that
multiple
voting is
prohibited
among
mobile EU
citizens,
and its
consequen
ces
Direct costs The costs of a
targeted
campaign will
depend on the
choice of media
channels and the
countries
covered. The
costs would
entail the design
of the campaign
and its
implementation.
For example, the
2019 campaign,
‘This time I’m
voting’, was
implemented as
a decentralised
stakeholder-
5
driven campaign
where the
central costs to
the EU were
minor (below
EUR 80 000
according to the
Financial
Transparency
Register).
Indirect
costs
Introducti
on of very
specific
informatio
n
requireme
nts for MS
to inform
mobile EU
citizens
prior to
elections
Direct costs Member States
will carry
varying costs
depending on
their baseline
situation, e.g.
already have
direct mailouts
and information
available. The
possible costs
for Member
States across the
EU-27 are
estimated at
around EUR 2.7
million with the
highest costs in
the significant
countries of
residence for
mobile EU
citizens, i.e. DE,
ES, FR, IT.
Indirect
costs
Standardi
sed format
for the
mandator
y
declaratio
n
available
in all
languages
Direct costs For Member
States,
standardised
forms would
replace or
complement the
current ones.
The preparation,
translation and
approval of
forms would
6
take between
two and five
days per
language,
leading to an
estimate of EUR
13,000 (low
estimate) and
64,000 (high
estimate).
Indirect
costs
Promotion
of
exchange
of good
practices
between
Member
States
Direct costs The continuation
of the exchange
of good practices
between
Member States
would entail no
additional costs.
If the exchange
is to intensify,
this would entail
minor additional
costs. Assuming
one or two
annual meetings
between DG Just
and Member
States
representatives,
the costs would
range between
EUR 9,000 and
18,000.
Indirect
costs
Improve
the
collection
of data for
European
elections
and
municipal
elections
Direct costs The
collaboration
between DG
JUST, Eurostat
and national
statistical
institutes to
collect,
harmonise and
publish turnout
data would entail
varying
additional costs
7
in each Member
State. The costs
for additional
network
meetings would
range between
EUR 19,080
(two additional
annual meetings)
and EUR 38,160
(four additional
annual
meetings).
Indirect
costs
Electronically signed on 01/10/2021 11:07 (UTC+02) in accordance with article 11 of Commission Decision C(2020) 4482