COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Accompanying the document 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) 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)

Tilhører sager:

Hovedtilknytning: Forslag til RÅDETS DIREKTIV om fastsættelse af de nærmere regler for valgret og valgbarhed ved valg til Europa- Parlamentet for unionsborgere, der har bopæl i en medlemsstat, hvor de ikke er statsborgere (omarbejdning) SEC(2021) 576 final} - {SWD(2021) 357-58 final} ()

Aktører:

2_EN_impact_assessment_part1_v7.pdf

https://www.ft.dk/samling/20211/kommissionsforslag/kom(2021)0732/forslag/1832165/2487374.pdf

EN EN
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Brussels, 25.11.2021
SWD(2021) 357 final
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Accompanying the document
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)
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)
{COM(2021) 732 final} - {COM(2021) 733 final} - {SEC(2021) 576 final} -
{SWD(2021) 358 final}
Offentligt
KOM (2021) 0732 - SWD-dokument
Europaudvalget 2021
EN EN
Table of contents
GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................................................... 3
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................... 4
1. PROBLEM DEFINITION .................................................................................................................... 7
1.1 Context and scope .................................................................................................7
1.2 Description of the identified problems................................................................10
1.3.1 Information-related barriers..............................................................................11
1.3.2 Negative effects of registration to vote in the Member State of
residence..........................................................................................................14
1.3.3 Remaining administrative barriers ...................................................................16
1.3.4 Multiple voting in European elections .............................................................17
1.3.5 Lack of data to support policy interventions ....................................................19
1.3.6 Equal possibilities to exercise electoral rights .................................................20
1.3.7 Obsolete provisions ..........................................................................................21
1.4 How will the problems evolve?...........................................................................21
2. WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? ........................................................................................................ 22
2.1 Legal basis...........................................................................................................22
2.2 Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action...................................................................23
2.3 Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action..............................................................24
3. OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? ............................................................................... 24
3.1 General objectives ...............................................................................................24
3.2 Specific objectives...............................................................................................24
4. WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS?.......................................................................... 26
4.1 What is the baseline from which options are assessed? ......................................26
4.2 Disregarded policy options..................................................................................27
4.3 Description of the policy options ........................................................................27
5. WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS?................................................................. 31
5.1 The baseline scenario ..........................................................................................31
5.2 Assessment of policy options..............................................................................31
5.2.1 Social Impacts............................................................................................................... 31
5.2.2 Economic impacts......................................................................................................... 31
5.2.3 Fundamental rights impacts......................................................................................... 36
5.2.4 Subsidiarity................................................................................................................... 37
6. HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE? ................................................................................................. 38
6.1 Effectiveness .......................................................................................................38
6.2 Efficiency ............................................................................................................39
2
6.3 Coherence............................................................................................................41
6.4 Subsidiarity and Proportionality......................................................................42
7. PREFERRED OPTION............................................................................................................................ 45
7.1 Indicative Impact of the Preferred Option on Member States.............................46
7.2 REFIT Cost Savings – Preferred Option.............................................................50
8. HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? ....................................... 50
8.1 Plan for future monitoring and evaluation ..........................................................50
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION............................................................................................ 55
ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION....................................................................................... 60
2.1 The stakeholder engagement strategy .................................................................60
2.2 Open public consultation (OPC) – 19 April 2021 -12 July 2021........................60
2.3 Feedback from Member States: ECN & Expert Group on electoral
matters .............................................................................................................70
2.4 Specific consultation conducted by the external contractor................................72
ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW? .......................................................................................... 74
3.1 Practical implications of the initiative.................................................................74
3.2 Summary of costs and benefits............................................................................74
ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS USED IN PREPARING THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT........... 77
4.1 Methodology used to collect data........................................................................77
4.2. The qualitative analysis of the legal framework.................................................82
4.3 Methodology used to compare the policy options...............................................85
ANNEX 5: RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE DIRECTIVES GOVERNING ELECTORAL
RIGHTS OF MOBILE EU CITIZENS............................................................................................... 88
ANNEX 6: OVERVIEW OF MEMBER STATES’ MEASURES CONCERNING ELECTORAL
RIGHTS OF MOBILE EU CITIZENS............................................................................................... 89
Table 1 Information measures across Member States...............................................89
Table 2 Registration modalities across Member States.............................................92
Table 3 Summary of penalties for multiple voting in some EU Member
States................................................................................................................93
Table 4 : Municipal election positions for which mobile EU citizens cannot
stand as candidate............................................................................................94
Table 5. Personal Identification numbers in Member States.....................................95
Table 6. Information needed by Member States to identify their citizens ................96
Table 7. Estimated cost of developing and mailing out targeted information
to mobile EU citizens ......................................................................................97
3
Glossary
Term or acronym Meaning or definition
Mobile EU citizens Citizens of the EU who live or reside in an EU Member State other than their country of
nationality.
Electoral roll Official register of all voters entitled to vote in a given constituency drawn up and
maintained by concerned Member State.
Automatic registration Automatic inscription on the electoral roll linked to the registration of residence in
another Member State, as opposed to active registration which implies that the citizen
requests registration on the electoral roll.
Remote voting Arrangements that allow voters to exercise their right to vote by alternative means to
casting their ballot in person at their respective polling station; postal, proxy, voting at
special polling stations or diplomatic missions abroad and e-voting.
Multiple voting The act of voting in more than one EU Member State in the same election to the
European Parliament, which is prohibited by EU law, and can also be a criminal or
administrative offence in national law.
Member State of
residence
Member State in which a mobile EU citizen resides but of which he is non-national
4
INTRODUCTION
Democracy is one of the values on which the Union is founded, as stated in Article 2 of
the Treaty on European Union (TEU). The functioning of the European Union is based
on representative democracy (Article 10(1) TEU) and participatory democracy (Article
10(3) TEU). Every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the
Union and decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen. A
New Push for European Democracy is a priority of the Commission as announced by
President von der Leyen in the Political guidelines of the Commission 2019-20241
.
EU citizens consider free movement to be a major achievement of European integration
and they are becoming increasingly mobile by exercising their right to live, work or study
in another Member State2
. According to Eurostat data, on 1 January 2020 there were 13.5
million EU citizens who enjoy their right to reside in another EU country (“mobile EU
citizens”)3
. Among them, about 12 million are of voting age, accounting for 3.25% of the
entire voting population in the EU4
.
Citizenship of the Union entails specific democratic rights. Mobile EU citizens have the
right to vote and stand as a candidates in municipal elections and elections to the
European Parliament (hereafter, ‘European elections’) in the country in which they reside
(Article 20(2)(b) and Article 22 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
(TFEU)). These rights are also enshrined in Articles 39 and 40 of the EU Charter of
Fundamental Rights. They support the right to free movement by empowering mobile
EU citizens to participate democratically in their Member State of residence.
Two Directives provide detailed arrangements for the exercise of these rights in
European and municipal elections: respectively Council Directive 93/109/EC of 6
December 1993 lays down the arrangements for the exercise of the right to vote and
stand as a candidate for mobile EU citizens in European elections (hereafter, ‘Directive
93/109/EC’)5
and Council Directive 94/80/EC of 19 December 1994, for municipal
elections (hereafter, ‘Directive 94/80/EC’)6
.
Given the similarities between the two Directives in terms of both the main beneficiaries
(mobile EU citizens) and the rights granted and associated requirements for Member
States, the possibilities to improve them and their functioning is assessed in one
document.
1
political-guidelines-next-commission_en_0.pdf (europa.eu).
2
An overwhelming majority of EU citizens (84%) think that free movement of EU citizens within the EU brings
overall benefits to the economy of their country, Flash Eurobarometer 485.
3
The largest absolute numbers of mobile EU citizens are found in larger countries, including Germany, France, Spain
and Italy. The largest shares of the total population of mobile EU citizens are found in smaller countries including
Luxembourg, Cyprus, Ireland, Belgium and Austria. See Eurostat Statistics Explained article on Migration and migrant
population statistics.
4
Study of the Academic Network on EU citizenship Rights, “Political participation of Mobile EU Citizens-Insights
from pilot studies on Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland and Poland”, July 2021
5
Council Directive 93/109/EC of 6 December 1993 laying down detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to
vote and stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament for citizens of the Union residing in a Member
State of which they are not nationals https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A31993L0109, as
amended in in 2013.
6
Council Directive 94/80/EC of 19 December 1994 laying down detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to
vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections by citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which
they are not nationals https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A31994L0080.
5
As the measures at the core of this revision would need to be implemented into Member
State electoral laws in time for the 2024 European elections7
, a derogation to the
“evaluate first” principle has been applied taking into account the existence of recent
reports issued by the Commission. Evidence clearly shows the need for the Directive
93/109/EC8
and Directive 94/80/EC9
to be updated, and this is considered sufficient for
the evaluation step. Finally, the external study prepared in support of this impact
assessment also includes elements of evaluation of the existing legal framework10
.
The legal framework governing the exercise of EU electoral rights to municipal and
European elections by mobile EU citizens is based on the principle of non-discrimination
between nationals and mobile EU citizens. Directives 93/109/EC and 94/80/EC leave it
largely up to the Member States to establish the conditions under which the right to vote
can be exercised through their national laws, provided that the principle of non-
discrimination is respected. This specific legal situation involving the interaction of
limited EU and extensive national rules lead to a rather loose coordination of electoral
practices affecting mobile EU citizens, and the ways through which mobile EU citizens
can exercise their electoral rights vary considerably in practice. For more information on
the qualitative analysis of the legal framework, see Annex 4.
While the two Directives provide the legal framework for the electoral rights of mobile
EU citizens, there are other measures at EU level which also touch upon the electoral
rights of mobile EU citizens11
. For example, in 2015, the Parliament used its right of
initiative to present a proposal to reform the 1976 Electoral Act12
. The proposal that was
7
The Venice Commission guidelines imply not to change electoral law less than one year before elections.
8
For Directive 93/109/EC evaluative material include: Report on the 2019 elections to the European Parliament
(COM(2020) 252 final); Report on the 2014 European Parliament elections (COM(2015)206 final); Report on the
implementation of the Commission's recommendations of 12 March 2013 on enhancing the democratic and efficient
conduct of the elections to the European Parliament (COM/2014/0196 final);Report under Article 25 TFEU On
progress towards effective EU Citizenship 2011-2013 (COM(2013) 270 final); Commission Recommendation of 12
March 2013 on enhancing the democratic and efficient conduct of the elections to the European Parliament
(2013/142/EU); [proposal for] Council Directive 2013/1/EU of 20 December 2012 amending Directive 93/109/EC as
regards certain detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to stand as a candidate in elections to the European
Parliament for citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals (OJ L 26, 26.1.2013, p.
27–29); Directives 93/109/EC is also regularly discussed in its implementation group, the Expert Group on Electoral
Matters. Further relevant issues are discussed in the European Cooperation Network on elections. Relevant data can be
found also in the Flash Eurobarometer 485 on EU Citizenship and Democracy and in the public consultation for the EU
Citizenship Report 2020. This data is supported by data from past Eurobarometers, in particular Special Eurobarometer
477 on Democracy, and Flash Eurobarometers 430 and 431 on EU citizenship and Electoral rights respectively.
9
Report on the application of Directive 94/80/EC on the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections
(COM/2018/044 final); EU Citizenship Report 2017 (COM(2017) 30 final); Report on the application of Directive
94/80/EC on the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections by citizens of the Union residing in a
Member State of which they are not nationals (COM(2012) 99 final). The Directive has also been amended on four
occasions (Council Directive 96/30/EC of 13 May 1996, Council Directive 2006/106/EC of 20 November 2006,
Commission Implementing Decision of 19 July 2012, Council Directive 2013/19/EU of 13 May 2013) to implement
changes necessary following an act of accession to the Union.
10
Section 2 of the underlying study.
11
These measures have other implications (not specific to mobile EU citizens) which are not summarised here.
12
Act concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage, annexed to
Council Decision 76/787/ECSC, EEC, Euratom of 20 September 1976 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A01976X1008%2801%29-20020923.
6
adopted13
included a provision on criminalisation of multiple voting and an obligation for
Member States to designate a contact authority responsible for exchanging data on voters
and candidates in Member States. It also includes a reference14
to the transmission of
personal data to enable Member States to de-register those of their citizens who are no
longer resident in their Member State of nationality, and who do not intend to vote in the
European elections there, with the purpose of preventing multiple voting, no later than
six weeks before the electoral period15
. The process of national approval required for this
act to enter into application has not been completed yet16
.
The Commission expressed in the EU Citizenship Report 202017
its intention to propose
the update of the Directives on electoral rights of mobile EU citizens in municipal and
European elections, to facilitate the provision of information to citizens and improve the
exchange of relevant information among Member States, including preventing multiple
voting. The Commission also announced it would explore the possibility of creating a
dedicated shared resource to support EU citizens in exercising their electoral rights, as
well as providing additional avenues for them to report hurdles and incidents affecting
their political participation, with the aim to make this resource available to both EU
citizens (including mobile EU citizens) and relevant authorities by autumn 2023.
The Commission Work Programme for 2021 announced a legislative initiative to
improve the electoral rights of mobile EU citizens. This specifically envisaged a revision
of the Directive 93/109/EC and of the Directive 94/80/EC in order to address existing
shortcomings in the current framework.
This initiative addresses the observed difficulties in the exercise of electoral rights by EU
mobile citizens by updating, clarifying and strengthening the rules in order to ensure that
they support the broad and inclusive participation of mobile EU citizens as well as the
integrity of elections.
This Impact Assessment is based among others on the findings of external studies
prepared in support of this impact assessment18
, relevant studies19
of the Academic
13
Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2018/994 of 13 July 2018 amending the Act concerning the election of the
members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage (hereafter, “Council Decision 2018/994 on the
revision of the EU Electoral Law”), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dec/2018/994/oj.
14
Idem, Article 9b(2).
15
As provided in Article 10 of the in the Act concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by
direct universal suffrage, European elections shall be held on the date fixed by each Member State, while for all
Member States this date shall fall within the same period starting on a Thursday morning and ending on the following
Sunday.
16
A draft report on the reform of the European electoral law was submitted in the AFCO Committee of the European
Parliament on 1 July 2021 (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/AFCO-PR-693622_EN.pdf). It requests
among others the introduction of common minimum standards to ensure approximation towards a unified European
electoral law, provision of postal voting for European elections, and the establishment of a European Electoral
Authority. Furthermore, the proposal calls for the establishment and finalisation of the electoral roll in each Member
State no later than fourteen weeks before the Election day, which shall be fixed on 9 May. The adoption of AFCO’s
report has been postponed to 2022 in view of the Conference on the Future of Europe.
17
COM/2020/730 final, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0730 .
18
In particular a Study conducted in 2021 to support the preparation of an impact assessment on a potential EU policy
initiative to support broad and inclusive participation of mobile EU citizens in European Parliament elections and in
municipal elections in Europe(‘underlying study”) https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/study-preparation-impact-assessment-
electoral-directives and its Annexes https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/annexes-study-preparation-impact-assessment-
electoral-directives
7
Network on EU citizenship Rights, and an open public consultation20
of citizens, non-
governmental organizations and local and regional authorities. In addition, the impact
assessment takes into account the feedback received from dedicated stakeholder
consultations, including of mobile EU citizens21
and of the European Cooperation
Network on Elections (hereafter ‘ECNE’)22
and the expert group on electoral matters23
,
and other sources such as the conclusions of the relevant projects funded under the
Rights, Equality and Citizenship24
and Europe for Citizens25
programme, as well as direct
feedback from EU citizens received by the Commission and the European Parliament.
1. PROBLEM DEFINITION
1.1 Context and scope
A specific group of EU citizens is concerned by this initiative, that is EU citizens who
have exercised their free movement rights to settle in another EU Member State. On 1
January 2020, there were 13.5 million of EU citizens living in a Member State other than
that of their nationality26
. Every year some 1.3 million EU citizens move to reside to a
Member State of which they are non-nationals (EU27 data). The overall numbers of
mobile EU citizens grow on annual basis. In 2020, 3% of EU population were mobile EU
citizens.27
The population covered by the Directives governing the electoral rights of
mobile EU citizens represents a sizeable minority of EU citizens28
.
Mobile EU citizens are a highly diversified subset of EU citizens, with many individual
characteristics that can influence voting behaviors, including familiarity with politics in
the country of residence. Beyond the problems identified below, their democratic
participation can be determined by a range of subjective and individual reasons, as well
as by socio-demographic factors29
.
Overall, data confirms that mobile EU citizens are substantially less likely to vote than
their counter-parts who live in their home countries. According to different surveys and
19
“Political participation of Mobile EU Citizens-Insights from pilot studies on Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany,
Greece, Hungary, Ireland and Poland”.
20
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12684-Inclusive-EU-Parliament-elections-
supporting-EU-citizens-right-to-vote-and-stand-as-candidates-in-another-EU-country/public-consultation_en.
An analysis of the open public consultation is provided in Annex 2.
21
In order to support the underlying study, a targeted online survey of mobile EU citizens was carried out to evaluate
the experiences of mobile EU citizens in participating politicallyin their Member State of residence, as well as the
variety of factors that influence their participation. .
22
https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/terms-reference-european-cooperation-network-elections_en.
23
More details on the ECNE and the expert group meetings are available in Annex 2.
24
https://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/programmes-2014-2020/rec/index_en.htm .
25
https://ec.europa.eu/info/departments/justice-and-consumers/justice-and-consumers-funding-tenders/funding-
programmes/previous-programmes-2014-2020/europe-citizens-efc_en .
26
See Eurostat statistics explained article Migration and migrant population statistics.
27
Eurostat database migr_pop1ctz
28
Following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, the number of mobile EU citizens reduced from 17 million to over 13
million. 3.68 million of EU citizens resided in UK, while 850 000 UK citizens resided in a Member State of the
European Union.
29
Recchi et al., “MOVEACT Project - Final Report.” “All Citizens Now”: Intra-Eu Mobility And Political Participation
Of British, Germans, Poles And Romanians In Western And Southern Europe.
8
methods, between 53% and 74% of mobile EU respondents are estimated to not have
voted in 2019 European Parliament elections30
.
Around one third of mobile Europeans (34%) have been residing in their country of
residence for five years or fewer. 50% of mobile EU citizens, on the other hand, have
been residing in their country of residence for 10 years or longer.
Length of stay in the country of residence is relevant to both:
- The likelihood to vote; and
- Voting behavior.
In 2019 elections to the European Parliament, mobile EU citizens who lived in the
country of residence for more than 10 years were substantially more likely to have voted
(see figure below).
Figure 2 Share of respondents in the survey of mobile EU citizens post-2019
elections who voted according to length of residence (%)
Source: Kantar (2019) Post-election study among expatriates: European Elections 2019
A similar pattern can be seen regarding voting in the municipal elections in the country
of residence. Furthermore, when it comes to elections to the European Parliament, there
is also a clear link between length of stay in the country of residence and likelihood to
vote for the list of country of residence. The longer the respondents live in the country of
residence the more likely they are to vote for the list of that country.
Figure 3 Share of respondents in the survey of mobile Europeans post-2019 elections
who voted for the lists of the country of residence according to length of residence
(%)
30
53% Survey conducted for the underlying study, 74% Eurobarometer Survey 91.5 of the European
Parliament
9
Source: Kantar (2019) Post-election study among expatriates: European Elections 2019
These patterns are indicative of the role information has on turnout and of its impact on
participation, as long-term residents benefit from higher information levels on the
Member States’ election procedures and political life31
.
Competent authorities in the Member States are also affected as they deal with the
administration of mobile EU citizens as (potential) voters and are in the frontline to reply
their questions. When mobile EU citizens are registered and indicate the intention to vote
in European elections in their country of residence, Directive 93/109/EC supports a
process whereby this intention is communicated to the Member State of origin, and the
citizen in question should be removed from the register for that European election only.
Citizens can be misidentified, or removed from the register for more elections. Some
examples are given in the table below.
Examples of complaints related to registration for 2019 European elections
A Slovakian national was rejected when getting the certificate of eligible voter for European elections in
Poland, with the reasoning of not being Polish national
A Dutch citizen, residing in Spain reported that when attempting to register for the European elections, the
Spanish authorities told him that he could not do so, leading the citizen to ask whether he could vote via
the Netherlands.
A complaint raises alleged maladministration by the electoral authorities in the Netherlands with respect
to the registration of an Irish citizen.
Examples of complaints related to registration for municipal elections.
A Portuguese citizen informed the relevant authorities about his intention to vote in the municipal elections
in Spain. However, they refused to include the citizen on the list, claiming that only Spanish citizens are
allowed to vote.
An Italian citizen moved his residence to Cracow, Poland and applied to vote in municipal elections at the
31
Section 3.1 of the underlying study.
10
competent local authorities, however was refused the right to vote
Source: analysis of citizen enquiries – Annex I to the Underlying Study
1.2 Description of the identified problems
While lower participation of mobile European citizens is a result of multiple complex
factors as illustrated in the previous section, the administrative obstacles around
registration contribute to this tendency, as do information gaps in understanding the host
Member State voting systems and structures.
Several problems have been identified. Some problems are common to both Directives,
whereas some are specific to municipal elections or to European elections.
Common issues for both Directives
Both Directives on the voting rights of mobile EU citizens impose obligations on
Member States to inform mobile EU citizens in good time and in an appropriate manner
of the conditions and detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to vote and to
stand as a candidate in municipal and European elections in that State.32
However,
obligations to notify mobile EU citizens of their electoral rights remain vague, and
linguistic barriers make it more difficult for mobile EU citizens to obtain information.
Further, in the case of both municipal and European elections, the effects of registration
on an electoral roll are not always clear to mobile EU citizens. In some Member
States, voters register for all elections, and registering to vote in elections in the Member
State of residence can result in deregistration for all other elections in the Member State
of origin. This is in part due to Member States de-registering their citizens if they have
been informed that these citizens intend to vote elsewhere.
Finally, the process of registration for electoral participation can represent a specific
burden for mobile EU citizens both in municipal elections and European elections.
Specific issues
Specifically in the context of European elections, Directive 93/109/EC sets out the
mechanism for Member States to exchange information on registered voters to help
ensure that citizens do not vote more than once in European elections33
. The exchange of
information between national authorities on mobile EU citizens has been reported by
competent authorities as being hindered by variation in the scope of the data exchanged
and deadlines for data collection34
. This makes it difficult to identify mobile citizens in
their countries of origin on the basis of the information collected and transmitted by their
countries of residence.
Specifically for municipal elections, Directive 94/80/EC contains an Annex with a list of
‘basic local government units’ for each Member State. This Annex requires a revision,
both due to changes in several Member States, as well as in light of the withdrawal of the
United Kingdom from the European Union. The following Figure provides an overview
32
Article 12 of Directive 93/109/EC and Article 11 of Directive 94/80/EC.
33
Article 13 of Directive 93/109.
34
See for example minutes of the meeting of the European cooperation network on elections from January 2021:
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/minutes_28-29_january_2021.pdf .
11
of the problems identified, presented in relation with their main drivers and
consequences.
A. Vague and open obligation for Member States to inform mobile EU citizens of the conditions and arrangement for the
exercise of their right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections and elections of the European Parliament
B. EU level: not enough information, variety of sources and conflicting sources of information between EU level and national
level
C. The information exchange system in force under the Directive to combat multiple voting lead some Member States
registration systems to deregister citizens from home country electoral registers
D. Registration formalities are percieved as burdensome by citizens
E. Directives allow for additional documentation which is burdensome in some cases
F.Variations in the scope of the data exchanged and deadlines for data collection between Member States
G. Challenges for matching individual data that stem from the use of non-Latin alphabets or use of special characters
H. Lack of awareness and understanding of the fact that multiple voting is prohibited among mobile EU citizens
I. Data on mobile EU citizens collected by Member States is not enough, not disaggregated, or not reported.
K. Directive 94/80/EC allows Member States to restrict candidacy to some executive positions in municipal elections
1. Information-related barriers: lack of information on how to register, how to vote, dates of the elections ; lack of
consistent sources of information, linguistic barriers
2. Negative consequences of registration to vote in the host Member State
3. Administrative barriers
4. Multiple voting in European elections
5. Lack of comparable data to support policy interventions
6. Equal possibilities to exercise electoral rights are not fully achieved
 Mobile EU citizens do not have sufficient information to support the exercise of their electoral rights
 The risk of deregistration from other elections in home country discourage mobile EU citizens from using their electoral
rights
 Risk for the integrity of European elections
 Insufficient data to support effective policy making and to raise visibility on the issues faced by mobile EU citizens
among researchers and interested stakeholders
 Underrepresentation of mobile EU citizens, lower participation patterns, and less motivation to engage in their local
communities
1.3.1 Information-related barriers
In order for mobile EU citizens to exercise their right to vote or stand for election, they
essentially need to know to be entitled to this right in their Member State of residence, to
know about their registration status, how to register to vote and duration of the
registration or to stand for election, the date of the election and how and where to vote.
Other basic information should include how to find out more about the elections such as
who is standing, how the elections work, how the votes are counted and how the result is
calculated. What the relevant rules are, and especially the implications of compulsory
voting, multiple voting and any other important rules, such as limits to which roles a
mobile EU citizen can have if elected, is also necessary information. At the same time,
12
the use of languages is crucial as they are a major conduit to making national electoral
rules more understandable and accessible to mobile EU citizens.
Whilst Directives 93/109/EC and 94/80/EC impose an obligation on the Member States
to inform mobile EU citizens voters and candidates “in good time and in an appropriate
manner of the conditions and arrangement for the exercise their right to vote and to
stand as candidate”, they do not go into this level of detail.
As a result, mobile EU citizens do not have sufficient information to support the exercise
of their electoral rights35
. Two specific aspects of the identified problems have to be
considered. The first aspect concerns the share of EU citizens not aware of their voting
rights as mobile EU citizens: only 58% of EU citizens identify correctly the electoral
rights that a citizen of the EU has in relation to voting or standing as a candidate in
European Parliament, national Parliament regional and municipal elections.36
The second aspect concerns mobile EU citizens who are aware of their rights but who
face information barriers on how to exercise their rights: 38% of respondents to the
survey conducted to support the underlying study who had to register actively state they
encountered as challenge the fact that information was only available to them in the
language of their country of residence37
. More importantly, 61% of respondents who are
not registered said that they are not aware of the process for registering to vote in the
municipal elections in the city or town where they currently live. When asked about the
reasons for not being registered to vote in municipal elections in their country of
residence, 26% of mobile EU citizens stated this was because they lacked information
about the registration process and 12% cited lack of information about local political life.
These figures show that lack of information about registration process and municipal
elections more generally is a barrier to participation38
.
As the provisions in the Directives are currently open and vague, most Member States
rely on passive information provision, meaning that they post information on exercising
electoral rights on dedicated websites. According to the review of Member States’
practices, only 8 Member States systematically send targeted mail-outs (letter or email)
to mobile EU citizens39
. Another 6 Member States40
also provide targeted information,
but there are some variations to this at local/ regional level.
In the 2018 report on measures related to participation of mobile EU citizens in
municipal elections41
only 10 Member States reported taking actions to promote
participation of mobile EU citizens in political life. The interviews at Member State level
35
See the table with the overview of communication practices by the Member States in Annex 6. In the OPC,
stakeholders complaint that the information provided was unclear or in a language the citizens did not understand. For
more details on the information gathered in the OPC, see Annex 2.
36
Eurobarometer 485, 2020
37
In this regard, while the knowledge of the language of the Member State of residence ensures better
integration in the social and political life of the country, it should not a be precondition for exercising
the fundamental right to vote as EU citizen.
38
Annex II. of underlying study
39
Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, , Finland, Lithuania, Sweden, Slovakia and Slovenia
40
Spain, The Netherlands, Austria, Hungary, Portugal, Latvia
41
European Commission (2018) Report on the application of Directive 94/80/EC on the right to vote and to stand as a
candidate in municipal elections, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52018DC0044.
13
do not suggest that countries are planning to take new or additional measures to better
inform mobile EU citizens in the status quo situation42
.
While difficult to measure, also due to the lack of data on political participation of
mobile EU citizens, some research has been able to establish a clear link between
information campaigns and turnout of mobile EU citizens43
. One such example is the
Campaign Operation Vote, launched in 2013 in Portugal targeting mobile EU citizens,
following which the registration rate for the 2013 municipal elections grew 55% among
the community of Romanian nationals44
.
Information barriers are also apparent from the analysis of inquiries and complaints
received by European institutions45
:
- 78% of the entries analysed were inquiries rather than complaints, i.e. citizens
were asking for information rather than complaining about what happened to
them related to registration or voting;
- Many people reached out to EU institutions simply asking whether they can vote
when they are a resident in another EU Member State, suggesting they did not
find this information easily without actively inquiring. The citizen enquiry unit of
the European Parliament confirmed in an interview they also receive many such
requests and that these are often from people in older age groups who are less at
ease with searching online or from students who are abroad on an exchange
programme;
While the fact that mobile EU citizens reach out to EU institutions to have information
on the rights stemming from EU law is a positive aspect, the primary responsibility to
inform the electorate in their territory lies with the Member States. This includes mobile
EU citizens.
In parallel, the Commission actively provides information services to EU citizens about
electoral rights and electoral procedures (via the YourEurope portal46
and through
dedicated outreach communication actions related to European elections). The
information provided through YourEurope portal is rather general and does not cover, for
the moment, information about how to register, by when to register and how to vote
specifically for each Member State. From December 2020, the Single Digital Gateway
Regulation47
requires Member States to explain online how to carry out certain
42
Section 3.5 of the underlying Study.
39
Sharif, H., Huddleston, T., “Reaching Europe’s Diverse Voters: Evaluation of the Vote Europa
Campaign” https://www.migpolgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/VoteEuropa-Evaluation.pdf.
40
Report on Political Participation of Mobile EU Citizens: Portugal, RSCAS/GLOBALCIT-PP
2019/3, https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/60986/RSCAS_GLOBALCIT_PP_2019_03.pdf?sequence=3&is
Allowed=y;
https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/60986/RSCAS_GLOBALCIT_PP_2019_03.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed
=y.
45
A total number of 1120 entries were analysed overall, covering the period of 2019-spring 2021. Of these, 538 were
submitted to Your Europe (European Commission), 520 to the European Parliament citizen enquiry unit, 15 were
submitted to Solvit and 47 were dealt with the Directorate General in charge of consumers and justice of the European
Commission.
46
https://europa.eu/youreurope/.
47
Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 October 2018 establishing a single
digital gateway to provide access to information, to procedures and to assistance and problem-solving services and
14
administrative procedures through the YourEurope portal48
. Those procedures include
participating in municipal elections and European elections.
For the 2019 European elections, the Parliament and the Commission coordinated their
communication efforts towards EU citizens with a view to increase their participation in
European elections49
.
These different sources of information are however not sufficiently adapted to the
specific needs of mobile EU citizens. Some authorities tend to invest limited efforts into
information dissemination, or provide information that is rather technical, lengthy and
confusing, even for trained readers50
. It was noted also in the interviews conducted to
support the underlying study51
that the existence of too many differing sources of
information can even present a problem as the information presented can be mismatched,
making it difficult to establish the correct source.
To ensure inclusive electoral participation, options should take into account accessibility
requirements for the information provided to persons with disabilities and to older people
using as a source of inspiration the general comments of the United Nations Committee
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities regarding Article 21 of the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
1.3.2 Negative effects of registration to vote in the Member State of residence
Establishing the electoral roll is an essential part of organising elections. Member States
have various approaches to this52
. The management of electoral rolls in the Member
States has an impact on the exercise of electoral rights by mobile EU citizens.
The main issue is linked to the process established among the Member States under
Directive 93/109/EC to combat multiple voting in European elections, which will be
explained in detail in section 1.3.4. One aim of this exchange of is to enable Member
States to de-register those of their mobile EU citizens who are no longer resident in their
Member State of origin and do not intend to vote in the European elections there.
However, because electoral rolls do not necessarily distinguish the type of election, nor
do they always support specific de-registration, citizens could find themselves removed
amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 (Text with EEA relevance) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2018.295.01.0001.01.ENG.
48
Annex I to the Single Digital Gateaway Regulation.
49
European Commission (2019) Report on the 2019 European elections, p.3 SWD(2020) 113 final,
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/com_2020_252_en_0.pdfFor instance, specific efforts were made to
mobilise the top ten expat groups to relay the messages among their members and contacts and a specific campaign
was launched with the European Parliament on social media to target mobile EU citizens specifically . Additionally,
the updated European Parliament website www.european-elections.eu was available with information about
possibilities to vote in host country.
50
Network of Academics on EU citizenship rights: Political Participation of Mobile EU Citizens (2021 update)
https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/7719/discover?query=%22report+on+political+participation+of+mobile+EU+citize
ns%22&submit=.
51
Annex II to the underlying study.
52
Some maintain a common roll for all elections which can then be administrated locally or centrally. Some have a
separate roll for different elections and citizens must be registered separately for the different types. Another difference
is whether rolls are compiled directly from the register of residents in an area, or require specific registration by the
citizen to be included. Finally, some Member States require the roll to be prepared afresh for each election, while
others reuse their rolls and only register changes which are notified to the authorities.
15
from the electoral roll for all elections, including those for which they intended to vote in
the Member State of origin53
. The risk of deregistration and the administrative
complexity which can result from this issue discourage mobile EU citizens from using
their electoral rights.
Figure 1: Share of mobile EU citizens who cite de-registration as reason for not voting, as
challenge encountered when voting or reason for not being registered to vote in municipal
elections
Source: Annex II to the Underlying Study, survey of mobile EU citizens
Data on de-registration practices is scarce, but deregistration is happening indeed.
According to the survey of mobile EU citizens, 6% of respondents who are registered to
vote in their Member State of residence for European elections stated that they
encountered the challenge that they were deregistered for all elections in their country of
nationality. A similar proportion (7%) of those who did not vote in 2019 elections stated
that this was because they were deregistered from the electoral roll of their home country
and not registered in their host country.
Data on the scale of deregistration’ problems deriving from registration to vote in
municipal elections in the Member State of residence is not available. However, the
phenomenon of de-registration as such has an impact on municipal elections too. In fact,
17% of mobile EU citizens said they have not registered to vote in the municipal
elections of their Member State of residence because of fear of being deregistered in their
home country.
53
In the joint meeting of the ECNE and the expert group on electoral matters on 28 January 2021, representatives of a
Member State stressed that some mobile EU citizens residing in their country had complained about the fact that on
election day they were not able to vote because they had falsely been flagged as voting in their Member State of origin.
16
These data shows that mobile EU citizens are concerned about keeping their registration
status in their country of nationality and thus being able to continue voting.
The implications of deregistration are closely linked to those related to preventing
multiple voting. They are serious especially in terms of the de facto loss of voting rights
for citizens54
. Tackling multiple voting without addressing de-registration could lead to
more citizens losing voting rights.
1.3.3 Remaining administrative barriers
The Directives establish that mobile EU citizens who wish to be registered in the
electoral roll have to produce the same documents as nationals, but allow Member States
to ask for a number of additional documents, including a formal declaration stating their
nationality and their address in the Member State of residence55
. The overview of
registration modalities across EU Member States is presented in Annex 6. Registration
rates of mobile EU citizens in countries that have active registration vary greatly with
highest registration rate being in Spain, at 26%. Registration rates of mobile EU citizens
can reach levels as low as 2% in Czechia, as well as Bulgaria, Poland and Greece. This is
in sharp contrast to Member States with automatic registration, where registration is at or
close to 100% of the eligible population of mobile EU voters56
. The low registration rates
found in Member States that have active registration in place for mobile EU citizens
suggest that their capacity to participate in the form of voting to municipal elections is
partly hindered by these administrative steps.
On the other hand, automatic registration does not guarantee high participation, as can be
seen in countries like Romania, where although they have automatic registration they
also have the lowest participation rate57
. Nonetheless, turnout is generally higher in
countries with automatic registration.
Based on the interviews and desk research conducted in the context of the study
supporting this impact assessment, regarding measures at Member State level, data
collected have not revealed any disproportionate effect on mobile EU citizens compared
to nationals in relation to the documentation for registration. However, Article 9 of
Directive 93/109/EC requires EU mobile citizens to present an additional document
which is a signed formal declaration stating their willingness to vote in the Member State
of residence only together with the EU voter’s nationality, address in the country of
residence, locality in the home Member State. It may also be required to state that (s)he
has not been deprived of the right to vote in the home Member State. For candidates,
Article 10 of Directive 93/109/EC requires the formal declaration to state, in addition to
the nationality, date and place of birth, and last address in the home Member State and in
the Member State of residence; that (s)he is not standing as a candidate for European
54
Which is not done lightly – there is extensive ECtHR case law on limiting disenfranchisement even as a
criminal sanction.
55
Article 9 of Directive 93/109/EC and Article 9 of Directive 94/80/EC.
56
Hutcheson, Derek S., and Luana Russo. "Turnout and Registration of Mobile European Union Citizens in European
Parliament and Municipal Elections." (2019).
57
Reinsalu, Kristina, and Christian Stiefmueller. "Empowering European Mobile Youth: Case Studies from Austria
and Estonia." Advances in the Human Side of Service Engineering: Proceedings of the AHFE 2020 Virtual Conference
on The Human Side of Service Engineering, July 16-20, 2020, USA. Vol. 1208. Springer Nature, 2020.
17
elections in any other Member State and has not been deprived of the right to stand as a
candidate in the home Member State.
However, this requirement to make a formal declaration may constitute an additional
administrative barrier, which is likely to prevent mobile EU citizens from exercising their
rights. The modalities of this clause are not fully defined and Member States may
interpret the term “formal declaration” differently. As stated above, Article 9 and 10 of
Directive 93/109/EC requires specific content of the declaration but the modality ranges
from a statement in a stand-alone document to a sentence to be checked and included in a
document linked to other acts such as the registration for residence or tax declaration.
There are instances where this provision has been used to require mobile EU citizens to
make a notarized declaration on honour58
, which makes the process of registration
substantially more burdensome for mobile EU citizens.
In some Member States, for candidates, documentary evidence is needed from the home
country that the person has retained his/her right to stand as candidate (Czechia, the
Netherlands, Poland, Romania).
Furthermore, this administrative burden can be one-off (where registration is carried out
once and its validity is not time bound) or recurrent when registration is required for
every election (Croatia, France, Greece and Malta).
In order to support inclusive and equal electoral participation, the practical conditions to
register as a voter or as a candidate and the voting arrangements should also consider the
specific needs of vulnerable Union citizens, including citizens with a disability and older
citizens.
1.3.4 Multiple voting in European elections
Article 4(1) of Directive 93/109/EC prohibits voting in more than one Member State in
the same European elections59
. Instances of multiple voting by mobile EU citizens60
exist
and data being exchanged between Member States do not prevent it completely.
In addition, 14% of surveyed mobile EU citizens believe that voting more than once
(both in home and host country) is lawful (see Figure 2). This points to a relatively high
share of respondents who are not aware of the fact that multiple voting is prohibited.
58
Eg Croatia.
59
See also Article 9 of the Act concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal
suffrage, annexed to Council Decision 76/787/ECSC, EEC, Euratom of 20 September 1976
60
Multiple vote by dual citizens is not covered by the scope of this Impact Assessment. Addressing this would imply
establishing a register of all EU citizens. This option has been considered disproportionate.
Figure 2
18
Figure 2 (above) - Thinking about people like you who are residents of another EU country
than their country of nationality, please indicate which statement you think is true
regarding European elections (n=2383)
Source: Annex II to the Underlying Study, survey of mobile EU citizens
The exchange of information61
to prevent multiple voting relates in particular to the
following:
- Member States of residence need to transmit to the home Member State the
information received in the formal declarations62
provided by registered mobile
EU citizens when entering those EU citizens in the electoral roll or if they are
standing as candidates of the Member State of residence. This needs to be done
sufficiently in advance of the election day;
- the Member State of origin needs to take appropriate measures to ensure that its
nationals do not vote more than once or stand as candidates in more than one
Member State (Article 13 Directive 93/109/EC). This usually means that Member
States should deregister mobile EU citizens from the electoral roll of their country
of nationality when they registered to vote in the country of residence. It may also
refer to other dissuasive measures against multiple voting, such as a formal
declaration stating that the person producing it voted only once at the same
election.
To support Member States in their effort to prevent multiple voting, the Commission
developed a solution to allow Member States to exchange data securely (hereafter called,
“the crypto tool”)63
. This solution was developed in 2013, and first used in the 2014
European elections. The development and implementation of a process to achieve the
exchange efficiently was coordinated with Member States’ experts in the framework of
the expert group on electoral matters64
. A formalisation of the crypto tool is needed.
Prior to the last European elections, i.e. between February and May 2019, Member States
exchanged data on around 1.3 million voters and 114 parliamentary candidates. This
exchange resulted in the identification of over 213 000 multiple registration of citizens65
,
which means that citizens who were found to be on electoral rolls of both the Member
State of residence and of origin were deregistered from the electoral roll of the Member
State of origin.
61
Article 13 of Directive 93/109/EC.
62
As set out in Article 9(2) of Directive 93/109/EC, the formal declaration should state the nationality and address in
the Member State of residence; where applicable, the locality or constituency in his home Member State on the
electoral roll of which his name was last entered, and that the right to vote will be exercise in the Member State of
.residence only.
63
See https://ec.europa.eu/isa2/solutions/european-parliament-crypto-tool_en The current version of the crypto tool
allows Member States to upload encrypted data about voters registered in their country into a secure portal where the
Member States of origin can download it and compare the data on registered voters with their own electoral register.
Every country creates a file for each Member State from where there are mobile EU citizens who registered there to
vote. In turn, when the encrypted files are uploaded, every country downloads the files about voters originating from
their country who are registered in another country to match them to its own electoral roll and take the necessary
measures to remove them from the home country electoral roll.
64
https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-register/screen/expert-
groups/consult?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=617
65
Report on the 2019 elections to the European Parliament, see footnote 7.
19
While there is little data to measure the phenomenon of multiple voting, feedback
received by the Commission from Member States’ authorities show that challenges
remain in matching the data received from the Member State of residence and the
deadlines for data collection66
. This results in situations where Member States are only
able to match a limited share of record with their national electoral roll datasets due to
issues with the type of data exchanged. The identification rate (i.e. the share of records
received from Member State of residence that were successfully matched to citizens of
the country of origin) was only 31%67
.
Feedback from Member States collected during joint meetings of the ECNE and the
expert group on electoral matters shows that the exchange of information between
national authorities on mobile EU citizens was hindered by variation in the scope of the
data exchanged and deadlines for data collection68
. Each Member State collects the same
data from mobile EU citizens as it would from its own citizens, with the exception
usually of also recording the mobile citizen’s nationality. Different Member States rely
on different data to identify citizens, besides their name and date of birth – some
requiring national ID numbers, others requiring the last address or municipality of birth.
Due to these differences, some Member States are only able to act on very limited
amounts of the data exchanged, while others are more successful.
Finally, there are challenges for matching individual data that stem from the use of non-
Latin alphabets or use of special characters69
. These challenges are however not due to
the crypto tool as such as this tool can handle all alphabets and characters. The issue is
that host Member States, and in particular the local authorities, are typically not equipped
with the keyboards to enter the data using these special characters or non-Latin alphabet.
Additionally, this data must be exchanged swiftly and securely. Although protocols are in
place for this, they could be strengthened and legal certainty enhanced with a clear legal
framework governing its use including concerning security requirements.
Lastly, the scale of the problem of multiple voting in European elections and the related
deregistration might appear small compared to other problems. The absence of detailed
evidence does not mean this practice is not taking place. And even if it is not, there is a
precautionary principle that comes into play in terms of the potential for it to happen as
its implications are far-reaching both in terms of electoral integrity and reputational risk.
If integrity of an election is at risk in one Member State, it would discredit the EU
institutions as a whole. Furthermore, public trust in the EU is a key aspect, especially in
relation to the electoral process. The citizens demand the EU to have unimpeachable
standards by supporting the transparency, inclusiveness and integrity of electoral
practices.
1.3.5 Lack of data to support policy interventions
Comparable data to support policy interventions are not sufficient. This includes data on
the registration, identification on electoral rolls, and turnout of mobile EU citizens for
66
Idem.
67
Idem.
68
In particular, the joint meeting of 28 January 2021. Further details on these joint meetings is available in Annex 2.
69
This was highlighted in the joint meeting of the ECNE and the expert group on electoral matters of 28 January 2021.
20
European and municipal elections, as well as the number of mobile EU citizens who
stand as candidates and who are elected in European and municipal elections.
When it comes to participation of mobile EU citizens in municipal elections, data mostly
looks at registration rates. Data on participation/turnout is not disaggregated according to
residency status by competent authorities in Member States. Data on candidacy is
available in less than half of EU Member States70
.
Where data is reported, it is not necessarily on the basis of all mobile EU citizens
residing in the country but on the basis of those who are registered. This means that in
Member States with automatic registration the share of those registered is very high
(close to 100%) but turnout is much lower. Conversely, in other countries with active
registration, the shared of those registered is low, but then turnout for those registered is
high as these are people who actively took measures to register and are hence keen on
exercising their right.
Availability of data on participation of mobile EU citizens in European elections is even
more patchy. As with municipal elections, the majority of Member States do not
differentiate between the turnout of nationals and that of mobile EU citizens.
1.3.6 Equal possibilities to exercise electoral rights
Mobile EU citizens exercising their elections rights in their Member State of residence do
not always enjoy their rights under the same conditions as nationals of that State. Indeed,
the current legal provisions allow Member States to restrict candidacy for mobile EU
citizens to some positions in municipal elections. Article 5 of Directive 94/80/EC
specifically provides for the right of Member States to restrict the office of elected head,
deputy or member of the governing college of the executive of a basic local government
unit to their own nationals only.
Several Member States have been using this provision, thus restricting the possibilities
for mobile EU citizens to stand as candidates for executive functions at local level71
.
Mobile EU citizens are therefore not able to stand as candidates for all functions in
municipal elections in all Member States, which can lead to their underrepresentation in
local governments, and contribute to their lower participation patterns and less
motivation to engage at the local level.
Addressing the limitations of candidacy for mobile EU citizens to some positions that
some Member States impose in municipal elections would support the principle of non-
discrimination on the basis of nationality. However, such measure would need to take
into account the public opinion and in general terms their acceptability. As shown in
Flash Eurobarometer 43172
, the opinion is evenly divided. Almost half of respondents
(47%) agree that citizens from other Member States should be able to stand as candidates
for certain executive offices, presently open only to nationals. A similar proportion
(48%) do not agree that they should be able to do so.
70
According to data collected for the 2019 Commission’s report on municipal elections, as much as 20 Member States
indicated that such data is not collected or is difficult to obtain.
71
A table of municipal election positions for which mobile EU citizens cannot stand as candidates across Member
States is available in Annex 6.
72
https://data.europa.eu/data/datasets/s2078_431_eng?locale=en .
21
In addition, remote voting solutions can help facilitate the act of voting for those EU
citizens living abroad, which also concerns EU mobile citizens. In that sense, and taking
into account the principle of non-discrimination, mobile EU citizens should have the
same access to remote voting solutions as the nationals of the Member State in which
they reside.
1.3.7 Obsolete provisions
The legal framework on voting rights of mobile citizens contains obsolete provisions.
Directive 94/80/EC contains an Annex with a list of basic local government units for
each Member State. These are the administrative entities to which this Directive applies
and which, in accordance with the laws of each Member State, contain bodies elected by
direct universal suffrage and are empowered to administer, at the basic level of political
and administrative organization, certain local affairs on their own responsibility.
This Annex makes explicit reference to the United Kingdom and its basic local
government units73
, which will need to be deleted in light of the withdrawal of the United
Kingdom from the European Union.
Additionally, in preparation of the report on the application of Directive 94/80/EC74
, the
Commission was informed by Denmark, Hungary, Ireland, the Netherlands that
amendments to the list of basic local government units are needed75
.
The current Directive foresees the presentation of a legal proposal to amend its non-
essential elements. This does not allow to make best use of the possibilities that exist
since the Lisbon Treaty to amend non-essential elements of a Directive. Since the entry
into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the Commission may be empowered under Article 290
TFEU to adopt delegated acts that amend non-essential elements of legislative acts. Such
delegations allow technical updates to be made more quickly and efficiently. The
revision of the Directive provides an opportunity to make use of this possibility by
making provision for such empowerments.
1.4 How will the problems evolve?
The number of EU citizens residing in a Member State other than that of their nationality
is steadily increasing. As mentioned above, in 2019 there were over 13 million mobile
EU citizens, with approximately 1.3 million EU citizens who move to reside to another
EU Member State every year and the numbers continue to grow. In Member States with
less inclusive national practices regarding registration and information provision, mobile
EU citizens are likely to continue facing burden related to searching for information or
the fact that excessive documentation is requested of them. There is no indication that
73
Counties in England; counties, county boroughs and communities in Wales; regions and Islands in Scotland; districts
in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland; London boroughs; parishes in England; the City of London in relation to
ward elections for common councilmen.
74
Report on the application of Directive 94/80/EC on the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections
COM(2018) 44 final;
https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-register/detail?ref=COM(2018)44&lang=en:
75
Specifically, the Local Government Reform Act of 2014 states that Ireland is divided into local government areas
known as (a) counties, (b) cities, and (c) cities and counties. Each “county” and “city and county” has municipal
districts. In the case of Hungary, according to the provisions of Act CLXXXIX of 2011, the basic local government
unit of „járásszékhely város” should be added.75
For the Netherlands, “deelgemeente” must be removed.
22
suggests that Member States are narrowing this gap. This would continue negatively
affecting participation especially in those Member States with practices that demonstrate
low inclusivity. The differences among Member States concerning possibilities to
exercise one’s electoral rights as a mobile EU citizen are going to continue existing. As
above there is no evidence that this gap would be narrowing down spontaneously.
Furthermore, the trend of the digitalization of political participation is gaining traction,
and was additionally accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. With regard to the
phenomenon of multiple voting in the European elections, the fact that mobile EU
citizens can choose to vote for host country or home country party lists implies that they
have multiple channels through which they can vote. This could be further exacerbated if
Member States increasingly make remote voting in European elections easier through
measures such as electronic voting or voting via proxies. If these modalities become
more common, which in itself would be a positive development that would contribute to
boost mobile EU citizens’ voting participation, the risk of multiple voting could grow.
Developments are ongoing at EU level to strengthen the availability, use and acceptance
of highly secure electronic IDs cross border in the EU76
. However, widespread use in the
electoral context cannot be anticipated in the near future and therefore the difficulties to
identify mobile EU citizens who are registered in multiple countries and prevent multiple
could continue affecting European elections. If the trend of intra-EU mobility continues
to grow, this problem is likely to get bigger as the volume of data exchanged will
increase.
Should the exchange of data between Member States become more efficient and
therefore identify more cases of multiple registration, the problem of deregistration is
likely to get worse. Higher numbers of mobile EU citizens will be matched to their home
country electoral rolls and therefore deregistered, unless there is a mechanism to ensure
that deregistration only affects the election for which the data is being exchanged.
It is expected that all Member States will have approved Council Decision 2018/994 on
the revision of the EU Electoral law in accordance with their respective constitutional
requirements and that this Decision will enter into force before the 2024 European
elections. To date (July 2021), five Member States have not yet approved Council
Decision 2018/994 on the revision of the EU electoral law (Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia,
Germany and Spain). Regarding the binding measures, they should have a positive effect
in addressing the problem of multiple voting by providing further harmonisation of the
exchange of data77
, by legally imposing the establishment a contact authority for data
exchange on voters and candidates and by providing that Member Sates shall take
measures necessary to ensure that multiple voting is subject to sanctions78
.
76
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 as
regards establishing a framework for a European Digital Identity, https://digital-
strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/trusted-and-secure-european-e-id-regulation and Commission Recommendation on a
common Union Toolbox for a coordinated approach towards a European Digital Identity Framework (C(2021) 3968
final) https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/trusted-and-secure-european-e-id-recommendation .
77
Article 9b of Council Decision 2018/994 on the revision of the EU electoral law provides that the transmission of
data concerning Union citizens who, in a Member State of which they are not nationals, have been entered on the
electoral roll or are standing as candidates shall start no later than six weeks before the first day of the electoral period.
78
Council Decision 2018/994 on the revision of the EU electoral law , Article 9.2.
23
2. WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT?
2.1 Legal basis
Any legislative intervention at the EU level must relate the competences of the Union
legislator to the objectives and scope that the proposal will follow.
Article 20 TFEU establishes Union citizenship. Articles 20(2)(b) and 22 TFEU, as well
as Articles 39 and 40 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, provide that citizens of
the Union have the right to vote and stand as candidates in European elections and in
municipal elections in their Member State of residence, under the same conditions as
national of that State. Article 22 TFEU provides that the exercise of this right shall be
subject to detailed arrangements adopted by the Council, acting unanimously in
accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European
Parliament.
Directives 93/109/EC and 94/80/EC, the revision of which is the subject of this impact
assessment, provide detailed arrangements for the exercise of these rights in European
and municipal elections, respectively, based on the electoral rights for municipal
elections provided in Article 20(2)(b) and 22(1) TFEU, and in Article 20(2)(b) and 22(2)
TFEU for European elections. They establish minimum standards and procedures for the
right of mobile EU citizens to vote and stand as candidates.
2.2 Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action
The principle of subsidiarity (Article 5(3) TEU) requires that the Union shall act only and
insofar as the objectives of the proposed actions cannot be sufficiently achieved by the
Member States, either at central or at regional and local level, but an rather, by reasons of
the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level.
The electoral rights of mobile EU citizens to European and municipal elections are
enshrined in the TFEU as part of their rights as citizens of the Union. The legal
framework for the exercise of electoral rights by mobile citizens involves the interaction
of EU and national rules. The EU acted to implement the Treaty principle establishing
electoral rights of mobile EU citizens in particular through the two Directives 93/109/EC
and 94/80/EC which are considered in this impact assessment.
The Commission has closely monitored the implementation of the Directives. However,
experience shows that, without EU action, it would be difficult to address the identified
problems. Reports on the implementation of the directives as well as further consultations
(especially in the framework of ECNE and the expert group on electoral matters
meetings) showed that further action at EU level was needed. Without timely and
effective EU action, the identified problems and their causes would continue to hinder
the exercise by mobile EU citizens of their electoral rights This could be prevented by
reinforcing existing rights governed by Directives 93/109/EC and 94/80/EC.
As for the issue of multiple voting in European elections, the exchange of information
required by Directive 93/109/EC is by definition a cross border issue. This means that it
cannot be addressed by Member States acting individually, since cross-border matters are
beyond the reach of individual Member States. National action cannot be expected to
reach beyond national borders. Providing for common EU standards on the exchange of
information about the relevant voters and candidates to prevent multiple voting can only
be done at EU level.
24
Finally, revisions to Directives to update obsolete provisions and align with the common
rules established by Council Decision 2018/994 on the revision of the EU Electoral law
can only be done at EU level.
2.3 Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action
The current situation affects the effective exercise of electoral rights of mobile EU
citizens and by extension the ability for EU citizens to fully enjoy their free movement
rights as well as puts at risk the integrity of the electoral process for European elections.
The added value of EU action lies in improving and refining the framework governing
the exercise of mobile EU citizens of their electoral rights granted by the Treaties, and
better addressing multiple voting in the context of the European elections by enhancing
the current exchange of information system.
The content and the form of the EU action must not go beyond what is necessary to meet
the objectives of the Treaty. Respect of the principle of proportionality is about ensuring
that the policy approach and its intensity match the identified problems and objectives.
Proportionate EU action should ensure that mobile EU citizens can effectively exercise
their democratic rights. For this to be achieved, there is a need to clarify the existing EU
framework governing the electoral rights of mobile EU citizens of their electoral rights.
Additionally, proportionate action at EU level would enhance the integrity of the
European elections by reducing opportunities for multiple voting.
3. OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED?
3.1 General objectives
The general objectives are to:
 Support electoral participation of mobile EU citizens in municipal and European
elections;
 Reinforce electoral rights of mobile EU citizens by closing regulatory gaps
hindering the participation in municipal and European elections;
 Preserve the legitimacy of European elections by reducing instances of multiple
voting.
3.2 Specific objectives
To successfully achieve the general objectives by intervening on the drivers of the
problems identified as illustrated in Figure 3, specific objectives were identified. The
specific objectives of the initiative are to increase mobile EU citizens’ awareness of
their rights and understanding of procedures and practices to register and to participate
in municipal and European elections; reduce the possibilities of multiple voting by
mobile EU citizens for European elections and to limit de-registration practices of
Member States only to those elections in which there is a risk of multiple voting.
Another goal is to simplify daily life for mobile EU citizens and local authorities, by
reducing administrative barriers for citizens and their family members related to
registration and formalities to vote and to stand as candidates in municipal as well as
European elections
Finally, this initiative aims at improving the collection of data for European elections
and municipal elections and to ensure that mobile EU citizens have the same
25
possibilities to stand for candidates in municipal elections. Information on indicators and
targets for each specific objectives are in section 8.
26
Figure 3. Intervention Logic: from problem drivers to policy options
4. WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS?
4.1 What is the baseline from which options are assessed?
Under the baseline scenario, the existing problems would remain.
The exchanges of best practice among relevant Member States’ authorities in the ECNE and
the expert group on electoral matters would continue to be supported by the Commission.
Efforts would focus on improving awareness of mobile EU citizens and access to their
electoral rights as well as on good practice on the use of the crypto tool.
Further, the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values programme 2021-2027 and in particular its
strand on Citizens’ engagement, would reinforce the financing of projects to address the
needs of mobile EU citizens and to support their democratic participation. An EU wide
communication campaign would be organized for the European Parliament elections building
particularly on the experiences of the 2019 European elections. Among others, occasional
targeted awareness raising campaigns would be organized, especially prior to the European
elections. The added value of funding such projects (in particular awareness raising) has been
demonstrated, promoting the rights deriving from EU citizenship and the development of a
stronger EU citizenship79
.
When it comes to information related barriers, Regulation (EU) 2018/172480
established a
single digital gateway. The ‘Your Europe Portal’ is the front end of the single digital
gateway. The portal exists to explain to EU citizens and businesspeople their rights and
obligations under EU law. Regarding electoral rights, there is a section on the ‘Citizens’ side
of the portal about electoral rights of mobile EU citizens81
. Regulation (EU) 2018/1724
requires Member States to explain online how to carry out certain administrative procedures
by December 2020 (Annex I to the Regulation). Those procedures includes participating in
municipal elections and elections to the European Parliament for EU mobile citizens. Every
Member State should have a webpage or website explaining to non-EU nationals, in a
language understood by the majority of cross-border users, how to vote in their Member State
of residence in those types of elections. By 2023, Member States will have to make it
possible to actually carry out some procedures online (Annex II to the Regulation). For the
moment, electoral procedures are not part of this last category.
With regard to the prevention of multiple voting, the exchange of data on voters and
candidates will continue with the use of the Commission crypto tool. Its maintenance and
development is foresee by DG CNECT’s DIGITAL programme. Although protocols are in
place for its use this, legal certainty would not be enhanced if a clear legal framework
governing its use including concerning security requirements is not provided.
Instead, the necessary changes to Directive 94/80/EC as described under section 2.3.7 would
not be introduced. No use would be made of the procedure to ensure rapid update of non-
essential elements of both Directives.
79
See the Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social
committed and the Committee of Regions on the interim evaluation of the implementation of the Rights, Equality and
Citizenship programme 2014-2020, COM (2018) 508 final https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52018DC0508.
80
Annex I of Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 includes electoral rights in municipal and European elections (https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2018.295.01.0001.01.ENG).
81
https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/residence/elections-abroad/index_en.htm
28
4.2 Disregarded policy options
The removal of the derogation available under both Directives82
, whereby a Member State,
where the proportion of mobile EU citizens of voting age exceeds 20% of the total electorate,
can require both voters and candidates to have a minimum period of residence, will not be
addressed by the policy options83
. Similarly, no policy intervention is being considered on the
exchange of information among Member States on the deprivation of citizens’ right to vote
and stand as candidate if, through an individual decision, they have been deprived of their
right under the law of their home Member State. As there were no issues identified in the
implementation of this provision, this would be unnecessary.
On the other hand, several policy options were disregarded on the basis of proportionality and
efficiency considerations. For example, the establishment of an EU Electoral Database,
including passive and active electorates in all Member States would have efficiently
addressed multiple voting and deregistration problems, including of dual nationals. However,
such a measure, despite being very effective, appears disproportionate in term of costs for the
EU and Member States and potential impact on fundamental rights as well as
disproportionate to the scale and nature of the problems. Under another option addressing
dual voting, which was discarded as excessive, home Member States would have obligated
dual citizens to disclose their other citizenships.
4.3 Description of the policy options
Beyond the baseline scenario, the three general objectives are each addressed by two
packages of options, which are presented below. The policy packages present a range of
potential measures considered to improve the exercise of electoral rights, and to support a fair
electoral process by addressing the issue of multiple voting.
Specifically, these policy packages range from soft, non-legislative measures in support of
awareness raising and enhanced administrative cooperation, to setting common standards of
procedures related to registration of mobile EU citizens and the exchange of data in
prevention of multiple voting. The measures are grouped in two policy packages according to
their connection and interdependence from one another.
Measures in Option 1 constitutes mainly targeted additional legislative amendments. The aim
would be to address the objectives by reinforcing and clarifying existing provisions of the
Directives governing electoral rights of mobile EU citizens in municipal and European
elections. Measures in Option 2 provide for more extensive legislative intervention. While
respecting the non-discrimination principle at the basis of the Directives, the second policy
option would aim to put in place an extensive reform of the Directives by setting legal
requirements relating to the time-limits for registration and imposing in some cases automatic
registration for municipal elections, by providing a self-standing resource for support of
82
Article 12(1) of Directive 94/80/EC and Article 14(1) of Directive 93/109/EC.
83
This derogation is used only by Luxembourg and was found to be proportionate in the Commission’s report on the 2019
European elections and the report on the application of Directive 94/80/EC on the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in
municipal elections.
29
mobile EU citizens and by removing the provisions allowing different treatment of mobile
EU citizens.
Definition of the period in which the exchange of data will start
introduction of requirement to limit de-registration practices from the electoral rolls
support the access to offices in the local administration by mobile EU citizens and introduce a requirement of
reporting on restrictions
Clarification of the requirement for Member States to inform mobile EU citizens of their right to vote at municipal
and European elections
Specification of a common data set to be collected and exchanged by Member States.
Municipal
elections
Introduction of regular monitoring and reporting of implementation by Member States.
Commission would work together with the national statistical institutes to collect, harmonise and publish turn-out
data for municipal and European elections
European
elections
introduction of standardized templates for registration available in all languages in the form of an Annex to the
Directives.
a shared resource, rationalising current services would be created
Establishment of a harmonised registration process for registration and notification of such registrations across the
EU including harmonisation of deadlines for registration
removal of the possibility to restrict certain mandates to nationals of the Member State of residence.
Municipal
elections
European
elections
Additional common resources and procedures to support the transmission of data to the Commission and the
European Parliament related to the participation of mobile EU citizens in the European elections.
Establishment of a new self-standing resource to support mobile EU citizens
To reduce instances of multiple voting in European elections by supporting data matching,
policy option 1 would bring the period in which the exchange of data between Member
States would have to start, in line with Council Decision 2018/994 on the revision of the EU
electoral law. Additionally, policy option 1 foreseen common requirements to be established
to guarantee that information on mobile EU citizens registering to vote or stand for election is
exchanged comprehensively and in a more consistent manner, while complying with the
GDPR’s data minimisation principle. A data set would be specified in Directive 93/109/EC
to support the exchange of information between national authorities about mobile EU citizens
registering to vote or stand for European elections, which would result in a faster and easier
identification of mobile EU citizens. This data set would include: name, place and date of
birth, and identification number from the country of nationality or alternatively passport
number or ID card number. An increased and faster recognition of the citizens coupled with
further harmonisation of the starting point for the exchange of those data would result in
more data being matched.
Alternatively, measure in Option 2 would entail a full harmonisation of the procedure with a
harmonised and fixed data set and common EU deadlines for registration and notification of
30
such registration for European elections across the EU. Specifically, two deadlines would be
set: one for the close of the electoral roll and the start of the data exchange (6 weeks prior to
the elections), and one to clear data between Member States (4 weeks prior to the elections).
Only one measure is foreseen for the issue of deregistration and it is part of Option 1. The
main reason is that measures foreseen in Option 2 to address multiple voting would in
principle also extinguish the problem of deregistration. Instead, measures in option 1 would
increase this phenomenon. Therefore, Option 1 envisages the prohibition of de-registration
practices at the initiative of the authorities.
On the issue of information related-barriers, multiple options intervening at different levels
are possible. In policy option 1, at Member States level, a requirement would be introduced
for Member States to inform mobile EU citizens of their right to vote in municipal and
European elections, in a plain language at the moment of registering in a new Member State
and regularly thereafter, particularly before elections. This information would need to be
provided at least in the language of the Member State of residence and in another language
largely used in the EU. Prior to municipal and European elections, mobile EU citizens should
receive in an individualised manner detailed information about their registration status,
registration procedure and voting modalities. For municipal elections, information should be
provided on the possibility to continue to vote in other elections in the Member State of
origin, while for European elections, information should be provided on prohibition of
multiple voting and its consequences.
At EU level, policy option 1 envisages a streamlined shared resource to be established at
Commission level to support EU citizens in exercising their electoral rights, in particular with
dedicated staff replying questions from citizens and public authorities during the period
where mobile EU citizens can register for European elections. Building on existing support
offered by the Commission and the European Parliament in particular, it would rationalise
existing support services for mobile EU citizens and national authorities (addressing
contradictions and duplications in information sources such as the Europe Direct Contact
Center), answer their questions on European elections in all languages of the European
Union, support citizens in finding solutions to relevant issues and provide targeted
information for mobile EU citizens, The Directives would be amended to reflect the links
with the Single Digital gateway/Your Europe Portal.
Measures in policy option 2 in relation to information-related barriers should take in
consideration the harmonised process of registration and notification provided in this option.
Therefore, information provided by Member States will focus more on other aspects of the
electoral procedure such as the date of the election in the case of municipal elections and how
and where to vote. On the other hand, communication at EU level will be more important as
the information on the key prerequisites to the effective exercise of electoral rights will be
uniform due to harmonised procedures. This option therefore would provide for a new self-
standing resource for support of mobile EU citizens specifically dedicated to electoral
rights.
To address the specific administrative barriers whereby Member States of residence may
require mobile EU citizens to provide a formal declaration that they will exercise the right to
vote in that Member State only, option 1 proposes the use of standardised templates. As the
modalities of this clause are not defined and Member States may interpret the term “formal
declaration” differently (e.g., a notarized declaration on honour in Croatia), a standardized
format of the declaration available in all languages would be introduced in the form of an
31
Annex to the Directive. This standardized templates could be subject to the possibility of
subsequent adaptations via delegated acts. Such an approach would also allow to update the
Annex which lists basic local government units. Alternatively, Option 2 envisages that the
legislative proposal would also establish an obligation for Member States to apply automatic
registration in municipal elections. This would mean that once mobile EU citizens register in
their Member State of residence, they would be automatically registered in the electoral rolls
for voting in municipal elections. This would alleviate the burden to have to register for
municipal elections in a separate administrative act84
.
On data collection, policy option 1 envisages to amend the Directives to insert provisions for
a regular monitoring and reporting of their implementation by Member States. For Directive
93/109/EC, the report should be conducted after every European elections. For Directive
94/80/EC, the report should be conducted every five years from the entry into force of the
amendments. The Commission building on the work of Eurostat would work together with
the national statistical institutes to collect, harmonise and publish turn-out data for municipal
and European elections, to support policy development at the EU and national levels. The
above-mentioned standardised templates would allow to collect more data than those
available today, which could help further policy interventions. In Policy option 2, collection
of data should be facilitated by the harmonisation of the process of registration and voting.
Therefore, it could be foreseen that additional common resources and procedures would be
allocated including for instance to support the transmission to the Commission and the
European Parliament of the national results related to the participation of mobile EU citizens
in the European elections that would be available in all Member States.
As the current regulatory framework allows limiting candidacy of mobile EU citizens for
some positions in municipal elections, policy option 2 envisages that the legislative proposal
removes the possibility to restrict certain mandates to nationals of the Member State of
residence. Alternatively, policy option 1 envisages an obligation on Member States to report
on those restrictions. This may lead to a national debate and encourage Member States to
change these rules. The Commission would also use soft-law measures building on the
discussions in the expert group on electoral matters and ECNE. The purpose would be to
support a non-discriminatory access to such positions. Such soft-law measures could also
encourage Member States to consider voluntarily extending the right to vote in municipal
elections for mobile EU citizens to other intermediary levels of governance, such as city
regions.
Finally, as part of option 1, an explicit obligation would be introduced to ensure that where
remote voting is allowed for nationals in European or municipal elections, this should also be
allowed for mobile EU citizens residing in that country, under the same conditions as
nationals.
84
Automatic registration was considered by a majority respondents to the OPC to be an effective measure to
increase participation in municipal elections For further details, see Annex 2.
32
5. WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS?
5.1 The baseline scenario
The impact of the baseline scenario is assessed in section 2.4. In broad terms, in the absence
of EU action to address gaps of Directives 93/109/EC and 94/80/EC, multiple voting by
mobile EU citizens will continue to put at risk the integrity of the European elections. Mobile
EU citizens will continue to face administrative burden and lack of clarity on electoral
participation. As a consequence of unclear information, a significant proportion of mobile EU
citizens will remain unaware of their voting rights derived from their EU citizenship or be
discouraged to vote. Relatively fewer mobile EU citizens will use their EU rights to vote in
the Member State they live in, and the number of mobile EU citizens standing as candidates
will decrease, compared to an overall growing number of mobile EU citizens.
The requirements in the Directives as they stand now are generally not specific enough to
lend themselves to enforcement action. Correspondence with Member States and discussion
in forums like the ECNE cannot sufficiently address the identified problems.
5.2 Assessment of policy options
The policy options are evaluated against social, economic and fundamental rights impacts.
No environmental impacts were detected.
5.2.1 Social Impacts
The two options considered would have an overall positive effect on the democratic
participation of mobile EU citizens.
The standardised templates and minimum data set in policy option 1 would lead to increased,
more secured and interoperable communication channels among Member States to prevent
multiple voting and provide more tools to citizens to exercise their electoral rights.
Measures to require Member States to inform mobile EU citizens in Option 1 could possibly
increase the probability of voting among mobile EU citizens.
Additionally, the reinforced shared resource at EU level in policy option 1 and the new
resource in option 2 would lead to higher awareness of electoral processes in the country of
residence, which could result in having more candidates who are mobile EU citizens (who
could, by extension, mobilise the communities of mobile EU citizens to participate in
elections).
Policy Option 1 2
Impact
Increase Citizens’ awareness and understanding ●●● ●●●
Increase probability of voting/ voter participation ●● ●●●
Prevent multiple voting and minimise deregistration ●● ●●●
5.2.2 Economic impacts
The impact assessment focuses on the potential impacts on mobile EU citizens and public
administration, both at the national and EU levels. All options are expected to only have
indirect wider economic impacts insofar as they support free movement. Simplifying
registration requirements and enhancing information provision and awareness raising on
33
voting can reinforce the integration of mobile EU citizens in the host Member State, which
can only have positive economic effects. Whether SMEs are affected to the same extent as
larger companies by facilitated freedom of movement cannot be assessed conclusively.
Mobile EU citizens enjoy direct regulatory benefits from all options presented above:
simplification of registration procedures would lead to a reduction of costs for mobile EU
citizens due to lowering the time needed to register and reducing the documents that they
need to provide. They will also benefit from simplified access to clearer information on
national procedures and requirements, particularly information.
A detailed assessment of the costs involved – in terms of monetary cost, human resources,
and organisational effort – requires a level of data that is not currently available to this impact
assessment. The below cost assessments therefore rely on a number of assumptions to
provide a first indication of the range of costs that may be required. As the exact design and
implementation of the measures will vary, the assessment (1) seeks to take into account
institutional and structural differences between Member States and (2) seeks to present a
range of costs, depending on how extensive the ultimate formulation of a measure is. All
costs are presented as possible excess cost to the current expenditure – e.g. if a measure
envisions four additional annual meetings of an election network, this is to be understood as
four meetings in additions to those already occurring currently.
Many of the implementation costs either entail human resource costs at the EU level
(European Commission, EU agencies) and the Member State level (competent authorities,
practitioners). Costs associated with administrative burden have been estimated using the
Commission’s Standard Cost Model (SCM), outlined in the EU Better Regulation Guidelines.
To calculate these costs, a standard estimate of the daily labour cost has been applied for all
activities. As figures are not available individually for all Member States, an EU average is
applied. This approach uses the latest available data and methods detailed in the EU Better
Regulation Guidelines. This leads to an estimated daily labour cost of EUR 534 for EU
personnel, and EUR 294 for staff in Member States, including 25% overhead costs. These
labour costs are used in all calculations in this section unless otherwise indicated.
5.2.2.1. Estimates of administrative costs for obligations addressed to public
authorities
The simplification of registration procedures proposed in option 1 and 2 will initially result in
higher costs for public authorities in Member States due to an increase in human resources to
accommodate enhanced cooperation, but these costs will be partly offset by expected
efficiencies for administrations. Some Member States have little information on voting
available in non-national language(s), and/or do limited outreach to mobile EU voters.
Implementing a requirement for communication measures or information provision will be
more costly where the Member State has limited existing structures and experience in that
regard but the investment may yield long-term benefits by fostering enhanced integration and
thereby acting as an economic driver.
Regarding the improvement of information provision at EU level, the expansion of an
existing service as outlined in option 1 would be most effective, building on Regulation (EU)
2018/1724 that established a single digital gateway.
Furthermore, in the context of optimizing the system for exchange of personal data in
prevention of multiple voting as suggested in option 1 and 2, resources would be needed for
34
information exchange and system maintenance at national level, with a possible reduction in
costs (at least in the medium-long term) due to improved cooperation and coordination with
other Member States and the increased efficiency. Harmonisation of the data sets to be
exchanged between Member States would be expected to significantly assist in the
identification of voters who are present on multiple electoral rolls. The costs required would
vary depending on the data already collected by Member States; where this would require a
significant effort, the return-value in terms of aiding the data exchange process appear
proportional. For instance, in cases where the electoral register is linked to the population
register (as is e.g. the case for Sweden, Finland and Estonia), adjusting the information in
datasets may not require a lot of effort as only one central register is used. Where registers are
more decentralised, e.g. collated individually in municipalities (e.g. in Germany), a larger
effort is required to ensure that all individual actors collect and transmit the correct data. It
should also be noted that after a successful harmonisation of data, cost savings may be
possible in Member States that currently have to carry out a lot of manual data matching as a
result of receiving incorrect or inconclusive data (e.g. Romania).
As outlined in policy option 2, setting deadlines for submission of data between Member
States would be an important improvement in data exchange. However, the question of which
deadline to set with does not have a straightforward answer, and may – depending on where it
is placed in relation to national existing deadlines – incur either no extra costs, or significant
costs. As it in many cases would require important legal changes in the Member States and an
adaptation of electoral practices, costs would also be incurred in terms of time and effort in
preparing legislation and adapting the procedures. Significant economic costs for Member
States would arise if penalties or liability arises where there is non-compliance with specific
legal obligations imposed in option 2.
Estimates of administrative costs for obligations addressed to Member States’ public authorities
Type of
obligation
Option 1: Reinforce measures Option 2: Reform the existing framework
Obligations
related to
further reducing
the technical
possibilities of
multiple voting
Data set exchanged
To define a common data set, the information
from electoral and population registers needs
to be collected and linked. The costs involved
for Member States will vary significantly and
depend on their current data operation. In
general, Member States with central electoral
registers linked to the population register (e.g.
SE, FI, EE) will face lower costs than
Member States using decentralised registers
(e.g. DE).
Harmonisation of registration process
The exact costs will vary between Member States and
depend on the baseline situation, namely the distance to
the new common deadline and whether legislative
reform would be necessary. This may entail significant
costs for Member States as deadlines currently vary
widely.
Increase mobile
EU citizens’
awareness and
understanding of
procedures and
Introduce specific information requirements
for MS to inform mobile EU citizens prior to
elections
Member States will carry varying costs
depending on their baseline situation, e.g.
35
Estimates of administrative costs for obligations addressed to EU public authorities
85
For more information on these costs, see Annex 6
practices to
register and to
participate in
municipal
elections and
European
elections
already have direct mailouts and information
available and the number of mobile EU
citizens they host. Overall, 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.85
Reduce
administrative
barriers faced
by mobile EU
citizens when
registering to
vote and stand
as candidates in
municipal and
European
elections
Standardised templates for the mandatory
declaration available in all languages
The preparation, translation of forms would
take place at EU level. Therefore no costs is
foreseen for Member States
Automatic registration to municipal elections
This would entail one-off and recurrent costs for
Member States that may vary depending on whether
voting registers and population register.
Type of
obligation
Option 1: Reinforce measures Option 2: Reform the existing framework
Increase mobile
EU citizens’
awareness and
understanding of
procedures and
practices to
register and to
participate in
municipal
elections and
European
elections
Streamlined shared resource. The running
costs of this resource, assuming it would be
integrated in an existing structure such as the
EDCC, would be between EUR 39,300
(baseline) and EUR 78,500 (assuming
doubling of volume of enquiries).
New resource specifically for electoral rights with
support services
Setting up a new resource will entail significant costs.
It is feasible that they would exceed the costs for the
helpdesk related to the EP elections 2019 (as part of the
European Citizens’ initiative) of around EUR 500,000
over four years.
Improve the
collection of
data for
European
elections and
municipal
elections
ECNE meets to discuss how to best collect
and share data
The costs for one network meeting is
estimated at around EUR 9,000, the total cost
will depend on the number of meetings. Other
costs are assumed to be minor.
Collaboration between DG JUST, Eurostat
and national statistical institutes to collet,
harmonise and publish turnout data
The additional costs in each Member State
would vary. The costs for additional network
meetings would range between EUR 19,080
(two additional annual meetings) and EUR
38,160 (four additional annual meetings).
36
5.2.2.2. Estimates of benefits for obligations addressed to public authorities
Estimates of benefits for obligations addressed to Member States’ public authorities
Estimates of benefits for obligations addressed to EU public authorities
Type of benefit Option 1: Reinforce measures Option 2: Reform the existing framework
Direct benefits
Efficiencies in administration:
Time
Standardised templates available in all
languages Exchange of data, long-term
efficiencies in exchange due to
cooperation and coordination
Common starting period of the exchange
and data set collected and exchanged:
Higher accuracy and success rate in
identification of double voters
Harmonisation of process for registration
Higher accuracy and success rate in
identification of double voters
Automatic registration to municipal elections
No additional registration procedure/forms
required
Efficiencies in administration:
Cost-reduction
Exchange of data, long-term efficiencies
in exchange due to cooperation and
coordination
Exchange of data, long-term efficiencies in
exchange due to cooperation and
coordination
Promotion of exchange of good practices between Member States
Reduced cost of having to develop own projects
Indirect benefits
Increased cohesion Better integration of mobile EU citizens
(in general)
Simplifying registration requirements and
enhancing information provision and
awareness raising on voting
Better integration of mobile EU citizens (in
general)
Simplifying registration requirements and
enhancing information provision and
awareness raising on voting
Improved data base/
quality of data
Increased availability and accuracy of data
for policy intervention
Increased availability and accuracy of data
for policy intervention
Type of benefit Option 1: Reinforce measures Option 2: Reform the existing framework
Direct benefits
Integrity of elections Multiple voting is prohibited and reduced technical possibilities and better information of
mobile EU citizens of multiple voting will lead to fewer occurrences.
Increased cohesion Promotion of exchange of good practices
between Member States
Promotion of exchange of good practices
between Member States
Indirect benefits
Better integration of mobile EU citizens
(in general)
Simplifying registration requirements and
enhancing information provision and
awareness raising on voting
Better integration of mobile EU citizens (in
general)
Simplifying registration requirements and
enhancing information provision and
awareness raising on voting
37
5.2.3 Fundamental rights impacts
All the policy options beside the status quo lead to an improvement in the promotion of the
rights to vote and to stand as a candidate, which are enshrined in Articles 39 and 40 of the
Charter of Fundamental Rights respectively. Furthermore, the widespread implementation of
procedures such as automated enrolment and permanent enrolment can reduce the burden on
mobile EU citizens and therefore further facilitate the exercise of such rights.
The proposed revisions in policy options 1 and 2 would promote the principle of good
administration, enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter, due to improved clarity and
simplification of procedures, facilitated exchange of information and easier interactions
between citizens and authorities.
The processing, including collection, access and use of personal data falls under Article 8 of
the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights on the right to data. Interference with this fundamental
right must be based on law, respect the essence of this right as well as be necessary,
proportionate and genuinely meet the objective of general interest recognised by the Union.
The personal data would be collected for a specified purpose of preventing multiple voting
and not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with this purpose. Only the
minimum amount of personal data necessary to achieve the intended purpose of preventing
multiple voting would be exchanged and these data would be kept in a form which permits
identification of data subjects only as long as necessary. Also other principles and
requirements of the relevant EU data protection acquis86
would be complied with, including
ensuring the security of the personal data being exchanged in prevention of multiple voting.
Removing the differences in treatment of mobile EU citizens when exercising their electoral
rights as compared to nationals of the Member States of residence would be rooted in the
prohibition of any discrimination on grounds of nationality as enshrined in Article 21(2) of
the Charter.
Additionally, Article 26 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights states that the Union
recognises and respects the right of persons with disabilities to benefit from measures
designed to ensure their independence, social and occupational integration and participation
in the life of the community. This also include mobile EU citizens with disabilities.
However, measures under Option 2 on automatic registration would appear disproportionate
as it would mean that mobile EU citizens would be deprived of the discretion to choose
whether they wish to be registered as a voter in a host Member State. In addition, it could
expose them to sanctions in Member States where there is a legal obligation for registered
voters to participate in elections while not being fully aware of it.
Policy option 1 2
86
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural
persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive
95/46/EC (“GDPR”).
Improved data base/
quality of data
Improve the collection of data for
European elections and municipal
elections
Improve the collection of data for European
elections and municipal elections
38
Impact
Promotion of electoral rights ●●● ●●●
Good administration ●● ●●●
Equal treatment ●●● ●●
Data protection ●●● ●●●
5.2.4 Subsidiarity
As mentioned in section 1, action by Member States could not solve the problems identified
for reasons ranging from a voluntary approach, spill-over effect or nature of the problems.
One of the key elements of the right to vote and stand as candidates of mobile EU citizens is
that it is connected with the exercise of free movement and by its nature involves multiple
Member States. It is also one of the elements that form the European citizenship which in its
turn is bound up with European democracy that European institutions must nurture and
protect. EU action is therefore needed to eliminate the obstacles faced by mobile EU citizens
and to support their participation in municipal elections and elections to the European
Parliament. One other issue to be taken into account is the dynamics of the intra-EU mobility
of Union citizens and the effect it has on the enjoymentEU citizenship and the electoral
rights.. Separate interventions of host Member States addressing the participation of mobile
EU citizens in elections, albeit best practices in the field, are not sufficient to respond to the
challenges which the understanding of European citizenship and European democracy is
confronted with.
Mobile EU citizens should expect similar treatment of the exercise of their electoral rights
from all Member States. While such a treatment cannot be fully harmonised because it would
either infringe on exclusive competencies of member states or the action of EU would not
achieve better results than that of the Member States, a group of uniform core elements,
essential for the effectiveness of electoral rights can be envisaged.
One of the main elements of policy option 1is access to electoral information as a key
component of the electoral rights which stem from the European citizenship and thus are not
a part of the electoral formalities within the purview of the Member States. Lack of adequate
information affects in different degrees mobile EU citizens and public administrations as well
as their interactions throughout the EU. The flow of electoral information between mobile EU
citizens, Member States and EU institutions has to be addressed comprehensively at EU level
and a Member States level in order to tackle simultaneously all the problems mobile EU
citizens are confronted with in the exercise of their electoral rights, conflating proportionality
considerations with subsidiarity.
Another argument in the same direction is that Regulation 2018/1724 already sets quality
lines for the provision of information on participating in elections to the European Parliament
and in municipal elections by Member States on their national webpages. As the policy
options envisage extending correspondingly the standards set out in Regulation (EU)
2018/1724 to the direct and individual provision of official electoral information to mobile
EU citizens by the Member States, it does not affect their electoral competencies. Under the
same group of fundamental elements underpinning the exercise of electoral rights, electoral
rolls, which contain information on the eligible voters, act as an integrity safeguard,
preventing individuals from voting more than once. Each voter can only be registered once,
39
multiple registrations of the same voter for the same election being incompatible with the
“one person, one vote” rule. In the case of elections to the European Parliament, the electoral
territories of the Member States form in fact a single constituency, which means that electoral
equality can be ensured only if the aforementioned rule applies. Due to the fact that overall
electoral equality in elections to the European Parliament can only be tackled at the level of
the contested constituency, both policy options which address multiple voting and de-
registration of mobile EU citizens comply with the subsidiarity principle.
Both policy options address the issue of the information provided by mobile EU citizens to
host Member States for registration purposes. As the registration is followed by a cross-
border exchange of information, establishing templates and data sets for this exchange is
within the remit and better addressed by the European Union. However, imposing automatic
registration of mobile EU citizens under Option 2 will have a significant impact on the
electoral procedures of Member States that use active registration. At the same time, de-
registration of mobile EU citizens from their home Member States is an issue better
addressed at EU level due to its cross-border component and general implications on the
effectiveness of the rights which make up the European citizenship.
6. HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE?
Based on the assessment of the likely various impacts (economic, social, security and
fundamental rights impacts) and their distribution across stakeholders (citizens, businesses
and public authorities) under previous section, this section compares the different options
with regard to their effectiveness, efficiency and coherence with other (EU) policies.
6.1 Effectiveness
Proposed scoring: ● Minor contribution towards objectives; ●● Major contribution, but
without fully achieving objectives; ●●● Achieving objectives.
Objective 1: Increase mobile EU citizens’ awareness and understanding of procedures
and practices to register and to participate in municipal and European elections.
Option 1 provides for both active obligations in the field of information provision and for
direct support offered to the citizens at their request. The first measure would ensure that
mobile EU citizens are proactively targeted with the same information that is shared with
national citizens and in more than just one language. The second measure at EU level would
rationalise existing support services for mobile EU citizens and national authorities. (Score:
●●●). Option 2 would create a new resource which could be helpful in channelling the
communication resources from EU and Member States level specifically on electoral rights.
However, it would risk to duplicate the efforts of Member States and EU, increase
proliferation of sites and services and making it even harder for people to figure out where
they can get help (Score: ●●).
Objective 2: Limit de-registration practices of Member States only to those elections in
which there is a risk of multiple voting.
In Option 1, a legal provision is proposed which would limit deregistration of mobile EU
citizens only where necessary, as a result of EU election data exchanges to ensure its non-
occurrence and put procedures in place accordingly. (Score ●●●)
Objective 3: Reduce the administrative barriers faced by mobile EU citizens when
registering to vote and to stand as candidates in municipal as well as European elections
40
Option 1 contains measures that seek to simplify the administrative steps by providing for
the use of a standardised form available in all languages. (Score ●●) Finally, Option 2
includes a measure that would require automatic registration for municipal elections, in
addition to the standardised form. For the reasons discussed above, by removing active
registration, this should contribute to increased reducing barriers and the effort required to
vote. (Score ●●●)
Objective 4: Reduce the possibilities of multiple voting by mobile EU citizens for
European elections.
Option 1 includes measures to reduce multiple voting providing a distinct improvement on
the current situation, as it increases the chances that the information exchanged is sufficient
to correctly identify voters in home Member State electoral rolls. Imposing an obligation for
Member States to inform EU citizens about prohibition of multiple voting in a personalised
manner might have beneficial effects. (Score ●●) Option 2 goes further in minimising the
technical possibilities of multiple voting and seek to address the most significant issues faced
by Member States in preventing it (Score ●●●)
Objective 5: Improve the collection of data for European elections and municipal
elections
Option 1 envisages that based on the standardised templates of the formal declarations
required to register as a voter and as a candidate, data collection in Member States would
improve. More granular information will be available both for elections to the European
Parliament and municipal elections (Score ●●). In Option 2 the harmonised processes and
fixed data to be collected by Member States would ensure not only that more data are
available but that they are available at the same time. This would not have an important
impact on the transparency of the elections to the European Parliament or in supporting
policy intervention as Member States usually provide access to electoral information either at
the date it becomes available or within a reasonable timeline. (Score ●●)
Objective 6: Ensure that mobile EU citizens have the same possibilities to stand for
candidates in municipal elections
Measures in Option 1, would not be expected to effectively address the equal opportunities
of mobile EU citizens to stand as candidates. This would mean that political change is down
to political will and offers little impetus for Member States to change the status quo. (Score
●) Option 2’s legal requirement entails the clearest non-discrimination measure, and directly
addresses the issue. While such restrictions are not in place in most Member States, it
represents a major improvement in cases where restrictions are in place. A smaller additional
effect on turnout may be found in the measure to remove the possibility to restrict certain
mandates to home nationals. While it is uncertain to what extent this will lead to more mobile
EU citizens standing for election, a more diverse pool of candidates could have a minor
positive effect on voter participation, with mobile EU citizens feeling more represented in the
election (Score ●●●).
6.2 Efficiency
Proposed scoring: ● Considerable additional costs or effort, non-proportionate to the benefits
and with difficult implementation; ●● Neutral or small increase in costs, proportionate to the
additional benefits; ●●● Any increases in costs are outweighed by the benefits.
41
Option 1 is successful in achieving the objectives, and where costs are implied, they are
proportional to or outweighed by the expected benefits of the measures. Establishing a
common dataset would be a significant measure to address the information mismatches that
occur in the ongoing data exchange. The costs and effort for Member States will depend on
what information they currently collect, and how it is processed. However, as newly-
registered mobile EU voters already have to supply certain information items, it does not
seem unreasonable to provide additional pieces of information. This measure may also carry
cost-saving effects for Member States as recipients of the information, if they can spend less
time on manually matching incomplete or inconclusive information. Together with the
measures discussed in the paragraph above, these measures collectively make good progress
towards the objective of preventing multiple voting.
The costs and effort of the final measures in Option 1 largely depend on their scope and
design. The measure which foreseen to streamline existing resources does not appear to carry
significant costs; on the Member State end, no additional effort would be expected. For the
two measures intending to support awareness of electoral rights, the associated effort will
depend on the current baseline in Member States (as shown in Table 1 in Annex 1).
Clarifying the requirement to inform mobile EU citizens of the effects of registration on their
home Member State electoral rights would not be expected to increase efforts, as this could
be communicated (and generally is) in connection with the registration form, and would
contribute to the objective of ensuring that mobile EU citizens are aware of their rights and
responsibilities.
Finally, the obligation to inform citizens in a personalised and individual manner will lead to
the most differentiated costs and effort between Member States. First, it would depend on the
extent to which Member States already have some form of direct communication in place to
inform EU citizens (see Table 1 of Annex 1); In Member States that do not have such
communication in place, the cost would depend significantly on how their population
registers are organised, namely information on the nationality and current address.
Furthermore, this information needs to be communicated between the register-holder and the
authority for communicating election information. In Member States with several different
registers, the implementation may therefore require more cost and effort.
Another aspect of added cost of more individual communication measures are translation
costs, where Member States generally do not provide electoral information in English.
However, translation costs – which would not be expected to be significant – are motivated
by the necessity to provide information that can be understood by mobile EU citizens, at least
in English but possibly also in other significant languages of the EU community in that
Member State. Even with the additional effort required by some Member States, an improved
flow of information to mobile EU citizens may increase interest in and awareness of
elections, and ensure that they are able to use their electoral rights fully. With this in mind,
the cost in some Member States appears motivated by the progress towards the objective.
(Score: ●●●)
Option 2 generally makes significant progress towards the objectives through greater
harmonisation of Member State procedures, but in some cases carry costs which do not
appear proportional in relation to the progress towards the objectives compared to Option 1.
The variation in expected costs remains the same: automatic registration for municipal
elections could be a relatively easy policy to implement in Member States where local or
national population registers have clear information on nationality, length of stay and address.
42
In Member States with many disparate registers, or where registration upon arrival is not
required87
, implementation will be more difficult, and require more resources. With some
allowance for variation in national circumstances88
, the implementation of automatic
registration can contribute to increased interest in and engagement with elections, while also
ensuring that non-national voters do not face undue barriers to the exercise of their electoral
rights.
Ultimately, the most significant – and possibly prohibitive – costs come in relation to
measures aiming to prevent multiple voting. Harmonising deadlines for electoral registration
would go a long way towards addressing one of the most common issues of the current data
exchange system, where information often reaches Member States at a stage when it is too
late to act on it. However, implementing this change would be a significant project in some
Member States, given how registration deadlines for EP elections vary between a few days
before election day, to up to 6 months in advance. It is not possible to estimate the effort
required to change these deadlines for administrations due to the significantly differing
institutional frameworks of the Member States, but it is reasonable to expect that the time of
preparing and agreeing to a proposal towards a common deadline would command significant
time and work at both EU-level and Member State level. In Member States where deadlines
are defined in law, significant effort may be required to prepare and carry out a change in the
law, again with the possibility of political opposition. It is likely that the biggest effort and
cost will be required for those Member States whose current deadlines diverge the most from
the proposed harmonised deadline; these Member State would likely also be the least positive
toward the proposal.
Harmonising data requirements may also require significant resources, although less so than
harmonising deadlines. The cost and effort of harmonising data requirements will in other
words depend on the information currently collected and exchanged between Member States,
and on the harmonised requirements. If some form of personal ID is required to be linked to
the electoral register, then Member States which do not currently have this in place may face
significant costs in developing one.
Establishing a common European information resource would have limited costs for Member
States as this information is already available to them, and only needs to be communicated
onward to the EU institutions. (Score: ●)
6.3 Coherence
Proposed scoring: ● Lacks coherence with legislation; ●● Broadly coherent with legislation,
but some gaps; ●●● Coherent with legislation.
The proposed measures under the different options need to be analysed in relation to relevant
EU measures.
The reform the Electoral Act of the European Union was adopted by the Council Decision
(EU, Euratom) 2018/994 on the revision of the EU electoral law. However, it is not yet in
87
Ireland and France.
88
E.g. if all resident mobile EU citizens cannot be registered, it might be possible, subject to respect of data protection
requirements, to link voter registration to those who have registered for taxes or social security. Although this would likely
be costly, it could offer a way around for Member State not having the required population registers in place.
43
application as still it has not been ratified by three Member States. The amendments proposed
aimed at solving some of the deficiencies identified, promoting harmonisation of certain
aspects of electoral rules such as the proportional representation and deadlines for submission
of candidacies. It encourages Member States to provide for possibilities of advance voting
such as postal voting, and electronic and internet voting, in European elections and requires
Member States to adopt measures to ensure that multiple voting is subject to effective,
proportionate and dissuasive penalties.
In parallel, the Commission Communication 2020/790/EU of 3 December 2020 on the
European democracy action plan announced the Commission intention to protect electoral
processes and propose a new operational EU mechanism to strengthen cooperation between
Member States and regulatory authorities89
.
All measures proposed under the three options, aim at achieving similar objectives to those
inspiring Council Decision 2018/994 on the revision of the EU electoral law and Commission
Communication 2020/790/EU(Score ●●●).
When it comes to information provision related activities, Option 1 would be the preferable
options as it will ensure coherence with other instruments such as the EU Single Digital
Gateway Regulation by reinforcing them (Score ●●●). Option 2 will be less coherent on this
aspect because it would conflict with the EU Single Digital Gateway Regulation main goal to
have an EU-wide entry point for citizens and businesses to access information and services
(Score ●).
6.4 Subsidiarity and Proportionality
Option 1 proposes to amend existing provisions in order to clarify Member States’ specific
obligations to inform mobile EU citizens in plain language, in multiple languages and in an
individualised manner prior to local and EP elections on their registration status, registration
procedure, voting modalities. The evidence identified shows that this measure would not
require excessive effort from Member States and therefore it is considered proportional to the
achievement of the objective sought. (Score ●●●).
Option 1 also proposes to define a starting date for the period of exchange of data, a
mandatory data set to be exchanged between Member States by introducing standardised
templates. This type of measure would facilitate the exchange of information on mobile EU
citizens between Member States which has been identified as one of the best instrument for
limiting the possibilities of multiple voting. Option 1 ensure convergence of one of the
administrative aspects necessary for the exchange of data that has a reduced impact on
Member States compared to measures proposed in Option 2. Option 1 is preferable with
regard to proportionality as it ensure more compatibility with the legal and constitutional
traditions of Member States. Further convergence on other aspects such as the deadlines of
electoral periods would have a greater impact on the legal traditions of Member States
electoral laws. Depending on the level at which legislation is positioned in the national legal
framework (constitutional level, primary law, secondary law), it might be very difficult to
change it. By virtue of the principle of non-discrimination, it will create a disproportionate
impact with electoral rules applying to nationals. Proportionality might also be an issue as
89
COM(2020) 790 final – 3.12.2020.
44
implementation costs would be significant in those Member States which do not collect the
data set required for which an interim period might be foreseen. However, taking into
consideration the serious implications deriving from multiple voting, this measure is
considered proportionate as the data set has been designed by taking into consideration data
already collected by a great number of Member States. In addition, it may also bring cost-
saving effects to Member States as recipients of the information, as they would need to spend
less time to manually match incomplete or inconclusive information. (Score ●●●).
As mentioned above, Option 2, as an alternative, envisages a legal obligation on Member
States to establish automatic registration for municipal elections. As explained in section 1,
there are limited and specific problems arising from administrative procedures. The measure
would be not be proportional for most Member States compare to the result to be achieved
which can be better solved by other means. It would create a disproportionate effects on
nationals in the case of Member States which use active registration for their citizens. It
would also mean that mobile EU citizens could be exposed them to sanctions in Member
States where there is a legal obligation for registered voters to participate in elections while
not being fully aware of it. Also political will is required for successful adoption of the
measure, and it is possible that electoral sentiment in some Member States leads to opposition
against automatic registration90
. Political will and electoral sentiment may also complicate the
measure that removes obstacles against non-nationals standing for certain political mandates;
in itself this does not imply additional costs, but in terms of time, it is possible that some
Member States may find it more difficult to implement the measure than others91
. (Score ●)
Option 2 instead, proposes to align Member States’ registration deadlines for the mobile EU
citizens to enter in the electoral roll, which would remove a significant obstacle faced by
Member States in the exchange of information on mobile EU citizens. As well within Option
2, a legal provision is proposed to harmonise and streamline the data requirements to be
exchanged between Member States while respecting the principle of data minimization and
accuracy. As mentioned under Option 1 this type of measure facilitates the exchange of
information on mobile EU citizens between Member States and the limitation of the
possibilities of multiple voting. The difference with option 2 is that the new provision would
aim at fully harmonising the implementation of the data to be exchanged in all Member
States. It would require modifying the electoral law that defines the deadlines within the
whole procedure. Therefore, proportionality might be an issue and measures will be more
intrusive and less acceptable by Member States. However, this measure could enable Member
States to have sufficient time to match incomplete or inconclusive information. (Score ●●).
Option 1 proposes the development of a new legal provision to forbid de-registration of
mobile EU citizens from other elections in their Member States of origin as a result of data
exchanges for European elections. This measure aim to prevent a consequence from current
legislation, as data show that deregistration of mobile EU citizens as a result of information
exchanged between Member States may prevent them from exercising their right to vote. It is
considered proportionate because it also aims at preventing the effects of the above
90
E.g. if there is a broad agreement that voters should show engagement by opting in, or in some cases if there are objections
to non-nationals influencing politics in the first place.
91
In a 2015 Eurobarometer poll, 48% of respondents said that non-national EU citizens should not be able to stand as
candidates for certain executive offices that currently are only open only to nationals; European Commission (2016) ‘Flash
Eurobarometer 431: Electoral Rights’, p. 9.
45
mentioned provisions to be introduced to prevent multiple voting, which will significantly
increase the scale of the phenomenon of deregistration. (Score ●●●).
Option 1 proposes the adoption of soft-law measures encouraging Member States to take
measure promoting participation of mobile EU citizens in intermediary levels of government.
The measures ensure proportionality as they leave to Member States the political will to
decide if removing such restrictions or not.(Score ●●) In Option 2, it is proposed to remove
the possibility to restrict certain mandates to home country nationals. It would achieve the
objective of equality of mobile EU citizens but subsidiarity and proportionality in some cases
might be an issue which doesn’t take into consideration the specific situation of Member
States. (Score ● ).
Option 2 proposes to establish a single new resource for citizen enquires about electoral
rights and a new Member States’ obligation to provide information to mobile European
citizens about their electoral rights. The new resource is an EU level activity and should
therefore be adopted at EU level. The measures under option 2 fulfil the principle of
proportionality (Score ●●). However, Option 1 would obtain a better score as there are
already existing services that provide help to citizens that could be improved implying less
costs (Score ●●●).
Table I: Effectiveness towards specific objectives
Option 1 Option 2
Effectiveness Objective 1: Increase mobile EU citizens’
awareness and understanding of procedures
and practices to register and to participate in
municipal and European elections.
●●● ●●
Objective 2: Limit de-registration practices
of Member States only to those elections in
which there is a risk of multiple voting.
●●●
Not
applicable
Objective 3: Reduce the administrative
barriers faced by mobile EU citizens when
registering to vote and to stand as candidates
in municipal as well as European elections
●● ●●●
Objective 4: Reduce the possibilities of
multiple voting by mobile EU citizens for
European elections.
●● ●●●
Objective 5: Improve the collection of data
for European elections and municipal
elections
●● ●●
Objective 6: Ensure that mobile EU citizens
have the same possibilities to stand for
candidates in municipal elections
● ●●●
Table II: Comparisons of policy options
46
Option 1 Option 2
Effectiveness ●● ●●●
Efficiency ●●● ●
Coherence ●●● ●●
Subsidiarity and Proportionality ●● ●
7. PREFERRED OPTION
It is suggested to propose a targeted revision of the existing legislative framework contained
in Directives 93/109/EC and 94/80/EC, as outlined in policy option 1 complemented by non-
legislative measures.
Such an approach would maximise the effect of consolidating the relevant Directives
governing electoral rights of mobile EU citizens, and ensure a comprehensive approach to
tackle the identified problems and achieve maximum impact for the exercise of electoral
rights of mobile EU citizens, while respecting national competence in electoral matters.
Introducing the possibility of delegated acts to modify the non-essential elements of the
Directives would provide for a more dynamic governance structure in line with the
possibilities offered by the Lisbon Treaty. This would contribute to maintaining legislation
updated and its efficient implementation.
Objective Preferred option
Further reduce the technical
possibilities of multiple voting.
 Definition of data set to be collected and exchanged
 Starting period of exchange of data is established
 Introduction of specific information requirement for
Member States to inform mobile EU citizens on the
prohibition of multiple voting and its consequences
Increase mobile EU citizens’
awareness and understanding of
procedures and practices to register
and to participate in municipal and
European elections.
 Introduction of specific information requirement for
Member States to inform mobile EU citizens in plain
language and in an individualised manner prior to municipal
and European elections about their registration status,
registration procedure and voting modalities
 Require Member States to provide timely information to
mobile EU citizens about their electoral rights and regularly
after their registration as voters or candidates.
 At EU level – via a streamlined shared resource increase the
information provision to mobile EU citizens in
communication efforts on European elections
47
Reduce the administrative barriers
faced by mobile EU citizens when
registering to vote and to stand as
candidates in municipal as well as
European elections.
 Introduce standardised templates for registration available in
all languages (Article 9 and 10 for European elections –
Article 8 and 9(2) for municipal elections)
Limit de-registration practices of
Member States only to those
elections in which there is a risk of
multiple voting.
 Prohibit deregistration of mobile EU citizens from national
other elections as a result of exchange of data to prevent
multiple voting in European elections
Ensure that mobile EU citizens have
the same possibilities to vote and
stand for candidates as non-mobile
citizens
 Support equal access to executive functions for municipal
elections
 Introduce a requirement to report on the application of
provisions regarding restrictions on executive functions
 Introduce explicit reference to equality of voting option
Improve the collection of data for
European elections and municipal
elections
 Insert provisions for a regular monitoring and reporting of
implementation by Member States.
 Work with the national statistical institutes and election
management bodies to collect, harmonise and publish more
granular data on participation, in municipal and European
elections
 Remove the obsolete provisions as specified in section
2.3.7
 enhanced legal certainty with a clear legal framework
governing use of the crypto tool including concerning
security requirements. The Commission will be given
implementing act powers to define responsabilities and
obligations for its operation.
7.1 Indicative Impact of the Preferred Option on Member States
Member States will be differently affected by the preferred policy option depending on their
baseline situation and what measures are already in place. Impacts on the Member States of
the different measures under the preferred option is difficult to estimate with precision, due to
many variables which will be explained below.
Impact of measures related to information-related barriers
Broadly, measures related to information-related barriers would entail an extension of
existing information efforts, and costs would come in the preparation and dissemination of
materials relating to mobile EU citizens’ electoral rights in the Member State, information
which is generally already available through booklets or online92
.
Some measures on informing mobile EU citizens in an individualised and direct manner
about voting registration, modes of voting, and the functioning of their respective electoral
systems is already in place in some form in 14 Member States.93
. Therefore no major cost or
92
Also required to be on Your Europe Portal from December 2020
93
Table 1 in Annex 1
48
impact is foreseen in these Member States. As one would expect, the highest costs are found
in significant countries of residence for mobile EU citizens, i.e. Germany, Spain, France and
Italy. The exact costs will however depend on the exact time taken to prepare materials for
circulation, and whether savings may be had through e.g. electronic distribution of materials
(e.g. in Estonia and Finland it is possible to choose to receive electoral communications
electronically) or lower-cost postage94
.
In addition, communication such as proactive mail-outs to newly-arrived mobile EU citizens
is not possible in cases where the Member State of residence does not mandate new arrivals
to register their residence (France, Ireland). Without this data, it is not possible to identify
new arrivals. However, where this is the case, national authorities should be appointed with
responsibility for taking the necessary measures to ensure that mobile EU citizens are
informed in a timely manner of the conditions and detailed rules for registration. To decrease
some of the cost in implementing this measure, it could be expected that information on
voting and candidate registration is sent to mobile EU citizens using electronic means of
communication on the basis of the contact information provided at their registration.
In addition, a requirement to inform mobile EU citizens in a more targeted manner would
likely have most impact in Member States like Bulgaria, Greece, Cyprus, where information
is generally available only in the national language.
Measures to ensure information to mobile EU citizens can be complemented with
requirements of measures to improve information on registration and deregistration.
Information to mobile EU citizens on the effect of their registration on their status in the
electoral roll, and on the need to deregister when leaving the Member State of residence,
would not entail much extra work for authorities. In many cases, this information is shared
already when registering, either verbally or as part of standard text on registration forms.
Member States that regularly update the electoral roll (e.g. Spain updates it monthly, every 2
years and every 5 years) may furthermore contact mobile EU citizens for confirmation of the
information, in case changes have occurred since registration.
Impact of measures related to multiple voting
Measures to prevent double voting by defining the starting period for the data exchange
and a mandatory dataset to be collected and exchanged will have different impacts
depending on the Member State’s starting point. This data set would include: name, place and
date of birth, and identification number from the country of nationality or alternatively
passport number or ID card number.
A mandatory dataset to be exchanged do not seem to entail much extra work and for Member
States where incomplete or incorrect data is a recurring problem, especially Member States
requiring extensive biographic information or the inclusion of diacritic characters for correct
identification, this could entail a significant cost-saving and efficiency-increasing measure.
As a standard, registration as a voter requires ID (sometimes in the form of national ID cards
of the country of residence), and in a few cases proof of residence (Denmark, France).
94
Indicative costs for all Member States are shown in Table 7 in Annex 6
49
Member States also require mobile EU citizens to sign a form or provide a statement to the
effect that they (i) will only vote in the Member State of residence, where they are registering
to vote, and (ii) that they retain their right to vote in their Member State of nationality.
Member State authorities can also generally demand further information or documentation if
they have reason to doubt the truthfulness of the submitted information.
Further verification of documents is only required in two cases: in Croatia a notarised
statement of personal details and retained electoral rights in the Member State of nationality
is required, and in Ireland registration documents must be witnessed and signed by a notary
public, solicitor, or police officer (Gardaí)95
. Some additional Member States (e.g. Italy and
Spain) may request documentation which supports voting rights in the home Member State,
but generally only if there is doubt over the veracity of submitted information.
The proposed data set contain elements which are already collected in the majority of
Member State96
. A key issue in this regard is whether there is a unique personal ID number
available97
– if there is, this is generally all that is needed for identification (conversely,
identification is not possible at all if the wrong ID number is provided). As the data set
foresee that the ID number is included in electoral rolls, costs and effort depend on whether
the Member State has an ID that can be used – whether through labour registration, social
security, tax account, or other registers98
– or whether other ID documents would be used.
Any new solution must also be applied retroactively to people already in the register, this will
further increase the potential cost.
Impact of measures related to administrative barriers
Measures to introduce standardised templates that the voter only casts their vote in the
Member State of residence would not be expected to have a significant associated cost for
Member States, as similar assurances are already gathered in the process of registration.
However, implementation costs may arise depending on what occasion these templates are
introduced for. If they are to be submitted in connection with registration, this would not
generally have an effect on costs or procedures as similar information is already collected.
However, if it is to be collected at the point of voting, it would add a significant amount of
effort in Member States where processing of new voters is not done in polling stations99
; this
would not only require training of staff to check for valid ID documents and other supporting
95
In the Irish case, an ongoing process of modernizing the electoral process means that this requirement may
change in the future; cf. Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage (2021) ‘General Scheme
of the Electoral Reform Bill 2020’, published 8 January 2021, available at:
<https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/34cf6-general-scheme-of-the-electoral-reform-bill-2020/>.
96
Table 6 in Annex 6
97
Overview of personal ID numbers in Member States are shown in Table 5 in Annex 5
98
It should be noted that where these systems have not generally interacted with electoral registers, significant
additional costs may accrue in linking the two systems.
99
As an example, it is possible for mobile EU citizens in Romania to register as a voter if they can provide
information which supports their biographical details, residence status in Romania, and retained electoral
rights in their home Member State.
50
information, but would also add a lot of documents to process in the aftermath of the election.
Furthermore, many Member States noted that the list of voters circulated to polling station
staff does not contain information on nationality, and thus would require additional changes
to processing and procedures.
Impact of measures related to deregistration practices
Prohibiting deregistration of mobile EU citizens from the electoral roll following data
exchanges in connection with the election to the European Parliament to prevent double
voting or when carrying out regular updates would require different resources depending on
the Member States’ population and electoral registers and how they interact.
Member States already seek to avoid deregistration from other electoral lists based on data
exchanges relating to the European Parliament, and the extent to which they are successful
depends on their available data and processes. Some Member States (e.g. Hungary) already
apply a policy of no deregistration of their nationals and would always enable national mobile
EU citizens to vote in their home country (based on the declaration that they only vote in
their home country) regardless if they are deregistered in their country of residence or not.
Other Member States with centralised population registers which in turn provide information
to their electoral registers (as is the case in e.g. Estonia, Finland and Sweden) are effective in
preventing deregistration that would affect mobile EU citizens exercise their electoral right,
as data only needs to be ‘flagged’ once. Some federalised Member States with centralised
population registers based on information from the local ones, establish a system of regular
updates (e.g. monthly updates in Spain) and contact their electoral registers for confirmation
or information. In Member States with no centralised registers or where the problem is more
common due to lack of data collection100
, it will presumably require more effort in terms of
improving the accuracy of data collection or improving the communication between different
registers.
Impact of measures to ensure that mobile EU citizens have the same possibilities to vote
and stand for candidates as non-mobile citizens
Soft-law measures to support the increased participation of mobile EU citizens to
intermediary levels of government face the barrier of being non-compulsory. Removing
restrictions on which political mandates mobile EU citizens can be elected to would not
necessarily be technically difficult, but would require legal changes and political decisions.
Such a reform process may be lengthy and could also face national opposition. In Austria and
Germany, where provisions vary between different federal states, the reform process may be
lengthier still. Implementation costs would otherwise likely be minor, if the political will is
there. However, the Directives will be updated to ensure that Member States report on those
restrictions. This would not comport major efforts by Member States.
Impact of measures to improve the collection of data for European elections and
municipal elections
The collection of data for European elections and municipal elections will benefit from the
use of common templates of the formal declarations which mobile EU citizens will have to
100
Note that it was not possible in baseline Member State research or follow-up interviews to establish how
common the problem of mistaken deregistratios is, as Member States do not collect data on this issue.
51
produce when registering as voters and candidates. The aggregation of the data provided by
mobile EU citizens will require the implementation of specific procedures and additional
personnel in the case of Member States which have decentralized registration procedures (e.g.
in Germany). In the case of Member States which use centralized registers and have
implemented centralized procedures to aggregate results, no additional efforts will be
required.
7.2 REFIT Cost Savings – Preferred Option
As mentioned above, the preferred option would entail some costs for Member States’ and
EU administrations for enhanced cooperation, but it is also expected to facilitate efficiencies
for authorities due to harmonised processes. Moreover, some Member States already have
systems close to the obligations envisaged in the preferred option and would thus not face
significant additional costs.
The preferred option would simplify the process of registering to vote and stand as candidates
in municipal and European elections for millions of mobile EU citizens. It would also reduce
their costs compared to the baseline.
8. HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED?
8.1 Plan for future monitoring and evaluation
Implementation will be monitored in terms of the measures adopted at the EU and Member
State level to implement the legislative and non-legislative measures deriving from the
preferred option, based on the amended provisions that will create a monitoring and reporting
cycle. Member States shall adopt and publish the measures necessary to comply with
Directive 93/109/EC by 31 May 2023. Within 6 months after each election to the European
Parliament, Member States shall send a report to the Commission on the application of this
Directive. Within one year after each election to the European Parliament, the Commission
shall submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of this
Directive. The Commission may propose any amendments that are deemed necessary.
Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
necessary to comply with the amendments made to Directive 94/80/EC within two years of
its entry into force. Within three years of the entry into force of the Directive and every two
years thereafter, the Member States shall report to the Commission on the application of the
Description Amount Comments
Reduced costs for mobile EU
citizens to register to vote and
stand as candidates in municipal
and European elections
Less time needed to register and
reduced number of documents
necessary to be provided.
Simplified access to clear
information on national
procedures and requirements.
Recipient: Mobile EU citizens
Savings from reduced
administrative burdens
Simplified registration procedure
will result in efficiencies for
administrations.
Recipient Host Member States’
administrations
52
Directive. The report shall contain relevant statistical data on the participation in municipal
elections of voters and candidates and a summary of measures taken in that regard. Within
five years of the entry into force of Directive 94/80/EC and every five years thereafter, the
Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the
application of this Council Directive.
Statistical data should include the number of mobile EU citizens registered as voters and
candidates, the number of mobile EU citizens who exercised their right to vote and the
number of elected mobile EU citizens. Additional statistical data such as the number of
mobile EU citizens who are members of a political party, would also be envisaged. The
statistical data will be structured and categorized uniformly and used to assess the impact of
the changes to the above mentioned directives on the participation of mobile EU citizens in
the electoral processes of their host Member State.
The Commission will also conduct an evaluation of the performance of both Directives, in
order to consolidate the information that will be collected from the implementation reports of
the Member States and the Commission and from the meetings of the European cooperation
network on elections and other relevant sources. After the entry into force of the new rules,
the evaluation of both Directives is envisaged to take place within two years from the last two
elections to the European Parliament.
For the evaluation of the success of this initiative, the below table can provide an overview of
the indicators and targets envisaged.
Specific
objective
Indicator Definitio
n
Unit of
measurem
ent
Data
source
Frequenc
y of
measurem
ent
Basel
ine
Target
Reduce
the
possibiliti
es of
multiple
voting
Identificati
on rate of
mobile EU
citizens
during the
exchange
of
informatio
n
the share
of
records
received
from
country
of
residence
that were
successfu
lly
matched
to
citizens
of the
country
of origin
Number of
mobile EU
citizens
whose data
is being
exchanged
Data shared
by Member
States.
After
every
European
Election
31% 62%
Increase
mobile EU
citizens’
awareness
and
understand
ing of
awareness
of
prohibition
of multiple
voting
among
mobile EU
prohibiti
on of
multiple
voting is
known
by
Number of
responses
from
mobile EU
citizens
Eurobarom
eter,
targeted
surveys
among
mobile EU
citizens,
After
every
European
Election
and every
5 years for
municipal
Exam
ple:
14%-
16%
they
are
Example:
Decrease to
10%
53
procedures
and
practices
to register
and to
participate
in
municipal
and
European
elections
citizens citizens Data shared
by Member
State,
feedback
from other
key
stakeholder
s such as
citizens
groups,
expats
associations
and direct
feedback
from
citizens
including
complaints
and queries
elections not
aware
of the
prohi
bition
Kanta
r
(2021
)
surve
y of
mobil
e EU
citize
ns
awareness
of the right
to vote in
the
Member
State of
residence
for mobile
EU
citizens
and related
registratio
n
procedures
the right
to vote in
the
Member
State of
residence
for
mobile
EU
citizens
and
related
registrati
on
procedur
es are
known
by
mobile
EU
citizens
Data shared
by Member
States.
targeted
surveys
among
mobile EU
citizens,
feedback
from other
key
stakeholder
s such as
citizens
groups,
expats
associations
and direct
feedback
from
citizens
including
complaints
and queries
After
every
European
Election
and every
5 years for
municipal
elections
71%
for
Europ
ean
electi
ons
and
56%
muni
cipal
electi
ons,
(FL
EB
485)
Increase to
75% for
European
elections and
60% for
municipal
elections
number of
citizens
making
use of
informatio
n
provision
services at
Access to
EDCC
and Your
Europe
Advice
and Your
Europe
EDCC and
Your
Europe
Advice
statistics
Your
Europe
After
every
European
Election
and every
5 years for
municipal
Europ
ean
Electi
ons:
betwe
en
1/9/20
18 and
30/6/2
Increase of
30% for
European
Elections in
correspondin
g period
For EP and
54
EU level Portal Portal
statistics in
number of
accesses to
municipal
elections
and EP
elections
pages
elections 019:
414
(Your
Europ
e
Advic
e)
Betwe
en
Januar
y and
April
2019,
374
(EDC
C)
municipal
elections:
increase
access to
pages in
Your Europe
Portal.
Reduce
the
administra
tive
barriers
faced by
mobile EU
citizens
when
registering
to vote and
to stand as
candidates
in
municipal
as well as
European
elections
number of
requests
received
from
mobile EU
citizens
who faced
administra
tive issues
to
participate
in
elections
in their
Member
State of
residence
Number of
responses
received
from
mobile EU
citizens
EDCC and
Your
Europe
advice
statistics,
Data shared
by Member
States.
feedback
from other
key
stakeholder
s such as
citizens
groups,
expats
associations
Complaints
and
enquiries
received by
DG JUST
After
every
European
Election
and every
5 years for
municipal
elections
Decrease of
the number
of mobile EU
citizens who
mention
administrativ
e issues
Limit de-
registratio
n
practices
of
Member
States
only to
those
elections
in which
there is a
number of
citizens
mentionin
g
deregistrat
ion
practices
Number of
responses
received
from
mobile EU
citizens
EDCC and
Your
Europe
advice
statistics,
Data shared
by Member
States.
targeted
surveys
among
mobile EU
After
every
European
Election
and every
5 years for
municipal
elections
Decrease of
the number
of mobile EU
citizens who
invoke de-
registration
as a reason to
not
participate in
elections
55
risk of
multiple
voting
citizens,
feedback
from key
stakeholder
s such as
citizens
groups,
expats
associations
Ensure
that
mobile EU
citizens
have the
same
possibilitie
s to vote
and stand
for
candidates
as non-
mobile
citizens
Changes
in the legal
framework
of
Member
States
Number of
mobile EU
citizens
using
alternative
voting
means
Equal
access to
any type
of special
voting
arrangem
ent or to
e-voting.
Ratio of
mobile EU
voters to
national
voters per
each type
of voting
arrangeme
nt
Data shared
by Member
States.
After
every
European
Election
and every
5 years for
municipal
elections
- Increase the
number of
mobile EU
citizens
using
alternative
voting means
Number of
debates
Number of
legislative
initiatives
Changes
in the legal
framework
of
Member
States
Mobile
EU
citizens
can stand
as
candidate
s for all
eligible
positions
contested
in
municipa
l
elections
Type and
number of
eligible
executive
positions
within
local
authorities
Information
shared by
Member
States.
Every 5
years for
municipal
elections
12
MS
restri
ct
positi
ons to
mobil
e EU
citize
ns
6 MS
organise at
least one
debate on the
topic at
national level
3 MS
envisage
legislative
changes
Improve
the
collection
of data
for
European
elections
and
municipal
elections
If
measures
are
implement
ed more
data will
be
available
Data shared
by Member
States.
After
every
European
Election
and every
5 years for
municipal
elections
56
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION
1. Lead DG, Decide Planning/CWP references
This Staff Working Document was prepared by the Directorate General of Charge of Justice
and Consumers.
The Decide Planning reference of the initiatives are PLAN/2020/8646 and PLAN/2020/8645.
One common impact assessment has been prepared.
2. Organisation and timing
The Impact Assessment was prepared by DG JUST as the lead Directorate General.
The Inter-Service Steering Group (ISSG) on EU citizenship was associated and consulted
several times in the process, i.e. on 13 January, 16 April and 27 August 2021, under the
coordination of the Secretariat-General. It included the following services: COMM, EAC,
GROW, JUST, JRC, RTD, SJ, TAXUD, SANTE, MOVE, HOME, ESTAT, ECFIN, REGIO,
SG. A written consultation of the ISSG on the draft impact assessment was conducted
between 2-16 August.
The last meeting of the ISSG, chaired by the Secretariat-General of the European
Commission was held on 27 August 2021.
Minutes of the last ISSG– 27 August 2021
Participants: SG: Julien MOUSNIER (Chair) JUST: Marie-Helene BOULANGER, Srd
KISEVIC, Silvia LOPEZ, Luise QUARITSCH, Deborah RICCETTI, Lina SCHNEIDER;
JRC: Michele D’ADDETTA; ESTAT: Javier ALCANTARA ORTEGA; MOVE Ruth LOPIAN;
EMPL Iva ZAMARIAN
- SG recalled that electoral rights of mobile citizens will be an important component of a
“democracy package”, to be adopted in November (with Political Ads and the revision of
rules on European Political Parties) and announced this will be the last ISSG meeting on the
draft Impact Assessment (IA) before it is submitted to the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB)
on 1st September.
- SG thanked all DGs, DG JUST in the first place, for all the hard work and the useful
discussions over the last months and asked the participants for possible final comments on
the draft or comments for the records. Comments received during Summer time have been
implemented.
- DG JUST explained the current improvements and refinements brought to the draft, in
particular to reflect comments already received in writing, and notably:
57
 Clarifications that it will not be possible to envisage the use of e-ID to prevent
multiple voting in the immediate future;
 Changes will be made with regards to delegated acts, after discussion with LS;
 LS is still verifying the legal basis for Option 3 (which is not a preferred option)
and the text will be adapted accordingly if necessary;
 Work continues with the contractor with a view to improve the underlying study;
 Work also continues to improve the economic analysis and the language
consistency of the IA;
 The proposals will strengthen sanctions relating to barriers to participation or to
equal opportunities;
 They will also adapt outdated provisions.
- No other DG took the floor
Operational conclusions
- Final comments by DGs, clearly indicating ownership, should be send with a deadline
Friday 27/08 lunchtime.
- IA to be sent to the RSB by 1st September, with a hearing planned on 29 September
3. Consultation of the RSB
An upstream meeting took place on 8 March 2021 and the recommendations of the
Regulatory Scrutiny Board were duly taken into account.
The Regulatory Scrutiny Board discussed the draft impact assessment in the hearing that took
place on 29 September 2021.
The Board issued a positive opinion on the draft impact assessment. The Board’s
recommendations have been took into account in the Impact Assessment, as the table below
displays.
Opinion of the Board Implementation
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 assessed and presented, to
make clear who is primarily affected
or not.
The impact assessment clarified and contextualized
the factors influencing electoral behaviour of mobile
EU citizens, such as length of stay in the country of
residence and consequential better knowledge of the
election process and political system. It is also paying
tribute to more individual circumstances that may
influence citizens voting behaviour, such as socio-
economic status and language knowledge. While the
overall problems remained the same, the impact
assessment now gives better indication of the scale of
the problems by pointing out the specificity of
different aspects of voting obstacles and linking it
58
more accurately to the demographic affected.
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.
As a consequence to this comment, the policy options
were adapted to better reflect the key policy choices
and disaggregated. The baseline scenario was
extended to include the measures already in place. To
present the alternative policy choices better, and as a
result of the extension of the baseline scenario, the
number of policy options was reduced from three to
two.
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 impact assessment now includes policy options
that were disregarded due to proportionality and
efficiency considerations at an earlier stage of the
process. Subsidiarity considerations were added to the
assessment of policy options, outlining the necessity
of action on the grounds of the nature of the matter
involving multiple Member States.
An additional section in the comparison chapter
specifies the subsidiarity and proportionality
considerations for each policy choice in the two
options, leading to a more stringent assessment on
these grounds.
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.
A section on the indicative impact of the preferred
option on Member States was added, listing in detail
the impact of each measure envisaged in the preferred
policy option. This includes taking into account that
some Member States already have some of the
envisaged provisions in place, limiting the impact of
the preferred policy option to those Member States
that most deviate from the foreseen adaptations.
The monitoring and evaluation
provisions should be more precise.
The description of the specific
objectives should outline the
expected achievements.
The impact assessment now explains in greater detail
the envisaged monitoring cycle for the next 5 years
after its entry into force, including monitoring and
data reporting requirements for Member States.
Future evaluation of the initiative
and its timing should be presented.
The proposed indicators should
permit success to be measured.
Indication of the timing for a future evaluation was
added. An table detailing the indicators and targets
envisaged to measure the success of the initiative was
added, listing the specific objectives, their indicators
and definitions as well as the unit of measurements,
data source, frequency of measurement, the current
baseline and the target aimed for.
4. Evidence, sources and quality
59
The impact assessment was informed by multiple sources and information generated
specifically for the impact assessment. Sources of information comprised
 direct feedback from citizens in their contacts with the Commission;
 expert consultations in particular in the framework of the expert group on electoral
matters and ECNE (Annex 2 provides further details on the these consultations)101
;
 an open public consultation from 19 April 2021 to 12 July 2021102
(Annex 2 provides
further details on the open public consultation);
 interviews with stakeholders including Member States as well as
 relevant studies, including those conducted by the Network of academics on EU
citizenship103
, literature and EU publications in particular the Reports on European104
and municipal elections105
issued by the Commission in the last 5 years.
A study has been commissioned to feed into the Impact Assessment, containing generation of
material such as data collection based on qualitative interviews.
5. Implementation plan
Implementation will be monitored in terms of the measures adopted at the EU and Member
State level to implement the legislative and non-legislative measures deriving from the
preferred option. Based on the amended provisions that will create a monitoring and reporting
cycle, the Commission should submit an implementation report to the European Parliament
and the Council after every European Election for Directive 93/109/EC and of the and every
five years after entry into force for Council Directive 94/80/EC 94.
The assessment of impacts will rely on an essentially qualitative methodology (e.g. an
analysis of feedback from national authorities and other key stakeholders such as citizens
groups, including complaints) on the extent to which implementation of the preferred policy
option achieves the desired impacts and contributes to the achievement of the general aims of
EU intervention.
As the improvement of the collection of data for European elections and municipal elections
is an objective in itself envisaged by this initiative, it is expected that better quantitative data
would be available in relation to (i) the registration, (ii) identification on electoral rolls, and
101
https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/eu-citizenship/electoral-rights/european-
cooperation-network-elections_en#meetings
102
https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/ElectoralRightsMobileEUCitizens
103
See, especially, Political Participation of Mobile EU Citizens, Network of academics on EU citizenship (EU-
CTZEN), September 2018, https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/eu-citzenglobalcittypebreport_en
104
The most recent one was announced in June 2020, accessible via:
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/com_2020_252_en_0.pdf
105
The most recent one was announced in in February 2018, accessible via https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52018DC0044
60
(iii) turnout of mobile EU citizens for European and municipal elections, as well as the
number of mobile EU citizens who (iv) stand as candidates and (v) who are elected in
European and municipal elections. Quantitative data on identification rate of multiple voting
would also be available.
Nevertheless, it will be important to adopt a realistic approach to monitoring the
implementation of the preferred policy option and not to over-burden national authorities.
Consultations with Member States will be needed to determine the most appropriate
frequency of data collection and reporting but an annual cycle could be suggested. The data
collected at Member State level will then have to be analysed on the EU level.
61
ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION
2.1 The stakeholder engagement strategy
The Commission has conducted wide consultations on issues related to electoral rights of
mobile EU citizens during the last year and recently in the course of 2021 until July. The
consultation process built upon multiple elements, which helped identify the key issues at stake
as well as the spectrum of pertinent options and their assessment.
The stakeholder engagement strategy aimed at gathering the input of the following actors:
 National authorities including through the European Cooperation Network
on Elections and the expert group on electoral matters. Two dedicated sessions took
place respectively on 28 January 2021 and on 10 June 2021
 Civil society organisations advocating for fundamental and democratic rights (such
as digital rights);
 Other stakeholders and the general public including citizens themselves through
the OPC of which a thorough data analysis has been conducted.
An open public consultation (“OPC”) took place in the period 19 April 2021 to 12 July 2021 (twelve
weeks) to support the revision of the Directives 93/109/EC and 94/80/EC. It provided information to
develop the problem definition and policy options.
Discussions on electoral matters in the Council (including in the GAG Working Party when discussing
the reform of the EU electoral law) and in the European Parliament (including in the Committees in
charge of Constitutional Affairs, Legal Affairs, Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and Petitions)
has provided significant input to this process106. Discussion in the Working Party on Fundamental
Rights, Citizens Rights and Free Movement of Persons (FREMP) and the relevant Parliament
committees in the context of the 2020 Citizenship Report and citizenship in general was also taken
into account107.
2.2 Open public consultation (OPC) – 19 April 2021 -12 July 2021
An OPC was carried out in the period 19 April 2021 to 12 July 2021. It was promoted through the
Commission’s website, as well as through specific networks. Outreach to the wider stakeholder
106
See, for instance, study on Obstacles to participation in elections and the exercise of voting rights, inside
the E.U, European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs,
September 2020,
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/658593/IPOL_STU(2020)658593_EN.pdf .
107
See, for instance, the Joint Hearing on Union Citizenship: Empowerment, Inclusion, Participation, with the
participation of the JURI, LIBE, AFCO and PETI European Parliament’s Committees and the European
Commission, on 29 October 2020, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/joint-hearing-union-
citizenship-empowerm/product-details/20201023CHE07681 .
62
community was organised by communication services of the European Commission (notably via
social media).
61 responses were received with 39 responses from the citizens, 10 from the civil society
organisations and 8 from national authorities. Participants did not always replied to all
questions. Specific questions were tailored for specific groups with some common elements.
Due to the numbers of participants and the self-selection of respondents, the validity of the
OPC is limited.
A summary of some of the main findings can be found below.
The main countries respondents originated from were Germany, France, and Italy, with
answers also from participants in Ireland, Portugal, Hungary, Poland, Croatia, Austria, Spain
and singular input from the UK, Sweden, Romania, Belgium, Slovakia and Latvia.
On substance, the results from the public consultation highlight that the main obstacles for
mobile EU citizens in availing of their electoral rights were principally unclear or early
registration deadlines and registration processes.
The automatic notification of mobile EU citizens of their voting rights in municipal
elections once they are registered in another Member State is the most supported policy
option in facilitating and increasing the participation of mobile EU citizens in municipal
elections (see Figure 1). Indeed, 53 respondents either found this policy option to strongly
increase participation or moderately increase participation. The option that is considered by
the largest number of respondents to increase participation strongly is the automated
municipal election registration at the time of registration into the new residing state. This
option can be collected 43 “strongly increase participation” while the first on automatic
notification had gathered 35.
NGOs and many citizens were very much in favour of automatically notifying mobile EU
citizens once they register in their new country of residence, of their right to vote at
European elections in either their country of residence or in their home country.
Regarding the policy measures aimed at facilitating and increasing participation of mobile
EU citizens in European elections, the options that gathered the most support involved the
automatic reception of targeted information on the registration requirements and deadlines
by mobiles EU citizens , as well as automatic notification of EU mobile citizens of their
right to vote at European elections either in their country of residence or in their home
country upon registration in the new country of residence.
Figure 1: One of the policy objectives of this initiative is to facilitate and increase the
participation of mobile EU citizens in local elections. In your opinion, how likely are the
following measures to increase the participation of mobile EU citizens in local elections?
Please place yourself on this scale where '1' indicates that you believe it will “strongly
decrease participation”, '5' indicates that you believe it will "strongly increase
63
participation" and the remaining numbers indicate something in between these two
positions. (n=60)
Source: Annex V to the underlying study - Open Public Consultation analysis
64
Challenges in municipal elections
Feedback from civil society organisations and public authorities shows that the frequency of
complaints are very diverse among respondents. Responses, as displayed in Figure 2, varied
significantly. For instance, the complaint that the information provided was unclear or in a
language the citizens did not understand gathered nine answers. Unclear registration
deadlines and registration processes have been mentioned by ten respondents as very
common or common and six have mentioned it is either rare or very rare. When looking
specifically at respondent type (NGO or national authority) national authorities tend to
believe there are significantly less complaints than NGOs do.
Four NGOs, who have mentioned “other” as a common frequency, have given more detail on
what kind of complaints have come up:
 lack of communication and outreach from municipal and national authorities;
 lack of access and flexibility for people with physical disabilities;
 inability to vote or stand in local elections of people with mental disabilities as they
are deprived of their legal capacities;
 mobile EU citizens with disabilities cannot exercise their right to vote in 14 Member
States because of deprivation of legal capacity and other discriminatory legal barriers
(in the other 13 Member States this is not the case).
In terms of candidacy for municipal elections, the complaint that NGOs and national
authorities are most aware of is the lack of practical information on how to stand for
candidate. The second complaint most observed involves unclear requirements to stand for
candidate.
65
Figure 2: To your knowledge, which of these complaints in relation to voting in local
elections are most frequent? Please place yourself on this scale where '1' indicates that
you believe this complaint in relation to voting at local elections was “very rare”, '5'
indicates that you believe this complaint was "very common" and the remaining
numbers indicate something in between these two positions.
EN EN
Challenges in European elections
When enquired about the challenges in voting for European Elections, out of those
mobile EU citizens that did try to vote for a home country list of candidates in the
European elections while residing in another Member State, two mentioned unclear
registration deadlines. One respondent gave another reason and mentioned the
requirement to drive back to their home country in order to vote. Note though that one of
the persons who stated “no” also said in the comment box that they voted in their home
country.
31 out of 32 respondents representing mobile EU citizens stated never having tried or
actually stand for candidate in European parliamentary elections while residing in
another MS. One respondent, however, has tried and mentioned not being able to join or
found a political party.
As regards the feedback from competent authorities and civil society organisations, the
frequency of complaints received seems to vary a lot depending on the organisation type.
Most NGOs reported that the complaints proposed by the questionnaire are very common
and national authorities mostly report that these complaints are rare. Figure 3 shows that
there is close to an even split in the approximation of complaint type frequency.
67
Figure 3: To your knowledge, which of these complaints in relation to voting in
European parliamentary elections are most frequent? Please place yourself on this
scale where '1' indicates that you believe this complaints in relation to voting at
European parliamentary elections was “very rare”, '5' indicates that you believe
this complaint was "very common" and the remaining numbers indicate something
in between these two positions. If you have not received complaints, please, select
“Not applicable” (n=22)
Source: Annex V to the underlying study - Open Public Consultation analysis
Six different respondents complained about the lack on practical information on how to
stand for candidate. Five respondents were aware of people complaining about unclear
requirements to stand for candidate. Six respondents mentioned not being aware of any
of the proposed complaint types in the survey question.
Most respondents (30 out of 39) consider it either essential (21) or of high priority (9)
that the EU further reduces barriers for mobile EU citizens in exercising their electoral
rights. Six find this to be a medium priority and three consider this not to be a priority for
the EU.
Ten of the 22 organisations consider that EU action to further reduce barriers for mobile
EU citizens in exercising their electoral rights is essential. Four and five organisations
have mentioned this to be a high and medium priority respectively. Only one
organisation stated that they do not find this to be a priority.
Preventing double voting in European Parliament Elections
Public authorities have gathered that the most politically and practically feasible
measure to prevent double voting in European elections is a more secure and
streamlined processes in exchanging data on electoral rolls. The second more politically
68
and practically feasible measure involves reminding mobile EU citizens of their
obligation to de-register upon departure from their country of residence to avoid outdated
data being exchanged. The least feasible measure of the proposed list concerned
requiring mobile EU citizens to declare whether they have two EU citizenships and to
sign a declaration stating that they will only vote in one EU Member State, specifying
which one.
Figure 4: Which of the above measures, do you think, is most likely to help prevent
double-voting in European elections? Please rank your top 3 (n=45)
Source: Annex V to the underlying study - Open Public Consultation analysis
69
Figure 5: And how politically and practically feasible do you find these measures to
fight double-voting in European parliamentary elections? Please place yourself on
this scale where '1' indicates not at all feasible, '5' indicates very feasible and the
remaining numbers indicate something in between these two positions: 5. Requiring
mobile EU citizens to sign a declaration stating that they will only vote in one EU
Member State, specifying which one. (n=12)
Source: Annex V to the underlying study - Open Public Consultation analysis
Additional feedback provided
Several respondents provided additional feedback to the OPC. The most relevant for this
impact assessment are the following. One respondent suggested to be able to vote in
other elections in their country of residence, referring among others to vote in other
elections as a major motivation to acquire host country nationality. Other respondent
indicated that the ambition of allowing people to choose where to vote (home or host
country) is a commendable one. One found the information provided by the country of
residence (Belgium) excellent. Another said that information provision is essential for
participation. One contribution highlighted the need for campaigning to increase
participation.
Written contributions and papers:
Stakeholders had also the possibility to provide written feedback and position papers.
The following stakeholders have submitted, through or outside the OPC, a position or
policy paper, shared significant material, or held bilateral meetings with the Commission:
70
1. International Working Group Delft (the Netherlands)
2. European Disability Forum
3. Global Institute for Structure relevance, Anonymity and Decentralization
(GISAD) i.G. (Germany)
4. Mental Health Europe
5. the3million (the United Kingdom)
6. Voters Without Borders
7. Ministry of Interior of Spain
8. European Federation of National Organisations Working with the Homeless
(FEANTSA)
9. National Association of Local Communities (Denmark)
10. Harghita County Council (Hungary)
11. European Citizen Action Service (ECAS)
12. Brexpats you matter (France)
GISAD (a German Institute) welcomes the European Commission’s initiative which aims
to simplify the voting process for mobile EU citizens. It emphasises the need to allow EU
mobile citizens to vote digitally and that the technical standards for elections should be
the same in all the EU countries (ensuring, at the same time, the safe transmission and
storage of voting data).
Voters without borders indicated that having automatic and online registration in all
Member States would greatly encourage the participation of mobile EU citizens and
reduce the difficulties associated with administrative processes. They defend that mobile
EU citizens should have the choice to register, as they wish, either in their country of
residence or origin for each type of election. They stressed that for the reform to be fully
effective, it is clear that both hard and soft law measures are needed. More emphasis
needs to be placed on information and involvement of mobile EU citizens, along with
cooperation between Member States.
The following types of obstacles and barriers to voting were described in the
contributions received:
- Insufficient information provision and outreach and the fact that when
information is provided it is only in the language of the host country;
- Some Member States imposing additional residency requirements (examples cited
were Czechia and Luxembourg);
- The fact that automatic registration is not yet a common practice in most Member
States and a few Member States require repeated registration;
- Registration deadlines being too distant from the actual election;
- Disenfranchisement as a result of exchange of information. The Portuguese
authorities in particular noted that they are frequently faced with complaints that
Portuguese nationals who used to reside and vote abroad are not able to vote
71
when they return to their home country as they are marked in electoral roll as
voting for another country (previous country of residence).
The following obstacles were noted regarding candidacy:
- Eligibility restrictions if people want to stand as candidates (inability to stand for
executive offices);
- Difficulties for mobile EU citizens to join political parties in their host country
FEANTSA points out that homeless persons across the EU who are mobile EU citizens
face even more challenges in exercising their rights than homeless persons who are
residents in their home country. It emphasises the need for elections to be inclusive and
hence ensure participation of these highly disadvantaged groups.
Mental Health Europe submitted a report prepared together with the European Network
of National Human Rights Institutions about citizenship rights of people with disabilities
and under guardianship. This report points out the difficulties this target group have in
exercising their electoral rights.
The European Disability Forum (EDF) recommends accessibility to digital solutions (as
well as tools, information communication, identification methods). It advocates for the
same accessibility requirements as those laid down in the 2016 Web Accessibility
Directive108 for the methods used for European or municipal elections. Should a shared
source be created, this should also fulfil the mentioned accessibility requirements for
persons with disabilities.
2.3 Feedback from Member States: ECN & Expert Group on electoral matters
For the purpose of this impact assessment, two joint meetings between the European
cooperation network on elections (ECNE)109 and the Expert group on electoral matters110
were hosted on 28 January 2021 and on 10 June 2021. To facilitate the discussion on the
108
Directive (EU) 2016/2102 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2016 on the
accessibility of the websites and mobile applications of public sector bodies (Text with EEA relevance
); https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2016/2102/oj
109
The ECNE was inaugurated in 2019 and brings together representatives of Member States’ authorities
with competence in electoral matters, and allows for concrete and practical exchanges on a range of
topics relevant to ensuring free and fair elections, including data protection, cyber-security,
transparency and awareness raising
110
The Expert group on electoral matters was established in 2005 and its mission is to establish close
cooperation between the institutions of the Member States and the Commission on issues relating to
elections; to help the Commission by providing information and advice on the situation of electoral
rights within the EU and its Member States; and to facilitate the exchange of information, experiences
and good practices in this area https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-register/screen/expert-
groups/consult?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=617 .
72
revision of the electoral Directives, the a discussion paper had been shared with the
participants in advance of the joint meetings
Some of the issues discussed in these two joint meetings had already been raised in
previous ECNE meetings, such as the need for measures to support participation of EU
citizens in European elections and the urgency to tackle multiple voting111. During the
joint meeting hosted on 28 January 2021, there were discussions concerning the obstacles
that mobile EU citizens face to participate in elections and to exercise their voting rights,
and concerning the issue of preventing multiple voting. Problems concerning access to
information about the voting process were identified (such as the lack of information
available in simple language on how to vote, when and where). Representatives from
some Member States pointed out that voter names with strange characters make it
difficult to exchange information. Other Member States stressed that some mobile EU
citizens residing in their countries had complained about the fact that on election day
they were not able to vote because they had falsely been flagged as voting in their
Member State of origin. Some Member States recognised the importance of establishing
an EU-level campaign to raise awareness of mobile EU citizens about their electoral
rights. A majority of Member States expressed their favourable opinion towards
harmonising deadlines to vote and register for European elections.
During the joint meeting hosted on 10 June 2021, the discussions mainly focused on the
effective communication to mobile EU citizens about their electoral rights, the
registration procedure and the prevention of multiple voting. The majority of Member
States highlighted that mobile EU citizens would benefit from a shared resource
combining all existing material and information on the Directives. Other Member States
mentioned the necessity to rely on the Regulation on the EU Single Gateway112 to
provide access to information on such matters. Some Member States indicated that it
would be beneficial to harmonise the data set to be exchanged under Article 13 of
Directive 93/109/EC and the timeframe for registration to European elections.
The European Commission had received feedback from a number of Member States on
the basis of the discussion paper shared with the participants in advance of the joint
meetings
111
See, e.g., ECNE meeting of 7 June 2019 (https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/minutes-meeting-7-june-
2019_en), ECNE meeting of 24 June 2020 (https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/minutes-meeting-24-
june_en) and ECNE meeting of 25 September 2020 (https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/minutes-meeting-
25-september_en) .
112
Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 October 2018
establishing a single digital gateway to provide access to information, to procedures and to assistance
and problem-solving services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 (Text with EEA
relevance.) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32018R1724 .
73
One Member State welcomed the provisions aimed at informing mobile EU citizens of
their electoral rights. It also welcomed proposals to better combat multiple voting.
However, it expressed its opposition against a harmonisation of registration deadlines for
European elections. It also highlighted its concern that some policy options might exceed
EU competence.
Another Member State highlighted that the harmonisation of the collection of personal
data for enrolment would mean that some Member States of residence would collect
more personal data than the Member State of origin actually needs to identify a person,
which could potentially raised data protection concerns. It also pointed out that synergies
with the eIDAS Regulation113 could benefit this initiative.
Another Member State indicated that a variable that is considered essential and that
currently does not appear among the registration data exchanged between Member States
under Directive 93/109 is the date of registration in the electoral census for the Member
State of origin and the date of registration of the declaration of intention to vote for the
European elections in the Member State of residence. If a mobile EU citizen was listed in
both, he could only vote where the most recent registration appears. It also highlighted
that the main current problems under the Directives stem from the lack of a common
identifier for EU citizens.
2.4 Specific consultation conducted by the external contractor
The external contractor commissioned to provide a study to support the preparation of the
initiative. Supported by targeted questionnaires, the contactor has conducted an extensive
range of individual interviews to stakeholders from all relevant categories (EU level
stakeholders, mobile EU citizens and Member States).
For the Commission, beyond DG JUST, interviews took place with the Commission (DG
EMPL, DG COMM (EDIC), DIGIT, DG GROW, (Your Europe and Singe Digital
Gateway and Solvit ) and JRC), the Citizen’s Enquiry Unit of the European Parliament,
EU political parties (EPP, S&D, Greens), the Fundamental rights agency, the Committee
of the Regions, European Mobile Youth (Annex III of the underlying study).
The contractor also conducted a targeted online survey of mobile EU citizens (Annex II
of the underlying study) with a total of 4356 respondents. The purpose was to reach the
specific group of mobile EU citizens and evaluate their experiences in participating
politically, as well as the variety of factors that influence their participation.
113
Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on
electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market and repealing
Directive 1999/93/EC https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2014.257.01.0073.01.ENG .
74
The survey wanted to assess the impacts of the policy options, aimed at increasing the
political participation of mobile EU citizens. Secondly, the goal was to identify certain
characteristics of a target population for which one or the other measures work best.
The results showed, that the policy measures most likely to result in the highest increase
in participation were automatic registration and targeted mail-outs in plain and simple
language. It also showed a strong positive effect of a) access to information in news b)
interest in politics on turnout. The survey reveals preference for a diverse pool of
candidates, where respondents state that having more mobile Europeans stand as
candidates would have some effect, lower than for other measures tested.
In preparation of the contractor study, there was an analysis of complaints and enquiries
received by EC and EP services related to local and European Parliament elections
(Annex I of the underlying study). The contractor conducted interviews with EU-level
stakeholders (Annex III to the study) and held an online community with experts (Annex
IV to the study), whose analysed results fed into the elaboration of the study.
75
ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW?
3.1 Practical implications of the initiative
The following table presents a summary description of the categories of actors
considered for the purpose of this impact assessment.
Member States’ public authorities
Required to exchange harmonised data sets to reduce the technical possibilities of multiple voting. Inform
mobile EU citizens about the procedures and practices to register and to participate in municipal elections and
European elections and promote the exchange of good practices with other Member States in annual meetings.
EU public authorities
Reduce the technical possibilities of multiple voting, by optimising the technical tool for the exchange of data.
Conduct a targeted campaign to inform mobile EU citizens that multiple voting is prohibited. Increase the
prominence of information provision around EU elections. In addition, conduct a pan-European campaign to
inform mobile EU citizens of their electoral rights. DG Just and Eurostat will collaborate with national
statistical institutes to collect, harmonise and publish turnout data for mobile citizens.
Mobile EU citizens
Mobile EU citizens will need less time to register for elections and provide fewer documents.
3.2Summary of costs and benefits
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.
No burdensome procedures in case of
deregistration from home Member States
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.
76
II. Overview of costs – Preferred option
Citizens/Consumers Businesses Administrations
One-off Recurrent One-off Recurrent One-off Recurrent
Definition of
common data set
exchanged
Direct
costs
The exact
costs for
national
administratio
ns depend on
the
interconnecti
on between
the electoral
register of the
country and
the
population
register and if
they collect
the data set
already or
not.
The ongoing costs are expected
to be minimal and entail the
ongoing cooperation with DGIT.
Indirect
costs
Introduction of
information
requirements 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
Standardised
templates for the
mandatory
available in all
languages
Direct
costs
For Member States, standardised
forms would replace or
complement the current ones.
The preparation, for adapting to
the new templates might imply
some costs.
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.
77
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 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
78
ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS USED IN PREPARING THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
4.1 Methodology used to collect data
The evidence, relevant data and information collected to support the Impact Assessment were
mainly collected from the following sources:
 Relevant stakeholders consultation (including an OPC and other sources of feedback,
such as the ECNE meetings)114; and
 Study by an external contractor, which included a survey of mobile EU citizens, targeted
interviews at EU level, and a questionnaire addressed to Member States.
The data used in the Impact Assessment is largely based on the external study supporting the
preparation of this impact assessment. The methodological approach used by the external
contractor builds upon a variety of research methods to ensure that all relevant data is gathered
to perform an in-depth assessment of the selected policy options and their impacts: (1) primary
data collection methods (e.g. interviews, survey); (2) secondary data collection methods (e.g.
desk research, legal review of EU standards, literature review etc.); (3) quantitative analysis (e.g.
costs benefits analysis) and (4) qualitative analysis methods (e.g. content analysis). The policies
and legislation are assessed transparently, based on factual evidence and considering the views
of the stakeholders concerned.
The methodology used by the contractor for the different consultation elements is
displayed below:
Analytical element Methodology followed
Analysis of
complaints and
enquiries received
by EC and EP
services related to
local and European
Parliament elections
(I)
A total number of 1120 entries, between complaints and general
enquiries have been received overall. Kantar Public was provided
with the full anonymised text of the enquiries.
The complaints and enquiries are analysed on a general level,
looking at the overall data, as well as with a focus on the share of
complaints submitted by mobile citizens. The entries received
were analysed according to the level of elections concerned. There
were no significant differences between overall submissions and
mobile citizens’ enquiries.
Targeted online
survey (II)
Questionnaire
“Survey evidence”
Recruitment methodology used in 2019 for the European
Parliament was replicated, where large numbers of mobile EU
citizens had to be reached.
Online advertising on social media was used as the recruitment
channel to reach as many mobile EU citizens as possible,
advertising on various expatriate groups.
The sampling methodology used a non-probabilistic approach, yet
one that was considered feasible at a reasonable cost, allowing to
114
For a detailed analysis of the collection and the results of the stakeholders consultation, please
see Annex 2.
79
draw conclusions on an otherwise niche population.
Respondents were presented pre-experiment questions within the
questionnaire, asking about the following points:
- Their registration status
- Electoral turnout history
- Their perception towards various types of elections
(local, national, European parliament)
Patterns of political participation and civic engagement
Awareness of the required registration procedure
- Recall of potential reminders received, their attitude
towards such potential reminders and potential self-
declared impact of such reminders.
After answering the questions of the pre-experiment module, and
being randomly allocated into one of the four groups, respondents
were asked to evaluate on a scale from 0 to 10, 0 meaning “I will
certainly not vote” and 10 meaning “I will most certainly vote”,
how likely they are to vote in the election corresponding to the
letter they received.
By comparing the answers on the likelihood to vote across all
four groups, using a between-subject design, and by considering
the real-life history of participation and likelihood to vote in
various types of elections from the information elicited in the pre-
experiment questionnaire, we were able to estimate the potential
impact of each one of the procedures taken into consideration.
Overall, three crucial factors were tested within this study, which
were political interest, political information, and political
knowledge. These three factors are considered crucial for political
participation, and rose by campaigning.
As a methodological approach, the contractor used an
experimental module in the survey to assess the probability of
mobile European´s voting. To do this, the survey participants were
randomly allocated to two experimental groups, one focused on
the local elections and the other on the European Parliament ones.
Within each group, the participants were asked to read a vignette
describing a situation in which, after living for two years in their
country of residence, they receive a letter about upcoming
elections. In the case of the group focused on the local elections
the two letters captured these two scenarios:
- Automatic registration;
- Active registration
In the case of the European Parliament election, respondents are
informed that they have to register to vote, in either a formal,
standard language or in a more user-friendly but also emotional
one which appeals to their sense of civic duty. Thus, the
experiment consists in four treatments (i.e., versions of the letter),
80
each participant seeing only one of them.
Thus, to properly investigate the effect of exposure to the four
letters, we also need to consider as many as possible additional
factors that play a role in shaping the real-life likelihood to vote.
For this, two regression models were carried out through which it
attempted to explain the changes in the likelihood to vote by
considering, in addition to the exposure to the four letters,
elements such as the participants’ length of stay in the country in
which the interview took place, their age, their interest in politics
and frequency of exposure to local news, and the self-declared
perceived level of integration in the community.
Although the approach might have had the scientific rigour and
robustness of results of a field experiment, they survey has gone
beyond only using self-report measures to evaluate the likelihood
of election turnout, in this way avoiding some degree of social
desirability.
Interviews with EU
level stakeholders
(III):
Interview
Methodology
A total number of 11 EU level interviews have been carried out
with a range of stakeholders. The stakeholders interviewed were
previously agreed upon with DG JUST. The interviews fell into
three categories:
1) Interviews with organisations that have understanding and data
about the current nature and scope of problems.
2) Interviews with respondents who are in charge of the current
system for information exchange and data exchange and those in
charge of solutions that can be compared to those that are
envisaged to be put in place as part of the policy options in order
to collect data that will be needed for the estimation of costs and
effects at EU level.
3) Other EU level respondents who can provide relevant insights
about the effects of the policy options at EU level both in terms of
costs and resources as well as in terms of benefits (increasing
European citizenship).
EU level stakeholders that were interviewed have been the
following:
DG EMPL – Eures; DG COMM – EDIC; EP – Citizen’s Enquiry
Unit; JRC; FRA; Committee of the Regions; DIGIT; Group of the
EPP; S&D Group; Group of the Greens; European Mobile Youth
The interviews were semi-structured, seeking to gauge
respondents’ views on the problems set out in the impact
assessment, as well as the policy options that have been put forth.
81
Furthermore, the interviews were tailored to the knowledge that
the respondent could provide within the context of their work.
Interviews have been analysed individually, by qualitative
content analysis, although the analysis will be presented on a
general level uniting the perspectives of respondents where there
are shared views on a specific issue, and presenting divergent ones
when applicable. This approach has been taken in order to present
respondent perspectives in an anonymised manner. As such,
specific views are not tied to any one stakeholder.
Towards the end of the interviews respondents were presented
with some of the policy options being considered in addressing the
barriers that were identified. Due to differing degrees of expertise
with regards to the options presented, these were also tailored to
each participant. To a great extent respondents were most prone to
mention policy options related to the provision of information to
mobile EU citizens, partly due to holding knowledge on such
issues, but mainly because it was seen was one of the most crucial
elements to tackle. This resulted in a highlighted information
provison.
Online community
with experts (IV)
A total number of five experts took part in an online community
that spanned over the period of one week and a half. The profile of
respondents and the organisations and persons invited was a
combination of:
1) Academics who worked on previous research projects in the
area of electoral participation of mobile EU citizens;
2) NGOs and organisations representing mobile EU citizens; and
3) Representatives of local authorities or countries that have
experience with good practices in facilitating participation of
mobile EU citizens.
The community was divided into five activities that had several
tasks within. Each activity sought to gauge experts’ opinions on
differing aspects of the impact assessment. These were:
- The problem analysis
- The policy options
- The targets and how to measure success
Finally, the online community was divided into five days, one for
each available task, and carried out fully in English.
Policy Option Analysis
A set of different activities shown to respondents had to do with
the policy options being weighed for proposal. These were firstly
divided into two differing activities that together contained a total
of 12 policy options respondents could comment on. Following,
the last activity asked respondents to rank the policy options
depending on their effectiveness in addressing differing aspects
82
related to the problem analysis. To begin with, the policy options
shown were the following:
- Influencing Member States by revealing excessive
requirements for registration through reporting;
- Establishing a Recommendation on automatic
registration of mobile EU citizens;
- Establishing an exchange of good practices among
Member States on information provision to mobile
EU citizens;
- Creating targeted social media campaigns to
proactively inform mobile EU citizens;
- Strengthening the legal obligation for Member States to
inform mobile EU citizens;
- Setting up a multilingual helpdesk at the EU level to
respond to queries of mobile EU citizens about their
electoral rights;
- Influencing Member States by revealing excessive
requirements for standing as a candidate
through reporting;
- Modifying the existing legal provision to clearly state
that mobile EU citizens should be able to join political
parties under the same requirements as nationals;
- Addressing issues related to the exchange of data
between Member States in view of preventing
double voting;
- Requiring that Member States do not deregister mobile
EU citizens from the possibilities to vote in national
elections when aiming to prevent double voting in
European Parliament elections;
- Encouraging Member States to open up voting in other
intermediary levels of government to mobile
EU citizens;
- Encouraging Member States to implement additional
remote voting options for mobile EU citizens voting in
European Parliament elections.
The conducted analysis resulted in a ranking of the policy options.
Open Public
Consultation
Analysis (V)
The consultation consisted of three questionnaires depending on
the respondent profile. These were:
1) A questionnaire for citizens which had certain questions
that were directed specifically at mobile European citizens
and others that were directed at all citizens;
2) A questionnaire for civil society organisations; and
3) A questionnaire for local, regional or national government
organisations.
The questionnaire for civil society organisations and governments
had a number of questions that were identical. Where that was the
83
case, we analysed the responses together given the low number of
respondents to this consultation. There were also a few questions
that were common to all respondent groups and in this case again
we analysed the responses together.
A longer explanation of the OPC results can be found in Annex
2.2.
4.2. The qualitative analysis of the legal framework
Relevant provisions of the Directives are presented in Annex 5. As shown in the Figure 6
below, the overarching objective of both Directives 93/109/EC and 94/80/EC is to make
sure that citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals
may exercise the right to vote and to stand as a candidate there in municipal and
European elections under the same conditions imposed to the Member State’s own
nationals in respect to the right to vote and to stand as candidates. The Directives do not
affect each Member State's provisions concerning the right to vote or to stand as a
candidate either of its nationals who reside outside its territory or of third country
nationals who reside in that State. The focus is therefore on non-discrimination based on
nationality.
Specific objectives of the current legal framework are:
- To ensure that the requirements for mobile European citizens to register to vote in
EP and local elections are the same as those for nationals and therefore to ensure that
mobile European citizens are not discriminated against when exercising their right to
vote and candidacy;
- To ensure that the requirements for mobile European citizens to stand as
candidates are the same as those for nationals and that they are able to stand as
candidates for all offices in local elections and are not discriminated against;
- To ensure that mobile Europeans know and understand their electoral rights and
how to exercise them. Member States should provide information to all mobile European
citizens residing in their country about the modalities and arrangements to exercise their
rights in a timely manner, ahead of both local and EP elections.
- To address possible double voting in EP elections
Figure 6: Reconstructed intervention logic of the current legal framework
84
Source: Underlying Study, Section 2.1
The Commission monitors the implementation of electoral rights engaging in dialogue115
with Member States and taking infringement steps.
The level of transposition of both Directives in all Member States appears generally
satisfactory. Almost all issues on the Directive's transposition have been successfully
resolved, though some issues of incorrect or incomplete transposition, are still being
discussed with specific Member States116.
However where the wording of the existing electoral Directives is vague and imprecise,
and their scope too narrow, the scope for Commission to take action is limited. Indeed,
the Directives on voting rights of mobile EU citizens focus narrowly on the
implementation of the Treaty rights and do not address wider issues which are regularly
115
Following Commission’s monitoring and dialogue on the matter, several Member States amended their legislation
to ensure that information is exchanged within the 5 days envisaged in Article 6(3) of Directive 93/109/EC.
116
The Commission has initiated infringement procedures against several Member States due to the incompatibility of
their national legislation with Article 20 (2)(b) and 22 TFEU. In 2021, the Commission referred Poland and the
Czech Republic to the Court of Justice of the European Union because the legislation in these two Member States
restricts the right of founding and of becoming member in a political party to their nationals. As a result of this
restriction, mobile EU citizens residing in these countries cannot fully exercise their right to stand as candidates in
local elections and in European elections under the same conditions as nationals of those States.
85
the subject of complaints by citizens regarding the national administration of elections.
The Commission has indeed received many complaints117 over the years from mobile EU
citizens seeking to participate in municipal or European elections in their Member State
of residence.
In addition, the Commission’s report on the 2019 European elections118 noted that it was
estimated that, in 2019, of the over 17 million mobile EU citizens in the EU, almost 14
million were eligible to vote119. However, a relatively low number of them exercised
their rights, and usually in their countries of origin. Ahead of the elections, citizens had
indicated120 that they would prefer to exercise their EU rights and vote for lists in their
country of residence. However, four times as many registered to vote for lists from their
country of nationality, where that option was available, given that some Member States
limit the right to vote of their nationals who reside outside their territories, even in other
Member States121. In concrete terms, on the basis of the data received following the 2019
European elections, around 5.5 million citizens registered to vote for the lists in their
country of origin compared to 1.3 million who registered to vote in the country of
residence122.
Registration of mobile EU citizens in order to exercise their electoral rights also depends
on the procedure for registration on the electoral roll. Most Member States require
citizens to register in their place of residence, and many of those add the registering
citizen, to the relevant electoral rolls automatically. Others require citizens to enrol to
vote separately, and some require multiple enrolments for different elections. Fewer than
20% of mobile EU citizens resident in Member States where separate registration is
required to exercise electoral rights requested such registration. Where automatic
registration applies, the figures of those who registered increases to more than 50%123
.
117
As noted in the Report under Article 25 TFEU on progress towards effective EU citizenship 2016-2020,
the Commission replied in that period to 43 complaints, 57 letters/individual queries, 74 questions and
21 petitions from the European Parliament on these issues, primarily relating to the loss of right to vote
or participate in a referendum (COM(2020) 731 final). Additionally, a total number of 1120 entries
were analysed in the context of the underlying Kantar study, covering the period of 2019-spring 2021.
Of these, 538 were submitted to Your Europe, 520 to the European Parliament citizen enquiry unit, 15
were submitted to Solvit and 47 were dealt with the Department in charge of Justice and Consumers of
the European Commission.
118
COM(2020) 252 final, https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/com_2020_252_en_0.pdf.
119
Statistics including the UK.
120
Special Eurobarometer 477, https://data.europa.eu/data/datasets/s2198_90_1_477_eng?locale=en.
121
All but four Member States (Czechia, Ireland, Malta and Slovakia) provide for some possibility of
voting on the lists of the country of origin from another Member State, either at an embassy/consulate, by
post or on the internet.
122
COM(2020) 252 final.
123
See study of the Academic Network on EU citizenship Rights, July 2021, point 1.2. Vote registration
for mobile EU citizens is automatic in 12 Member States. 15 Member States require active registration.
86
Most Member States do not collect data on the effective turnout of mobile EU citizens
that registered to vote. Those that do, report that up to a half of the registered mobile EU
citizens vote: Czechia (50%), Finland (50%) and Cyprus (30%). The number of mobile
EU citizens standing as candidates in the European elections shows a relatively
consistent trend: compared to 170 mobile citizen candidates in 2014, there were 168
candidates (in 18 Member States124) in 2019.
The Commission has been engaging with Member States in relevant expert groups
bringing together Member States’ authorities with competence in electoral-related
matters. The development and implementation of a process to achieve the exchange of
data to support the prevention of multiple voting in the European elections has been
coordinated in the framework of the expert group on electoral matters, established in
2005125.
Furthermore, in the run up to the 2019 European elections, the Commission supported
Member States by establishing and organising meetings of the European cooperation
network on elections with the aim to exchange good practice on all aspects of ensuring
free and fair elections.
4.3 Methodology used to compare the policy options
The comparison of the policy options was performed based on their impacts. The
performance of each presented option on the policy objectives has been compared
systematically based on the criteria displayed in the table below.
Criterion Key Questions Indicators/Methods for
comparison
Effectiveness What would be the (quantitative and
qualitative) effects of each option?
Which policy option would be most
effective in achieving the set objectives
of the current initiative?
Comparison of expected
effectiveness of each
policy option against the
evaluation baseline
Comparison of expected
effectiveness of the policy
options against each other;
14 out of 15 Member States provide for one-off registration which is automatically renewed for
subsequent elections, see same study point 2.1.
124
Figures including the UK. Out of these candidates, five were elected (3 in France, 2 in the UK).
125
https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-register/screen/expert-groups/consult?lang=en&groupID=617
87
Identification of a
preferred option, where
possible.
Efficiency What would be the incurred costs and
benefits under each policy option?
To what extent will the costs associated
with the intervention be proportionate to
the benefits it is expected to generate?
How proportionate will be the costs of
the intervention borne by different
stakeholder groups, taking into account
the distribution of associated benefits?
Which policy option would be most
cost-effective?
Comparison of potential
costs and benefits borne by
each stakeholder group
under each policy option;
Identification of a
preferred option, where
possible.
Coherence To what extent is each policy option
coherent with other relevant initiatives?
To what extent is each policy option
coherent with wider EU policy?
To what extent is each option is
contributing to establish a coherent
framework by reducing the legal
fragmentation across Member States?
Identification of overlaps
and/or synergies between
policy options and relevant
initiatives;
Identification of contrasts
and/or discrepancies
between policy options and
relevant initiatives;
Identification of a
preferred option, where
possible.
Subsidiarity Can/have the objectives of the proposed
policy option be achieved sufficiently by
Member States acting alone?
To what extent do Member States have
the ability or possibility to enact
appropriate measures?
Would national action or the absence of
EU level action conflict with the Treaty
or significantly damage the interests of
other Member States?
Are there transnational/cross-border
aspects to the problem?
Will there be increased costs or
problems if action is left only to the
Member States?
Can/have the objectives of the proposed
Identify whether or not
action at the national level
is sufficient to achieve the
objective of the initiative
and whether in
consequence, by reason of
the scale or effects of the
proposed measure, Union
action would have an
added value compared to
action by the Member
States
88
action be(en) better achieved at Union
level by reason of the scale or effects of
that action?
Can the objectives be met more
efficiently at EU level?
Proportionality Does the initiative go beyond what is
necessary to achieve the
problem/objective satisfactorily?
Is the initiative limited to those aspects
that Member States cannot achieve
satisfactorily on their own, and where
the Union can do better?
Is the form of Union as simple as
possible, and coherent with satisfactory
achievement of the objective and
effective enforcement?
Does the initiative create unjustified
financial or administrative cost for the
Union, national governments, regional or
local authorities, economic operators or
citizens? Are these costs commensurate
with the objective to be achieved?
Does the Union action leave as much
scope for national decision as possible
while achieving satisfactorily the
objectives set?
Is there a solid justification for the
choice of instrument - regulation,
(framework)directive, or alternative
regulatory methods?
While respecting Union law, are special
circumstances applying in individual
Member States taken into account?
Ensuring that the policy
approach and its intensity
match the identified
problem/objective.
89
ANNEX 5: RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE DIRECTIVES GOVERNING ELECTORAL
RIGHTS OF MOBILE EU CITIZENS
The main provisions in Council Directive 93/109/EC for the exercise of the right to vote
and stand as a candidate in European elections for citizens of the Union residing in a
Member State of which they are not nationals are:
 Mobile EU citizens have the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in European
elections in the Member State of residence on the same conditions as that State
imposes by law on its own nationals (Article 3);
 They may vote either in their Member State of residence or in their home
Member State (Article 4);
 They are precluded from standing as a candidate in their Member State of
residence if so deprived through an individual criminal or civil law decision
(Article 6);
 The Member State of residence shall take the necessary measures to enable the
Union citizen who wishes to be entered on the electoral roll to be entered
sufficiently in advance of polling day (Article 9).
 The Member State of residence shall inform the Union citizens in good time and
in an appropriate manner of the conditions and detailed arrangements to exercise
their electoral rights (Article 12).
The main provisions in Council Directive 94/80/EC for the exercise of the right to vote
and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections by citizens of the Union residing in a
Member State of which they are not nationals are:
 Mobile EU citizens have the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal
elections in the Member State of residence on the same conditions as that State
imposes by law on its own nationals (Article 3);
 They are precluded from standing as a candidate in their Member State of
residence if so deprived through an individual criminal or civil law decision
(Article 5);
 Member States may provide that only their own nationals may hold the office of
elected head, deputy or member of the governing college of the executive of a
basic local government unit (Article 5(3));
 The Member State of residence shall take the necessary measures to enable the
Union citizen who wishes to be entered on the electoral roll to be entered
sufficiently in advance of polling day (Article 8);
 The Member State of residence shall inform the Union citizens in good time and
in an appropriate manner of the conditions and detailed arrangements to exercise
their electoral rights (Article 11).
90
ANNEX 6: OVERVIEW OF MEMBER STATES’ MEASURES CONCERNING ELECTORAL
RIGHTS OF MOBILE EU CITIZENS
This Annex provides tables including current measures enacted by Member States to
implement Directive 93/109/EC and Directive 94/80/EC. The information used to
elaborate them is derived from the study carried out by the contractor to support this
impact assessment and are not exhaustive.
Table 1 Information measures across Member States
MS Proactive
mail-outs to
mobile EU
citizens on
rights
Local elections
info
proactively
sent to EU
citizens
Helpdesk/hotline
(if in English,
"Yes"; if not,
"Partial")
Information comments
BE Yes Partial Partial Municipality in charge of
information; local variation in extent
and form.
BG No No No Regulation that information in
electoral campaigns ad only be
provided in Bulgarian
CY No No
CZ Partial No No Municipalities encouraged, not
required, to proactively contact for
EU. No special campaign.
DE
DK
EE Yes Yes Yes Information sent 70 days (for EU
citizens) and 10 days (for all voters)
based on records of Population
Register
EL No
ES
FI Yes Yes Yes Voting cards with practical
information sent to all eligible voters
91
FR No No No Questionnaire refers to online
information and a few ad hoc
campaigns
HR
HU Yes Yes Partial National Election Office can be
reached by email or phone
IE Yes Partial Some local campaigns providing
information for EU nationals.
However, much of this appears driven
by civil society rather than
government (although government
may be supporting the campaigns).
IT No Partial No Local campaigns by NGOs or other
institutions may provide information,
but there are no targeted, national
campaigns.
LT Yes No Yes Mainly information on website for
local elections
LU
Partial Partial Yes Information not sent directly to
mobile EU citizens, but centrally
coordinated campaigns to raise
awareness
LV
MT
NL
PL Partial Partial Partial Information is provided proactively
when an election has been called, but
the information is the same for
nationals as for non-nationals. No
targeting of EU citizens.
92
PT No No Yes Information is provided through
Support Offices staffed by
multilingual staff in the largest cities.
RO No No No
SE Yes Partial Yes Information is available in 30+
languages from the Swedish Election
Authority. Availability for
municipalities varies more widely.
Voting cards with relevant practial
information is sent out to all voters.
SI Yes No No Local election information circulated
in the official languages only
(Slovenian, Hungarian and Italian).
SK
Source: Questionnaires carried out for the underlying Kantar Study
93
Table 2 Registration modalities across Member States
MS Automatic
registration
- Municipal
Automatic
registration
- EU
Voter
registration
permanent -
Municipal
Voter
registration
permanent
- EU
Voter
registration
without
proof of
electoral
rights
Electronic/
mail
registration
possible
AT Yes No Yes Yes
BE No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
BG No No Yes Yes Yes No
CY No No Yes Yes Yes No
CZ No No Yes Yes Yes No
DE Yes No Yes Yes
DK Yes No Yes Yes
EE Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
EL No No No No Yes No
ES Partial Partial Yes Yes
FI Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
FR No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
HR No No No No
HU Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
IE Yes Partial Yes Yes Yes Partial
IT No No Yes Yes Partial Partial
LT Yes Partial Yes Partial Yes No
LU No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
LV Yes Partial Yes Yes
MT No No Yes Yes
NL Yes No Yes Yes
PL No No Partial Partial Yes Yes
PT No No Yes Yes Yes No
RO Yes No Yes Yes Yes No
SE Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
SI Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
94
SK Yes No Yes No
Source: Questionnaires carried out for the underlying Study
Table 3 Summary of penalties for multiple voting in some EU Member States
AT Fine of up to EUR 218 or imprisonment for up to 2 weeks.
BE Imprisonment 8-15 days; fine of EUR 208-1 600.
BG Probation and a fine of BGN 500-2 000 (ca. EUR 250-1 000).
CZ Fine of ca. EUR 390.
CY Imprisonment of up to 6 months and/or a fine of up to CYP 450 (ca. EUR 720).
DE Unspecified fine or imprisonment for up to 5 years.
DK Unspecified fine.
EE Fine of up to 300 fine units (ca. EUR 1 300) or unspecified detention
EL Imprisonment of 3 months to 5 years; deprivation of any public office for 1 to 5 years.
ES Imprisonment of 6 months-2 years, a fine of 6 months-2 years, and a special
disqualification for employment or public office from one to three years
FI Unspecified fine or imprisonment of up to 1 year.
FR Imprisonment of 6 months-2 years and a fine of up to EUR 15 000.
HR Fine of HRK 10 000-30 000 and/or imprisonment from 6 months to 5 years.
HU Imprisonment of up to 3 years.
IE Fine not exceeding EUR 3.174, or imprisonment of up to 2 years, or both.
IT Imprisonment of 1-3 years and a fine of EUR 51-258.
LT Fine of EUR 140-860.
LU Fine of EUR 251-2 000, imprisonment 8-15 days.
LV Unspecified punishment.
MT Fine of up to MTL 1 000 (ca EUR 2 330).
NL Fine of up to EUR 4 350 and imprisonment of up to 1 month.
PL Unspecified fine
PT Penalty payment up to 50 days, and imprisonment for up to 1 year.
RO Imprisonment for 6 months-3 years, unspecified fine, restricted exercise of some rights
SE Unspecified fine or prison for up to 6 months
SI Unspecified fine or prison for up to 1 year
SK Fine of EUR 33-100.
Source: Questionnaires sent to Member State authorities for the underlying study and complemented by
Cicchi, L. (2021) ‘Europeanising the elections of the European Parliament’, study for the EP AFCO
Committee, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, pp. 30-31.
95
Table 4 : Municipal election positions for which mobile EU citizens cannot
stand as candidate126
Member State Restricted position
Austria Mayor (except in the state of Lower Austria)
Belgium Mayor
Cyprus Mayor
Czech Republic Mayor, deputy mayor, and (in Prague only) city councillors
Estonia Mayor, member of the executive or secretary of local government
units (rural municipalities or cities)
France Mayor
Germany Mayor (in Bavaria and Saxony)
Greece Mayor and head of regional executive (secretary general of region)
Italy Mayor and deputy mayor
Netherlands Mayor and member of municipal executive (wethouder - alderman)
Poland Mayor
Slovenia Mayor
126
Table adapted from Ostling, A. ‘Fair EU Synthesis Report: Electoral rights for mobile EU citizens –
Challenges and facilitators of implementation’, FAIR-EU Comparative Report 2019/8, p. 10.
96
Table 5. Personal Identification numbers in Member States
Member State
AT N/A
BE № d'identification du Registre national / Identificatienummer van het
Rijksregister
BG ЕГН- Единен граждански номер (ЕГН) Edinen grazhdanski nomer
CZ Rodné číslo (RČ)
CY N/A
DE N/A
DK Personnummer (Da. CPR, Det Centrale Personregister)
EE Isikukood (IK)
EL N/A
ES Documento Nacional de Identidad (DNI)/Numero de identificación
fiscal(NIF)/ld.№
FI Finnish: Henkilötunnus (HETU), Swedish: Personbeteckning
FR N/A
HR Osobni identifikacijski broj (OIB)
HU N/A
IE N/A
IT Codice Fiscale
LT Asmens kodas
LU N/A
LV Personas kods
MT Identify card number
NL Burgerservicenummer (BSN)
PL Powszechny Elektroniczny System Ewidencji Ludności (PESEL)
PT № identificação civil
RO Cod Numeric Personal (CNP)
SE Personnummer
SI Enotna matična številka občana (EMSO)
SK Rodné číslo (RČ)
97
Table 6. Information needed by Member States to identify their citizens127
Member State Information required to ID nationals
BE Belgian national number sufficient.
CZ Name, DOB, place of permanent residence
DE Name, DOB, ID card number, previous municipality (not constituency) in DE
DK At minimum date of birth and full name, but ideally also Danish ID number
EE Name, DOB, personal ID number, address
ES Name, personal ID number, DOB, address
To apply for voting: The application form, a photocopy of the passport or ID, or,
certificate of nationality/registration in the Consular Registry.
When voting: certificate of being registered in the census, passport or ID.
FR Name (all), sex, age, DOB and place of birth, date of registration abroad
HR Personal ID number, names, current address, DOB, gender
HU Name, date and place of birth, ideally national ID
IE Name, date of birth and last Irish address.
LT Name, surname, personal ID number
LU Name, (incl. Maiden), date and place of birth, gender, place of residence, nationality
MT Name, surname, DOB
PL Name(s), father's name, DOB, nationality, passport number, address
RO Name(s), personal ID number, ID number of passport or identity card
SE Personal ID number
127
Source: Questionnaires sent to Member State authorities for the underlying study
98
Table 7. Estimated cost of developing and mailing out targeted information to
mobile EU citizens128
The following assumptions apply:
‒ Member States which – based on the Member State baseline research – already have
direct mailouts in place are expected to have minimal costs, if any129. The
calculations therefore only apply to Member States which do not currently have
such measures in place.
‒ As Member States have information about electoral registration of mobile EU
citizens available on their websites (and in all but a few cases, in multiple
languages), only minor costs are expected to adapt these for mail-out. For Member
States with no direct, targeted mail-outs in place, an assumption is made of five
days per Member State. For Member States with some level of mail-outs, e.g. with
municipal variation in the extent of information provision (marked ‘Partial’ in the
table below, see table 2 above), an assumption is made of three days.
‒ As data is not available on the cost of governments delivering letters, the domestic
public tariff for sending priority letters in EU Member States is used130. As Member
State governments have access to economies of scale and are not necessarily subject
to public tariffs, these prices are adjusted to 25% of the public tariff, to reflect lower
costs. As the data on postal services costs is from 2017, they are adjusted for
inflation to estimated 2020 values131.
‒ The effort to send letters to all mobile EU citizens is estimated by combining the
estimated per-letter cost with the stock of mobile EU citizens aged 20 or older in the
Member State132
.
Table 7 also contains an estimate on the cost of informing mobile EU citizens at the
point of residence registration of their electoral rights, in addition to subsequent
communications in relation to elections. While the time and cost required to prepare this
routine will also vary across Member States, sufficient information is not available to
determine how it would differ between the Member States. As the information is
available to Member State authorities, and as mobile EU citizens in all but a few cases
128
Source: underlying study
129
Variation within Member States (e.g. due to differing rules between federal Länder in Germany and
Austria) is not taken into consideration as state-level laws and regulations have not been mapped.
130
Data is gathered from European Commission, 2018, ‘Performance per policy area: Postal services’,
Single Market Scoreboard, accessed 19 August 2021. Figures are not available for Croatia and Poland;
EU-27 average is used here.
131
Eurostat (2021a) ‘HICP (2015 = 100) - annual data (average index and rate of change) – Postal services’
[PRC_HICP_AIND], accessed 19 August 2021.
132
This is based on Eurostat (2021b) ‘Population on 1 January by age group, sex and citizenship’
[MIGR_POP1CTZ], accessed 19 August 2021. The column on Mobile EU citizens aged 20 or older
(2020), 1 000s uses the value for EU-28 citizens.
99
have to register for residence upon or shortly after arrival in a new country of residence,
the costs are expected to be relatively low – an assumption is made of five days per
Member State.
Already
practicing
direct
communication
Estimated
costs of
developing and
translating
information
Estimated cost
of individual
communicatio
n to EU
citizens
Mobile EU
citizens aged
20 or older
(2020), 1 000s
Estimated cost
of informing
citizens at
point of
registration
Total
AT No (5 days) 1 470 123 387 621 1 470 124 857
BE Yes 762 1 470 1 470
BG No (5 days) 1 470 4 888 14 1 470 6 358
CY No (5 days) 1 470 13 336 103 1 470 14 806
CZ Partial (3 days) 882 62 342 223 1 470 63 812
DE Partial (3 days) 882 686 665 3 777 1 470 688 135
DK Partial (3 days) 882 48 534 195 1 470 50 004
EE Yes 19 1 470 1 470
EL No (5 days) 1 470 43 868 160 1 470 45 338
ES Partial (3 days) 882 294 172 1 728 1 470 295 642
FI Yes 83 1 470 1 470
FR No (5 days) 1 470 352 043 1 295 1 470 353 513
HR No (5 days) 1 470 5 654 18 1 470 7 124
HU Yes 74 1 470 1 470
IE Yes 389 1 470 1 470
IT No (5 days) 1 470 900 031 1 216 1 470 901 501
LT Yes 8 1 470 1 470
LU Partial (3 days) 882 28 366 197 1 470 29 836
LV Partial (3 days) 882 2 724 6 1 470 4 194
MT No 1 470 5 495 47 1 470 6 965
NL Yes 518 1 470 1 470
PL Partial (3 days) 882 8 607 33 1 470 10 077
PT No (5 days) 1 470 34 809 167 1 470 36 279
RO No (5 days) 1 470 26 731 60 1 470 28 201
SE Yes 272 1 470 1 470
SI Yes 20 1 470 1 470