SEC(2006) 1646

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying document to the

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION

European elections 2004 Commission report on the participation of European Union citizens in the Member State of residence (Directive 93/109/EC) and on the electoral arrangements (Decision 76/787/EC as amended by Decision 2002/772/EC) IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT for a possible amendment of Council Directive 93/109/EC laying down detailed arrangements for exercising 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 {COM(2006) 790 final}{SEC(2006) 1645}{SEC(2006) 1647}

SUMMARY

1 POLICY BACKGROUND AND PROBLEM DEFINITION 5

1.1 Introduction 5

1.2 Current legal provisions in the EU in relation to EU citizenship and right to vote in EP elections 5

1.2.1 Participating in European Parliament elections 6

1.2.2 Context of the Impact Assessment on a possible amendment to Directive 93/109/EC 7

2 PROBLEM ASSESSMENT 8

2.1 Introduction 8

2.2 Problem 1: Deficient system to prevent double voting and double candidature 8

2.2.1 Scale of Problem 1 – Double voting and double candidature 9

2.2.2 (Practical) problems relating to the information exchange system and Member States’ administrative burden and costs for the system 16

2.3 Summary – Problem 1 29

2.4 Problem 2: Heavy administrative burden for non-national candidates to the EP elections 30

2.4.1 Scale of Problem 2 – EU non-nationals standing as candidates in EP elections 31

2.4.2 Member States’ provisions in relation to what national authority is competent to deliver proof of entitlement to stand as a candidate 33

2.5 Summary – Problem 2 37

3 POLICY OBJECTIVES 39

3.1 Introduction 39

3.2 Definition of general and specific policy objectives 39

4 POLICY OPTIONS 40

4.1 Policy options to address Problem 1: Deficient system to prevent double voting and double candidature 40

4.1.1 Policy Option 1.1 – Status quo 40

4.1.2 Policy Option 1.2 – Improvements to the current information exchange system (administrative and operational) 40

4.1.3 Policy Option 1.3 – Abolish current system but maintain declaration of no double vote and candidature and introduce penalties 41

4.1.4 Policy Option 1.4 – Establishing a European Parliament Electoral Commission and maintain declaration 41

4.1.5 Policy Option 1.5 – New information system 42

4.1.6 Policy Option 1.6 – Declaration by voters of no double voting 42

4.1.7 Policy Option 1.7 – Developing an EP electoral roll 42

4.2 Policy options to address Problem 2: heavy administrative burden for non-national candidates to the EP elections 43

4.2.1 Policy Option 2.1 – Status quo 43

4.2.2 Policy Option 2.2 – Refine current system 43

4.2.3 Policy Option 2.3 – Facilitate and enhance the role of political parties in enabling candidature by non nationals 43

4.2.4 Policy Option 2.4 – Introduce a formal declaration 43

4.2.5 Policy Option 2.5 – New information system 43

4.2.6 Policy Option 2.6 – Abolish the obligation to provide a declaration 43

5 ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS 44

5.1 Introduction 44

5.2 Identifying and assessing impacts of each of the policy options 44

5.2.1 Assessment of policy options to address Problem 1 44

5.2.2 Assessment of policy options to address Problem 2 60

6 COMPARING THE OPTIONS AND ELABORATING THE PREFERRED OPTION 73

6.1 Introduction 73

6.2 Problem 1 – Comparison of policy options 73

6.3 The preferred option to address Problem 1 77

6.4 Problem 2 – Comparison of policy options 83

6.5 The preferred option to address Problem 2 87

6.6 Subsidiarity, proportionality and EU added value 89

7 MONITORING AND EVALUATION 91

ANNEX 1 94

ANNEX 2 100

ANNEX 3 102

ANNEX 4 102

ANNEX 5 102

ANNEX 6 115

ANNEX 7 117

ANNEX 8 118

ANNEX 9 120

ANNEX 10 126

ANNEX 11 130

ANNEX 12 132

BIBLIOGRAPHY 136

Lead Directorate General : DG Justice, Freedom and Security

Work Programme Reference: 2006/JLS/008

Introduction

The Commission Work Programme 2006 includes a Communication to be issued under the title European elections 2004: Commission report on the participation of European Union citizens in the Member State of residence (Directive 93/109/EC) and on the electoral arrangements (Decision 76/787/EC as amended by Decision 2002/772/EC).

The purpose of the Communication is to evaluate the application of Community law in the last European elections on the basis of information received from the Member States and to propose necessary changes to be prepared for the reality of the European Union of 27 Member States, including possible amendments to the Directive.

In order to deal with the prevention of double voting, under Directive 93/109/EC a system of information exchange on registered non-national Community voters has been agreed between the Commission and the Member States as from the 1994 elections. Despite sustained efforts to improve the system, it is for Member States too administratively burdensome and seems to lack operability and effectiveness, mainly because of the non-harmonised national legislations in electoral matters.

Furthermore, problems were identified related to the rules, as laid down in the Directive, that apply for EU citizens who wish to stand as a candidate in EP elections in their country of residence instead of their country of origin. The Directive includes the requirement for these citizens to obtain a proof that they are eligible to stand as a candidate in their country of origin. The Directive does not, however, identify or regulate what national authority is competent to deliver such proof, and in some Member States it is also not clearly regulated. The Commission has identified that the administrative burden candidates may face in some Member States to obtain this proof might be one reason for their low participation rate.

The main objectives are to streamline the processes and to simplify administrative procedures whilst not neglecting the necessary control of basic principles in electoral matters, such as the prohibition of double vote and double candidature, even if the extent of double voting and double candidature seem to be very low.

DG JLS prepared an extensive questionnaire in which Member States were invited to provide both statistical and qualitative information on the elections and on the implementation of the Directive. Answers elaborated by the Member States were received between 8.12.2004 for the first Member States and 25.1.2006 for the last Member State.

Member States’ electoral experts were consulted in a meeting organised by DG JLS in Brussels.

Further information was gathered by an external consultant under a contract signed with GHK Consulting Ltd as a result of a call for proposal. The preparatory study undertaken by the contractor included additional questionnaires and contacts with Member States' competent authorities.

POLICY BACKGROUND AND PROBLEM DEFINITION

Introduction

This Section provides a brief introduction to current agreements in the EU that set the legal frame in relation to EU citizens’ right to vote and stand as a candidate in EP elections in whichever Member State they reside.

Current legal provisions in the EU in relation to EU citizenship and right to vote in EP elections

All nationals of EU Member States are EU citizens. EU citizenship is a set of rights additional to those of national citizenship, enshrined in the EC Treaty[1]. Article 19 (2) establishes EU citizens’ right to choose to vote in their Member State of residence or origin:

Without prejudice to Article 190(4) and to the provisions adopted for its implementation, every citizen of the Union residing in a Member State of which he is not a national shall have the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament in the Member State in which he resides, under the same conditions as nationals of that State. This right shall be exercised subject to detailed arrangements adopted by the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament; these arrangements may provide for derogations where warranted by problems specific to a Member State.

The principles on voting and standing as a candidate in a Member State of which an EU citizen is not a national, which are established in the EC Treaty, are implemented by Directive 93/109/EC. This Directive establishes detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to vote and stand as a candidate in elections to the EP for EU citizens residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals, including that citizens may only vote in one Member State in one EP election. Two main preventative measures have been put in place to prevent the occurrence of double voting and candidature:

- Exchange of information between the Member States. The purpose of this system is to ensure that citizens are only included on the electoral roll in one Member State, and thereby make it impossible for citizens to vote twice in the same EP election. The Member States and the Commission have agreed guidelines for exchanging information on citizens who register to vote in their Member State of residence instead of their Member State of origin. Personal data to identify these citizens are sent from the Member State of residence to the Member State of origin in order for the Member State of origin to be able to delete the citizen from their electoral roll.

- The Directive also establishes that EU non-nationals are to provide a formal declaration that he/she will exercise the right to vote in the Member State of residence only.

In relation to citizens who wish to stand as a candidate in their Member State of residence, the Directive establishes that these citizens also need to provide a formal declaration that they only stand as a candidate in their Member State of residence. In addition, there is a requirement for EU non-national candidates to provide an attestation from their Member State of origin that they are eligible to stand as candidates there.

Participating in European Parliament elections

Voting is a fundamental right and duty of the citizen, however, no one may vote more than once in the EP elections or stand as a candidate in two countries in the same election[2].

In terms of restrictions to this right, a period of residency may be required if more than 20% of the voting population are EU non-nationals eligible to vote[3]. This is the case in Luxembourg, where EU non-nationals may vote only after having resided in the country during five years.

The members of the EP are elected every five years by direct universal suffrage. According to common provisions in force, the elections must be based on proportional representation and use either the list system or the single transferable vote[4].

Member States are free to apply their national provisions in relation to those aspects which are not governed by the common rules.

With regard to nominations, in some countries only political parties and political organisations may submit nominations, whereas in other Member States it is possible to stand as an independent candidate.

As far as minimum age for standing as a candidate is concerned, the countries with the highest required age, namely 25, are Greece and Cyprus. Eight countries have set the minimum age for running as a candidate as 18. The majority of Member States put the minimum age to be elected as 21.

In some countries, a number of signatures from voters is required in order to present a candidate or a list of candidates. Hungary is the country which requires the highest number of endorsements, i.e. 20,000 followed by Spain with 15,000 signatures. This can be compared to the Netherlands and Ireland where only 30 and 60 signatures respectively are required.

As far as a deposit for candidates and lists of candidates that is also required in some countries, there are big differences between the EU Member states. Lithuania demands 6,800 euro per each list of candidates, while Estonia requires a deposit of 3,950 euro (five times the minimum monthly wage) per person presented for registration. Greece demands 122 euro for each list while the Netherlands 11,250 for parties not represented in the outgoing EP. This deposit is normally refunded by the States only if the party or the candidate obtains a certain percentage of the "electoral divisor" (the minimum number of votes required to win one seat).

Context of the Impact Assessment on a possible amendment to Directive 93/109/EC

Surveys, meetings, and discussions with the Member States have indicated that there may be merit in amending Directive 93/109/EC due to two main problems

- The practical weaknesses of the information exchange system established to prevent double voting and double candidature. Several Member States consider the system disproportionately administratively burdensome in view of the purpose of the system.

- Rules that apply for EU citizens who wish to stand as a candidate in EP elections in their country of residence instead of their country of origin . The Directive includes the requirement for these citizens to obtain a proof that they are eligible to stand as a candidate in their country of origin. The Directive does not, however, identify or regulate what national authority is competent to deliver such proof, and in some Member States it is also not clearly regulated. The Commission has identified that the heavy administrative burden candidates may face in some Member States to prove that they may stand as a candidate might be one reason for their low participation rate.

Directive 93/109/EC was adopted at a time when the EU consisted of only 12 Member States. The present Impact Assessment was launched to provide further information on the problems identified since adoption of the Directive and to propose possible solutions to address the challenges in view of the Enlargement of the Union to 27 Member States elections when the increasing diversity of Member States' electoral system is to accentuate those problems identified.

PROBLEM ASSESSMENT

Introduction

This Section outlines and assesses the extent of current problems with regard to their scale and nature. The Section also provides an elaboration of what has caused the problems and therefore, what are the challenges to be addressed.

The following two problems are considered and analysed in turn:

- Problem 1: Deficient system to prevent double voting and double candidature; and,

- Problem 2: Heavy administrative burden for non-national candidates in the EP elections.

Each of the problems is described and an assessment of the scale of the problem and specific issues is made.

Problem 1: Deficient system to prevent double voting and double candidature

Article 4 of Directive 93/109/EC prohibits EU citizens to vote or stand as a candidate in more than one Member State in the same election to the EP. Member States are obliged[5] to ‘sufficiently in advance of polling day’ exchange information on nationals of other Member States who have entered on electoral rolls or are standing as a candidate, and to take appropriate action to ensure that their nationals do not vote twice or stand as a candidate in more than one Member State in the same election[6]. To this end, an information exchange system between the Member States has been set up. The Directive also establishes that EU non-nationals who register themselves to vote in their Member State of residence are to provide a formal declaration that he/she will exercise the right to vote in that Member State only[7].

The information exchange system has been used in three EP elections: 1994, 1999 and 2004. Surveys after the elections with users in Member States[8] indicate that the system is not working effectively despite changes that have been made between the elections to improve its efficiency. This has also been confirmed in meetings between the Commission and electoral experts of the Member States. The Commission and the Member States have agreed on guidelines for the exchange of information within the system (including what information is to be exchanged concerning the individuals, e.g. names, birth data etc.), however, there is no legal obligation for the Member States to follow these guidelines.

Scale of Problem 1 – Double voting and double candidature

Based on the 2005 Commission Eurobarometer study in all 25 EU Member States, it has been estimated that in 2006 around 4% of the EU population had at some point in their life lived in another Member State[9].

As far as the voting population is concerned, available data from a survey undertaken by DG JLS amongst the Member States, show that the total number of EU non-nationals of voting age in 21 EU Member States[10] is more than 5.5 million people.

The country with the highest number of EU non-nationals of voting age is Germany with more than two million. France has the second highest number with one million EU non-nationals. These two countries account for 57,68% (3,258,905 persons) of EU non-nationals of voting age in the 21 EU Member States for which data are available. Spain and Belgium also have very high numbers of EU non-nationals of voting age with 700,906 (2.05%) and 515,715 (6.39%) persons respectively. Of the countries for which data are available on EU non-nationals in voting age, with 38.28% (133,831 persons) Luxembourg has the highest proportion of EU non-nationals of voting age of the total population of voting age, whereas Slovenia has the lowest rate with only 0.04% (707 persons).

The New Member States only account for 1.59% of the total number of EU non-nationals in voting age across the EU. However, the proportion of EU non-nationals of voting age of the total voting population is comparatively high in Cyprus (7.08%) and Malta (2.61%).

Table 3.1 below provides an overview of total numbers of EU non-nationals and numbers of EU non-nationals of voting age by Member State[11]. In order to be able to compare the total number of EU non-nationals of voting age with the total number of nationals in voting age in the Member States, only data for those countries for which figures are available for both EU non-nationals and nationals in voting age have been used for the totals in columns C and D. The numbers that have not been used are indicated in brackets in respective columns (C and D).

Eurostat figures[12] have also been included in the Table so as to give an indication of the total number of EU non-nationals in those countries where figures are unavailable. Figures on non-national population from Eurostat include, though, both non-national citizens from EU Member States and non-nationals from countries outside the Union.

Table 2.1 – Absolute figures and proportion of non-nationals by Member State in 2004 |

Country | All non-nationals in the country number (Eurostat) | All non-nationals in the country % (Eurostat) | EU non-nationals of voting age in the country number (DG JLS questionnaire) | Nationals of voting age number (DG JLS questionnaire) | EU non-nationals of voting age % (DG JLS questionnaire) |

A | B | C | D | E |

Austria | 750,000 | 9.40% | 150,000 | 6,025,036 | 2.43% |

Belgium | 860,000 | 8.30% | 515,715 | 7,552,025 | 6.39% |

Czech Republic | 195,000 | 1.90% | NA | (8,283,485) |

Cyprus | 65,000 | 9.40% | 45,725 | 600,000 | 7.08% |

Germany | 7,342,000 | 8.90% | 2,156,388 | 61,548,395 | 3.38% |

Denmark | 271,000 | 5.00% | 58,148 | 3,992,586 | 1.44% |

Estonia | 274,000 | 2.00% | 5,054 | 875,385 | 0.57% |

France | 3,263,000 | 5.60% | 1,102,517 | 43,900,000 | 2.45% |

Greece | 891,000 | 8.10% | 64,672 | 9,875,842 | 0.65% |

Spain | 2,772,000 | 6.60% | 700,906 | 33,491,194 | 2.05% |

Finland | 107,000 | 2.00% | 30,091 | 4,222,462 | 0.71% |

Hungary | 130,000 | 1.30% | 17,719 | 8,017,805 | 0.22% |

Ireland | 274,000 | 7.10% | 118,118 | 2,800,000 | 4.05% |

Italy | 1,990,000 | 3.40% | (149,544) | NA |

Lithuania | 34,000 | 1.00% | 1,826 | 2,740,919 | 0.07% |

Luxembourg | 174,000 | 38.53% | 133,831 | 215,757 | 62.03% |

Latvia | 515,000 | 2.22% | 3,736 | 1,397,736 | 0.27% |

Malta | 11,000 | 2.80% | 8,273 | 308,884 | 2.61% |

Netherlands | 702,000 | 4.30% | 202,000 | 12,168,878 | 1.63% |

Poland | 700,000 | 1.80% | NA | (29,964,041) |

Portugal | 239,000 | 2.30% | NA | NA |

Slovakia | 30,000 | 0.60% | 6,871 | 4,209,870 | 0.16% |

Slovenia | 45,000 | 2.30% | 707 | 1,628,856 | 0.04% |

Sweden | 476,000 | 5.30% | 177,881 | 6,780,094 | 2.56% |

UK | 2,760,000 | 4.70% | NA | NA |

Total number / weighted average % | 24,870,000 | 5.44% | 5,649,722 | 250,599,250 | 5.04% |

Whilst eligible to vote in their country of residence in EP elections, there is evidence that EU non-nationals vote to a lower extent than nationals. In the 2004 EP elections in the 25 Member States the total participation (i.e. rate of citizens voting) in EP elections varied between 17% voting in Slovakia and 90.8% in Belgium (in Belgium, Luxembourg and Greece and Cyprus voting is compulsory[13]). In those six countries where figures on participation of EU non-nationals in the Member State of residence are available the participation rate varied between 2.65% in Cyprus and 39.11% in the Netherlands (see column G of table 3.2). The weighted average for EU non-nationals voting in their country of residence in the 2004 EP elections was 19.57%.

Table 3.2 below provides an overview of participation of nationals and EU non-nationals in the 2004 EP elections[14].

Table 2.2 – Voting in 2004 EP elections by nationals and EU non-nationals |

Belgium | 6,857,800 | 90.80% | 7,552,025 | 6.39% | 515,715 | NA | NA |

Czech Republic | 2,346,010[16] | 28.30% | 8283485 | NA | NA | NA |

Cyprus | 349,174 | 58.20% | 600,000 | 7.08% | 45,725 | 1,213 | 2.65% |

Germany | 26,523,104 | 43.10% | 61,548,395 | 3.38% | 2,156,388 | NA | NA |

Denmark | 1,921,541 | 48.10% | 3,992,586 | 1.44% | 58,148 | NA | NA |

Estonia | 234,485 | 26.80% | 875,385 | 0.57% | 5,054 | NA | NA |

France | 1,878,920,015 | 42.80% | 43,900,000 | 2.45% | 1,102,517 | NA | NA |

Greece | 6,257,979 | 63.40% | 9,875,842 | 0.65% | 64,672 | NA | NA |

Spain | 1,510,452,815 | 45.10% | 33,491,194 | 2.05% | 700,906 | NA | NA |

Finland | 1,657,791 | 39.30% | 4,222,462 | 0.71% | 30,091 | 2,342 | 7.78% |

Hungary | 309,765,716 | 38.60% | 8,017,805 | 0.22% | 17,719 | NA | NA |

Ireland | 1,800,000 | 64.30% | 2,800,000 | 4.05% | 118,118 | NA | NA |

Italy | 35,598,379 | 73.10% | 149,544 | NA | NA |

Lithuania | 127,384,916 | 46.50% | 2,740,919 | 0.07% | 1,826 | NA | NA |

Luxembourg | 209,402 | 89% | 215,757 | 38.28% | 133,831 | 9,556 | 7.14% |

Latvia | 57,787,916 | 41.30% | 1,397,736 | 0.27% | 3,736 | NA | NA |

Malta | 249,864 | 80.90% | 308,884 | 2.61% | 8,273 | 776 | 9.38% |

Netherlands | 4,686,677 | 38.50% | 12,168,878 | 1.63% | 202,000 | 79,000 | 39.11% |

Poland | 6,243,926 | 20.80% | 29,964,041 | NA | NA | NA |

Portugal | 38.60% | NA | NA | NA |

Slovakia | 71,450,816 | 17.00% | 4,209,870 | 0.16% | 6,871 | NA | NA |

Slovenia | 461,879 | 28.40% | 1,628,856 | 0.04% | 707 | NA | NA |

Sweden | NA | 37.80% | 6,780,094 | 2.56% | 177,881 | 24,100 | 13.55% |

UK | NA | 38.80% | NA | NA | NA | NA |

Total | 4,053,716,628 | 45.70% | 250,599,250 | 3.85% | 5,649,722 | 116,987 |

Weighted average (tot. 6 countries) | 597,801 | 116,987 | 19.57% |

For a few countries data are also available on numbers of nationals residing abroad who chose to vote in their country of origin instead of their country of residence in the 2004 EP elections. The participation rate of these citizens is around 4% in Greece, 5% in two countries (Finland and Slovenia), 9.85% in Latvia, almost 20% in Spain and Sweden, but only 0.10% in Belgium (see column D of table 3.3). The weighted average for these seven countries is 8%. Figures are provided in Table 3.3 below.

Table 2.3 – Number of nationals resident abroad voting in the Member State of origin or in their Member State of residence in 2004 |

Country | Total number of nationals in voting age residing in other MS | Total number of nationals residing in other MS entered on home country electoral roll | Total number of nationals residing in other MS who voted in home country | % nationals residing abroad who vote in their home country |

A | B | C | D(C/A) |

Austria | NA | 35,527 | NA |

Belgium | 195,776 | 215 | 186 | 0.10% |

Czech Republic | NA | NA | NA |

Cyprus | NA | 0[17] | 0 |

Germany | NA | 2,826 | NA |

Denmark | NA | 4,000 | 4,000 |

Estonia | NA | 3,574 | 1,027 |

France | 52,032 | NA | NA |

Greece | 716,015 | 34,113 | 25,546 | 3.57% |

Spain | 388,313 | 388,313 | 74,720 | 19.24% |

Finland | 135,217 | 113,001 | 6,799 | 5.03% |

Hungary | NA | 0 | 0 |

Ireland | NA | 286 | 286 |

Italy | 1,165,994 | NA | NA |

Lithuania | NA | 5,898 | 4,156 |

Luxembourg | NA | NA | NA |

Latvia | 32,630 | 32,630 | 3,215 | 9.85% |

Malta | NA | 96 | 51 |

Netherlands | NA | NA | NA |

Poland | NA | 12,625 | 7,815 |

Portugal | NA | NA | NA |

Slovakia | NA | 0 | 0 |

Slovenia | 8,594 | 2,375 | 510 | 5.93% |

Sweden | 53,522 | 49,637 | 10,600 | 19.80% |

UK | 98,851 | 8555 | NA |

Total | 2,846,944 | 693,575 | 128,322 |

Weighted average (7 countries) | 1,530,067 | 121,576 | 8% |

In 1999 [18] the rate of nationals who voted in their country of origin was much higher than in their country of residence. On average 91.2% of those EU nationals who resided in another EU Member State chose to vote in their country of origin compared to 8.8% in their country of residence. The data are presented in Table 3.4 below.

Table 2.4 – Number of nationals resident abroad voting in the Member State of origin or in their Member State of residence in 1999 |

Country | Total number of nationals having residence abroad who voted in 1999 | Number of nationals voting in the MS of origin | % of nationals voting in the MS of origin | Number nationals voting in the MS of residence | % of nationals voting in the MS of residence |

A | B | C (B/A) | D | E (D/A) |

Austria | 35,202 | 30,911 | 87.81% | 4,291 | 12.2% |

Belgium | 357,967 | 342,504 | 95.68% | 15,463 | 4.3% |

Germany | 47,352 | 2,708 | 5.72% | 44,644 | 94.3% |

Ireland | 2,858 | 220 | 7.70% | 2,638 | 92.3% |

Italy | 1,056,716 | 1,003,353 | 94.95% | 53,363 | 5.0% |

Netherlands | 33,602 | 17,010 | 50.62% | 16,592 | 49.4% |

Portugal | 119,320 | 94,957 | 79.58% | 24,363 | 20.4% |

Spain | 358,083 | 342,504 | 95.65% | 15,579 | 4.4% |

Total | 2,011,100 | 1,834,167 | 176,933 |

Weighted average | 91.2% | 8.8% |

In terms of gathering statistical data on numbers of cases of double voting, the information exchange system was not established with the aim of identifying cases of double voting and candidature, but to prevent the occurrence thereof[19]. The only two Member States that have established that double voting has occurred is Germany, where in total 120 cases were estimated in the 2004 EP elections[20] and Luxembourg, where it was discovered that four Luxembourg nationals double voted. This indicates that the number of cases of double voting is very small. For instance, the number of cases of double voting available for Germany is very small compared to the total numbers of EU non-nationals of voting age in Germany (2,156,388 citizens).

In surveys[21] amongst Member States it has been suggested that, as in particular there is very little evidence that double voting occurs in EP elections, the information exchange system might be unnecessary. It could also mean that the system has been successful in preventing double voting.

The seemingly low scale of double voting might point to that joint action is unnecessary, as has been suggested by several Member States. However, there are important legal responsibilities at EU level to ensure free and fair elections, and, in accordance with the principles of democracy, safeguard the principle ‘one person, one vote’. Therefore, the scale of the problem provide a means to assess whether joint actions are working efficiently or not, and not whether to undertake any actions to prevent double voting or not. In the current situation it is, however, not possible to correctly establish how effective the exchange system has been in terms of preventing double voting as there are no instruments in place to measure double voting in EP elections.

The functioning of the system is further analysed in Section 3.2.2 below on problems relating to the information exchange system in use to prevent double voting and candidature.

(Practical) problems relating to the information exchange system and Member States’ administrative burden and costs for the system

Since 1994 an information exchange system to reduce the risk of double voting and candidature has been in place. The Commission has established guidelines together with the Member States concerning practical details on sending and receiving information[22]. There is, however, no legal obligation for the Member States to follow the agreed guidelines. The guidelines include what information should be transferred, how the information should be presented, the format of the file to be sent, how a record should be presented, character set to be used, means for transferral of data (diskettes etc.), to whom in the Member States the information should be sent, contact person in the Commission and deadlines for the electoral roll in the Member States.

Information to be transferred between the Member States includes:

- Name(s);

- Forenames;

- Maiden name;

- Sex;

- Place of birth;

- Locality or constituency in the Member State where the voter was last registered; and,

- Locality where he / she is registered for the elections in the EP elections

An overview of how this information should be presented is included in Annex 1 where the complete text of the guidelines is included. The information must be circulated in file format << text tab delimited >>. The character set to be used is that defined by the ISO 8859-Latin 1 standard.[23]

Information on all individuals who are trying to register to vote in their country of residence instead of where they are nationals is transferred, not just information where there is a likelihood of double voting (e.g. those with dual or multiple nationality, those moving to near neighbour countries where there would be a possibility to travel between countries on ‘election days’ etc.).

As an example, the Maltese respondent to the DG JLS questionnaire indicated that it would be possible for people to travel between Malta and the United Kingdom (where many Maltese citizens reside) and vote in two different countries in the same election. Table 3.5 below provides an overview of the different election days in the 2004 elections[24].

Table 2.5 – 2004 EP Election dates in the Member States |

Dates of elections 2004 | Thursday 10 June | Friday 11 June | Saturday 12 June | Sunday 13 June |

Country | Netherlands | Czech Republic |

UK | Ireland | Italy |

Latvia | Austria |

Malta | Belgium |

Cyprus |

Germany |

Denmark |

Estonia |

France |

Greece |

Spain |

Finland |

Hungary |

Lithuania |

Luxembourg |

Poland |

Portugal |

Slovakia |

Slovenia |

Sweden |

However, travelling between different countries might not be the only option to double vote. There may also be possibilities to vote in the country of origin through an embassy in the country of residence (and also vote in the country of residence on the same election day). Postal voting might be another option that does not require the costs of travelling. Information on current provisions in relation to postal voting is available for 15 Member States. In 9 of these, postal voting in EP elections is possible for nationals residing abroad (see Annex 2). In the Netherlands, i-voting (voting by Internet) was another option in the 2004 EP elections.

Surveys organised by DG JLS amongst experts of Member States indicate that in a majority of the Member States the information exchange system is considered administratively demanding and lengthy and that the heavy administrative burden does not seem to be proportionate to the purpose of the system. In fact, 14 Member States consider it necessary to either abolish or improve the current information exchange system. An overview of these Member States and their suggestions for improvements are included in Annex 3.

There are some important drawbacks to the information exchange system including:

- In some cases information that is transferred from one Member State to another is insufficient to identify the individual on existing national registers in the country of origin [25].

Cause: Sometimes this is because a Member State do not collect those data indicated in the guidelines. Moreover, in some Member States information other than what is included in the guidelines is necessary to be able to identify citizens (i.e. identity card number / national number, father’s and mother’s name etc.). An overview of what information the Member States require to be able to delete citizens from their national electoral roll is provided in Annex 4.

Consequence: The Member State receiving information that one of its nationals has registered to vote in his/her country of residence is unable to delete the citizen from their electoral roll. The citizen is therefore registered on two electoral rolls, i.e. both in the country of origin and country of residence. This results in an opportunity for the individual to double vote.

- Problems with transliteration of names .

Cause: This problem regards information exchanges concerning individuals either originating from or residing in Greece due to the type of alphabets and letters used in these countries. In view of the 2009 EP elections, the Cyrillic alphabet is used in Bulgaria. The problem of transliteration of names also occurs in information exchanges between other countries because of spelling mistakes.

Consequence: For example, the Greek authorities were not able to identify persons communicated through the system as the Latin alphabet is not used in Greece, and were thereby not able to delete them from their electoral rolls. The same is relevant for cases sent from Greece and those cases where names were spelt incorrectly. Due to being registered on two electoral rolls, this also results in a possibility for the individuals concerned to double vote.

- Data arrived too late to be processed .

Cause: In lack of respective legal basis, no common deadline for closing the registers could be fixed for sending information. Thus, there was no common deadline for sending the information, neither.

Consequence: Some Member States received information too late to be able to process the information and delete the individuals from their electoral rolls.

- The formats in which information is transferred vary

Cause: The guidelines do not establish that one single format should be used for transferring information. Therefore, information was transferred by different means including paper form, diskettes, CD-ROM etc.

Consequence: Automatic processing was prevented and the identification and deletion of individuals from electoral rolls became more time-consuming than necessary. In particular information sent by decentralised electoral registers in many cases resulted in a high number of paper communications, of varying quality, with local authorities.

- The sender was not identified as a qualified body to transfer the information to the electoral body

Cause: This problem is of a structural nature as some countries have decentralised systems for handling the EP elections.

Consequence: The Member State of origin did not process the information as it was not sent from a qualified body. Therefore, there was a possibility that those individuals the transferred information concerned were taken up on electoral rolls in two different countries and could double vote.

- In some of countries the information exchanged cannot by law be used to change the existing national register

Cause: The laws in the UK and Ireland do not allow people to be deleted from their national electoral rolls based on information received from, for example, an organisation or public body. The request needs to come directly from the individual.

Consequence: It was not possible to amend the electoral rolls in these two countries on the basis of information exchanged through the system. The individuals concerned by the information exchanges with these countries therefore had the possibility to double vote as they were registered on two electoral rolls. However, the British electoral body informed the relevant citizens that they would commit an offence if they double voted, by sending them an information letter together with their ballot paper.

- Citizens have been deprived of the right to vote .

Cause: For instance, information was exchanged on EU non-national citizens who were being incorrectly considered as still wishing to vote in their previous Member State of residence, even though they had already left the territory of the Member State of residence and returned to their Member State of origin (but did not inform electoral authorities of the Member State of residence). The problem occurred when citizens had not been informed that they had been deleted from the EP electoral roll in their country of origin.

Consequence: EU citizens have been deprived of their right to vote. One example concern a French national, who resided in Spain from 1997 to 2000 where she voted in the June 1999 presidential elections. The French national returned to France in March 2000 and entered her name on the electoral roll in a French city. She was not allowed to vote there in the June 2004 elections to the EP on the grounds that she should vote abroad, although she was able to vote in the same city for the e.g. municipal elections in 2001. According to the French national, she was not informed about any additional measures required to be eligible to vote in the elections to the EP in France.[26]

Annex 5 specifies the practical problems experienced by Member State.

Most of these problems originate in differences between Member States' electoral systems and on how national registers are processed in the Member States and what information is included on the registers. This is one of the key challenges to exchanging information on EU non-national voters in a fast and efficient way.

In terms of the problem of receiving incomplete information, 11 Member States have confirmed that when they receive insufficient information to be able to identify citizens they contact the Member State from which the information was sent to try to obtain additional data, whereas 10 Member States indicated that they do not take any action[27]. Eight of the Member States[28] that requested more data from the transferring Member States stated that such contacts did not bring any results. Reasons mentioned by Member States for not taking any action included: lack of time; that they were confident that all information received had been included in the initial transmission; and, problems with the Latin alphabet (Greece).

Table 3.6 below provides an overview of the total number of cases received and sent by Member State, and how many of the cases were received with incomplete information to be able to identify and delete the citizen from the electoral roll.

Information on the number of cases received and sent has been provided by 19 Member States[29]. From these Member States a total number of 458,090 cases of people to be deleted from the electoral roll were received and 617,166 cases sent within the information exchange system. Theoretically, in case if all Member States had supplied complete data the two figures should be identical and equal to the total number of non-national EU citizens entered in the electoral roll of the Member State of residence (which was 1,045,058 as provided in the DG JLS questionnaire). The gap between these numbers suggests that information is not transferred on all individuals.

The Member States that handled the highest number of cases (sent and received) was Germany with 229,808 cases and France with 197,000 cases. Each of these countries handled almost one out of five of the total number of cases handled within the system. The countries that handled the third and fourth highest number of cases were Spain (160,317 cases) and the United Kingdom (159,570). Italy and Belgium also handled almost 100,000 cases each. The country with the lowest number of cases was Malta (1,113).

There is a difference between which Member States sent and received the highest number of cases. The country with the highest number of cases received is the United Kingdom with 98,851 cases, followed by Germany with 96,327 cases, Italy with 78,904 cases and France with 52,000 cases. Belgium has also reported a rather high number of cases received, i.e. 30,749. The country with the lowest number of cases received is Luxembourg with only 4.

France, Germany and Spain sent the highest number of cases: 145,000 (France), 133,481 (Germany) and 129,989 (Spain). Together these three countries account for two thirds of the total number of cases sent by the 19 Member States within the information exchange system. The country that transferred the lowest number of cases was Slovenia; 51 cases.

The average proportion of cases received with incomplete information is one out of five cases. As far as the percentage of cases received with incomplete information is concerned, Luxembourg has reported the highest rate with 75% while Slovenia and Estonia only 1% each. Greece indicated that most of the cases received (3,000) were incomplete as the information was provided in Latin alphabet and thus unusable.

Table 2.6 – Capacity of the information exchange system |

Country | Total number of cases handled by country | Number of cases received | Number of cases sent | Number of cases received with incomplete information | Cases with incomplete information as % of total number of cases |

Austria |

Belgium | 90,117 | 30,749 | 59,368 | 2,460 | 8% |

Czech Republic | 3,114 | 3,015 | 99 | 905 | 30% |

Cyprus | 2,194 | 140 | 2,054 | 7 | 5% |

Germany | 229,808 | 96,327 | 133,481 | NA | NA |

Denmark | 32,772 | 17,200 | 15,572 | 2,600 | 15% |

Estonia | 8,628 | 3,574 | 5,054 | 30 | 1% |

France | 197,000 | 52,000 | 145,000 | 3,900 | 7.50% |

Greece | 5,577 | 3,000 | 2,577 | Most of them as sent in Latin alphabet |

Spain | 160,317 | 30,328 | 129,989 |

Finland | 27,771 | 22,239 | 5,532 | 1,200 | 5% |

Hungary | 3,770 | 1,817 | 1,953 | 545 | 30% |

Ireland |

Italy | 95,626 | 78,904 | 16,722 | 20,000 | 25% |

Lithuania | 3,187 | 2,866 | 321 | 413 | 14% |

Luxembourg | 9,604 | 4 | 9,600 | 75% |

Latvia | 1,859 | 1,318 | 541 | 346 | 26% |

Malta | 1,113 | 77 | 1,036 | 100 |

Netherlands |

Poland |

Portugal | 41,486 | 13,989 | 27,497 | 3,979 | 28% |

Slovakia | 185 |

Slovenia | 1,743 | 1,692 | 51 | 20 | 1% |

Sweden |

UK | 159,570 | 98,851 | 60,719 | 32,621 | 33% |

Total | 1,075,256 | 458,090 | 617,166 | 69,310 |

Average | 20% |

On the basis of time inputs by staff in the Member States and the Commission, costs for the information exchange system can be estimated. An estimation and specification of costs for the Commission is provided in Table 3.7 below.

Table 2.7 – Commission costs for the information exchange system in relation to the 2004 EP elections |

Task | Costs / item (euro) | Total costs (euro) |

Preparation of guidelines for each election (1 FTE during 2 months, 500 euro/day) | 11,000 euro / 1 FTE / month | 22,000 |

Organising expert meetings for Member State electoral bodies | 17,000 euro/ meeting | 34,000 |

Total costs | 56,000 |

The costs are mainly borne by the Member States. Staff costs for those 15 Member States which provided data have been estimated as 981,000 euro for the 2004 EP elections (on the basis of their assessments of time spent working on the system and a day rate of 450 euro). As data are lacking for 10 Member States total costs can be estimated to be much higher. For those countries data are available, costs range from 4,050 euro in Estonia to one hundred times more in Italy: 405,000 euro. A large part of these costs are due to insufficient information, as it takes much longer to handle such cases, and because of various ways to transfer information, which prevents automatic processing. It is likely that costs would increase if the system remained as it is because of increases in EU non-nationals and next Enlargement of the EU to 27 Member States.

In terms of numbers of staff working with the system, 17 Member States provided figures on how many persons worked with the system in their country in connection with the 2004 EP elections. Numbers of staff ranged from one person (Slovenia and Latvia) to thirty persons (Italy). In one third of the countries for which data were available (5 Member States), five persons worked with the system. In the United Kingdom and Luxembourg the work was decentralised to the local level and it was therefore not possible to provide staff numbers. In Germany, numbers of staff were available for the Federal Returning Office (20), whereas the numbers of employees in the electoral offices of the approximately 12,500 local authorities (who handled the announcements forwarded by the Federal Returning office because of the locally managed electoral rolls) are unknown.

The total number of full time days varied between the Member States from nine days in Estonia to 900 in Italy. According to the Member States average working time on cases ranged from 1 to 60 minutes by case. In six of the 16 Member States that provided estimations, the average time for one case was one minute. Cases with incomplete information demanded on average from 1 to 60 minutes of additional working time compared with cases where complete information was received.

Table 3.8 below outlines both staff numbers and average working hours by case received. The calculations regarding costs for staff and time spent can at a later stage be compared with assessments based on total numbers of cases received and how much time is estimated to be spent on cases on average. An overview Table including such estimations is provided in Annex 7.

Table 2.8 – Staff input by Member State |

Country | 1999 | 2004 |

Number of EU non-nationals standing as a candidate in their MS of residence | Number of EU non-nationals candidates elected in their MS of residence | Number of EU non-nationals standing as a candidate in their MS of residence | Number of EU non-nationals candidates elected in their MS of residence |

Austria | 1 | 1 |

Belgium | 14 | 2 | 8 |

Czech Republic | - | 5 | 1 |

Cyprus | - | 0 |

Germany | 16 | 16 | 1 |

Denmark | 0 | 0 |

Estonia | - | 0 |

France | 8 | 1 | 8 | 1 |

Greece | 5 | 4 |

Spain | 10 | 1 |

Finland | 0 | 0 |

Hungary | - | 0 |

Ireland | 0 | 0 |

Italy | 6 | 1 | 0 |

Lithuania | - | 0 |

Luxembourg | NA | 8 |

Latvia | - | 0 |

Malta | - | 0 |

Netherlands | 2 | 2 |

Poland | - | 0 |

Portugal | 0 | 1 |

Slovakia | - | 0 |

Slovenia | - | 0 |

Sweden | 0 | 1 |

UK | NA | 2 |

Total | 62 | 4 | 57 | 3 |

- In the survey undertaken by DG JLS in the 25 Member States, three countries (Greece, Germany and France) reported a number of difficulties relating to the obligation to provide a proof from their Member State of origin to stand as a candidate by EU non-national citizens, where the result was that EU non-nationals were deemed ineligible to stand as a candidate in their country of residence. A number of candidates were refused as their applications were incorrect or incomplete. For example, in Greece, one application was refused by the Supreme Court, since the EU non-national candidate did not submit the attestation under article 10(2) of the Directive 93/109/EC. In Germany two cases occurred where EU non-nationals were refused to stand as candidates:

- One candidate was deleted from the list of candidates after having presented an application containing a copy and not the original proof of entitlement to stand as a candidate from the relevant administration in his Member State.

- Another application was refused as it did not contain any such attestation at all.

A third candidate submitted the document in his original language and not in German. In this case, the president of the electoral commission asked the person responsible for submitting the list of candidates to provide an addendum including the translation of the document. This is an additional burden for candidates, both in view of costs and time[34].

France also reported that a number of candidates had been deleted from the list of candidates as their application did not contain the proof of entitlement to stand as a candidate in their country of origin. The number of candidates concerned was not mentioned.

This shows that the current obligation to provide an attestation has had a negative influence of the participation of EU non-national candidates in their country of residence. Other factors likely to influence the low number of EU non-national candidates include their rights to join a political party in their country of residence. In some countries, it is namely a requirement to be a member of a political party to be able to stand as a candidate. Currently, non-national EU citizens are not allowed to join a political party in seven Member States[35]. A summary table presenting the conditions and requirements in the Member States for candidates wishing to run for EP elections is included in Annex 9. Account is taken of the practical and administrative requirements for nationals and EU non-nationals in each country.

‘Poor integration’ (that EU non-nationals feel a closer connection to the political life in their home country) may also impact on their involvement in the political life in their country of residence.

Member States’ provisions in relation to what national authority is competent to deliver proof of entitlement to stand as a candidate

In a number of Member States it is not clearly identified or regulated at all what national authority is competent to deliver proof of entitlement to stand as a candidate. Therefore, a survey[36] amongst Member States electoral bodies was undertaken to collect information on in what Member State this is not clearly regulated, if any guidance is readily available, time to receive information and documentation and any costs involved for the candidate.

Responses to the survey were received from 14 Member States. All except one (Slovakia) of these countries identified the competent authority to deliver a proof of entitlement for citizens wishing to stand as a candidate in their country of residence.

In Slovenia nationals wishing to obtain the documents required have to contact different authorities themselves whilst in six other Member States this process is coordinated by one authority[37].

In 9 of the 14 Member States guidance is readily available for citizens and EU non-nationals wishing to run for EP elections. In most countries this guidance is available on the websites of the bodies responsible for issuing the proof of entitlement or are available in paper version (in this case the time for receiving the documentation was 5 to 10 days). Most of the countries stated that there were no costs involved except for France and Lithuania. According to the latter, any certificate issued by the Ministry of Interior costs 2 euro.

Table A10.1 in Annex 10 provides an overview of the situation in each of the 14 Member States that responded to the survey.

Interviews have also been arranged with candidates to the EP elections in 2004 to obtain their views on the requirement to provide an attestation and whether they had experienced any problems. One interview was undertaken with a Member of the European Parliament who stood as a candidate in his Member State of residence, and three EU non-nationals candidates who were not elected.

The party of the EU non-national who was elected informed him about the requirement to obtain proof. The Ministry of Justice provided the relevant documentation, although the authority has not the competence to provide the proof. Also one EU non-national candidate who was not elected had problems obtaining the proof and even considered giving up on his candidature. He finally received the attestation only two days before the deadline for registering as a candidate. The third and fourth candidates interviewed did not have any problems obtaining the relevant documentation. Both were assisted by their parties.

Boxes 3.1 to 3.4 below provide summaries of the answers of the three interviews with candidates to the 2004 EP elections.

Box 2.1 – Interview with Candidate 1 How was the candidate informed about the requirement to obtain a proof? The campaign manager within the party told the candidate what documents were needed to be able to stand as a candidate as well as which was the authority to contact in the country of origin. Any assistance in obtaining the proof The party only provided information on what authority to contact and a list of documents needed. What are the competent authorities to contact? The Ministry of Justice provided the attestation although the Ministry has not formally been given the competence to provide the required . Timeframe to receive the documents One day. Any costs involved No. Administrative burden/consider to not following through with candidature The MEP considers that the administrative requirements are not too burdensome. However, the proof required is normally not provided to nationals of his country of origin. |

Box 2.2 – Interview with Candidate 2 How was the candidate informed about the requirement to obtain a proof? The candidate received the information on the documents to be included in the application from the party she was running for. The party provided her with a list of documents to present to the authorities in her Member State of residence. Any assistance in obtaining the proof Yes, the party provided a list of documents to be received by the embassy of her country of origin. The party asked for the help of a legal assistant. What are the competent authorities to contact? The embassy in her country of residence. Timeframe to receive the documents A few hours. Any costs involved No. Administrative burden/consider to not following through with candidature The candidate considers that the requirements for EU non-nationals standing as a candidate in their country of residence are not too burdensome. She sees the requirement as being a “normal administration” process. |

Box 2.3 – Interview with Candidate 3 How was the candidate informed about the requirement to obtain a proof? Through my party. Any assistance in obtaining the proof No. I checked the official elections website in the Member State of residence and downloaded the relevant documents. Unfortunately the reference to competent authority of the State of origin was not explicit enough, so I went to my Embassy (see below). The Embassy seemed very surprised about my demand. They never heard about this and knew not what to do. Eventually they gave me a telephone number at the Ministry of Justice (competent for electoral affairs for nationals living abroad) in my country of residence. There someone told me to send an email with my demand. As I got no answer I called back later. Eventually I got the name of the person I had to contact. From then on contacts went rather smooth. This took about one week. What are the competent authorities to contact? 1. Embassy (consular department): Declaration of nationality 2. Ministry of Justice (department administrative affairs) : proof of eligibility Timeframe to receive the documents Eventually I received the main document (proof of eligibility) by fax (without signature) and by regular post delivery (with signature) only 1 or 2 days before the deadline (16 April). I started this procedure in the first week of April. Any costs involved Only consular fees for the Declaration of nationality. Several phone calls and fax messages. Administrative burden/consider to not following through with candidature I did consider the requirements unreasonably burdensome, and did consider not following through with the candidature because of the requirement to obtain the attestation ‘especially when deadline approached and I was still without information from my Member State of origin. Sometimes I saw myself as a fool (especially confronted with Embassy staff in my Member State of residence) caught up in some Catch-22 situation’. As this is fundamentally a "country of origin" problem, I think local Embassies should be made aware of procedures and practical solutions. Parties are not in a position to get in contact with relevant authorities in the country of origin of their foreign candidates. |

Box 2.4 – Interview with Candidate 4 How was the candidate informed about the requirement to obtain a proof? The president of the party provided her with all the relevant information. Any assistance in obtaining the proof The party only provided information on what authority to contact and a list of documents needed. What are the competent authorities to contact? The registry office within the commune of residence in the country of origin (local level). Timeframe to receive the documents One day. Any costs involved 10 euro. Administrative burden/consider to not following through with candidature The candidate considers that the administrative requirements are not too burdensome. However, she thinks that an information and awareness raising campaign should be organised to make EU citizens as well as political parties conscious of the opportunity for non-nationals to stand as candidates for EP elections. The only obstacle she had to face was the short timeframe for the organisation of the electoral campaign as the Belgian authorities confirmed the acceptance of her application very late. |

Summary – Problem 2

Scale of the problem

The rate of EU non-national candidates to the EP elections is much lower than of nationals. In 2004 there were in total 8,974 candidates to the EP elections. Of these, 8,917 stood as candidates in their country of origin, i.e. 99% of the total number of candidates. Only 57 candidates were EU non-. 3 EU non-national candidates succeeded to be elected.

Estimations show that if the participation rate for EU non-nationals had been the same as for nationals, the total number of EU non-national candidates would have been 182 instead of 57.

There is evidence that the number of EU non-national candidates would have been higher, had there not been an obligation to provide a proof of eligibility. Three countries (Greece, Germany and France) have reported a number of difficulties relating to the obligation to provide a proof from their Member State of origin to stand as a candidate by EU non-national citizens, where the result was that EU non-nationals were deemed ineligible to stand as a candidate in their country of residence. A number of candidates were refused as their applications were incorrect or incomplete. For example, in Greece, one application was refused by the Supreme Court, since the EU non-national candidate did not submit the attestation under article 10(2) of the Directive 93/109/EC. In Germany two cases occurred where EU non-nationals were refused to stand as candidates. France also reported that a number of candidates had been deleted from the list of candidates as their application did not contain the proof of entitlement to stand as a candidate in their country of origin. The number of candidates concerned was not mentioned.

This shows that the current obligation to provide an attestation has had a negative influence of the participation of EU non-national candidates in their country of residence. Other factors likely to influence the low number of EU non-national candidates include, in addition to ‘poor integration’ (that they feel a closer connection to the political life in their home country) the possibility and their rights to join a political party in their country of residence. This is in some countries a requirement to be able to stand as a candidate. In fact, in five Member States non-national EU citizens are not allowed to join a political party.

Heavy administrative burden

In a number of Member States it is not clearly identified or regulated at all what national authority is competent to deliver proof of entitlement to stand as a candidate. Therefore, a survey amongst Member States electoral bodies was undertaken to collect information on in what Member State this is not clearly regulated, if any guidance is readily available, time to receive information and documentation and any costs involved for the candidate. Only 14 Member States responded to the survey. The majority of these countries were able to identify competent authority. Only very minor costs are involved in two countries.

Interviews that have been undertaken with EU non-national candidates confirm that there are problems in relation to contacting and receiving the relevant attestation from the competent authority in their country of origin. In two out of three countries candidates experienced problems either identifying the competent authority or that it was not regulated which the competent authority is. One of the candidates even considered giving up on standing as a candidate, and only received the relevant proof two days in advance of the deadline for registration as a candidate.

POLICY OBJECTIVES

Introduction

This Section outlines the political orientation for any changes to the Directive 93/109/EC, including general and specific objectives, i.e. what aims and objectives have been set, and how well these are articulated. The policy objectives will provide some of the criteria for assessing the policy options.

Definition of general and specific policy objectives

There is a risk that EU citizens living in other EU countries than of their origin could illegally vote and stand as a candidate in both their country of origin and country of residence. There are important legal responsibilities at EU level to ensure free and fair elections.

Directive 93/109/EC include the following policy objectives for the Community in addressing the question of EU citizens’ right to vote and stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament when they are residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals:

General objectives:

- To ensure participation of all citizens of the Union to the elections to the European Parliament.

- To encourage participation of all citizens of the Union to the elections to the European Parliament.

- To ensure equal access to electoral rights (non-discrimination principle) for EU citizens to have the same electoral rights in their Member State of residence as the nationals of that country.

Specific objectives:

- To prevent double voting in EP elections.

- To prevent double candidature in EP elections.

- To reduce obstacles for EU citizens who wish to stand as a candidate in EP elections in their Member State of residence.

These objectives provide part of the assessment criteria put forward in Section 6 for the assessment and comparison of the policy options described in Section 5.

In terms of the relationship and a possible hierarchical order between these objectives, the relative priority for these objectives will need to be defined at the political level.

POLICY OPTIONS

Policy options to address Problem 1: Deficient system to prevent double voting and double candidature

The sub-sections below provide brief descriptions of available policy options to address Problem 1 – Deficient system to prevent double voting and candidature.

Policy Option 1.1 – Status quo

No changes are made to the current situation, i.e. the following measures are maintained:

- The current information exchange system between the Member States. Within the frame of this system, the Member State of residence is responsible for transferring information about EU non-national citizens who register to vote in the country to the Member State of origin, which is to delete the citizen from their electoral roll as to prevent double voting and candidature. The Commission and the Member States have agreed guidelines on what and how information is to be exchanged. No amendments to the Directive would be made in the status quo option, but further meetings involving the Commission and Member States are to be arranged by the Commission in view of improving and adapting these guidelines (to an EU 27) which are implemented by the Member States.

- The written declaration by EU non-nationals , made when they enrol to vote in their Member State of residence, that they will vote in their Member State of residence only and not in their Member State of origin (Art. 9 of Directive 93/109/EC) and register to stand as candidates in their Member State of residence (Art. 10).

Policy Option 1.2 – Improvements to the current information exchange system (administrative and operational)

In this policy option the current information exchange system could be improved in terms of administrative and operational procedures to ensure consistency across the EU, by:

- Establishing a single, harmonised deadline for exchanging information;

- Adapting the already established format for information to be exchanged so that it allows all Member States to have all information needed to identify their national citizens when they receive information;

- Establishing that all information need to be transferred electronically by one specific means as to allow automatic processing of all information;

- Introducing the use of the Greek and Cyrillic alphabets; and,

- Member States would need to duly inform citizens that they have been deleted from an electoral roll.

The system would have to be implemented by the Member States probably on the basis of a decision from the Commission adopted under a comitology procedure.

Policy Option 1.3 – Abolish current system but maintain declaration of no double vote and candidature and introduce penalties

This policy option would include the following amendments to Directive 93/109/EC:

- Abolishing the current information exchange system , but

- Maintaining the declaration by EU non-national citizens to not double vote (established in Art. 9 of Directive 93/109/EC) or stand as a candidate in two Member States in the same EP election (Art. 10). This declaration is made at the time EU non-nationals register to vote in their country of residence (according to Art. 9 EU non-nationals need to confirm in written that they will not vote in their Member State of origin but only Member State of residence) or register as a candidate .

- Introducing an offence for double voting

- Introducing a system for checking the occurrence of double voting and candidature. Further research is, however, necessary to elaborate the details of how the system would function and what data on voters are available in the Member States. It is not realistic to anticipate that it would be possible to implement the system for checking double voting already in the 2009 elections, but first in subsequent elections. At the time of these later elections, it can be expected that more Member States will have developed electronic systems to register voters, which would increase the efficiency of a checking system. In the 2009 EP elections Member States could report on double voting and what actions they undertook to prevent the occurrence thereof. Such a system would be helpful to implement the penalty as a penalty without checking the occurrence of double voting and candidature would not provide an effective means to prevent double voting and candidature. It could, for instance, be based on comparisons of lists of voters in the Member States.

Policy Option 1.4 – Establishing a European Parliament Electoral Commission and maintain declaration

This policy option would mean abolishing the current information exchange system and introduce the following amendments to the Directive:

- An offence for double voting ;

- An audit system based on risk assessments of EU non-nationals voting in their Member State of residence. On the spot audits would be undertaken after the elections in selected Member States by an ‘independent’ auditor employed by a European Parliament Electoral Commission, on the basis of lists of people who voted. Criteria for selecting Member States where audits would be undertaken could include e.g. high total numbers of EU non-nationals, high numbers of EU non-nationals from a specific country, different voting dates (i.e. travel to vote is possible / easier than if elections were undertaken on the same day) etc. The current Working Group of Member States could form the basis for this Electoral Commission with the European Commission as a chair. The current declaration of no double voting, made by EU citizens at the time of registration to vote in EP elections in their Member State of residence, would be maintained.

Policy Option 1.5 – New information system

The current information exchange system could be abolished and replaced by a new information system, e.g. where citizens input information directly into a central electronic system, common for all Member States, on where they choose to vote. All Member States’ administrations would have access to the information in the system. The system would provide an automatic notification to relevant Member States when information had been updated / inputted. The system would be accessible via the Internet. Failure to register on the system before a specified date would mean that the citizen would be ineligible to vote (which is also currently the case in most Member States, although the date for registration varies. In a few Member States citizens are automatically taken up on the electoral roll). A common deadline for registering would have to be introduced.

The electronic system would have to be supported by a less technology knowledge based system for those citizens who would not be able to use the system themselves. For instance, staff in the Member States could be educated to provide assistance and / or it would be possible to make the registration also by letter. . The system would be maintained centrally, e.g. similarly to Eurodac.

Policy Option 1.6 – Declaration by voters of no double voting

This policy option would involve the termination of both the information exchange system and the declaration of no double vote (in Art. 9), made when EU non-nationals enrol to vote in their Member State of residence. These measures would be replaced by a system of a formal declaration of no double voting by EU citizens who choose to vote in their Member State of residence, made at the time when they vote . Follow up audit checks would be undertaken by the Member States on a sample of declarations (i.e. checking that the EU non-national who voted in his/her country of residence did not also vote in the country of origin).

Policy Option 1.7 – Developing an EP electoral roll

This policy option would involve either all electoral rolls of the Member States (for EP elections) being integrated into one common EP electoral roll for all Member States or incremental improvements to the electoral role updating processes in Member States so that the likelihood of double voting is reduced (such a sub option could involve the identification and exchange of good practice). The latter would imply a process of harmonisation concerning type of personal data included on the electoral roll. However, a common EP electoral roll could also be created by collecting additional information directly from the citizens. What information to include would be agreed by the Member States. The information on the electoral roll would be shared between the Member States

In addition to amendments to Directive 93/109/EC the policy option would also necessitate changes to the 1976 Act on elections.

Policy options to address Problem 2: heavy administrative burden for non-national candidates to the EP elections

The sub-sections below provide brief descriptions of available policy options to address the problem of the heavy burden for non national candidates wishing to stand for election to the EP.

Policy Option 2.1 – Status quo

No changes are made to the present situation. When submitting an application to stand as a candidate in their Member State of residence in an EP election, EU citizens must currently provide proof supplied by their Member State of origin that they are entitled to stand as a candidate there (Art. 6 and 10). It is currently not clear or regulated at all in certain Member States, what authority is competent to provide this attestation.

Policy Option 2.2 – Refine current system

This policy option would, for example, involve giving publicity through an EU wide information campaign to a comprehensive list of authorities which are competent to deliver proof of eligibility to citizens who wish to stand as a candidate in their Member State of residence.

Policy Option 2.3 – Facilitate and enhance the role of political parties in enabling candidature by non nationals

For example, providing a ‘tool kit‘ so that political parties in Member States could efficiently advise potential candidates of the steps they must take to obtain the relevant attestation.

Policy Option 2.4 – Introduce a formal declaration

This policy option would involve the abolishment of the obligation of candidates to present the proof and to replace it with formal declaration that they have not been deprived of the right to stand as a candidate through an individual criminal law or civil law decision. The Member State of residence would have the possibility to check with the Member State of residence that the citizen has not been deprived of his/her right to stand as a candidate.

Policy Option 2.5 – New information system

This policy option would involve the creation of a central electronic information system, common for all the electoral authorities of the Member States, to which candidates would provide a declaration directly about their eligibility to stand as a candidate. The system would enable quick checks of eligibility of candidates by Member State authorities.

Policy Option 2.6 – Abolish the obligation to provide a declaration

This policy option would involve the abolishment of the obligation for EU non-national candidates to provide an attestation of eligibility from their Member State of origin.

ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS

Introduction

This Section outlines the main advantages and disadvantages of each policy option identified in Section 5 in terms of social and economic impacts[38] on different target groups, risks and trade-offs.

The following sub-sections present impact assessments of each of the Policy Options against a set of criteria which derive from the problems in the current situation, policy objectives and relevant Articles from the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Common grids have been used for systematic comparison of the policy options to address each of the two problems:

1. Deficient system to prevent double voting and candidature; and,

2. Heavy administrative burden for candidates.

Identifying and assessing impacts of each of the policy options

For each option, anticipated impact effectiveness has been assessed based on a rating scale, against the criteria derived from the problems and policy objectives on an ‘intuitive’ scale of one to five. The assessment criteria include:

- The impacts with respect to the policy objectives – i.e. how far does the policy option forward each objective?

- To what extent are relevant fundamental rights ensured and promoted?

- What are the main benefits and advantages?

- What are the disadvantages and risks?

- Are there any essential accompanying measures?

- Views expressed by stakeholders, including Member States and other interested parties.

A brief explanation of why a certain rating has been given is provided for each criterion in the grids. Impact assessments of the six identified policy options to address Problem 1: ‘Deficient system to prevent double voting and candidature’ are presented in Tables 6.1 to 6.6 below. Impact assessments of the five identified policy options to address Problem 2: ‘Heavy administrative burden for candidates’ are presented in Tables 6.7 to 6.11 below.

A comparison of ratings given to each policy option to address Problem 1 and Problem 2 and elaborations of the preferred options are provided in Section 7.

Assessment of policy options to address Problem 1

Overview of Policy Options to address the problem of ‘Deficient system to prevent double voting and double candidature’:

- Policy Option 1.1 – Status quo

- Policy Option 1.2 – Improvements to the current information exchange system (administrative and operational)

- Policy Option 1.3 – Abolish current system but maintain declaration of no double vote

- Policy Option 1.4 – Establishing a European Parliament Electoral Commission and maintain declaration

- Policy Option 1.5 – New information system

- Policy Option 1.6 – Declaration by voters of no double voting

- Policy Option 1.7 – Developing an EP electoral roll

Summary of Policy option 1.1 – Status quo No changes are made to the current situation, i.e. the following measures are maintained: The current information exchange system between the Member States. Within the frame of this system, the Member State of residence is responsible for transferring information about EU non-national citizens who register to vote in the country to the Member State of origin, which is to delete the citizen from their electoral roll as to prevent double voting. The Commission has, together with the Member States, elaborated guidelines on what and how information is to be exchanged. No amendments to the Directive would be made in the status quo option but further meetings involving the Commission and the Member States are to be arranged by the Commission in view of improving and adapting these guidelines which are implemented by the Member States. The written declaration by EU non-nationals, made when they enrol to vote in their Member State of residence, that they will vote in their Member State of residence only and not in their Member State of origin (Art. 9 of Directive 93/109/EC) and register to stand as candidates in their Member State of residence (Art. 10). |

Table 5.1 –Summary assessment of policy option 1.1 “Status quo” to meet identified objectives |

Objective to be achieved/ problem addressed | Anticipated impact effectiveness (rated from – to √√√√√) | Explanation of rating and aspects of the policy option necessary to achieve impact |

To prevent double voting in EP elections. | √√√ | Through information exchanges between the Member States EU citizens are prevented from being registered on electoral rolls in two countries at the same time. Thereby the risk of double voting is decreased. Due to identified flaws of the system some individuals are, though, not possible to delete from electoral rolls but are still registered on two electoral rolls in the same election. This problem is likely to be aggravated in case of further Enlargement of the EU. |

To prevent double candidature in EP elections. | √√√ | In addition to exchanging information on people who are registering on the electoral roll in their Member State of residence, Member States have to send separate information on EU non-nationals who have registered as candidates to their Member State of origin. |

To ensure participation of all citizens of the Union to the elections to the European Parliament. | √√ | There is evidence that EU citizens have been deprived of the right to vote due to the flaws of the information exchange system. This problem is likely to be aggravated with the next Enlargement of the EU. |

To encourage participation of all citizens of the Union to the elections to the European Parliament. | √√ | Article 12 of the Directive establishes that the Member State of residence is to inform EU non-nationals of the conditions to vote and stand as candidates ‘in good time and an appropriate manner’. Participation rates in the EP elections have decreased the last elections. There is no evidence that the situation will improve in future elections. |

To ensure equal access to electoral rights (non-discrimination principles[39]) for EU citizens to have the same electoral rights in their Member State of residence as the nationals of that country. | √√√√ | Because of the problems of the system, and the fact that some EU non-nationals have been deprived of their right to vote, equal access is not fully ensured. |

Fundamental rights |

Right to vote and to stand as a candidate at elections to the European Parliament[40] | √√√ | Since some EU non-nationals have been deprived of their right to vote, this Fundamental Right is not fully ensured. |

Protection of personal data[41] | √ | Much personal data are transferred between different locations by different means (paper, diskettes, CD-ROMs). As many people have access to the data there is a risk that information leaks and/or is re-used for other purposes. There is evidence that citizens in the current situation are not informed about the information exchanges of personal data between the Member States. |

Benefits and advantages of option | Staff of Member States electoral bodies is familiar with the system. |

Disadvantages and risks of policy option | In addition to that citizens have been deprived of their right to vote, several Member States consider the current system un-proportionately burdensome in relation to the problem of double voting. The propensity for mistakes will increase disproportionately with the increased number of exchanges that will take place upon Enlargement of the EU. |

Essential accompanying measures | NA |

Costs | Costs for the system for each election are not very high, but they will increase as more countries join the Union. The return will not improve. |

Issues raised in Member State consultations | Member States consider the system burdensome. |

Summary of Policy option 1.2 – Improvements to the current information exchange system In this policy option the current information exchange system could be improved in terms of administrative and operational procedures to ensure consistency across the EU, by: Establishing a single, harmonised deadline for exchanging information; Adapting the already established format for information to be exchanged so that it allows all Member States to have all information needed to identify their national citizens when they receive information Establishing that all information need to be transferred electronically by one specific means as to allow automatic processing of all information; Introducing the use of the Greek and Cyrillic alphabet, Member States would need to duly inform citizens that they have been deleted from an electoral roll. The changes would have to be implemented by the Member States. |

Table 5.2 –Summary assessment of policy option 1.2 “Improvements to the current information exchange system” to meet identified objectives |

Objective to be achieved/ problem addressed | Anticipated impact effectiveness (rated from – to √√√√√) | Explanation of rating and aspects of the policy option necessary to achieve impact |

To prevent double voting in EP elections. | √√√√ | The proposed improvements to the system would lead to a simplification of the current system and increased utility of the data transferred on citizens. A higher number of EU non-nationals who have registered to vote in their Member State of residence would be possible to identify on the basis of the personal data received on citizens. |

To prevent double candidature in EP elections. | √√√√ | The prevention of double candidature will improve to the same extent as double voting. |

To ensure participation of all citizens of the Union to the elections to the European Parliament. | √√√√ | If the information exchange system works better there will be fewer cases of people being prevented to vote. |

To encourage participation of all citizens of the Union to the elections to the European Parliament. | √√ | No changes to the current situation. |

To ensure equal access to electoral rights (non-discrimination principles[42]) for EU citizens to have the same electoral rights in their Member State of residence as the nationals of that country. | √√√√ | Equal access will be ensured to a higher extent than in the current situation, but there may still be cases of EU non-nationals being prevented from voting. |

Fundamental rights |

Right to vote and to stand as a candidate at elections to the European Parliament (Art. 39) | √√√√ | The right to vote will be ensured to a higher extent than in the current situation, but there may still be cases of EU non-nationals being prevented from voting. |

Protection of personal data (Art. 8) | √ | Personal data would still be transferred between different actors, which would imply a risk of information leaks and/or re-use for other purposes. |

Benefits and advantages of option | There would be incremental improvements of the functioning of the system. One particular advantage would be that automatic processing would be possible, which would reduce the time Member State staff spends on the system. |

Disadvantages and risks of policy option | The current situation would be improved but all problems would not be eliminated (e.g. concerning cases involving UK and Ireland). |

Essential accompanying measures | NA |

Costs | The deficiencies in the information exchanged contribute to a large part of the overall costs of the system. Costs would first increase when the changes to the system are introduced and then they would decrease (automatic processing would ensure this). |

Issues raised in Member State consultations | Several Member States have indicated that their preference is either to abolish the current information exchange system completely or at least make changes to it. The suggested changes to the information exchange system stem from comments and suggestions from the Member States. |

Summary of Policy option 1.3 – Abolish current information exchange system but maintain declaration of no double vote and candidature and introduce penalties This policy option would include the following amendments to Directive 93/109/EC: Abolishing the current information exchange system, but Maintaining the declaration by EU non-national citizens to not double vote (established in Art. 9 of Directive 93/109/EC) or stand as a candidate in two Member States in the same EP election (Art. 10).. This declaration is made at the time EU non-nationals register to vote in their country of residence (according to Art. 9 EU non-nationals need to confirm in written that they will not vote in their Member State of origin but only Member State of residence) or register to stand as a candidate. Introducing penalties for double voting Introducing ex post checks on the occurrence of double voting. |

Table 5.3 –Summary assessment of policy option 1.3 “Abolish current information exchange system but maintain declaration of no double vote and candidature and introduce penalties” to meet identified objectives |

Objective to be achieved/ problem addressed | Anticipated impact effectiveness (rated from – to √√√√√) | Explanation of rating and aspects of the policy option necessary to achieve impact |

To prevent double voting in EP elections. | √√√√ | Incentives to double vote would be decreased as EU citizens would be aware that they are committing an offence by voting twice in the same elections (penalty and check of declarations). It is, however, likely that more citizens would be registered on electoral rolls in two countries in the same election as there would be no means of co-operation in place to exchange information on registrations to the EP electoral roll[43]. |

To prevent double candidature in EP elections. | √√√√ | The situation in relation to prevention of double candidature would be the same as for double voting. |

To ensure participation of all citizens of the Union to the elections to the European Parliament. | √√√√ | This would be dependent on the Member States’ systems. It is likely that the problem of people being prevented to vote would decrease as information would not be exchanged between Member States. |

To encourage participation of all citizens of the Union to the elections to the European Parliament. | √√ | The current situation is not likely to change. |

To ensure equal access to electoral rights (non-discrimination principles[44]) for EU citizens to have the same electoral rights in their Member State of residence as the nationals of that country. | √√√√ | This would be dependent on the implementation of the Directive in the individual Member States, but the option would not involve any discriminatory measures per se. |

Fundamental rights |

Right to vote and to stand as a candidate at elections to the European Parliament (Art. 39) | √√√ | This would be dependent on the implementation of the Directive in the individual Member States. |

Protection of personal data (Art. 8) | √√√ | Personal data will be necessary to communicate between different authorities in the country of residence or origin for the purpose of the ex-post checking. |

Benefits and advantages of option | Incentives to double vote would be decreased as EU citizens would be aware that they are committing an offence by voting twice in the same elections (penalty and check of declarations). The current information exchange system would be abolished, which several Member States are in favour of. |

Disadvantages and risks of policy option | Ex post checks whether double voting had occurred would need to be put in place. It would be the responsibility of the individual Member States to prevent double voting. It is likely that more citizens would be registered on electoral rolls in two countries in the same election as there would be no means of co-operation in place to exchange information on registrations to the EP electoral roll. |

Essential accompanying measures | The Member States would have to rely on their own systems for updating EP elections electoral rolls. Not all Member States have such systems in place. |

Costs | There would be no costs for transferring data between Member States as the information exchange system would be abolished. |

Issues raised in Member State consultations | Several Member States have indicated that their preference is either to abolish the current information exchange system completely or at least make changes to it. |

Summary of Policy option 1.4 – Establishing a European Parliament Electoral Commission This policy option would mean abolishing the current information exchange system and introduce the following amendments to the Directive: An offence for double voting; An audit system based on risk assessments of EU non-nationals voting in their Member State of residence. On the spot audits would be undertaken after the elections in selected Member States by an ‘independent’ auditor employed by a European Parliament Electoral Commission, on the basis of lists of people who voted. Criteria for selecting Member States where audits would be undertaken could include e.g. high total numbers of EU non-nationals, high numbers of EU non-nationals from a specific country, different voting dates (i.e. travel to vote is possible / easier than if elections were undertaken on the same day) etc. The current Expert Group of Member States could form the basis for this Electoral Commission with the European Commission as a chair. The current declaration of no double voting, made by EU citizens at the time of registration to vote in EP elections in their Member State of residence, would be maintained. |

Table 5.4 –Summary assessment of policy option 1.4 “Establishing a European Parliament Electoral Commission” to meet identified objectives |

Objective to be achieved/ problem addressed | Anticipated impact effectiveness (rated from – to √√√√√) | Explanation of rating and aspects of the policy option necessary to achieve impact |

To prevent double voting in EP elections. | √√√√ | Incentives to double vote would be decreased as EU citizens would be aware that they are committing an offence by voting twice in the same elections. |

To prevent double candidature in EP elections. | √√√√ | Double candidature would lead to committing an offence. |

To ensure participation of all citizens of the Union to the elections to the European Parliament. | √√√√ | No one would be prevented from voting, which is a problem in the current situation, since checks would be undertaken after the elections. |

To encourage participation of all citizens of the Union to the elections to the European Parliament. | √√√√ | Introducing an EP Electoral Commission could provide a means to make the EP elections more distinct from national policy issues. It could also play a role in identifying good practices amongst initiatives undertaken by Member States to encourage citizens to vote in the EP elections. |

To ensure equal access to electoral rights (non-discrimination principles[45]) for EU citizens to have the same electoral rights in their Member State of residence as the nationals of that country. | √√√√√ | There would be equal access to electoral rights. On the spot checks would only be undertaken after the elections. |

Fundamental rights |

Right to vote and to stand as a candidate at elections to the European Parliament (Art. 39) | √√√√√ | The right to vote would be ensured since on the spot checks would only be undertaken after the elections. |

Protection of personal data (Art. 8) | √√√√ | There would be increased protection of personal data as the current exchanges of information would be replaced by on the spot checks. Only the EP Electoral Commission staff would have access to lists of voters in order to be able to undertake audits. |

Benefits and advantages of option | The establishment of an EP Electoral Commission could result in a simple system if it would be possible to check double voting on the basis of electronic registers of people who voted. This would provide a systematic way to check the extent of double voting, which does not exist now. As a knock-on effect the body would increase the sense of a European citizenship. |

Disadvantages and risks of policy option | An audit system would need to be put in place. For this system, electronic lists of voters with details such as nationality, date of birth, address etc. would have to be available in the Member States. This is currently not the case. The Electoral Commission would need to take over some tasks which are currently the Member States’ responsibility. |

Essential accompanying measures | An EU wide information campaign on the creation of the EP Electoral Commission and its role would be necessary. |

Costs | Costs would shift from Member State to EU level. The Member States’ costs (and time spent) would drastically decrease as they only would have to submit their lists of voters (including data on EU non-nationals) to the EP Electoral Commission in order for the auditor to be able to undertake checks. |

Issues raised in Member State consultations | The policy option has not been raised with Member States. |

Summary of Policy option 1.5 – New information system The current information exchange system could be abolished and replaced by a new information system, e.g. where citizens input information directly into a central electronic system, common for all Member States, on where they choose to vote. All Member States’ administrations would have access to the information in the system. The system would provide an automatic notification to relevant Member States when information had been updated / inputted. The system would be accessible via the Internet. Failure to register on the system before a specified date would mean that the citizen would be ineligible to vote (which is also currently the case in most Member States, although the date for registration varies. In a few Member States citizens are automatically taken up on the electoral roll). A common deadline for registering would have to be introduced. The electronic system would have to be supported by a less technology knowledge based system for those citizens who would not be able to use the system themselves. For instance, staff in the Member States could be educated to provide assistance and / or it would be possible to make the registration also by letter. |

Table 5.5 – Problem 1: Summary assessment of policy option 1.5 “New information system” to meet identified objectives |

Objective to be achieved/ problem addressed | Anticipated impact effectiveness (rated from – to √√√√√) | Explanation of rating and aspects of the policy option necessary to achieve impact |

To prevent double voting in EP elections. | √√√√ | Double voting would be prevented to a high extent. It is not likely to be completely prevented as there could be instances where EU citizens use different names etc. to try to circumvent the system. |

To prevent double candidature in EP elections. | √√√√ | The prevention of double candidature would improve to the same extent as double voting. |

To ensure participation of all citizens of the Union to the elections to the European Parliament. | √√ | Failure to register in time would lead to that the citizen would be ineligible to vote. Participation would therefore not be ensured. This is, though, also currently the situation in most Member States. |

To encourage participation of all citizens of the Union to the elections to the European Parliament. | √√√ | EU non-nationals would need to be informed about the information system. The need to register could be problematic for those who are unfamiliar with the Internet and others could be unwilling to submit personal information to a system accessible electronically for several actors. The option could therefore to some extent discourage participation. |

To ensure equal access to electoral rights (non-discrimination principles[46]) for EU citizens to have the same electoral rights in their Member State of residence as the nationals of that country. | √√ | After having registered on the system EU non-nationals would have the same access to electoral rights as nationals of the country. However, there would be a risk of unequal access for those who would not be able to use the electronic system. |

Fundamental rights |

Right to vote and to stand as a candidate at elections to the European Parliament (Art. 39) | √√√√ | The right would be ensured as long as EU non-nationals register on time. |

Protection of personal data (Art. 8) | √ | There are chances that information would leak. |

Benefits and advantages of option | There would be one central system which would provide automatic notifications to the Member States. This would decrease some of their work. |

Disadvantages and risks of policy option | The system relies on active citizenship. Since it could be seen as problematic by the citizens it could decrease the already low participation in EP elections. The Member States would need to implement the use of the system in their national laws. It is, though, not clear who would take on the responsibility for the system, and it could be seen as a way to try to introduce a harmonised electoral system, which is outside the Commission competences. A practical problem is that the system could crash. |

Essential accompanying measures | EU non-nationals would have to be made aware of