COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 27.05.1997 
COM(97) 230 final 
SECOND REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 
on Citizenship of the Union 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
Citizenship of the Union conferred on 
nationals of all Member States by the 
Maastricht Treaty is meant to make the process 
of European integration more relevant to 
individual citizens by increasing their 
participation, strengthening the protection of 
their rights and promoting the idea of an 
European identity. 
The practical benefits that it engenders are 
clearly additional to those arising from national 
citizenship as Union citizenship cannot be 
acquired or for that matter lost without the 
acquisition or the loss of the nationality of a 
Member State. 
The purpose of this second report, drawn up by 
the Commission in accordance with Article SE, 
is to assess the application of the specific 
provisions relating to citizenship of the Union 
contained in Part II of the Treaty during the 
years 1994-1996. 
During this time progress has been made 
towards the implementation of the rights 
specificaHy related to citizenship. The necessary 
legislative framework for the new rights has 
been adopted. This said, in practice some of 
th~ rights are not yet fully applied. 
Voting :ights in the Member State 
of residence 
The right to take part in European Parliament 
elections is a reality also for all those Union 
citizens who reside in a Member State of which 
they are not nationals. The same cannot be said 
of the right to participate in local elections, as 
some Member States still have to implement 
the relevant Directive. 
An improvement in the participation of Union 
citizens requires efforts on the part of the 
institutions and the Member States to improve 
the information available to citizens. Although 
some progress should be registered following 
such initiatives as "Citizens First", further 
efforts should be deployed as closely as possible 
to the citizens themselves. Commitment to 
improve citizens' participation as candidates 
should be made focusing on promoting their 
participation in the political life of the host 
country. Consular and diplomatic protection 
in third countries 
Rules have been adopted to provide consular 
protection to Union citizens in third countries 
where their own Member State is not 
represented. Similarly, rules for the delivery of 
an Emergency Travel Document have also been 
agreed to. These instruments are not of the 
same binding nature as those adopted under 
EC rules. 
Since Member States have not yet introduced 
the necessary administrative procedures or 
change in their legislation, the right to consular 
and diplomatic protection is not yet fully 
implemented, on the basis of the provisions of 
the Treaty. Nevertheless Member States pursue, 
on an informal, bilateral basis, the application 
of the provisional guidelines agreed in May 
1993. 
The right to petition the European 
Parliament and to apply to the 
Ombudsman 
The long established practice of the European 
Parliament of accepting petitions from anyone 
resident in a :Member State continues to prove 
its worth as an important Hnk between citizens 
and the institutions. From the end of the last 
legislature (93/94) to the first half of the 96/97 
parliamentary year, a total of 4.131 petitions 
were addressed to the European Parliament. 
The First European Ombudsman was 
appointed on 12 July 1995. Since taking office 
to the end of December 1996 the Ombudsman 
has received 1.140 complaints. Given that he 
has been active for just over one year, an overall 
appraisal of the impact of his work, on the 
institutions and on the citizens cannot yet be 
made. Nevertheless, as the function of the 
Ombudsman is to render the institutions more 
open and democratically accountable, his 
action has been an incentive for the institutions 
under scrutiny to remedy inappropriate 
administrative practices. c: 
0 
• fJIIIIt' c = 
CL .,.,.. .c 
:c ., 
N .,.. ., .... 
\.J 
• • • 
t I ...,. Freedom of movement and of 
residence 
Citizens still face difficulties when seeking to 
exercise their rights of free movement and 
residence. The right to reside in another 
Member State is still subject ·to different 
provisions applicable to different categories of 
citizens as secondary Community law is made 
up of two Regulations and nine Directives. Yet a 
single set of rules which would clarify the 
existing law and provide for equitable 
application may not be introduced due to the 
lack of common legal basis in the EC Treaty. 
At present, the only way to re-cast the secondary 
legislation also to take account of the full 
implications of the introduction of citizenship 
of the Union seems to be a revision of Article 
BA. From a supplementary legal basis it could 
be upgraded to a specific legal basis apt to 
revise the complex body of secondary 
legislation. This would certainly increase the 
transparency of Community law, ease 
implementation measures and increase the 
citizens' understanding of the rights effectively 
conferred. 
..... ... . • '1 • ------------··------··--- -. .. . ... . The way forward: improving 
awareness and access to citizens 
rights 
The introduction of citizenship of the Union 
has raised citizens expectations as to the rights 
they expect to see conferred and enforced. 
Citizens are entitled to be aware of these rights 
and to have them honoured in practice by the 
Member States. Otherwise citizens will regard 
EU citizenship as a vague and distant concept. 
The Commission submits that the present 
entitlements could be further reinforced 
through two main lines of action : 
• a permanent information effort 
guaranteeing citizens access to simple and 
factual information concerning their rights, 
and 
• a special effort on the part of the 
Commission and Member States to ensure 
that the rights are effectively enforced 
In the following months, the Commission will 
look into issues linked with freedom of 
movement of people in the light of the Report 
by the High Level Panel presented to the 
Commission on 18 March 1997, the priority 
areas indicated in the Action Plan for the 
Single Market and of the conclusions of the 
Intergovernmental Conference on the revision 
of the Treaties. The reactions from the Council 
and the European Parliament to this report as 
well as the feedback from the Citizens First! 
initiative will further assist the Commission to 
identify further steps that may be taken. 
page 
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 6 
I. THE NEW RIGHTS INTRODUCED BY THE TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION ...... . ............................................................... 7 
1. The right to participate in elections for the European Parliament and in municipal 
elections in the Member State of residence........................... .. .............................................................................................................. 7 
1.1 Common principles .................................................................................................................................................................................................. : ................... 7 
1. 2 The citizens reactions in the last European Parliament elections .............. .. . ................................... 9 
1.3 The application of Directive 94/80 to municipal elections held in 1996 ............................................ 9 
1.4 Improving the citizens' participation .......................................................................................................................................................... 10 
2. consular and diplomatic protection in the making ................................................................................................................................ 11 
3. Nonjudicial means of protecting citizens' rights .................................................................................................................................. 12 
3.1 The right to petition the European Parliament ....................................................................................................................... 12 
3.1.1 The experience in the last three parliamentary years ............. .. .. ............................. 12 
3.2 The right to apply to the European Ombudsman .................................. . .. ..................................................................... 13 
11. THE RIGHTS CONFERRED PRIOR TO THE TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION .................................................................................... 14 
4. Right of free movement. .............................................................................................................................................................................. : ....................................... 14 
4.1 Article BA of the EC Treaty: right of entry and residence of citizens of the U nion .......... l4 
4.2. Experience of the past three years ....................................................... .. ............................................... 15 
4.3 Failure to revise provisions on right of residence .............. . .. ........................... 16 
4.4 Need to revision of Article BA. .............................................. .. ......................................................................................................... 17 
4.5 Article 7 A and elimination of controls on persons at internal frontiers ............................................. .l7 
Ill. THE WAY FORWARD: IMPROVING AWARENESS AND ACCESS TO CITIZENS RIGHTS .......................................................... 18 c: 
0 
• f/llllll' c :!) 
• • • . .. 
··-----------·-"" :··--•· r •~r 'r .• 
"~' .; ,_J • 
* * .. 
• • • .. . 
• 6 • ., . 
* • * Introduction 
Citizenship of the Union conferred on 
nationals of all Member States is meant to make 
the process of European integration more 
relevant to the individual citizens by increasing 
their participation, strengthening the 
protection of their rights and promoting the 
idea of an European identity. 
Today, a series of general rights and benefits 
derived from the European Union are being 
used and enjoyed by ever larger numbers of EU 
citizens, notably as a result of the development 
of the Single Market. These include the rights 
to work and buy goods and services in other 
Member States and to enjoy greater choice of 
goods and services and more competitive 
prices, as well as guaranteed levels of consumer 
and health protection and equal opportunities 
in the workplace 
In addition to these general rights, Part II of 
the EC Treaty contains specific provisions 
relating to citizenship of the Union and lists 
seven different rights that are the subject of the 
present report. As Union citizenship cannot be 
acquired or for that matter lost without the 
acquisition or the loss of the nationality of a 
Member State, the benefits that it engenders 
are clearly additional to those arising from 
national citizenship'. They may be grouped in 
the following four categories: 
• a personal right to free movement and 
residence subject to the limitations and 
conditions laid down in the treaty and 
secondary law; 
• electoral rights in European Parliament and 
municipal elections in the place of 
residence; 
• protection by diplomatic and consular 
authorities of any Member State in a third 
country where the citizen's own Member 
State is not represented; 
• access to non-judicial means of redress, 
through access to the Ombudsman and a 
right to petition the European Parliament. 
This diverse set of rights is subject to different 
conditions. Generally speaking the rights 
stemming from citizenship of the Union 
cannot, for instance, be invoked in domestic 
situations which are purely internal to a 
Member State. Some of the entitlements such 
as the electoral rights can only be exercised in 
a Member State other than that of origin, whilst 
others such as access to the Ombudsman or to 
petition the European Parliament are extended 
to all natural and legal persons residing or 
having their registered office in a Member 
State. Yet despite certain limitations, in practice the 
introduction of a citizenship of the Union has 
raised citizens' expectations as to the rights that 
they expect to see conferred and protected 
especially when they move to another Member 
State. 
These rights and the Union as a whole, will be 
credible in the eyes of citizens only insofar as 
they can be applied in practice. In fart 
citizenship of the Union can only pursue thP 
objective set out in Article B of the Treaty: to 
strengthen the protection of the rights and 
interests of the nationals of the Member States 
-if the entitlements conferred are dearly 
known and are enforceable. Penalty for failure 
is that citizenship of the Union may appear to 
be a distant concept for citizens engendering 
confusion as to its means and objectives even 
fuelling anti-EU feelings. 
The purpose of this report, drawn up by the 
Commission to comply with Article 8 E (1) of 
the Treaty, is to assess the application in 
practice of Union citizenship. On the basis of 
this assessment, the Council, acting 
unanimously on a proposal from the 
Commission and after consulting the European 
Parliament, may decide provisions to 
strengthen, or add to, the rights already 
conferred which may be adopted by Member 
States. In the meantime, issues relating to rights 
stemming from citizenship of the Union are 
also in the process of being dealt with by the 
Intergovernmental Conference for the revision 
of the Treaties. This report however does not 
deal with the protection of universal human 
rights which is one of the issues presently being 
discussed by the Intergouvernmental 
Conference. 
But whether new rights are added or. the 
present ones simply reinforced, citizens 
concerns must remain at the forefront of 
European integration, if a closer union 
between the people of Europe is ever to be 
achieved 
This second report on citizenship spans the 
years 1994 to 19962 and is divided into three 
sections. The first one deals with the new rights 
introduced by the Treaty on European Union. 
The second section reviews the rights already in 
place, prior to the establishment of a 
1 Member States retain full competence to determine who Is to bP 
considered their own nationals for Community purposes 
Declaration n"2 annexed to the final Act of theTreaty on 
European Union 
' The first Commission report on citizenship COM (93) 702 final 
of 21 December 1993 
citizenship of the Union and relating to 
freedom of movement. In both cases, the 
entitlements conferred are described, the 
progress of their implementation analysed and 
I. THE NEW RIGHTS 
INTRODUCED BY THE TREATY 
ON EUROPEAN UNION 
Alongs!dc the establishment of a citizenship of 
the Union, Part II of the EC Treaty conferred 
on citizens of the Union the following new set 
of rights: 
• the right to vote and to stand as a candidate 
in European Parliament and in local their effectiveness examined. Finally, the third 
section looks forward to the ways in which the 
present entitlements may be further 
reinforced. 
elections in the Member State of residence -
Article 8 B (1) and (2) 
• the right to diplomatic and consular 
assistance in countries in which a Union 
citizen's Member State is not represented -
Article BC 
• the right for the Union citizen to submit a 
petition to the European Parliament and to 
apply to the Ombudsman -Article 8 D 
1. The right to participate in elections for the European 
Parliament and in municipal elections in the Member 
State of residence 
1.1 Common principles 
Article 8 B of the EC-Treaty confers on Union 
citizens resident in another Member State of 
which they are not nationals the right to 
participzte in their Member State of residence, 
as voters or as candidates, in elections to the 
European Parliament and in municipal 
elections. 
For the exercise of these rights, Council 
unanimously acopted in 1993 and 1994 two 
Directives containing detailed arrangements to 
be implemented by Member States: Directive 
93/109 for European Parliament elections and 
Directive 94/80/EC for municipal elections3• 
Although both these instruments contain 
provisions specific to the elections to which 
they refer, they are bound by the following 
common principles: 
• Ne harmonization of electoral laws -Both 
directives refrain from any attempt to 
harmonize national electoral laws. They 
mere!y introduce basic rules meant to allow 
non-nationals to exercise their rights, in so 
far as possible, under the same conditions as 
nationals. Their provisions do not hinder, 
for instance, preferential treatment already 
given by Member States in favour of some 
Union citizens only. Moreover, in the case of 
European Parliament elections, Directive 
93/109 is without prejudice to Article 138 
(3) on the introduction of an uniform 
electoral procedure. • Freedom of choice-Union citizens are free to 
choose whether or not to exercise their 
rights in their Member State of residence. In 
the case of European Parliament elections, 
due to the prohibition on double voting in 
the same election, this implies the need to 
opt between the Member State of residence 
and that of origin. In municipal elections, 
voting in the Member State of residence 
does not automatically entail the loss of the 
equivalent right in the Member State of 
origin: it is up to Member States themselves 
to regulate the conditions under which 
their nationals residing outside their 
electoral territory retain their electoral 
rights4• 
• Equal access to electoral rights -On the basis of 
the principle of non-discrimination EU 
citizens are to benefit from electoral rights 
under the same conditions as nationals of 
the State of residence, provided that they 
fulfill the conditions imposed by 
3 Council Directive 93/109 of6 December 1993 in OJ L329/34 of 
30.12.1993. Council Directive 94/80 of 19 December 1994 in OJ 
L 368 of 31.12.1994, recently modified by Council Directive 
93/60/EC of 13 May 1996 In OJ L 122112 of 22.5.1996 to 
Include, the references to basic local government units In 
the three new Member States. 
• Eleven MS do not permit their own nationals to vote or to stand 
If they reside outside their territory. Greek and Italian voters 
Uving abroad must travel back to their country of origin to vote. 
Only France and Spain allow Its citizens resident abroad retain 
their voting rights in full. , ....... ·:·· .. ·· .. · -......, ·;·.,.. .c ., 
• .. . • .• • 7 • • • • .. 
• • 
.• '* •· * .. the electoral law of that Member State with 
regard to its own nationals. This includes·for 
instance, access to the same appeal 
procedures with regard to omissions or 
errors in the electoral roll or in the 
application to stand, maintenance on the 
electoral roll under the same conditions a~ 
nationals, etc. 
An important exception to this rule 
concerns the first entry on to the electoral 
roll in the Member State of residence. In the 
case of European Parliament elections it 
must be requested by the citizen in order to 
safeguard his/her freedom of choice. In the 
case of municipal elections, Member States 
which do not have compulsory voting are 
free to choose between an automatic entry 
on the roll or one on request. Most Member 
States make use of an automatic entry into 
the electoral roll as this appears more cost 
effective and allows for a wider 
participation. 
• Extra-territorial effect of the rules on 
disqualification of candidates -The idea 
behind this principle is to prevent citizens 
regaining their civic rights simply by moving 
from one Member State to another. In the 
case of European Parliament elections 
persons deprived of the right to stand as 
candidates in their own Member State are 
~trictly forbidden from being elected in 
another Member Stc.te. In the case of 
!Tlunicipa! elections, M~ember States are free 
to choose whether on not to preclude 
citizens who have lost their right to stand in 
their Member State of residence from 
running for office. 
• Derogations only if warranted by a specific 
situation in a Member State -Minimum 
residence requirements for foreign Union 
citizens only are, in principle, incompatible 
with the non-discrimination rule. However 
Article BB exceptionally permits 
derogations from the principle of equai 
treatment to be introduced where 
warranted by the specific situation in a 
Member State. Both Directives recognize 
that Member States whose proportion of 
non-national Union citizens exceeds 20% of 
eligible voters may be granted a derogation. 
In the case of European Parliament 
elections, the minimum residence period 
that may be requested before granting 
electoral rights may not exceed 5 and 1 0 
years for voters and candidates respectively. 
Luxembourg is the only Member State to 
apply such a derogation. 
In the case of municipal elections, the 
minimum residence period must not 
exceed the term for which the municipal 
• 8 • ~ ---------~----·--- -· 
• • * •· • authority is elected in the case of voters, 
and, · or double this in the case of 
candidates. Two Member States benefit 
from such a derogation, Luxembourg and 
Belgium. The latter however !r.ay only 
impose minimum residence periods for 
voters in a limited number of mcnidpaHties 
and is required to signal its intention to do 
so one year before the ballot takes place. 
• An adequate info .. 71Jation campaign -Member 
States have the obligation to inform Union 
citizens resident in their te:-ritory in good 
time and in an appropriate marmer of their 
new electoral rights. This a particularly 
important aspect of the new entitlements 
which cannot be fully exercised in the 
absence of proper information. 
This being said, there are provisions that 
specifically address issues recurrer..t only in 
European Parliament or in municipal 
elections. Thus the two Directives differ as far 
as the following provisions are concerned. 
• A single vote and a single candidature for the 
European Parliament elections -In conformity 
with the 1976 Act on the election of MEPs5, 
no one may vote or stand as a candidate in 
more than one 1'.1ember State in the same 
election. In order to avoid dcuble voUng 
and double candidature, !•vfember States · 
exchange information on their nat!onals 
exercising their rights abroad. 
• Certain posts reserved to nationals only in 
municipal elections -The directive allows for 
Member States to reserve the posts of mayor 
and deputy mayor to their own nationals. In 
most Member States, the mayor and to a 
large extent also the aldermen exercise state 
devolved functions such as, for instance, 
overseeing the local police forces. This 
derogation to the principle of non­
discrimination is therefore in conformity 
with the provisions of Articles 48 ( 4) and 55 
according to which the exercise of state 
devolved functions may be reserved for 
nationals. Its implementation however must 
be carried out in the respect of the principle 
of proportionality and it may not restrict 
more than necessary the possibility for other 
Member States' nationals to be elected. 
5 Act concerning the election of the representatives of the 
European Parliament by direct universal suffrage annexed to 
Council Decision 76/787/EC of 20.9.1976 In OJ L278 of 
8.10.1976 modified by Council Decision 1 February 1993in 0] L 
33/15 of 9.2.1993 
1.2 The citizens' reaction in the 
last European Parliament 
elections. 
A low participation rate 
Before the introduction of Article 8B (2), five 
Member States had already extended electoral 
rights to nationals from other Member States 
resident in their territory, subject to certain 
conditions6• Today all Union citizens resident in 
a Member State of which they are not nationals 
have had the opportunity to vote in elections to 
the European Parliament. Directive 93/109 was 
applied to the June 1994 elections and to the 
first elections held in the three new Member 
States in September 1995 and in October 1996. 
The reasons for this relatively low participation 
are many and may partly. be explained by the 
novelty of the rights. It should also be 
considered that the adoption and 
implementation of the new rules allowed for 
very little time to fully inform both the citizen 
and the competent national authorities. 
Adopted in December 1993, Directive 93/109 
required Member States to introduce the 
necessary laws for its implementation by 1st 
February 1994 and was first applied barely four 
months after, in the June EP elections. Strict 
delays for registration coupled with insufficient 
information seem to have excluded a number 
of potential voters. 
Apart from these teething problems, a more 
fundamental point must be considered. 
Elections to the European Parliament are 
elections to a single institution and hence the 
principle of "one man-one vote" applies. A 
Union citizen who decides to vote in his 
Member State of residence must renounce the 
possibility to vote in his Member State of origin. 
The need to make this choice was a realit~ for 
most expatriate Union citizens because all the 
Member States with the exception of Ireland 
grant voting rights in European Parliament 
elections to their nationals living abroad. Expatriates may exercise these rights either by 
correspondence or proxy, or in a consulate. 
Given the fact that members of the European 
Parliament are elected on national lists, 
numerous citizens preferred to vote for a 
candidate of their country of origin to whom 
they could relate in a well known political 
context". 
The Commission is in the process of submitting 
an evaluation report on the application of the 
directive to the last EP elections which also 
includes data on the elections held in Sweden 
in September 1995 and in Finland and Austria 
in October 1996. A detailed analysis of the 
issues mentioned above may be found therein. 
1.3 The application of Directive 
94/80/EC to municipal 
elections held in 1996 
Implementation Jaws not yet adopted by a/1 the 
Member States 
Prior to the adoption of Directive 94/80 in 
December 1994, local voting rights were 
extended to residents from other ·Member 
States in Ireland, Denmark, the Netherlands, 
Spain, Sweden, Finland and the United 
Kingdom. With the exception of Ireland, these 
rights were subject to certain conditions such as 
residence periods or reciprocity agreements. 
The Directive aJlowed Member States a period 
of two years to adapt their internal legislation to 
give Union citizens the right to participate in 
local elections. Throughout this time there has 
been great attention on the part of individual 
meps and citizens at large to the introduction 
of this new right and the deadline of 1st 
January 1996 was closely monitored through 
requests for information, petitions and 
parliamentary questiqns11'. 
• Ireland. Belgium, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom (Irish 
citizens only) and Italy (candidates only). 
7 Ms Wlhnya Zimmermann, a Dutch citizen, resident In Germany. 
• Eurobarometer surveys n•4t, July 1994. 
• A spontaneous enquiry of officials of the European Institutions to 
which roughly 2'){, of the staff replied revealed that the most 
important reason preventing them from voting in their Member 
State of residence was the fact that the election campaign was 
focused exclusively on internal policy Issues. Cf also 
Eurobarometer survey n•4J on the possible factors Influencing 
the vote. 
w Over 19 parliamentary questions and 8 petitions In the reference 
period. r: 
Q ..... c 
:J .., 
.t.: 
ltrl 
QJ ,N 
·~ l1f . ,.,. 
• • • 
• 9 • . ... 
• * • 
.. 10 "' The first time Union citizens took part in 
municipal elections on the basis of the 
Directive was in Berlin in October 1995. Since 
then, the Directive has been applied in 
elections and by-elections in Luxembourg, 
Italy, in various German and Austrian Uinder, 
in Finland and in the United Kingdom. 
Electoral data on the level of participation of 
Union citizens is at present not complete as it is 
not systematically compiled for non-nationals. 
The only indicative turnout figures for the non­
national electorate concern the German Land 
of Bavaria and the Austrian Land of Vienna. In 
Bavaria, taken as a whole, non-national voter 
turnout varied between 21%-25%. In Vienna 
the percentage of EU voters was 35,5%. In both 
cases, the participation of non-nationals was 
below the average of that of national voters. 
The Commission is required to submit a report 
on the application of the directive within a year 
of the holding of scheduled municipal 
elections in all the Member States, that is by 
2001. It will also have to present, by 31 
December 1998, a report in which the 
justification for mmtmum residence 
requirements for non-national Union citizens 
in Luxembourg and Belgium is examined. 
1.4 Improving the citizens' 
participation 
Increasing the information available and promoting 
access to candidatures 
~n,:···· 
.the 
partt~ipatfon of Union. c~tl%,~5. Fi :' .. ,. and 
forernostthete was ~la,cko~,itlfomtati~l'l·flbQ~~ 
n~·· .~!;:Jhe .. · ·. . ~>~ra · ally 
lo ··1:can ( · · 
The first problem is relatively easy to tackle. 
Vast information campaigns such as "Citizens 
First!" coupled with the efforts on the part of 
Member States and a greater familiarity with 
the new rights should provide. in time, 
sufficient information to citizens. Member 
States should of course be the front-runners in 
providing information as this is an obligation 
they have to comply with on the basis of Article 
12 of Directive 109/93 and article 11 of 
Directive 94/80. 
The second problem is morP complex and 
requires careful consideration. The presPnt prov1s10ns of the Treaty P1ereiy grant voting 
rights without mentioning other poH~Jcal rights 
such as the right of association ar:d freeC:.om o~ 
expression. Yet the iatter are ~DtrinsicaHy pre­
conditions for the meaningfu! exercise of the 
former. 
International law itself and the European 
Convention on the Protection of Human 
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECI1R) in 
particular, to which Article ~· of the Treaty 
refers, considers the politica! status of non­
nationals as a matter doseiy connected with 
national sovereignty. Articles 10 (2) , ! 1 ( 1) and 
14 of the Convention grant the freedom of 
expression, of peaceful assembly and of 
association to everybody, irrespective of 
nationality. Yet its Article 16 allows thr 
contracting parties to impose restrictions on 
the political activities of aliens'2• The accession 
of to the European Community to the ECHR is 
at present being discussed in the framework of 
the Intergovernmentc:I Conference. 
Some Member States have corresponding rules 
in their legislaHon. These rules subject the 
political activity of non-nationals to a number 
of conditions, such as the prohibition of 
becoming a member of a political party for 
example or a general obligation of political 
neutrality as far as policy questions in the host 
Member State are concerned . 
The link between voting rights and the 
participation in the political debate is all the 
more clear if we consider that in some Member 
States only political parties are entitled to 
present candidates for European Parliament 
and local elections. 
" Cf the forthcoming Commission Report on the Monitoring of 
Community law in 1996 -COM {97) 600. The Commission has 
decided to issue reasoned opinions in the case of France, Greect•, 
Belgium, Spain, Sweden, Austria (partial implementation) and 
Finland (partial implementation). It should be noted that in 
Sweden although the Directive has not been Implemented. 
foreign residents have been able to vote since the 70s, subject to 
a period of residence in the country. 
'1 1\ recent judgement the European Court of Human Hlghts (Case 
5/1994/452/53 i, Piermont vs France.) seems to suggest that tht· 
notion of alien In Article 16 of the echr should not be applied to 
nationals of the EU Member States. But In the absence of furth(•r 
clarification of this Interpretation. the reference In /\rtlclc I" 
cannot be said to guarantee automatically the enjoyment or 
political rights by Union dtlzens residing in a Member State of 
which they are not nationals. Nor can one draw ou the case law 
of the European Court of justice concerning constitutional 
trad!llon~ rommonto tlw Member States as gerwr<1l ptlnciples of 
law 
Voting rights for non-nationals Union citizens 
are indeed the most important of the new rights conferred by the Treaty. But the benefits 
that may ensue from its appHcation. ~n terms of 
a greater integration of Union citizens in their 
host Member State are most likely to be felt 
on~inthelong~rm. 
11 cfr also Resolution of the European Parliament on the 
constitutional status of European political parties adopted on 
10.12.1!J96 -Doe PE 254.448 
2. Consular and diplomatic protection in the making 
The legislative framework established 
Article 8C establishes the right to protection by 
the diplomatic or consular authorities of any 
Member State in third countries where the 
citizen's Member State is not represented, on 
the same conditions as nationals of that State. It 
also indicates that the implementing rules are 
to be adopted by the Member States. This 
provision is echoed in Article ].6. 
The potential practical impact of this rule is not 
negligible. At present, there are only five non­
EU countries where all Member States are 
represented'4• On the other hand there are 
seventeen countries where only two Member 
States are represented. 
In May 1993 a first set of guidelines for the 
protection of unrepresented Union citizens by 
Member States' missions in third countries was 
adopted, and came into force four months 
later. Work on the legislative framework has 
since continued and an important step forward 
was taken on 19 December 1995. The 
Representatives of the Governments of the 
Member States meeting within the Council 
adopted two Decisions, the first regarding 
protection for citizens of the Union by 
diplomatic and consular representations'5 and 
the second on the implementing measures to 
be adopted by consular officials16• Governments of the Member States meeting 
within the Council, Jay down the rules for the 
delivrance of an emergency travel document'7 
(ETD). The ETD may be issued, for one return 
journey. to EU nationals who find themselves in 
distress whilst in a third country because, for 
example, their travel documents have been lost 
or stolen. As with the 1995 Decisions. these 
provisions will take effect only when all the 
Member States have adopted the necessary 
procedures for their application. 
To make these arrangements known to the 
public in general. the Member States and the 
Commission agreed on the text of a common 
leaflet "Consular protection for citizens of the 
European Union"'8• It spells out clearly the 
practical steps to be taken by citizens in distress 
and the type of assistance that can be expected 
from Embassies and Consulates of other 
Member States. On top of the distribution of 
this leaflet that each Member State may decide 
for its own nationals, the leaflet will be available 
in Commission's representations in third 
countries and will be inserted in the "Citizens 
First" information initiative. 
Given that these rules are not yet implemented 
an evaluation at this stage is not possible. 
t 
" Russian Federation, japan, USA, China and Switserland 
" Decision 95/553/EC In Oj L 314/73 of28.12.1995 
1" Not published in the Official Journal 
" Decision !l6/40!J/CFSP In Oj I. HiH/4 of6.7.1!l!l6 
'" Doe SN :~230/!Jfi of 17 June 199(i CIJ .r.: 't , 
Q. .i,.. 
.r.: i"' c: .., 
N ..... 
• ul .... 
'-J 
, . , 
• • 
• 11 ... 
• • • • * 
.. * jlo 
• • • 12 ,. 
• • • * • 3~ Non-judicial means of protecting the rights of citizens 
of the Union 
In establishing a citizenship of the Union. the 
Treaty also provided non-judicial mechanisms 
for the protection of citizens. These means of 
recourse, free of charge, are the rights to 
petition the European Parliament and to 
address complaints to the European 
Ombudsman. 
Although the EP and the Ombudsman are 
empowered with quite distinct tasks. the 
citizens' perception of their specific 
competence is not as yet firmly established as is 
shown by the number of inadmissible petitions 
and complaints. Consequently there have been 
extensive efforts to establish coordinating 
procedures between these two bodies in order 
to ensure that a citizen's grievances can actually 
be dealt with. Therefore, the Committee on 
Petitions and the Ombudsman now exchange, 
complaints and petitions. where appropriate 
and with the authors' consent. 
3. 1 The right to petition the 
European parliament 
A wide ranging access 
Article 8D gives every Union citizen the right to 
petition the European Parliament. 
This however is not entirely a new entitlement 
as it already existed in the internal rules of 
procedure of the European Parliament. In fact. 
in can be traced back as far as 1953 when the 
ECSC Assembly included provisions for 
petitions in its internal rules. Article 8D's added 
value is to have upgraded an institutional 
practice into a right with a specific legal basis 
which entitles the European Parliament to 
request co-operation and information both 
from the European institutions and national 
authorities. 
Article 138D of the Treaty indicates that 
petitions must fall within the Community's field 
of activity whereas the Parliament's rules or procedure refer to the Union's sphere of 
activity. As this includes second and third pillar 
issues (common foreign and security policy and 
co-operation in the fields of Justice and Home 
affairs) there has been, in practice. an 
enlargement of the scope. At present tlw 
Committee of Petitions of the European 
Parliament considers petitions admissible if 
they relate to the contents of the Treaties or to 
secondary legislation, if they refer to matters 
relevant to foreseeable developments in the 
Community or if they relate to the activities of 
an institution or Community body. The 
Commission has, for its part followed this broad 
interpretation of the rules by the Committee of 
Petitions. 
3. 1. 1 The experience in the last three 
parliamentary years 
A steady flow of petitions 
Petitions are an important link between citizens 
and the institutions. They provide the latter 
with a picture of the concerns and needs of 
individual citizens, highlight shortcomings in -
Community legislation or in administrative 
action and reflect current public opinion. To 
the citizens themselves they are a wide means of 
recourse, subject to less strict admissibility 
criteria than the complaints to the Commission 
or/and the Ombudsman. 
borders. 
. . and 
raised.•. 
Most of these petitions are forwarded by the EP 
to the Commission which provides the 
'" Cl'r aunllal n·ports of the Committee 011 pP! it ions (Does I' I·. 
~ i IUI!Jii, PI·: ~ 1'/ .li I;,; I'E 212.;,()0, I'E 20H.02!l). 
information required or, if appropriate, opens 
infringement procedures against the Member 
State concerned for violation of Community 
law. During the period covered by this report 
14 cases of su:!pected infringenwnts 
detected as a dIre et result of a petition to the 
European ParHmnr·nt2r:. 
Although a satisfactory outcome cannot be 
achieved for all petitions, due to the limited 
powers of the institutions involved, in some 
individual cases the EP and the Commission's 
intervention has led to national laws being 
amended, international agreements being 
signed and private enterprises and 
administrative authorities reviewing illegal 
practices21• In order to improve the way In 
which petitions are processed there is a 
constant and fruitful dialogue between the 
Commission and the Committee of Petitions. 
3.2 The right to apply to the 
Ombudsman 
The European Unions first Ombudsman 
Article BD (2) stipulates that every citizen of the 
Union may apply to the Ombudsman. The 
framework for his action is laid down in Article 
138e which further extends this right to all 
natural or legal persons residing or having their 
registered office in a Member State. As with the 
right of petition, the right to address the 
Ombudsman is available to all legal residents 
whether or not they are citizens of the Union. 
The task of the Ombudsman is to investigate 
cases of alleged maladministration in the 
activities of the Community institutions and 
bodies, with the exception of the Court of 
Justice and the Court of First instance acting in 
their judicial capacity. Acts of national 
authorities22 or of international organisations 
are excluded from the Ombudsman's scope. 
The Ombudsman conducts enquiries, totally 
independently. either on his own initiative or 
following a complaint. He cannot however 
order an administrative authority to change a 
decision or grant redress, by awarding damages 
or annulling administrative decisions. This role 
is reserved for the Court of First Instance and 
the European Court of Justice acting in their 
judicial capacity. 
Detailed rules on the regulations and general 
conditions governing the performance of the 
Ombudsman's duties were adopted by the 
European Parliament on 9 March 199423• These 
rules, known as the Statute of the Ombudsman, 
set out the conditions under which a complaint may be submitted, the procedure to be 
foUowe,d in the inquiries and the details of co­
operation with the other institutions. 
Since taking up office to the end of December 
1996, the Ombudsman has received 1.140 
complaints. Of aiJ the complaints received the 
examination of admissibility has been 
completed in 921 cases. Only 34% of these 
complaints turned out to be within the 
mandate of the Ombudsman. The main 
institutions subject to inquiries are the 
European Commission ( 187 cases). the 
European Parliament (19 cases) the Council of 
the European Union (4 cases) and the Court of 
Auditors (5 cases). Out of the 210 cases where 
inquiry has been started, l 02 were closed by the 
end of December 1996. No maladmlnlstration 
was found in 82 cases27• 
:~~• Cf. Commission's 12th (1994). 13th "(1995) ~:~nnual reports on 
monitoring the application of Community law, respectively 0) C 
254/ I of 29.10.1994, OJ C 303/ I of 14.10.1996. Cf. also the 
forthcoming 14th Report for 1996 · clt 
2' Examples of specific cases may be found In the annual reports of 
the Committee of Petitions. 
22 This exclusion Is applicable even if the national authority In 
question Is responsible for the Implementation of Community 
law or policies. 
2' European Parliament Decision 94/262/ECS/EC/Euratom of 9 
March 1994 on the regulations and general conditions governing 
the performance of the Ombudsman's duties In Oj L 113/15 of 
4.5.1994. This decision was adopted after the Commission issued 
Its opinion and the Council gave Its approval. 
2' In OJ L 225/17 of 22.9.1~96 
"' In Oj C 234/1 of 12 August 1996. Cfr also the EP reaction to the 
report, Doe PE 217.098 
2" Doe ME 0006 not yet published 
;, SEC (97) 731 of 20 February 1997. .,.. 
c: 
~ 
• • * • .. 13 • • • '* • 
* • • .. 
In 1996, the Ombudsman initiated three 
investigations on his own initiative, all of which 
relate to information and transparency. The 
first concerns the rules of access to documents 
followed by Community institutions other than 
the Commission and Council, where a code of 
conduct is already in place28• The second 
focuses on information in the recruitment 
procedure and the third one deals with the 
information given to citizens who complain to 
the Commission alleging a breach of 
Community law. ln:;.ll u1 \c,:;s and the c!tizen.s 'c~annm yet bt' 
made. Nevertheless, it should be kept in mind 
that the function of the Ombudsman is to make 
the institutions more open and democratically 
accountable, and his action is inevitably an 
incentive for the institutions under scrutiny to 
remedy inappropriate administrative practices. 
• Code of conduct concerning pubbc assess to Council and 
Commission documents (93/730/EC) In OJ L 340/41 of 
31.12.1993 
11. THE RIGHTS CONFERRED PRIOR TO THE TREATY ON EUROPEAN 
UNION 
..... .. . 4. Right to free movement 
The free movement of persons comprises two 
concepts, each of which falls within the scope 
of a different line of reasoning under the 
Treaty. Article Sa, which is found in Part '1\vo of 
the Treaty, entitled "Citizenship of the Union", 
confers on every citizen of the Union the right 
to move and reside freely within the territory of 
the Member States, subject to certain 
conditions. Article 7a, on the other hand, 
which is found • in Part One, entitled 
"Principles", falls within the scope of the 
establishment of the internal market and 
provides for free movement without controls at 
internal Community frontiers. This 
elimination of controls applies to all persons, 
irrespective of their nationality, since Article 7 a 
would otherwise be deprived of any practical 
effectiveness. 29 
For reasons of clarity, the evolution in the last 
three years of the rights enshrined in Article Sa 
and Article 7 a will be treated separately below. 
• 14 * -------­• • • * * • 4. 1 Article Ba of the EC Treaty: 
right of entry and residence of 
citizens of the Union 
Complex legislation 
The concept of free movement was reinforced 
by the Treaty on European Union: as a right 
conferred on every citizen of the Union, it is 
now regarded as a fundamental and personal. 
right, within the European Community, which 
may be exercised outside the context of an 
economic activity. 
In its White Paper on European Social Policy30, 
the Commission also indicated, with a view to 
the establishment of citizenship of the Union 
and the internal market, the need to review the 
conditions laid down in secondary legislation 
for the exercise of the free movement of 
persons. 
a Commission Communication of 8 May 1992, SEC (92) 877 ftnal 
• COM (94)333, 27.7.1994 
Article Sa does not, however, constitute a 
comprehensive legal base from which all rights 
relating to the free movement of citizens of the 
Union derive. It cannot take the place of other 
existing legal bases dealing with specific 
categories of persons, in respect of which 
secondary legislation lays down distinctions and 
limitations. 
1. Reguiatior. (EEC) No 1612/68 of the 
Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of 
moverileni: for workers within the 
Community;31 
2. Council Directive 68/360/EEC of 15 
October 1968 on the abo!ition of 
restrictions on moveme~'1t and residence 
within the Community for workers of 
Member States and their families;32 
3. Councii :Oirective 73/ 148/EEC of 21 May 
1973 a:: the :1bolition of restrictions on 
movement and residence within the 
Community for nationals of Member States 
with regard to establishment and the 
p:-ovislon of services;33 
4. Regulatior.. (EEC) No 1251/70 of the 
Commission of 29 June 1970 on the right of 
workers to remain in the territory of a 
Member State after having been employed 
in that State;34 
5. Council Directive 75/34/EEC of 17 
December 197 4 concerning the right of 
nationals of a Member State to remain in 
the territory of another Member State after 
having pursued therein an activity in a self­
employed capacity;35 
6. Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June 
1990 on the right of residence; 36 
7. Council Directive 90/365/EEC of 28 June 
1990 on the right of residence for 
employees and self-employed persons who 
have ceased their occupaUonal activity; 37 
8. Council Directive 93/96/EEC of 29 
October 1993 on the right of residence for 
students;38 9. Council Directive 64/221 /EEC of 25 
February 1964 on the co-ordination of 
special measures concerning the movement 
and residence of foreign nationals which 
are justified on grounds of public policy, 
public security or pubJic health;39 
10. Council Directive 7 2 I 194 I EEC of 18 May 
1972 extending to workers exercising the 
right to remain in the territory of a Member 
State after having been employed in that 
State the scope of Directive 64/221/EEC;40 
11. Council Directive 75/35/EEC of 17 
December 197 4 extending the scope of 
Directive 64/221 /EEC to include nationals 
of a Member State who exercise the right to 
remain in the territory of another Member 
State after having pursued therein an 
activity in a self-employed capacitt'. 
4.2 Experience of the past three 
years 
Mixed results 
Implementation of the rights laid down by 
Community law in connection with the free 
movement of persons has led the Commission 
to the following findings: 
• transposal in the Member States of the 
Council Directives, particularly those on the 
right of residence of retired persons, 
students and persons having ceased work 
has not always been carried out satisfactorily, 
which has led the Commission to initiate a 
number of infringement procedures. Of the ten 
procedures orjginally initiated (new 
Member States exciuded) for failing to 
transpose these three Directives properly, 
seven are still under way, while the 
procedure for failing to trans1:mse the two 
Directives on retired persons and persons 
" OJ L 257/475, 19.10.1968, English Special Edition: Series-! 68(II} 
" OJ L 257/485, 19.10.1968, English Special Edition: Series·! 68(II) 
'' 0] L 172/14, 28.6.1973 
" Oj L 142/24, 30.6.1970 
" 0] L 14/10,20.1.1975 
:111 Oj L 180/26. 13.07.1990 
37 Oj L 1 80/28, 13.07.1990 
"" OJ L 317/59, 18.12.1993 
'"' 01 L 56/117, 4.4.1964, English Special Edition: Series· I (63·64). 
"' 0] L 121/32, 26.5.1972 
" OJ L 14/14, 20.1.1975 :N ,.,.. ...., 
,. filii/Ill 
t....l 
• • .. * • 
* ... • • having ceased work resulted in Germany 
being censured by the Court of Justice42• 
Where employed persons are concerned, 
the Court of justice censured Belgium in its 
judgment of 20 February 1997 (Case C-
344/95) for infringing the provisions on 
residence arrangements and formalities. 
• application of the rights which citizens can 
claim under Community law comes up 
against problems concerning mainly 
incorrect or particularly restrictive 
administrative practices. Reference may be 
made in this respect to the practice of 
requesting a whole series of documents not 
required under Community law as a 
condition for the issue of a residence permit 
or visa to a member of the family of a citizen 
of the Union.43 
Community Jaw is ill-adapted to certain 
particular situations. The Green Paper on 
"Education -Training -Research: The 
obstacles to transnational mobility" iisted 
some examples, such as that of trainees and 
voluntary workers. 44 
the right of residence in the Union is often wrongly 
perceived by citizens as an unconditional right 
applicable to all, even nationals in their own 
Member State. This is particularly true in 
the case of a national in his own Member 
State whose family members are nationals of 
a third country. This situation is in principle 
not covered by secondary legislation45 , 
whereas such a right is enjoyed by citizens of 
the Union who are not nationals of the 
Member State concerned. As a result of the 
indivisible nature of citizenship of the 
Union, such a distinction is regarded with 
disfavour, particularly where national 
provisions on family reunification are 
stricter than those deriving from 
Community law. Certain Member States, 
however, apply the same principles of 
Community law in both sets of 
circumstances. 
• the remaining shortcomings and obstacles 
to full exercise of the free movement of 
persons require legislative initiatives to be 
taken46 • These obstacles stem mainly from 
the changes in the scope of free movement 
within the Union, consisting in a shift away 
from the freedom of movement of workers 
towards a freedom of movement of persons 
that more closely resembles the situation 
within a single Member State. On 24 
January 1996, the Commission, aware as it 
was of these difficulties, appointed a High­
Level Panel on the Free Movement of Persons to 
examine problems in this area, assess them 
.. 16 • --------• • * • • and propose solutions. The Panel's Report, 
which was presented to the Commission on 
18 March, covered these situations at some 
length and will have to be the subject of a 
detailed examination by the Institutions. 
4.3 Failure to revise provisions on 
right of residence 
Several legal bases 
Since the [ast Commission Report on 
Citizenship, no new legal provisions aimed at 
facilitating or simplifying the right to reside 
freely within the territory of the Member States 
has been adopted. 
The need to revise those legal instruments, 
which has already been identified by the 
Commission47, was confirmed by the Brussels 
European Council in December 19934R. 
However, this objective could not be achieved 
by the Commission on account of the legal and 
institutional problems associated with such a 
revision49• 
The drawing up of a single instrument 
grouping together in a coherent manner all the 
secondary legislation applicable to citizens of 
the Union and their families comes up major 
legal obstacles in the existing context of the EC 
Treaty. The obstacles stem from the diverse 
" 12th, 13th and 14th annual reports by the Commission on 
monitoring the application of Community law, supra; Court of 
justice judgment of 20 March 1997, Case C-96/97, not yet 
published. 
" 1994 Commission Report "The Community Single Market". 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. 
Luxembourg, page 50. 
" COM (96) 462 final. 
" judgement 7 July 1992, case C370/90, ECR. 1992, 1-4265. 
•• In 1989, the Commission presented proposals aimed, inter alia. 
at Improving residence conditions for employees: 0] C 100/(i, 
21.4.1989; 0] c 119, 15.5.1990. 
47 Commission report to the European Council on the adaptation 
of Comnnmlty legislation to the subsidiarity principle: COM (93) 
545 final. 24.11.1993. 
•• Conclusions of the European Council: Bulletin EC 12 1993. point 
1.14. 
•• Report 011 the functioning of the Treaty on European Union. 
SEC (95) 731, pp. 8 and 33. 
nature of the legal bases of the existing 
instruments, for which Article Sa of the EC 
Treaty cannot be substituted as a single, 
comprehensive legal basis. Differences also 
exist in the procedures for adopting these texts. 
Directive i 64/221/EEC codecJslon 
i Council Article 49 189b-
codecision [ Directive 
1 68/360/EEC 
r Council Article 49 ! 189b-
I Regulat:on I 1
1 codeclsion 
I (EEC) No I 
J1612/6s ! I 
I C~unc~l jj Article 49 &- i 189b-
1 Directive 56 (2) . codecision 
I 72/194/EEC i 
r------------------ ~--~--- __________ t __________ --------
1 Council Article 54 (2) 1 189b -
Directive 1 codecision 
, 73/ 148/EEC 1 Article 63 (2) Qual. maj. after 
! Counc;J---+ ~cl;235 . ... ::::::;after 
Directive I EP opinion 
75/34/EEC r----------r-----------
Council Article 56 (2) 189b-
Directive codecision 
75/35/EEC Article 235 Unanimity after 
EP opinion 
~- --
I Council Article 235 I Unanimity after 
t1 Directive/ I EP opinion 
90/364/EEC 
[ Council I Article 235 / Unanimity after 
I Directive I , EP 
90/365/EEC I I 
~-Co~~~ Article 7 EEC (6 t-1:,; l;g~~-
[ Directive EC) 
j 93/96/EEC : t 
~ommi~~~n I Article -48(3) (d) 
1 Co~~~~~ion. 
Regulation i /' after consulting 
(EEC) I EP 
j No 1251/70 1 -----~ __ I 
4.4 Need for revision of Article Ba 
A single legal instrument 
With Articles 8 and Sa of the EC Treaty, the free 
movement of persons becomes the main 
element ln citizenship of the Union, 
Conceptually, these Articles constitute both the 
point of convergence between a number of 
rights (those existing prior to the entry into 
force of the Treaty on European Union and 
those referred therein which have subsequently 
been created) and the point of departure for 
new developments. 
Logically speaking, therefore, these articles combined should generate entry and residence 
rights in the Member States of the Union, as is 
the case with political rights. However, Article 
8a is merely a supplementary base which 
cannot replace other more specific bases, most 
of which relate to certain categories, such as 
Articles 49, 54, 56 and 6 of the EC Treaty. 
4.5 Article 7 a and the elimination 
of controls on persons at 
internal frontiers 
European Union 
According to the Single European Act, the 
internal market was to be completed by 31 
December 1992 with the establishment of an 
area without frontiers. As regards the 
elimination of controls on persons at internal 
frontiers, the debates held In all the Institutions 
of the Union indicate that views differs as to 
both the objective sought and the means of 
achieving it. 
Measures aimed at achieving a high level of 
security in the area without frontiers, which 
condition the elimination of controls on 
persons irrespective of nationality, have not yet 
aH been adopted or Implemented. Moreover, 
some of these measures are based on the EC 
treaty, while others may be applied only within 
the scope of Title VI of the Treaty on European 
Union. 
,., COM(95) 347, OJ C 289/16, 30.10.1995, COM(95) 346, OJ C 
306/5, 17.11.1995, COM{95)348, OJ C 307/ltl, 18.11.1995. Two 
of these ;Jroposals have been amended following an opinion by 
the EP: see COM{97) 106 flnal of 20.3.1997. Flanking measures 
already approved and Implemented Include: Cour!cll Regulat!o~ 
{EC) No 2317/95 of 25 September 1995 determining the thlro 
rountrlt~s whose nationals m~st be In possession of visas when 
crossing the cxll!rnal borders of the Member States, OJ I.. 254, 
3.10.1995: Council Regulation (EC) No 1683/95 of 29 May 1995 
laylnz down a uniform format for visas, OJ L 164 , 14.7.1995. 
Those stlll under discussion Include the draft Convention, 
;>roposed by the Commission, on the control of persons crossing 
the external frontiers of the Member States, OJ C 11. \ 5.1.1994. c 
0 ..... c 
~ 
* • • * • 
• 17 • • • * • • 
• * • .. -· Citizens of the Union will not have tangible 
evidence of the full effects of the internal 
market until controls on persons at internal 
frontiers have been eliminated. 
Schengen and revision of the Treaties 
Since 26 March 1995, seven Member States 
(Germany, Belgium, Spain, France, 
Luxembourg, Netherlands and Portugal) have 
achieved an area without internal frontiers 
within the context of the Schengen 
Convention: these Member States have 
abolished controls on persons, irrespective of 
their nationality, at their common frontiers and 
have implemented all the flanking measures 
necessary to establish an area that is both free 
and secure. Work is under way to enable three other 
Member States which have signed the 
Schengen agreements (Italy. Greece and 
Austria) to join this area without frontiers in 
the course of 1997. On 19 December 1996, the 
instruments relating to the accession of 
Denmark, Finland and Sweden to the 
Schengen agreements were signed, as was a 
cooperation agreement with Norway and 
Iceland aimed at maintaining in force the 
Nordic Union's arrangements on passports. 
Consequently, the Schengen Group now has 
thirteen members. 
The Schengen initiative has always been aimed 
at achieving the objective of Article 7 a: the 
Intergovernmental Conference is therefore 
examining the possibility of integrating 
Schengen into the Treaty as a means of 
achieving this objective throughout the Union. 
This examination falls within the scope of the 
more general discussion on the possibility of 
introducing the principle of flexibiHty into the 
Treaty. 
Ill. THE WAY FORWARD: IMPROVING AWARENESS AND ACCESS TO 
CITIZENS RIGHTS 
Citizenship of the Union is a reality. As a result 
of the Union, citizens now enjoy a range of 
rights affecting their daily lives. In the past 
three years, further concrete progress has been 
made towards the implementation of rights 
specifically related to EU citizenship. 
Legislation has been adopted by the EU's 
Council of Ministers giving EU nationals living 
in another Member State the right to vote in 
European Parliament and municipal elections 
in their country of residence. EU governments 
have agreed rules on providing consular 
protection in third countries to EU nationals 
whose own Member State is not represented. 
The European Ombudsman has been 
appointed to consider complaints about 
administrative irregularities by the Community 
institutions or bodies. 
Citizens are entitled to be aware of the rights 
conferred on them by the EU and to have these 
rights honoured in practice by the Member 
States. Otherwise, citizens will regard EU 
citizenship as a vague, intangible concept 
which means very little in reality. 
Citizens will feel that the EU is of direct benefit 
to them if the Commission and the Member 
States together ensure that: Communication 
Raising awareness- promoting dialogue 
"Citizens First" was launched on 26th 
November 1996 to increase people's awareness 
about the rights and opportunities they have in 
the Union. The initiative represents the most 
comprehensive information exercise ever 
undertaken by the Commission and the 
European Parliament, who are working in close 
co-operation with the Member States and non­
governmental organisations. It was put in place 
as part of the commitment to bring the Union 
closer to the citizen entered into by President 
Santer in his inaugural address to the 
European Parliament in January 1995. 
The mechanism is simple. People are informed 
by means of advertising and the press that they 
enjoy rights as a result of the EU. and are 
invited to call a free or low cost telephone 
• 18 • ~-~~-~--~-----·-
• • * • • 
number or consult an Internet site to obtain 
more information. In response to their 
particular interests, individuals can request, or 
download directly from the Internet, short, 
user-friendly guides on general topics. These 
guides are available in the 11 official EU 
languages, plus Luxembourgish, Welsh, Gaelic, 
Catalan, Basque and Galician. 
The guides are supported by a large number of 
detailed factsheets that explain exactly what the 
citizen must do in each Member State in order 
to exercise particular individual rights. The 
factsheets provide useful contact points with 
the national authorities and indicate the means 
of recourse available to citizens. Each national 
factsheet is available in all the Union's official 
languages. 
In terms of direct action to obtain guides and 
factsheets, over 450,000 people have contacted 
Citizens First. Over 200,000 have made phone 
calls, and over 250 000 people have 
downloaded more than 1. 7 million documents 
from the Citizens First Internet site. Calls have 
been coming in from every country in the EU. 
The highest response levels so far are from 
Italy, Spain, France and Germany. As a 
percentage of households, Ireland and Spain 
have the highest rates. Strong responses are 
also evident from Luxembourg, Portugal, 
Greece and Finland. 
People witi1 specific practical problems can use 
of the Citizens First "Signpost Service". They 
simply call the same telephone number to be 
put in touch with an expert who gives them 
informal guidance about their problem and 
"signpostse them back to the relevent national 
and local organisations for further· help. The 
aim of th2 Signpost Service is to reinforce the 
role of national and local bodies who are 
responsible for administering Community law. 
The most common themes characterising the 
first 1,000 Signpost cases relate to social 
security rights, the recognition of 
qualifications, the registration of vehicles, 
rights of residence and establishment, double 
taxation, equality of treatment and issues on 
studying in another Member State. The 
inquiries received are being analysed by the 
Commission with a view to identifying where 
legislation should be simplified, or better 
enforced or where administrative procedures 
could be improved. 
Citizens First is also granting support to 
projects run mainly by non-governmental 
organisations designed to spread the message 
of rights for citizens in the Single Market. Four 
Guides are now being prepared for publication 
in the Autumn. The topics to be covered are buying goods and services in the Single Market, 
travelling throughout the EU, equal 
opportunities and health issues. 
A permanent effort is required on the part of 
the Commission, the Parliament and the 
Member States to guarantee that a high level of 
factual information which may be constantly 
updated will provide citizens with a reliable 
source of information for the exercise of their 
rights. This need for a permanent effort to 
inform citizens has also been highlighted by the 
conclusions of the High Level Panel on the free 
movement of people chaired by Mme. Simone 
Veil. Building on experience the Commission 
considers that a permanent mechanism is 
necessary for dialogue with citizens on their 
right and how to exercise them and has now 
put forward specific proposals. These initiaves 
should help to make the process of European 
integration more relevant to the individual 
citizens. 
Enforcement 
Reinforcing co-operation -increasing transparency 
The prime responsibility for the 
implementation of Community law lies with the 
Member States themselves. This role has to be 
particulary active since, according to the 
jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice, 
national jurisdictions may oblige Member 
States to pay financial compensation to a 
plaintiff for a damage linked to a breach of 
Community law51.That said the Commission, in 
its capacity as guardian of the Treaties, must 
make sure that Member States fulfil their 
responsibilities. 
From a citizen's point of view the prime 
concern is to have the rights conferred 
thoroughly enforced. This entails access to 
speedy and effective complaints channels. 
Member States should set up clearly identified 
contact points for citizens who encounter a 
problem either in their own or in another 
Member. 
Nevertheless co-operation with Member States · 
could further be increased, for instance 
through the extension of the co-operation 
between national administrations, already in 
place for the enforcement of Single Market 
legislation, to areas dealing specifically with 
~· judgement 14.11.1991. Joined cases C6-9/90, ECR, 1991, I-5357 
(Frankovlch), Judgement 5.3.1996, joined cases C-46-48/93, ECR 
1996, I-1029 (Brasserle du P6cheur), Judgement 23.5.1996, case 
C-5/94, ECR 1996, I-2553 {Lomas),Judgement 8.10.1996, case C-
178/94, ECR 1996 {Dillenkofer) ,, 
c 
.. .. * _, . 
• 19 .. . .. • • • 
~.· ) 
~,~. 
.. . .. .. .. 
.. 20 • • • • • • citizens rights52• This would allow for example 
to increase bilateral information exchanges 
between the Commission's services and the 
authorities concerned with implementation in 
the Member States in order to identify problem 
areas and avoid erroneous application of the 
agreed rules. 
Iv1ember States also need to have more effective 
channels of communication amongst 
themselves to exchange information. Member 
States should set up specific 'clearing houses' 
for resolving problems notified by their 
counterparts in other Member States. These 
decentralised structures should resolve as many 
pi'Oblems concerning citizens' rights as possible 
on a pragmatic basis and quickly, thus avoiding 
the need fer legal proceedings. 
Where informal contacts fail to resolve a 
problem, legal proceedings may still be 
necessary. In this case, citizens have the option 
to invoke EU law at the national level and 
possibly obtain financial compensation for 
damages which they suffer as a result of the 
breach of Community law. However, there are 
two major obstacles to putting this option into 
practice. First, the complexity of the rules and 
secondly a lack of knowledge of EU law on the 
?art of lawyers, judges and other legal 
practitioners within the Member States. The 
Robert Schuman project is an example of how 
a better knowledge of Community law may be 
fostered. 3ut further efforts should be 
deployed towards a simplification and an 
increased knowledge of the existing rules. 
For its part the Commission will continue to 
monitor constantly the application of 
Community law and follow up on individual 
complaints submitted by citizens50• In pursuing 
its obligation to check whether the rules have 
been implemented correctly, the Commission 
will not hesitate to highlight discrepancies 
between Member States' political statements of 
support for the Single Market and their actual record on respecting the rules concerni•--.g 
citizens' EU rights. Through greater 
transparency in its infringement procedures, 
the Commission will encourage ";Jeer pressure" 
from other Member States, plus pressure from 
citizens, on Member States whc fail to ensure 
that citizens' EU rights are scrupulously 
respected. Infringement proceedings 
themselves should be further accelerated se 
that complaints from :ndividuai citizens are 
followed up as quickly as possible. To achieve 
this, a re-allocation of reso·.1rces within the 
Commission's services will he necessary. 
Commission infringement proceedings against 
individuar Member States will therefore 
continue to play a crucial role, particularly 
where there are persistent prcblert1s and/or 
where Member States refuse w cooperate with 
informal attempts to resolve a problem. 
New initiatives 
In the following months, the Commission will 
look into issues linked with freedom of 
movement of people in the light of the Report 
by the High Level Panel presented to the 
Commission on 18 March 1997, the priority 
areas indicated in the Action Plan for the 
Single Market and of the conclusions of the 
Intergovernmental Conference on the revision 
of the Treaties. The reactions from the Council 
and the European Parliament to this report as 
well as the feedback from the Citizens First! 
initiative will further assist the Commission to 
identify further steps that may be taken. 
'2 Cf. Council Resolution of 8 July 1996 on cooperation between 
administration s for the enforcement of legislation In the Internal 
market which calls on the Commission and the Member States to 
examine as a matter of priority the possibility of reinforcing 
administrative cooperation In the other aereas, In OJ C 
224/4 of 1.8.1996. Cf. also Council Resolution of 16 June 1994 In 
OJ C 179/1 of 1.7.1994 and Commission's progress report COM 
(96) 20 final of 29.1.1996. 
" A standard form to submit complaints to the Commission is 
published In 0] C 26/7 of 1.2.1989. Citizens are encouraged to 
use it but complaints may also be filed simply by addressing a 
letter to the Commission containing as much Information about 
the case as possible.