EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 25.11.2021 SWD(2021) 357 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT



IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT

Accompanying the document Proposal for a

COUNCIL DIRECTIVE







laying down detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections by Union citizens residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals (recast)

















Proposal for a





COUNCIL DIRECTIVE

















laying down detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to vote and stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament for Union citizens residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals (recast) {COM(2021) 732 final} - {COM(2021) 733 final} - {SEC(2021) 576 final} - {SWD(2021) 358 final}



Table of contents Glossary Introduction 1.Problem definition 1.1 Context and scope 1.2 Description of the identified problems 1.3.1 Information-related barriers 1.3.2 Negative effects of registration to vote in the Member State of residence 1.3.3 Remaining administrative barriers 1.3.4 Multiple voting in European elections 1.3.5 Lack of data to support policy interventions 1.3.6 Equal possibilities to exercise electoral rights 1.3.7 Obsolete provisions 1.4 How will the problems evolve? 2.Why should the EU act? 2.1 Legal basis 2.2 Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action 2.3 Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action

3.Objectives: What is to be achieved? 3.1 General objectives 3.2 Specific objectives 4. What are the available policy options? 4.1 What is the baseline from which options are assessed? 4.2 Disregarded policy options 4.3 Description of the policy options 5. What are the impacts of the policy options? 5.1 The baseline scenario 5.2 Assessment of policy options 5.2.1 Social Impacts 5.2.2 Economic impacts 5.2.3 Fundamental rights impacts 5.2.4 Subsidiarity 6. How do the options compare? 6.1 Effectiveness 6.2 Efficiency 6.3 Coherence 6.4Subsidiarity and Proportionality 7. Preferred option

7.1 Indicative Impact of the Preferred Option on Member States 7.2 REFIT Cost Savings – Preferred Option 8. How will actual impacts be monitored and evaluated? 8.1 Plan for future monitoring and evaluation Annex 1: Procedural Information Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation 2.1 The stakeholder engagement strategy 2.2 Open public consultation (OPC) – 19 April 2021 -12 July 2021 2.3 Feedback from Member States: ECN & Expert Group on electoral matters 2.4 Specific consultation conducted by the external contractor Annex 3: Who is affected and how? 3.1 Practical implications of the initiative 3.2 Summary of costs and benefits Annex 4: Analytical methods used in preparing the impact assessment 4.1 Methodology used to collect data 4.2. The qualitative analysis of the legal framework 4.3 Methodology used to compare the policy options Annex 5: Relevant provisions of the Directives governing electoral rights of mobile EU citizens Annex 6: Overview of Member States’ measures concerning electoral rights of mobile EU citizens Table 1 Information measures across Member States

Table 2 Registration modalities across Member States Table 3 Summary of penalties for multiple voting in some EU Member States Table 4 : Municipal election positions for which mobile EU citizens cannot stand as candidate Table 5. Personal Identification numbers in Member States Table 6. Information needed by Member States to identify their citizens Table 7. Estimated cost of developing and mailing out targeted information to mobile EU citizens



Glossary Term or acronym Meaning or definition Mobile EU citizens Citizens of the EU who live or reside in an EU Member State other than their country of nationality. Electoral roll Official register of all voters entitled to vote in a given constituency drawn up and maintained by concerned Member State. Automatic registration Automatic inscription on the electoral roll linked to the registration of residence in another Member State, as opposed to active registration which implies that the citizen requests registration on the electoral roll. Remote voting Arrangements that allow voters to exercise their right to vote by alternative means to casting their ballot in person at their respective polling station; postal, proxy, voting at special polling stations or diplomatic missions abroad and e-voting. Multiple voting The act of voting in more than one EU Member State in the same election to the European Parliament, which is prohibited by EU law, and can also be a criminal or administrative offence in national law. Member State of residence Member State in which a mobile EU citizen resides but of which he is non-national

Introduction Democracy is one of the values on which the Union is founded, as stated in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). The functioning of the European Union is based on representative democracy (Article 10(1) TEU) and participatory democracy (Article 10(3) TEU). Every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union and decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen. A New Push for European Democracy is a priority of the Commission as announced by President von der Leyen in the Political guidelines of the Commission 2019-2024. EU citizens consider free movement to be a major achievement of European integration and they are becoming increasingly mobile by exercising their right to live, work or study in another Member State. According to Eurostat data, on 1 January 2020 there were 13.5 million EU citizens who enjoy their right to reside in another EU country (“mobile EU citizens”). Among them, about 12 million are of voting age, accounting for 3.25% of the entire voting population in the EU. Citizenship of the Union entails specific democratic rights. Mobile EU citizens have the right to vote and stand as a candidates in municipal elections and elections to the European Parliament (hereafter, ‘European elections’) in the country in which they reside (Article 20(2)(b) and Article 22 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)). These rights are also enshrined in Articles 39 and 40 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. They support the right to free movement by empowering mobile EU citizens to participate democratically in their Member State of residence. Two Directives provide detailed arrangements for the exercise of these rights in European and municipal elections: respectively Council Directive 93/109/EC of 6 December 1993 lays down the arrangements for the exercise of the right to vote and stand as a candidate for mobile EU citizens in European elections (hereafter, ‘Directive 93/109/EC’) and Council Directive 94/80/EC of 19 December 1994, for municipal elections (hereafter, ‘Directive 94/80/EC’). Given the similarities between the two Directives in terms of both the main beneficiaries (mobile EU citizens) and the rights granted and associated requirements for Member States, the possibilities to improve them and their functioning is assessed in one document. As the measures at the core of this revision would need to be implemented into Member State electoral laws in time for the 2024 European elections , a derogation to the “evaluate first” principle has been applied taking into account the existence of recent reports issued by the Commission. Evidence clearly shows the need for the Directive 93/109/EC and Directive 94/80/EC to be updated, and this is considered sufficient for the evaluation step. Finally, the external study prepared in support of this impact assessment also includes elements of evaluation of the existing legal framework . The legal framework governing the exercise of EU electoral rights to municipal and European elections by mobile EU citizens is based on the principle of non-discrimination between nationals and mobile EU citizens. Directives 93/109/EC and 94/80/EC leave it largely up to the Member States to establish the conditions under which the right to vote can be exercised through their national laws, provided that the principle of non-discrimination is respected. This specific legal situation involving the interaction of limited EU and extensive national rules lead to a rather loose coordination of electoral practices affecting mobile EU citizens, and the ways through which mobile EU citizens can exercise their electoral rights vary considerably in practice. For more information on the qualitative analysis of the legal framework, see Annex 4. While the two Directives provide the legal framework for the electoral rights of mobile EU citizens, there are other measures at EU level which also touch upon the electoral rights of mobile EU citizens . For example, in 2015, the Parliament used its right of initiative to present a proposal to reform the 1976 Electoral Act . The proposal that was adopted included a provision on criminalisation of multiple voting and an obligation for Member States to designate a contact authority responsible for exchanging data on voters and candidates in Member States. It also includes a reference to the transmission of personal data to enable Member States to de-register those of their citizens who are no longer resident in their Member State of nationality, and who do not intend to vote in the European elections there, with the purpose of preventing multiple voting, no later than six weeks before the electoral period . The process of national approval required for this act to enter into application has not been completed yet . The Commission expressed in the EU Citizenship Report 2020 its intention to propose the update of the Directives on electoral rights of mobile EU citizens in municipal and European elections, to facilitate the provision of information to citizens and improve the exchange of relevant information among Member States, including preventing multiple voting. The Commission also announced it would explore the possibility of creating a dedicated shared resource to support EU citizens in exercising their electoral rights, as well as providing additional avenues for them to report hurdles and incidents affecting their political participation, with the aim to make this resource available to both EU citizens (including mobile EU citizens) and relevant authorities by autumn 2023. The Commission Work Programme for 2021 announced a legislative initiative to improve the electoral rights of mobile EU citizens. This specifically envisaged a revision of the Directive 93/109/EC and of the Directive 94/80/EC in order to address existing shortcomings in the current framework. This initiative addresses the observed difficulties in the exercise of electoral rights by EU mobile citizens by updating, clarifying and strengthening the rules in order to ensure that they support the broad and inclusive participation of mobile EU citizens as well as the integrity of elections. This Impact Assessment is based among others on the findings of external studies prepared in support of this impact assessment , relevant studies of the Academic Network on EU citizenship Rights, and an open public consultation of citizens, non-governmental organizations and local and regional authorities. In addition, the impact assessment takes into account the feedback received from dedicated stakeholder consultations, including of mobile EU citizens and of the European Cooperation Network on Elections (hereafter ‘ECNE’) and the expert group on electoral matters , and other sources such as the conclusions of the relevant projects funded under the Rights, Equality and Citizenship and Europe for Citizens programme, as well as direct feedback from EU citizens received by the Commission and the European Parliament. 1.Problem definition 1.1 Context and scope

A specific group of EU citizens is concerned by this initiative, that is EU citizens who have exercised their free movement rights to settle in another EU Member State. On 1 January 2020, there were 13.5 million of EU citizens living in a Member State other than that of their nationality . Every year some 1.3 million EU citizens move to reside to a Member State of which they are non-nationals (EU27 data). The overall numbers of mobile EU citizens grow on annual basis. In 2020, 3% of EU population were mobile EU citizens. The population covered by the Directives governing the electoral rights of mobile EU citizens represents a sizeable minority of EU citizens. Mobile EU citizens are a highly diversified subset of EU citizens, with many individual characteristics that can influence voting behaviors, including familiarity with politics in the country of residence. Beyond the problems identified below, their democratic participation can be determined by a range of subjective and individual reasons, as well as by socio-demographic factors. Overall, data confirms that mobile EU citizens are substantially less likely to vote than their counter-parts who live in their home countries. According to different surveys and methods, between 53% and 74% of mobile EU respondents are estimated to not have voted in 2019 European Parliament elections. Around one third of mobile Europeans (34%) have been residing in their country of residence for five years or fewer. 50% of mobile EU citizens, on the other hand, have been residing in their country of residence for 10 years or longer. Length of stay in the country of residence is relevant to both: -The likelihood to vote; and -Voting behavior. In 2019 elections to the European Parliament, mobile EU citizens who lived in the country of residence for more than 10 years were substantially more likely to have voted (see figure below). Figure 2 Share of respondents in the survey of mobile EU citizens post-2019 elections who voted according to length of residence (%) Source: Kantar (2019) Post-election study among expatriates: European Elections 2019 A similar pattern can be seen regarding voting in the municipal elections in the country of residence. Furthermore, when it comes to elections to the European Parliament, there is also a clear link between length of stay in the country of residence and likelihood to vote for the list of country of residence. The longer the respondents live in the country of residence the more likely they are to vote for the list of that country. Figure 3 Share of respondents in the survey of mobile Europeans post-2019 elections who voted for the lists of the country of residence according to length of residence (%) Source: Kantar (2019) Post-election study among expatriates: European Elections 2019 These patterns are indicative of the role information has on turnout and of its impact on participation, as long-term residents benefit from higher information levels on the Member States’ election procedures and political life. Competent authorities in the Member States are also affected as they deal with the administration of mobile EU citizens as (potential) voters and are in the frontline to reply their questions. When mobile EU citizens are registered and indicate the intention to vote in European elections in their country of residence, Directive 93/109/EC supports a process whereby this intention is communicated to the Member State of origin, and the citizen in question should be removed from the register for that European election only. Citizens can be misidentified, or removed from the register for more elections. Some examples are given in the table below. Examples of complaints related to registration for 2019 European elections A Slovakian national was rejected when getting the certificate of eligible voter for European elections in Poland, with the reasoning of not being Polish national A Dutch citizen, residing in Spain reported that when attempting to register for the European elections, the Spanish authorities told him that he could not do so, leading the citizen to ask whether he could vote via the Netherlands. A complaint raises alleged maladministration by the electoral authorities in the Netherlands with respect to the registration of an Irish citizen. Examples of complaints related to registration for municipal elections. A Portuguese citizen informed the relevant authorities about his intention to vote in the municipal elections in Spain. However, they refused to include the citizen on the list, claiming that only Spanish citizens are allowed to vote. An Italian citizen moved his residence to Cracow, Poland and applied to vote in municipal elections at the competent local authorities, however was refused the right to vote Source: analysis of citizen enquiries – Annex I to the Underlying Study

1.2 Description of the identified problems While lower participation of mobile European citizens is a result of multiple complex factors as illustrated in the previous section, the administrative obstacles around registration contribute to this tendency, as do information gaps in understanding the host Member State voting systems and structures. Several problems have been identified. Some problems are common to both Directives, whereas some are specific to municipal elections or to European elections. Common issues for both Directives Both Directives on the voting rights of mobile EU citizens impose obligations on Member States to inform mobile EU citizens in good time and in an appropriate manner of the conditions and detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal and European elections in that State. However, obligations to notify mobile EU citizens of their electoral rights remain vague, and linguistic barriers make it more difficult for mobile EU citizens to obtain information. Further, in the case of both municipal and European elections, the effects of registration on an electoral roll are not always clear to mobile EU citizens. In some Member States, voters register for all elections, and registering to vote in elections in the Member State of residence can result in deregistration for all other elections in the Member State of origin. This is in part due to Member States de-registering their citizens if they have been informed that these citizens intend to vote elsewhere. Finally, the process of registration for electoral participation can represent a specific burden for mobile EU citizens both in municipal elections and European elections. Specific issues Specifically in the context of European elections, Directive 93/109/EC sets out the mechanism for Member States to exchange information on registered voters to help ensure that citizens do not vote more than once in European elections. The exchange of information between national authorities on mobile EU citizens has been reported by competent authorities as being hindered by variation in the scope of the data exchanged and deadlines for data collection. This makes it difficult to identify mobile citizens in their countries of origin on the basis of the information collected and transmitted by their countries of residence. Specifically for municipal elections, Directive 94/80/EC contains an Annex with a list of ‘basic local government units’ for each Member State. This Annex requires a revision, both due to changes in several Member States, as well as in light of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. The following Figure provides an overview of the problems identified, presented in relation with their main drivers and consequences. 1.3.1 Information-related barriers In order for mobile EU citizens to exercise their right to vote or stand for election, they essentially need to know to be entitled to this right in their Member State of residence, to know about their registration status, how to register to vote and duration of the registration or to stand for election, the date of the election and how and where to vote. Other basic information should include how to find out more about the elections such as who is standing, how the elections work, how the votes are counted and how the result is calculated. What the relevant rules are, and especially the implications of compulsory voting, multiple voting and any other important rules, such as limits to which roles a mobile EU citizen can have if elected, is also necessary information. At the same time, the use of languages is crucial as they are a major conduit to making national electoral rules more understandable and accessible to mobile EU citizens. Whilst Directives 93/109/EC and 94/80/EC impose an obligation on the Member States to inform mobile EU citizens voters and candidates “in good time and in an appropriate manner of the conditions and arrangement for the exercise their right to vote and to stand as candidate”, they do not go into this level of detail. As a result, mobile EU citizens do not have sufficient information to support the exercise of their electoral rights. Two specific aspects of the identified problems have to be considered. The first aspect concerns the share of EU citizens not aware of their voting rights as mobile EU citizens: only 58% of EU citizens identify correctly the electoral rights that a citizen of the EU has in relation to voting or standing as a candidate in European Parliament, national Parliament regional and municipal elections. The second aspect concerns mobile EU citizens who are aware of their rights but who face information barriers on how to exercise their rights: 38% of respondents to the survey conducted to support the underlying study who had to register actively state they encountered as challenge the fact that information was only available to them in the language of their country of residence. More importantly, 61% of respondents who are not registered said that they are not aware of the process for registering to vote in the municipal elections in the city or town where they currently live. When asked about the reasons for not being registered to vote in municipal elections in their country of residence, 26% of mobile EU citizens stated this was because they lacked information about the registration process and 12% cited lack of information about local political life. These figures show that lack of information about registration process and municipal elections more generally is a barrier to participation. As the provisions in the Directives are currently open and vague, most Member States rely on passive information provision, meaning that they post information on exercising electoral rights on dedicated websites. According to the review of Member States’ practices, only 8 Member States systematically send targeted mail-outs (letter or email) to mobile EU citizens. Another 6 Member States also provide targeted information, but there are some variations to this at local/ regional level. In the 2018 report on measures related to participation of mobile EU citizens in municipal elections only 10 Member States reported taking actions to promote participation of mobile EU citizens in political life. The interviews at Member State level do not suggest that countries are planning to take new or additional measures to better inform mobile EU citizens in the status quo situation. While difficult to measure, also due to the lack of data on political participation of mobile EU citizens, some research has been able to establish a clear link between information campaigns and turnout of mobile EU citizens. One such example is the Campaign Operation Vote, launched in 2013 in Portugal targeting mobile EU citizens, following which the registration rate for the 2013 municipal elections grew 55% among the community of Romanian nationals. Information barriers are also apparent from the analysis of inquiries and complaints received by European institutions:

-78% of the entries analysed were inquiries rather than complaints, i.e. citizens were asking for information rather than complaining about what happened to them related to registration or voting; -Many people reached out to EU institutions simply asking whether they can vote when they are a resident in another EU Member State, suggesting they did not find this information easily without actively inquiring. The citizen enquiry unit of the European Parliament confirmed in an interview they also receive many such requests and that these are often from people in older age groups who are less at ease with searching online or from students who are abroad on an exchange programme; While the fact that mobile EU citizens reach out to EU institutions to have information on the rights stemming from EU law is a positive aspect, the primary responsibility to inform the electorate in their territory lies with the Member States. This includes mobile EU citizens. In parallel, the Commission actively provides information services to EU citizens about electoral rights and electoral procedures (via the YourEurope portal and through dedicated outreach communication actions related to European elections). The information provided through YourEurope portal is rather general and does not cover, for the moment, information about how to register, by when to register and how to vote specifically for each Member State. From December 2020, the Single Digital Gateway Regulation requires Member States to explain online how to carry out certain administrative procedures through the YourEurope portal. Those procedures include participating in municipal elections and European elections. For the 2019 European elections, the Parliament and the Commission coordinated their communication efforts towards EU citizens with a view to increase their participation in European elections. These different sources of information are however not sufficiently adapted to the specific needs of mobile EU citizens. Some authorities tend to invest limited efforts into information dissemination, or provide information that is rather technical, lengthy and confusing, even for trained readers. It was noted also in the interviews conducted to support the underlying study that the existence of too many differing sources of information can even present a problem as the information presented can be mismatched, making it difficult to establish the correct source. To ensure inclusive electoral participation, options should take into account accessibility requirements for the information provided to persons with disabilities and to older people using as a source of inspiration the general comments of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities regarding Article 21 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 1.3.2 Negative effects of registration to vote in the Member State of residence Establishing the electoral roll is an essential part of organising elections. Member States have various approaches to this. The management of electoral rolls in the Member States has an impact on the exercise of electoral rights by mobile EU citizens. The main issue is linked to the process established among the Member States under Directive 93/109/EC to combat multiple voting in European elections, which will be explained in detail in section 1.3.4. One aim of this exchange of is to enable Member States to de-register those of their mobile EU citizens who are no longer resident in their Member State of origin and do not intend to vote in the European elections there. However, because electoral rolls do not necessarily distinguish the type of election, nor do they always support specific de-registration, citizens could find themselves removed from the electoral roll for all elections, including those for which they intended to vote in the Member State of origin. The risk of deregistration and the administrative complexity which can result from this issue discourage mobile EU citizens from using their electoral rights. Source: Annex II to the Underlying Study, survey of mobile EU citizens Data on de-registration practices is scarce, but deregistration is happening indeed. According to the survey of mobile EU citizens, 6% of respondents who are registered to vote in their Member State of residence for European elections stated that they encountered the challenge that they were deregistered for all elections in their country of nationality. A similar proportion (7%) of those who did not vote in 2019 elections stated that this was because they were deregistered from the electoral roll of their home country and not registered in their host country. Data on the scale of deregistration’ problems deriving from registration to vote in municipal elections in the Member State of residence is not available. However, the phenomenon of de-registration as such has an impact on municipal elections too. In fact, 17% of mobile EU citizens said they have not registered to vote in the municipal elections of their Member State of residence because of fear of being deregistered in their home country. These data shows that mobile EU citizens are concerned about keeping their registration status in their country of nationality and thus being able to continue voting. The implications of deregistration are closely linked to those related to preventing multiple voting. They are serious especially in terms of the de facto loss of voting rights for citizens. Tackling multiple voting without addressing de-registration could lead to more citizens losing voting rights.

1.3.3 Remaining administrative barriers The Directives establish that mobile EU citizens who wish to be registered in the electoral roll have to produce the same documents as nationals, but allow Member States to ask for a number of additional documents, including a formal declaration stating their nationality and their address in the Member State of residence. The overview of registration modalities across EU Member States is presented in Annex 6. Registration rates of mobile EU citizens in countries that have active registration vary greatly with highest registration rate being in Spain, at 26%. Registration rates of mobile EU citizens can reach levels as low as 2% in Czechia, as well as Bulgaria, Poland and Greece. This is in sharp contrast to Member States with automatic registration, where registration is at or close to 100% of the eligible population of mobile EU voters . The low registration rates found in Member States that have active registration in place for mobile EU citizens suggest that their capacity to participate in the form of voting to municipal elections is partly hindered by these administrative steps. On the other hand, automatic registration does not guarantee high participation, as can be seen in countries like Romania, where although they have automatic registration they also have the lowest participation rate . Nonetheless, turnout is generally higher in countries with automatic registration. Based on the interviews and desk research conducted in the context of the study supporting this impact assessment, regarding measures at Member State level, data collected have not revealed any disproportionate effect on mobile EU citizens compared to nationals in relation to the documentation for registration. However, Article 9 of Directive 93/109/EC requires EU mobile citizens to present an additional document which is a signed formal declaration stating their willingness to vote in the Member State of residence only together with the EU voter’s nationality, address in the country of residence, locality in the home Member State. It may also be required to state that (s)he has not been deprived of the right to vote in the home Member State. For candidates, Article 10 of Directive 93/109/EC requires the formal declaration to state, in addition to the nationality, date and place of birth, and last address in the home Member State and in the Member State of residence; that (s)he is not standing as a candidate for European elections in any other Member State and has not been deprived of the right to stand as a candidate in the home Member State. However, this requirement to make a formal declaration may constitute an additional administrative barrier, which is likely to prevent mobile EU citizens from exercising their rights. The modalities of this clause are not fully defined and Member States may interpret the term “formal declaration” differently. As stated above, Article 9 and 10 of Directive 93/109/EC requires specific content of the declaration but the modality ranges from a statement in a stand-alone document to a sentence to be checked and included in a document linked to other acts such as the registration for residence or tax declaration. There are instances where this provision has been used to require mobile EU citizens to make a notarized declaration on honour, which makes the process of registration substantially more burdensome for mobile EU citizens. In some Member States, for candidates, documentary evidence is needed from the home country that the person has retained his/her right to stand as candidate (Czechia, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania). Furthermore, this administrative burden can be one-off (where registration is carried out once and its validity is not time bound) or recurrent when registration is required for every election (Croatia, France, Greece and Malta). In order to support inclusive and equal electoral participation, the practical conditions to register as a voter or as a candidate and the voting arrangements should also consider the specific needs of vulnerable Union citizens, including citizens with a disability and older citizens. 1.3.4 Multiple voting in European elections Article 4(1) of Directive 93/109/EC prohibits voting in more than one Member State in the same European elections. Instances of multiple voting by mobile EU citizens exist and data being exchanged between Member States do not prevent it completely. Figure 2 In addition, 14% of surveyed mobile EU citizens believe that voting more than once (both in home and host country) is lawful (see Figure 2). This points to a relatively high share of respondents who are not aware of the fact that multiple voting is prohibited. Figure 2 (above) - Thinking about people like you who are residents of another EU country than their country of nationality, please indicate which statement you think is true regarding European elections (n=2383) Source: Annex II to the Underlying Study, survey of mobile EU citizens The exchange of information to prevent multiple voting relates in particular to the following: -Member States of residence need to transmit to the home Member State the information received in the formal declarations provided by registered mobile EU citizens when entering those EU citizens in the electoral roll or if they are standing as candidates of the Member State of residence. This needs to be done sufficiently in advance of the election day; -the Member State of origin needs to take appropriate measures to ensure that its nationals do not vote more than once or stand as candidates in more than one Member State (Article 13 Directive 93/109/EC). This usually means that Member States should deregister mobile EU citizens from the electoral roll of their country of nationality when they registered to vote in the country of residence. It may also refer to other dissuasive measures against multiple voting, such as a formal declaration stating that the person producing it voted only once at the same election. To support Member States in their effort to prevent multiple voting, the Commission developed a solution to allow Member States to exchange data securely (hereafter called, “the crypto tool”). This solution was developed in 2013, and first used in the 2014 European elections. The development and implementation of a process to achieve the exchange efficiently was coordinated with Member States’ experts in the framework of the expert group on electoral matters. A formalisation of the crypto tool is needed. Prior to the last European elections, i.e. between February and May 2019, Member States exchanged data on around 1.3 million voters and 114 parliamentary candidates. This exchange resulted in the identification of over 213 000 multiple registration of citizens, which means that citizens who were found to be on electoral rolls of both the Member State of residence and of origin were deregistered from the electoral roll of the Member State of origin. While there is little data to measure the phenomenon of multiple voting, feedback received by the Commission from Member States’ authorities show that challenges remain in matching the data received from the Member State of residence and the deadlines for data collection. This results in situations where Member States are only able to match a limited share of record with their national electoral roll datasets due to issues with the type of data exchanged. The identification rate (i.e. the share of records received from Member State of residence that were successfully matched to citizens of the country of origin) was only 31%. Feedback from Member States collected during joint meetings of the ECNE and the expert group on electoral matters shows that the exchange of information between national authorities on mobile EU citizens was hindered by variation in the scope of the data exchanged and deadlines for data collection. Each Member State collects the same data from mobile EU citizens as it would from its own citizens, with the exception usually of also recording the mobile citizen’s nationality. Different Member States rely on different data to identify citizens, besides their name and date of birth – some requiring national ID numbers, others requiring the last address or municipality of birth. Due to these differences, some Member States are only able to act on very limited amounts of the data exchanged, while others are more successful.

Finally, there are challenges for matching individual data that stem from the use of non-Latin alphabets or use of special characters. These challenges are however not due to the crypto tool as such as this tool can handle all alphabets and characters. The issue is that host Member States, and in particular the local authorities, are typically not equipped with the keyboards to enter the data using these special characters or non-Latin alphabet. Additionally, this data must be exchanged swiftly and securely. Although protocols are in place for this, they could be strengthened and legal certainty enhanced with a clear legal framework governing its use including concerning security requirements. Lastly, the scale of the problem of multiple voting in European elections and the related deregistration might appear small compared to other problems. The absence of detailed evidence does not mean this practice is not taking place. And even if it is not, there is a precautionary principle that comes into play in terms of the potential for it to happen as its implications are far-reaching both in terms of electoral integrity and reputational risk. If integrity of an election is at risk in one Member State, it would discredit the EU institutions as a whole. Furthermore, public trust in the EU is a key aspect, especially in relation to the electoral process. The citizens demand the EU to have unimpeachable standards by supporting the transparency, inclusiveness and integrity of electoral practices. 1.3.5 Lack of data to support policy interventions Comparable data to support policy interventions are not sufficient. This includes data on the registration, identification on electoral rolls, and turnout of mobile EU citizens for European and municipal elections, as well as the number of mobile EU citizens who stand as candidates and who are elected in European and municipal elections. When it comes to participation of mobile EU citizens in municipal elections, data mostly looks at registration rates. Data on participation/turnout is not disaggregated according to residency status by competent authorities in Member States. Data on candidacy is available in less than half of EU Member States. Where data is reported, it is not necessarily on the basis of all mobile EU citizens residing in the country but on the basis of those who are registered. This means that in Member States with automatic registration the share of those registered is very high (close to 100%) but turnout is much lower. Conversely, in other countries with active registration, the shared of those registered is low, but then turnout for those registered is high as these are people who actively took measures to register and are hence keen on exercising their right. Availability of data on participation of mobile EU citizens in European elections is even more patchy. As with municipal elections, the majority of Member States do not differentiate between the turnout of nationals and that of mobile EU citizens. 1.3.6 Equal possibilities to exercise electoral rights Mobile EU citizens exercising their elections rights in their Member State of residence do not always enjoy their rights under the same conditions as nationals of that State. Indeed, the current legal provisions allow Member States to restrict candidacy for mobile EU citizens to some positions in municipal elections. Article 5 of Directive 94/80/EC specifically provides for the right of Member States to restrict the office of elected head, deputy or member of the governing college of the executive of a basic local government unit to their own nationals only. Several Member States have been using this provision, thus restricting the possibilities for mobile EU citizens to stand as candidates for executive functions at local level. Mobile EU citizens are therefore not able to stand as candidates for all functions in municipal elections in all Member States, which can lead to their underrepresentation in local governments, and contribute to their lower participation patterns and less motivation to engage at the local level. Addressing the limitations of candidacy for mobile EU citizens to some positions that some Member States impose in municipal elections would support the principle of non-discrimination on the basis of nationality. However, such measure would need to take into account the public opinion and in general terms their acceptability. As shown in Flash Eurobarometer 431, the opinion is evenly divided. Almost half of respondents (47%) agree that citizens from other Member States should be able to stand as candidates for certain executive offices, presently open only to nationals. A similar proportion (48%) do not agree that they should be able to do so. In addition, remote voting solutions can help facilitate the act of voting for those EU citizens living abroad, which also concerns EU mobile citizens. In that sense, and taking into account the principle of non-discrimination, mobile EU citizens should have the same access to remote voting solutions as the nationals of the Member State in which they reside. 1.3.7 Obsolete provisions The legal framework on voting rights of mobile citizens contains obsolete provisions. Directive 94/80/EC contains an Annex with a list of basic local government units for each Member State. These are the administrative entities to which this Directive applies and which, in accordance with the laws of each Member State, contain bodies elected by direct universal suffrage and are empowered to administer, at the basic level of political and administrative organization, certain local affairs on their own responsibility. This Annex makes explicit reference to the United Kingdom and its basic local government units, which will need to be deleted in light of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. Additionally, in preparation of the report on the application of Directive 94/80/EC, the Commission was informed by Denmark, Hungary, Ireland, the Netherlands that amendments to the list of basic local government units are needed. The current Directive foresees the presentation of a legal proposal to amend its non-essential elements. This does not allow to make best use of the possibilities that exist since the Lisbon Treaty to amend non-essential elements of a Directive. Since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the Commission may be empowered under Article 290 TFEU to adopt delegated acts that amend non-essential elements of legislative acts. Such delegations allow technical updates to be made more quickly and efficiently. The revision of the Directive provides an opportunity to make use of this possibility by making provision for such empowerments. 1.4 How will the problems evolve? The number of EU citizens residing in a Member State other than that of their nationality is steadily increasing. As mentioned above, in 2019 there were over 13 million mobile EU citizens, with approximately 1.3 million EU citizens who move to reside to another EU Member State every year and the numbers continue to grow. In Member States with less inclusive national practices regarding registration and information provision, mobile EU citizens are likely to continue facing burden related to searching for information or the fact that excessive documentation is requested of them. There is no indication that suggests that Member States are narrowing this gap. This would continue negatively affecting participation especially in those Member States with practices that demonstrate low inclusivity. The differences among Member States concerning possibilities to exercise one’s electoral rights as a mobile EU citizen are going to continue existing. As above there is no evidence that this gap would be narrowing down spontaneously.

Furthermore, the trend of the digitalization of political participation is gaining traction, and was additionally accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. With regard to the phenomenon of multiple voting in the European elections, the fact that mobile EU citizens can choose to vote for host country or home country party lists implies that they have multiple channels through which they can vote. This could be further exacerbated if Member States increasingly make remote voting in European elections easier through measures such as electronic voting or voting via proxies. If these modalities become more common, which in itself would be a positive development that would contribute to boost mobile EU citizens’ voting participation, the risk of multiple voting could grow. Developments are ongoing at EU level to strengthen the availability, use and acceptance of highly secure electronic IDs cross border in the EU. However, widespread use in the electoral context cannot be anticipated in the near future and therefore the difficulties to identify mobile EU citizens who are registered in multiple countries and prevent multiple could continue affecting European elections. If the trend of intra-EU mobility continues to grow, this problem is likely to get bigger as the volume of data exchanged will increase. Should the exchange of data between Member States become more efficient and therefore identify more cases of multiple registration, the problem of deregistration is likely to get worse. Higher numbers of mobile EU citizens will be matched to their home country electoral rolls and therefore deregistered, unless there is a mechanism to ensure that deregistration only affects the election for which the data is being exchanged. It is expected that all Member States will have approved Council Decision 2018/994 on the revision of the EU Electoral law in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements and that this Decision will enter into force before the 2024 European elections. To date (July 2021), five Member States have not yet approved Council Decision 2018/994 on the revision of the EU electoral law (Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Germany and Spain). Regarding the binding measures, they should have a positive effect in addressing the problem of multiple voting by providing further harmonisation of the exchange of data, by legally imposing the establishment a contact authority for data exchange on voters and candidates and by providing that Member Sates shall take measures necessary to ensure that multiple voting is subject to sanctions. 2.Why should the EU act? 2.1 Legal basis Any legislative intervention at the EU level must relate the competences of the Union legislator to the objectives and scope that the proposal will follow. Article 20 TFEU establishes Union citizenship. Articles 20(2)(b) and 22 TFEU, as well as Articles 39 and 40 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, provide that citizens of the Union have the right to vote and stand as candidates in European elections and in municipal elections in their Member State of residence, under the same conditions as national of that State. Article 22 TFEU provides that the exercise of this right shall be subject to detailed arrangements adopted by the Council, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament. Directives 93/109/EC and 94/80/EC, the revision of which is the subject of this impact assessment, provide detailed arrangements for the exercise of these rights in European and municipal elections, respectively, based on the electoral rights for municipal elections provided in Article 20(2)(b) and 22(1) TFEU, and in Article 20(2)(b) and 22(2) TFEU for European elections. They establish minimum standards and procedures for the right of mobile EU citizens to vote and stand as candidates. 2.2 Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action The principle of subsidiarity (Article 5(3) TEU) requires that the Union shall act only and insofar as the objectives of the proposed actions cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central or at regional and local level, but an rather, by reasons of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level. The electoral rights of mobile EU citizens to European and municipal elections are enshrined in the TFEU as part of their rights as citizens of the Union. The legal framework for the exercise of electoral rights by mobile citizens involves the interaction of EU and national rules. The EU acted to implement the Treaty principle establishing electoral rights of mobile EU citizens in particular through the two Directives 93/109/EC and 94/80/EC which are considered in this impact assessment. The Commission has closely monitored the implementation of the Directives. However, experience shows that, without EU action, it would be difficult to address the identified problems. Reports on the implementation of the directives as well as further consultations (especially in the framework of ECNE and the expert group on electoral matters meetings) showed that further action at EU level was needed. Without timely and effective EU action, the identified problems and their causes would continue to hinder the exercise by mobile EU citizens of their electoral rights This could be prevented by reinforcing existing rights governed by Directives 93/109/EC and 94/80/EC. As for the issue of multiple voting in European elections, the exchange of information required by Directive 93/109/EC is by definition a cross border issue. This means that it cannot be addressed by Member States acting individually, since cross-border matters are beyond the reach of individual Member States. National action cannot be expected to reach beyond national borders. Providing for common EU standards on the exchange of information about the relevant voters and candidates to prevent multiple voting can only be done at EU level. Finally, revisions to Directives to update obsolete provisions and align with the common rules established by Council Decision 2018/994 on the revision of the EU Electoral law can only be done at EU level. 2.3 Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action The current situation affects the effective exercise of electoral rights of mobile EU citizens and by extension the ability for EU citizens to fully enjoy their free movement rights as well as puts at risk the integrity of the electoral process for European elections. The added value of EU action lies in improving and refining the framework governing the exercise of mobile EU citizens of their electoral rights granted by the Treaties, and better addressing multiple voting in the context of the European elections by enhancing the current exchange of information system. The content and the form of the EU action must not go beyond what is necessary to meet the objectives of the Treaty. Respect of the principle of proportionality is about ensuring that the policy approach and its intensity match the identified problems and objectives. Proportionate EU action should ensure that mobile EU citizens can effectively exercise their democratic rights. For this to be achieved, there is a need to clarify the existing EU framework governing the electoral rights of mobile EU citizens of their electoral rights. Additionally, proportionate action at EU level would enhance the integrity of the European elections by reducing opportunities for multiple voting. 3.Objectives: What is to be achieved? 3.1 General objectives

The general objectives are to: ·Support electoral participation of mobile EU citizens in municipal and European elections; ·Reinforce electoral rights of mobile EU citizens by closing regulatory gaps hindering the participation in municipal and European elections; ·Preserve the legitimacy of European elections by reducing instances of multiple voting. 3.2 Specific objectives To successfully achieve the general objectives by intervening on the drivers of the problems identified as illustrated in Figure 3, specific objectives were identified. The specific objectives of the initiative are to increase mobile EU citizens’ awareness of their rights and understanding of procedures and practices to register and to participate in municipal and European elections; reduce the possibilities of multiple voting by mobile EU citizens for European elections and to limit de-registration practices of Member States only to those elections in which there is a risk of multiple voting. Another goal is to simplify daily life for mobile EU citizens and local authorities, by reducing administrative barriers for citizens and their family members related to registration and formalities to vote and to stand as candidates in municipal as well as European elections Finally, this initiative aims at improving the collection of data for European elections and municipal elections and to ensure that mobile EU citizens have the same possibilities to stand for candidates in municipal elections. Information on indicators and targets for each specific objectives are in section 8.

Figure 3. Intervention Logic: from problem drivers to policy options 4. What are the available policy options? 4.1 What is the baseline from which options are assessed? Under the baseline scenario, the existing problems would remain. The exchanges of best practice among relevant Member States’ authorities in the ECNE and the expert group on electoral matters would continue to be supported by the Commission. Efforts would focus on improving awareness of mobile EU citizens and access to their electoral rights as well as on good practice on the use of the crypto tool. Further, the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values programme 2021-2027 and in particular its strand on Citizens’ engagement, would reinforce the financing of projects to address the needs of mobile EU citizens and to support their democratic participation. An EU wide communication campaign would be organized for the European Parliament elections building particularly on the experiences of the 2019 European elections. Among others, occasional targeted awareness raising campaigns would be organized, especially prior to the European elections. The added value of funding such projects (in particular awareness raising) has been demonstrated, promoting the rights deriving from EU citizenship and the development of a stronger EU citizenship. When it comes to information related barriers, Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 established a single digital gateway. The ‘Your Europe Portal’ is the front end of the single digital gateway. The portal exists to explain to EU citizens and businesspeople their rights and obligations under EU law. Regarding electoral rights, there is a section on the ‘Citizens’ side of the portal about electoral rights of mobile EU citizens. Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 requires Member States to explain online how to carry out certain administrative procedures by December 2020 (Annex I to the Regulation). Those procedures includes participating in municipal elections and elections to the European Parliament for EU mobile citizens. Every Member State should have a webpage or website explaining to non-EU nationals, in a language understood by the majority of cross-border users, how to vote in their Member State of residence in those types of elections. By 2023, Member States will have to make it possible to actually carry out some procedures online (Annex II to the Regulation). For the moment, electoral procedures are not part of this last category. With regard to the prevention of multiple voting, the exchange of data on voters and candidates will continue with the use of the Commission crypto tool. Its maintenance and development is foresee by DG CNECT’s DIGITAL programme. Although protocols are in place for its use this, legal certainty would not be enhanced if a clear legal framework governing its use including concerning security requirements is not provided.

Instead, the necessary changes to Directive 94/80/EC as described under section 2.3.7 would not be introduced. No use would be made of the procedure to ensure rapid update of non-essential elements of both Directives. 4.2 Disregarded policy options The removal of the derogation available under both Directives, whereby a Member State, where the proportion of mobile EU citizens of voting age exceeds 20% of the total electorate, can require both voters and candidates to have a minimum period of residence, will not be addressed by the policy options. Similarly, no policy intervention is being considered on the exchange of information among Member States on the deprivation of citizens’ right to vote and stand as candidate if, through an individual decision, they have been deprived of their right under the law of their home Member State. As there were no issues identified in the implementation of this provision, this would be unnecessary. On the other hand, several policy options were disregarded on the basis of proportionality and efficiency considerations. For example, the establishment of an EU Electoral Database, including passive and active electorates in all Member States would have efficiently addressed multiple voting and deregistration problems, including of dual nationals. However, such a measure, despite being very effective, appears disproportionate in term of costs for the EU and Member States and potential impact on fundamental rights as well as disproportionate to the scale and nature of the problems. Under another option addressing dual voting, which was discarded as excessive, home Member States would have obligated dual citizens to disclose their other citizenships. 4.3 Description of the policy options Beyond the baseline scenario, the three general objectives are each addressed by two packages of options, which are presented below. The policy packages present a range of potential measures considered to improve the exercise of electoral rights, and to support a fair electoral process by addressing the issue of multiple voting. Specifically, these policy packages range from soft, non-legislative measures in support of awareness raising and enhanced administrative cooperation, to setting common standards of procedures related to registration of mobile EU citizens and the exchange of data in prevention of multiple voting. The measures are grouped in two policy packages according to their connection and interdependence from one another. Measures in Option 1 constitutes mainly targeted additional legislative amendments. The aim would be to address the objectives by reinforcing and clarifying existing provisions of the Directives governing electoral rights of mobile EU citizens in municipal and European elections. Measures in Option 2 provide for more extensive legislative intervention. While respecting the non-discrimination principle at the basis of the Directives, the second policy option would aim to put in place an extensive reform of the Directives by setting legal requirements relating to the time-limits for registration and imposing in some cases automatic registration for municipal elections, by providing a self-standing resource for support of mobile EU citizens and by removing the provisions allowing different treatment of mobile EU citizens. To reduce instances of multiple voting in European elections by supporting data matching, policy option 1 would bring the period in which the exchange of data between Member States would have to start, in line with Council Decision 2018/994 on the revision of the EU electoral law. Additionally, policy option 1 foreseen common requirements to be established to guarantee that information on mobile EU citizens registering to vote or stand for election is exchanged comprehensively and in a more consistent manner, while complying with the GDPR’s data minimisation principle. A data set would be specified in Directive 93/109/EC to support the exchange of information between national authorities about mobile EU citizens registering to vote or stand for European elections, which would result in a faster and easier identification of mobile EU citizens. This data set would include: name, place and date of birth, and identification number from the country of nationality or alternatively passport number or ID card number. An increased and faster recognition of the citizens coupled with further harmonisation of the starting point for the exchange of those data would result in more data being matched. Alternatively, measure in Option 2 would entail a full harmonisation of the procedure with a harmonised and fixed data set and common EU deadlines for registration and notification of such registration for European elections across the EU. Specifically, two deadlines would be set: one for the close of the electoral roll and the start of the data exchange (6 weeks prior to the elections), and one to clear data between Member States (4 weeks prior to the elections). Only one measure is foreseen for the issue of deregistration and it is part of Option 1. The main reason is that measures foreseen in Option 2 to address multiple voting would in principle also extinguish the problem of deregistration. Instead, measures in option 1 would increase this phenomenon. Therefore, Option 1 envisages the prohibition of de-registration practices at the initiative of the authorities. On the issue of information related-barriers, multiple options intervening at different levels are possible. In policy option 1, at Member States level, a requirement would be introduced for Member States to inform mobile EU citizens of their right to vote in municipal and European elections, in a plain language at the moment of registering in a new Member State and regularly thereafter, particularly before elections. This information would need to be provided at least in the language of the Member State of residence and in another language largely used in the EU. Prior to municipal and European elections, mobile EU citizens should receive in an individualised manner detailed information about their registration status, registration procedure and voting modalities. For municipal elections, information should be provided on the possibility to continue to vote in other elections in the Member State of origin, while for European elections, information should be provided on prohibition of multiple voting and its consequences. At EU level, policy option 1 envisages a streamlined shared resource to be established at Commission level to support EU citizens in exercising their electoral rights, in particular with dedicated staff replying questions from citizens and public authorities during the period where mobile EU citizens can register for European elections. Building on existing support offered by the Commission and the European Parliament in particular, it would rationalise existing support services for mobile EU citizens and national authorities (addressing contradictions and duplications in information sources such as the Europe Direct Contact Center), answer their questions on European elections in all languages of the European Union, support citizens in finding solutions to relevant issues and provide targeted information for mobile EU citizens, The Directives would be amended to reflect the links with the Single Digital gateway/Your Europe Portal. Measures in policy option 2 in relation to information-related barriers should take in consideration the harmonised process of registration and notification provided in this option. Therefore, information provided by Member States will focus more on other aspects of the electoral procedure such as the date of the election in the case of municipal elections and how and where to vote. On the other hand, communication at EU level will be more important as the information on the key prerequisites to the effective exercise of electoral rights will be uniform due to harmonised procedures. This option therefore would provide for a new self-standing resource for support of mobile EU citizens specifically dedicated to electoral rights. To address the specific administrative barriers whereby Member States of residence may require mobile EU citizens to provide a formal declaration that they will exercise the right to vote in that Member State only, option 1 proposes the use of standardised templates. As the modalities of this clause are not defined and Member States may interpret the term “formal declaration” differently (e.g., a notarized declaration on honour in Croatia), a standardized format of the declaration available in all languages would be introduced in the form of an Annex to the Directive. This standardized templates could be subject to the possibility of subsequent adaptations via delegated acts. Such an approach would also allow to update the Annex which lists basic local government units. Alternatively, Option 2 envisages that the legislative proposal would also establish an obligation for Member States to apply automatic registration in municipal elections. This would mean that once mobile EU citizens register in their Member State of residence, they would be automatically registered in the electoral rolls for voting in municipal elections. This would alleviate the burden to have to register for municipal elections in a separate administrative act. On data collection, policy option 1 envisages to amend the Directives to insert provisions for a regular monitoring and reporting of their implementation by Member States. For Directive 93/109/EC, the report should be conducted after every European elections. For Directive 94/80/EC, the report should be conducted every five years from the entry into force of the amendments. The Commission building on the work of Eurostat would work together with the national statistical institutes to collect, harmonise and publish turn-out data for municipal and European elections, to support policy development at the EU and national levels. The above-mentioned standardised templates would allow to collect more data than those available today, which could help further policy interventions. In Policy option 2, collection of data should be facilitated by the harmonisation of the process of registration and voting. Therefore, it could be foreseen that additional common resources and procedures would be allocated including for instance to support the transmission to the Commission and the European Parliament of the national results related to the participation of mobile EU citizens in the European elections that would be available in all Member States. As the current regulatory framework allows limiting candidacy of mobile EU citizens for some positions in municipal elections, policy option 2 envisages that the legislative proposal removes the possibility to restrict certain mandates to nationals of the Member State of residence. Alternatively, policy option 1 envisages an obligation on Member States to report on those restrictions. This may lead to a national debate and encourage Member States to change these rules. The Commission would also use soft-law measures building on the discussions in the expert group on electoral matters and ECNE. The purpose would be to support a non-discriminatory access to such positions. Such soft-law measures could also encourage Member States to consider voluntarily extending the right to vote in municipal elections for mobile EU citizens to other intermediary levels of governance, such as city regions. Finally, as part of option 1, an explicit obligation would be introduced to ensure that where remote voting is allowed for nationals in European or municipal elections, this should also be allowed for mobile EU citizens residing in that country, under the same conditions as nationals. 5. What are the impacts of the policy options?

5.1 The baseline scenario The impact of the baseline scenario is assessed in section 2.4. In broad terms, in the absence of EU action to address gaps of Directives 93/109/EC and 94/80/EC, multiple voting by mobile EU citizens will continue to put at risk the integrity of the European elections. Mobile EU citizens will continue to face administrative burden and lack of clarity on electoral participation. As a consequence of unclear information, a significant proportion of mobile EU citizens will remain unaware of their voting rights derived from their EU citizenship or be discouraged to vote. Relatively fewer mobile EU citizens will use their EU rights to vote in the Member State they live in, and the number of mobile EU citizens standing as candidates will decrease, compared to an overall growing number of mobile EU citizens. The requirements in the Directives as they stand now are generally not specific enough to lend themselves to enforcement action. Correspondence with Member States and discussion in forums like the ECNE cannot sufficiently address the identified problems. 5.2 Assessment of policy options The policy options are evaluated against social, economic and fundamental rights impacts. No environmental impacts were detected. 5.2.1 Social Impacts The two options considered would have an overall positive effect on the democratic participation of mobile EU citizens. The standardised templates and minimum data set in policy option 1 would lead to increased, more secured and interoperable communication channels among Member States to prevent multiple voting and provide more tools to citizens to exercise their electoral rights. Measures to require Member States to inform mobile EU citizens in Option 1 could possibly increase the probability of voting among mobile EU citizens. Additionally, the reinforced shared resource at EU level in policy option 1 and the new resource in option 2 would lead to higher awareness of electoral processes in the country of residence, which could result in having more candidates who are mobile EU citizens (who could, by extension, mobilise the communities of mobile EU citizens to participate in elections). Policy Option 1 2 Impact Increase Citizens’ awareness and understanding ●●● ●●● Increase probability of voting/ voter participation ●● ●●● Prevent multiple voting and minimise deregistration ●● ●●● 5.2.2 Economic impacts The impact assessment focuses on the potential impacts on mobile EU citizens and public administration, both at the national and EU levels. All options are expected to only have indirect wider economic impacts insofar as they support free movement. Simplifying registration requirements and enhancing information provision and awareness raising on voting can reinforce the integration of mobile EU citizens in the host Member State, which can only have positive economic effects. Whether SMEs are affected to the same extent as larger companies by facilitated freedom of movement cannot be assessed conclusively. Mobile EU citizens enjoy direct regulatory benefits from all options presented above: simplification of registration procedures would lead to a reduction of costs for mobile EU citizens due to lowering the time needed to register and reducing the documents that they need to provide. They will also benefit from simplified access to clearer information on national procedures and requirements, particularly information. A detailed assessment of the costs involved – in terms of monetary cost, human resources, and organisational effort – requires a level of data that is not currently available to this impact assessment. The below cost assessments therefore rely on a number of assumptions to provide a first indication of the range of costs that may be required. As the exact design and implementation of the measures will vary, the assessment (1) seeks to take into account institutional and structural differences between Member States and (2) seeks to present a range of costs, depending on how extensive the ultimate formulation of a measure is. All costs are presented as possible excess cost to the current expenditure – e.g. if a measure envisions four additional annual meetings of an election network, this is to be understood as four meetings in additions to those already occurring currently. Many of the implementation costs either entail human resource costs at the EU level (European Commission, EU agencies) and the Member State level (competent authorities, practitioners). Costs associated with administrative burden have been estimated using the Commission’s Standard Cost Model (SCM), outlined in the EU Better Regulation Guidelines. To calculate these costs, a standard estimate of the daily labour cost has been applied for all activities. As figures are not available individually for all Member States, an EU average is applied. This approach uses the latest available data and methods detailed in the EU Better Regulation Guidelines. This leads to an estimated daily labour cost of EUR 534 for EU personnel, and EUR 294 for staff in Member States, including 25% overhead costs. These labour costs are used in all calculations in this section unless otherwise indicated. 5.2.2.1. Estimates of administrative costs for obligations addressed to public authorities The simplification of registration procedures proposed in option 1 and 2 will initially result in higher costs for public authorities in Member States due to an increase in human resources to accommodate enhanced cooperation, but these costs will be partly offset by expected efficiencies for administrations. Some Member States have little information on voting available in non-national language(s), and/or do limited outreach to mobile EU voters. Implementing a requirement for communication measures or information provision will be more costly where the Member State has limited existing structures and experience in that regard but the investment may yield long-term benefits by fostering enhanced integration and thereby acting as an economic driver.

Regarding the improvement of information provision at EU level, the expansion of an existing service as outlined in option 1 would be most effective, building on Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 that established a single digital gateway. Furthermore, in the context of optimizing the system for exchange of personal data in prevention of multiple voting as suggested in option 1 and 2, resources would be needed for information exchange and system maintenance at national level, with a possible reduction in costs (at least in the medium-long term) due to improved cooperation and coordination with other Member States and the increased efficiency. Harmonisation of the data sets to be exchanged between Member States would be expected to significantly assist in the identification of voters who are present on multiple electoral rolls. The costs required would vary depending on the data already collected by Member States; where this would require a significant effort, the return-value in terms of aiding the data exchange process appear proportional. For instance, in cases where the electoral register is linked to the population register (as is e.g. the case for Sweden, Finland and Estonia), adjusting the information in datasets may not require a lot of effort as only one central register is used. Where registers are more decentralised, e.g. collated individually in municipalities (e.g. in Germany), a larger effort is required to ensure that all individual actors collect and transmit the correct data. It should also be noted that after a successful harmonisation of data, cost savings may be possible in Member States that currently have to carry out a lot of manual data matching as a result of receiving incorrect or inconclusive data (e.g. Romania). As outlined in policy option 2, setting deadlines for submission of data between Member States would be an important improvement in data exchange. However, the question of which deadline to set with does not have a straightforward answer, and may – depending on where it is placed in relation to national existing deadlines – incur either no extra costs, or significant costs. As it in many cases would require important legal changes in the Member States and an adaptation of electoral practices, costs would also be incurred in terms of time and effort in preparing legislation and adapting the procedures. Significant economic costs for Member States would arise if penalties or liability arises where there is non-compliance with specific legal obligations imposed in option 2. Estimates of administrative costs for obligations addressed to Member States’ public authorities Type of obligation Option 1: Reinforce measures Option 2: Reform the existing framework Obligations related to further reducing the technical possibilities of multiple voting Data set exchanged

To define a common data set, the information from electoral and population registers needs to be collected and linked. The costs involved for Member States will vary significantly and depend on their current data operation. In general, Member States with central electoral registers linked to the population register (e.g. SE, FI, EE) will face lower costs than Member States using decentralised registers (e.g. DE). Harmonisation of registration process The exact costs will vary between Member States and depend on the baseline situation, namely the distance to the new common deadline and whether legislative reform would be necessary. This may entail significant costs for Member States as deadlines currently vary widely. Increase mobile EU citizens’ awareness and understanding of procedures and practices to register and to participate in municipal elections and European elections Introduce specific information requirements for MS to inform mobile EU citizens prior to elections Member States will carry varying costs depending on their baseline situation, e.g. already have direct mailouts and information available and the number of mobile EU citizens they host. Overall, the possible costs for Member States across the EU-27 are estimated at around EUR 2.7 million with the highest costs in the significant countries of residence for mobile EU citizens, i.e. DE, ES, FR, IT. Reduce administrative barriers faced by mobile EU citizens when registering to vote and stand as candidates in municipal and European elections Standardised templates for the mandatory declaration available in all languages The preparation, translation of forms would take place at EU level. Therefore no costs is foreseen for Member States Automatic registration to municipal elections This would entail one-off and recurrent costs for Member States that may vary depending on whether voting registers and population register. Estimates of administrative costs for obligations addressed to EU public authorities Type of obligation Option 1: Reinforce measures Option 2: Reform the existing framework Increase mobile EU citizens’ awareness and understanding of procedures and practices to register and to participate in municipal elections and European elections Streamlined shared resource. The running costs of this resource, assuming it would be integrated in an existing structure such as the EDCC, would be between EUR 39,300 (baseline) and EUR 78,500 (assuming doubling of volume of enquiries). New resource specifically for electoral rights with support services Setting up a new resource will entail significant costs. It is feasible that they would exceed the costs for the helpdesk related to the EP elections 2019 (as part of the European Citizens’ initiative) of around EUR 500,000 over four years. Improve the collection of data for European elections and municipal elections ECNE meets to discuss how to best collect and share data The costs for one network meeting is estimated at around EUR 9,000, the total cost will depend on the number of meetings. Other costs are assumed to be minor. Collaboration between DG JUST, Eurostat and national statistical institutes to collet, harmonise and publish turnout data The additional costs in each Member State would vary. The costs for additional network meetings would range between EUR 19,080 (two additional annual meetings) and EUR 38,160 (four additional annual meetings). 5.2.2.2. Estimates of benefits for obligations addressed to public authorities Estimates of benefits for obligations addressed to Member States’ public authorities Type of benefit Option 1: Reinforce measures Option 2: Reform the existing framework Direct benefits Efficiencies in administration: Time Standardised templates available in all languages Exchange of data, long-term efficiencies in exchange due to cooperation and coordination Common starting period of the exchange and data set collected and exchanged: Higher accuracy and success rate in identification of double voters Harmonisation of process for registration Higher accuracy and success rate in identification of double voters Automatic registration to municipal elections No additional registration procedure/forms required Efficiencies in administration: Cost-reduction Exchange of data, long-term efficiencies in exchange due to cooperation and coordination Exchange of data, long-term efficiencies in exchange due to cooperation and coordination Promotion of exchange of good practices between Member States Reduced cost of having to develop own projects Indirect benefits Increased cohesion Better integration of mobile EU citizens (in general) Simplifying registration requirements and enhancing information provision and awareness raising on voting Better integration of mobile EU citizens (in general) Simplifying registration requirements and enhancing information provision and awareness raising on voting Improved data base/

quality of data Increased availability and accuracy of data for policy intervention Increased availability and accuracy of data for policy intervention Estimates of benefits for obligations addressed to EU public authorities Type of benefit Option 1: Reinforce measures Option 2: Reform the existing framework Direct benefits Integrity of elections Multiple voting is prohibited and reduced technical possibilities and better information of mobile EU citizens of multiple voting will lead to fewer occurrences. Increased cohesion Promotion of exchange of good practices between Member States Promotion of exchange of good practices between Member States Indirect benefits Better integration of mobile EU citizens (in general) Simplifying registration requirements and enhancing information provision and awareness raising on voting Better integration of mobile EU citizens (in general) Simplifying registration requirements and enhancing information provision and awareness raising on voting Improved data base/

quality of data Improve the collection of data for European elections and municipal elections Improve the collection of data for European elections and municipal elections 5.2.3 Fundamental rights impacts All the policy options beside the status quo lead to an improvement in the promotion of the rights to vote and to stand as a candidate, which are enshrined in Articles 39 and 40 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights respectively. Furthermore, the widespread implementation of procedures such as automated enrolment and permanent enrolment can reduce the burden on mobile EU citizens and therefore further facilitate the exercise of such rights.

The proposed revisions in policy options 1 and 2 would promote the principle of good administration, enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter, due to improved clarity and simplification of procedures, facilitated exchange of information and easier interactions between citizens and authorities. The processing, including collection, access and use of personal data falls under Article 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights on the right to data. Interference with this fundamental right must be based on law, respect the essence of this right as well as be necessary, proportionate and genuinely meet the objective of general interest recognised by the Union. The personal data would be collected for a specified purpose of preventing multiple voting and not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with this purpose. Only the minimum amount of personal data necessary to achieve the intended purpose of preventing multiple voting would be exchanged and these data would be kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects only as long as necessary. Also other principles and requirements of the relevant EU data protection acquis would be complied with, including ensuring the security of the personal data being exchanged in prevention of multiple voting. Removing the differences in treatment of mobile EU citizens when exercising their electoral rights as compared to nationals of the Member States of residence would be rooted in the prohibition of any discrimination on grounds of nationality as enshrined in Article 21(2) of the Charter. Additionally, Article 26 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights states that the Union recognises and respects the right of persons with disabilities to benefit from measures designed to ensure their independence, social and occupational integration and participation in the life of the community. This also include mobile EU citizens with disabilities. However, measures under Option 2 on automatic registration would appear disproportionate as it would mean that mobile EU citizens would be deprived of the discretion to choose whether they wish to be registered as a voter in a host Member State. In addition, it could expose them to sanctions in Member States where there is a legal obligation for registered voters to participate in elections while not being fully aware of it. Policy option 1 2 Impact Promotion of electoral rights ●●● ●●● Good administration ●● ●●● Equal treatment ●●● ●● Data protection ●●● ●●● 5.2.4 Subsidiarity As mentioned in section 1, action by Member States could not solve the problems identified for reasons ranging from a voluntary approach, spill-over effect or nature of the problems. One of the key elements of the right to vote and stand as candidates of mobile EU citizens is that it is connected with the exercise of free movement and by its nature involves multiple Member States. It is also one of the elements that form the European citizenship which in its turn is bound up with European democracy that European institutions must nurture and protect. EU action is therefore needed to eliminate the obstacles faced by mobile EU citizens and to support their participation in municipal elections and elections to the European Parliament. One other issue to be taken into account is the dynamics of the intra-EU mobility of Union citizens and the effect it has on the enjoymentEU citizenship and the electoral rights.. Separate interventions of host Member States addressing the participation of mobile EU citizens in elections, albeit best practices in the field, are not sufficient to respond to the challenges which the understanding of European citizenship and European democracy is confronted with. Mobile EU citizens should expect similar treatment of the exercise of their electoral rights from all Member States. While such a treatment cannot be fully harmonised because it would either infringe on exclusive competencies of member states or the action of EU would not achieve better results than that of the Member States, a group of uniform core elements, essential for the effectiveness of electoral rights can be envisaged. One of the main elements of policy option 1is access to electoral information as a key component of the electoral rights which stem from the European citizenship and thus are not a part of the electoral formalities within the purview of the Member States. Lack of adequate information affects in different degrees mobile EU citizens and public administrations as well as their interactions throughout the EU. The flow of electoral information between mobile EU citizens, Member States and EU institutions has to be addressed comprehensively at EU level and a Member States level in order to tackle simultaneously all the problems mobile EU citizens are confronted with in the exercise of their electoral rights, conflating proportionality considerations with subsidiarity. Another argument in the same direction is that Regulation 2018/1724 already sets quality lines for the provision of information on participating in elections to the European Parliament and in municipal elections by Member States on their national webpages. As the policy options envisage extending correspondingly the standards set out in Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 to the direct and individual provision of official electoral information to mobile EU citizens by the Member States, it does not affect their electoral competencies. Under the same group of fundamental elements underpinning the exercise of electoral rights, electoral rolls, which contain information on the eligible voters, act as an integrity safeguard, preventing individuals from voting more than once. Each voter can only be registered once, multiple registrations of the same voter for the same election being incompatible with the “one person, one vote” rule. In the case of elections to the European Parliament, the electoral territories of the Member States form in fact a single constituency, which means that electoral equality can be ensured only if the aforementioned rule applies. Due to the fact that overall electoral equality in elections to the European Parliament can only be tackled at the level of the contested constituency, both policy options which address multiple voting and de-registration of mobile EU citizens comply with the subsidiarity principle. Both policy options address the issue of the information provided by mobile EU citizens to host Member States for registration purposes. As the registration is followed by a cross-border exchange of information, establishing templates and data sets for this exchange is within the remit and better addressed by the European Union. However, imposing automatic registration of mobile EU citizens under Option 2 will have a significant impact on the electoral procedures of Member States that use active registration. At the same time, de-registration of mobile EU citizens from their home Member States is an issue better addressed at EU level due to its cross-border component and general implications on the effectiveness of the rights which make up the European citizenship. 6. How do the options compare? Based on the assessment of the likely various impacts (economic, social, security and fundamental rights impacts) and their distribution across stakeholders (citizens, businesses and public authorities) under previous section, this section compares the different options with regard to their effectiveness, efficiency and coherence with other (EU) policies. 6.1 Effectiveness Proposed scoring: ● Minor contribution towards objectives; ●● Major contribution, but without fully achieving objectives; ●●● Achieving objectives. Objective 1: Increase mobile EU citizens’ awareness and understanding of procedures and practices to register and to participate in municipal and European elections. Option 1 provides for both active obligations in the field of information provision and for direct support offered to the citizens at their request. The first measure would ensure that mobile EU citizens are proactively targeted with the same information that is shared with national citizens and in more than just one language. The second measure at EU level would rationalise existing support services for mobile EU citizens and national authorities. (Score: ●●●). Option 2 would create a new resource which could be helpful in channelling the communication resources from EU and Member States level specifically on electoral rights. However, it would risk to duplicate the efforts of Member States and EU, increase proliferation of sites and services and making it even harder for people to figure out where they can get help (Score: ●●).

Objective 2: Limit de-registration practices of Member States only to those elections in which there is a risk of multiple voting. In Option 1, a legal provision is proposed which would limit deregistration of mobile EU citizens only where necessary, as a result of EU election data exchanges to ensure its non-occurrence and put procedures in place accordingly. (Score ●●●) Objective 3: Reduce the administrative barriers faced by mobile EU citizens when registering to vote and to stand as candidates in municipal as well as European elections Option 1 contains measures that seek to simplify the administrative steps by providing for the use of a standardised form available in all languages. (Score ●●) Finally, Option 2 includes a measure that would require automatic registration for municipal elections, in addition to the standardised form. For the reasons discussed above, by removing active registration, this should contribute to increased reducing barriers and the effort required to vote. (Score ●●●) Objective 4: Reduce the possibilities of multiple voting by mobile EU citizens for European elections. Option 1 includes measures to reduce multiple voting providing a distinct improvement on the current situation, as it increases the chances that the information exchanged is sufficient to correctly identify voters in home Member State electoral rolls. Imposing an obligation for Member States to inform EU citizens about prohibition of multiple voting in a personalised manner might have beneficial effects. (Score ●●) Option 2 goes further in minimising the technical possibilities of multiple voting and seek to address the most significant issues faced by Member States in preventing it (Score ●●●) Objective 5: Improve the collection of data for European elections and municipal elections Option 1 envisages that based on the standardised templates of the formal declarations required to register as a voter and as a candidate, data collection in Member States would improve. More granular information will be available both for elections to the European Parliament and municipal elections (Score ●●). In Option 2 the harmonised processes and fixed data to be collected by Member States would ensure not only that more data are available but that they are available at the same time. This would not have an important impact on the transparency of the elections to the European Parliament or in supporting policy intervention as Member States usually provide access to electoral information either at the date it becomes available or within a reasonable timeline. (Score ●●) Objective 6: Ensure that mobile EU citizens have the same possibilities to stand for candidates in municipal elections Measures in Option 1, would not be expected to effectively address the equal opportunities of mobile EU citizens to stand as candidates. This would mean that political change is down to political will and offers little impetus for Member States to change the status quo. (Score ●) Option 2’s legal requirement entails the clearest non-discrimination measure, and directly addresses the issue. While such restrictions are not in place in most Member States, it represents a major improvement in cases where restrictions are in place. A smaller additional effect on turnout may be found in the measure to remove the possibility to restrict certain mandates to home nationals. While it is uncertain to what extent this will lead to more mobile EU citizens standing for election, a more diverse pool of candidates could have a minor positive effect on voter participation, with mobile EU citizens feeling more represented in the election (Score ●●●). 6.2 Efficiency Proposed scoring: ● Considerable additional costs or effort, non-proportionate to the benefits and with difficult implementation; ●● Neutral or small increase in costs, proportionate to the additional benefits; ●●● Any increases in costs are outweighed by the benefits. Option 1 is successful in achieving the objectives, and where costs are implied, they are proportional to or outweighed by the expected benefits of the measures. Establishing a common dataset would be a significant measure to address the information mismatches that occur in the ongoing data exchange. The costs and effort for Member States will depend on what information they currently collect, and how it is processed. However, as newly-registered mobile EU voters already have to supply certain information items, it does not seem unreasonable to provide additional pieces of information. This measure may also carry cost-saving effects for Member States as recipients of the information, if they can spend less time on manually matching incomplete or inconclusive information. Together with the measures discussed in the paragraph above, these measures collectively make good progress towards the objective of preventing multiple voting. The costs and effort of the final measures in Option 1 largely depend on their scope and design. The measure which foreseen to streamline existing resources does not appear to carry significant costs; on the Member State end, no additional effort would be expected. For the two measures intending to support awareness of electoral rights, the associated effort will depend on the current baseline in Member States (as shown in Table 1 in Annex 1). Clarifying the requirement to inform mobile EU citizens of the effects of registration on their home Member State electoral rights would not be expected to increase efforts, as this could be communicated (and generally is) in connection with the registration form, and would contribute to the objective of ensuring that mobile EU citizens are aware of their rights and responsibilities. Finally, the obligation to inform citizens in a personalised and individual manner will lead to the most differentiated costs and effort between Member States. First, it would depend on the extent to which Member States already have some form of direct communication in place to inform EU citizens (see Table 1 of Annex 1); In Member States that do not have such communication in place, the cost would depend significantly on how their population registers are organised, namely information on the nationality and current address. Furthermore, this information needs to be communicated betwee