WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1046/96 by José BARROS MOURA to the Council. Right to vote in local elections in Luxembourg
Date: 1996-05-20
Institutions: BARROS MOURA, European Parliament
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union, EU law, EU national, European Commission, Luxembourg, interpretation of the law, local election, nationality, right to vote













EUR-Lex - 91996E1046 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1046

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1046/96 by José BARROS MOURA to the Council. Right to vote in local elections in Luxembourg  


Official Journal C 385 , 19/12/1996 P. 0003 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1046/96 by José Barros Moura (PSE) to the Council (20 May 1996)Subject: Right to vote in local elections in LuxembourgArticle 1 of the Luxembourg law of 28 December 1995 uses the derogation provided for in Article 12(a) of Council Directive 94/80/EC ((OJ L 368, 31.12.1994, p. 38. ))requiring a minimum of six years' residence and domicile in the last seven years. This law came into force on 1 January 1996, and Article 5 (indent 4) thereof lays down that any request to be entered in the electoral roll must be submitted 'avant le 1er avril de l'année en cours'. Finally, the electoral census law lays down that elections are to be held on the basis of the electoral rolls revised during the year prior to the elections.Taking these regulations in conjunction with the six years of residence which have to have elapsed before the voter can be put on the electoral roll on 1 April, it would be necessary to add the whole period up until the elections of the following year.Taking into account that the Luxembourg local elections are scheduled to take place in September 1999, the six years in question would in fact be seven and a half!The derogation provided for under Article 12(a) of the Directive fixes a maximum period for prior residence which the Member State in question is entitled to demand ('minimum period which may not be longer'). The Luxembourgish law, or its interpretation, therefore needs to be made compatible with the Directive.I would therefore ask what interpretation or assessment should be made of the Luxembourgish law, bearing in mind that it can not violate the Directive which, moreover, forbids the Member States to adopt measures which are not 'adequate, necessary or proportional' to the objectives pursued, or are contrary to the Treaty and the general principles of law (Article 5(3))?What measures is the Council going to take to prevent what would be a serious violation of the EU Treaty and a practical denegation of European citizenship and yet another case of discrimination exacerbating the exceptional arrangements already in force for Luxembourg?Reply (29 October 1996)The Council would remind the Honourable Member that it is for the Court of Justice alone to interpret Community law and that it falls to the Commission to watch over the proper implementation and/or transposition of Community law into national law, taking any legal action if it deems it necessary, against Member States which it considers not to be complying with that law.The Council would also draw the Honourable Member's attention to the reply that Mr Monti gave on 2 July 1996 on behalf of the Commission to the same question.