Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of Directive 93/109/EC - Voting rights of EU citizens living in a Member State of which they are not nationals in European Parliament elections
Date: 1998-01-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU national, European election, European electoral system, right to stand for election, right to vote

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels,  07.01.1998 
COM(97) 731 final 

REPORT  FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE 

COUNCIL ON THE APPLICATION OF DIRECTIVE 93/109/EC 

Voting rights  of EU citizens living in a Member State of which they are not nationals 

in European Parliament elections 

EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY 

Council  Directive  93/109/EC  was  applied  by  all  the  Member  States  to  the  June 
1994  EP  elections.  Sweden,  Austria  and  Finland  also  applied  it  to  their  first  EP 
elections held  in the course  of  1995 and  1996. On this basis, circa 4.471.647  eligible 
Union  citizens resident  in a Member  State  of which they  are not  nationals  were  able 
take to part in the elections in their Member State of residence, if they so wished. 

A low  turnout 

However, the results of the June  1994 election highlighted two shortcomings  in the 
participation  of  non-national  Union  citizens.  First  and  foremost  there  was  a  lack  of 
information  about  the  new  rights.  Secondly  there  was  a  dramatically  low  rate  of 
successful  non-national  candidates.  Participation  of  non-national  voters  in  the 
Member  State  of  residence  varied  between  44.11%  in  Ireland  where  this  right  had 
been available  since  1979, to  1.55%  in Greece. The aggregate turnout of  non-national 
Union  citizens  in  the  Fifteen  was  of  about  5.87%.  Only  one  non-national  candidate 
was  elected  in  her  Member  State  of  residence.  These  figures  should  be  considered 
alongside  the  continuing  steady  decline  in  national  voter  participation  in  European 
Parliament elections, from  63.0% in  1979 to 56.5% in 1994. 

Implementation 

The  Commission  has  completed  the  analysis  of  the  implementation  laws  and 
concluded that on the whole the directive was satisfactorily  implemented  by  Member 
States.  At  the  Commission's  request  a  number  of  minor  adjustments 
to  the 
implementation  laws  have  been  carried  out  by  the  Member  States.  Considering  the 
most recent population figures, the derogation awarded to Luxembourg  with regard  to 
a  minimum  residence  period  should  be  confirmed  for  the  next  European  Parliament 
elections. 

On  the  basis  of  that  analysis,  the  Commission  submits  that  at  this  stage,  the 
Directive  itself  does  not  need  to  be  changed.  This  being  said,  the  Commission 
considers that improvements in its application should be carried out by Member  States 
specifically  with regards to Articles  12 and  13, with a view to increase participation  of 
non-national  voters  and  candidates  and  to  fine  tune  the  mechanism  for  the  exchange 
of  information  between  the  Member  States  on  EU  citizens  wishing  to  vote  in  their 
Member State of residence: 

Information campaign 

Member  States  should  substantially  increase  their  efforts  to  inform  their  non-
national  EU residents  as provided  by Article  12 of the Directive.  This  is  particularly 
the  case  for  those  Member  States  that  do  not  contact  their  EU  citizens  individually 
and make use of administrative posting only. 

1 

For its part the Commission, together with the European Parliament, will continue 
to provide detailed  information  on how electoral rights should be exercised building 
on the Citizens First information initiative and the oncoming Citizens Dialogue. 

The exchange of information 

In order to curb the double vote, Article  13 requires Member  States to exchange 
information  about  their  nationals  voting  in  their  Member  State  of  residence.  The 
Commission  submits that  substantial improvements  in the application  of the current 
provisions should be carried out. 

In  order  to  achieve  this  the  Commission's  services  are  presently  working  with 
Member  States  in order to  improve administrative  co-operation.  The  objective  is to 
find a reliable,  flexible  and cost-effective  way which  will  enable Member  States to 
exchange information  about their nationals voting in the Member  State of residence, 
in time to introduce modifications to their electoral rolls and in the respect of the rules 
on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data. 

The participation in the political process prior to elections 

Although not  foreseen  by a specific  provision of the directive, in order to ensure 
that the right to  stand as a candidate is more widely  enjoyed  by non-national  EU, it 
appears important to facilitate their participation in the political life  of their Member 
State of residence. 

The  role  of  political  parties,  both  at  national  and  European  level  is  of  course 
paramount towards the achievement of this goal. But efforts  should also be deployed 
at national  level to remove any potential  obstacles to the political  activity  of Union 
citizens. 

The Commission for  its part will fulfil  its role as guardian of the Treaty and take 
all the necessary steps towards ensuring that discrimination on the basis of nationality 
does not  hinder Union citizens from presenting their candidature. 

4<x 

TABLE  OF CONTENTS 

Introduction 

1. 

2. 

The situation prior to the entry into force of the Directive 

The scope of Article 8B(2) CE  and the objectives of Directive 93/109 

Chapter  I  : T HE  JUNE 1994  ELECTIONS 

3. 

The information  campaign 

3.1 

The duty to  inform 

3.2 

The  implementation 

3.3 

The role of the European  institutions 

4. 

Who is entitled to participate and the conditions for the exercise of these 
rights 

4.1 

Entry into the electoral roll 

4.2  Maintenance in the electoral roll 

4.3 

The disqualification  rule 

CHAPTER  II  :  EVALUATION  OF THE APPLICATION  OF THE  DIRECTIVE 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

The participation of non-national voters and candidates 

Reasons for low turnout 

The exchange of information  between Member States 

Derogations and transitional  provisions 

CHAPTER  III:  CONCLUSIONS 

9. 

Suggested  improvements to the application of the directive 

INTRODUCTION 

Voting  rights  in  European  Parliament  elections  and  in  local  elections  in  the 
Member  State of residence  are one of the most  important  new entitlements  conferred 
on all nationals  of the Member  States by the Treaty of Maastricht.  Taking part, in the 
democratic process of the host Member State on an equal footing  as nationals not only 
embodies  the  idea of a citizenship  of the Union as a set of common values  shared  by 
all but it also strengthens, on an individual basis the integration of the Union citizen in 
the host Member State1. 

The  first  application  of  these  new  rights,  to  the  June  1994  European  Parliament 
elections  enabled  circa 4.471.647  eligible  Union  citizens  resident  in  a Member  State 
other than their  own to take part in the elections, if they  so wished.  Those residing  in 
the three new Member  States soon followed  suit as the first  ever European  Parliament 
elections were held on  17 September  1995 in Sweden and on  13 and 20 October  1996 
in Austria and Finland. 

Objective  of  the present  report  is to  evaluate  the  application  of  Council  Directive 
93/109/EC  of  6  December  1993  which  lays  down  detailed  arrangements  for  the 
exercise  of  the  right  to  vote  and  to  stand  as  a  candidate  in  European  Parliament 
elections  for  Union  citizens  resident  in  a  Member  State  of  which  they  are  not 
nationals2. 

It  briefly  explains  the  main  principles  behind  the  directive  and  relates  on  the 
procedures applicable in the Fifteen  on the basis of which non-national residents were 
able to participate in the elections. It analyses how the implementation  laws interacted 
with  national  legislation  in the respect  of the principle  of non-discrimination.  Finally 
it evaluates how the electorate responded  and explores avenues of improvement  in the 
application of the Directive. 

The  Commission  would  like  to  take  this  opportunity  to  thank  Member  States  for 
providing  information  for  the  presentation  of this  report.  During  the  course  of  1995, 
two meetings  with  experts of the Member  States were held under the auspices of the 
Commission  and  bilateral  contacts continued during the course of  1996. The contents 
of the six tables annexed to this report have been reviewed by the Member States. 

1.  The situation prior  to the entry into force  of the Directive 

Before  the  introduction  of  the  directive  most  Member  States  allowed  their 
expatriate  citizens  to  vote  in  European  Parliament  elections  through  proxy  or  at 
consulates  and  embassies  whilst  voting  rights  were  extended  to  non-nationals  EU 
citizens in four Member  States only. 

Cf.  2nd Report  of the Commission  on citizenship  of the Union,  COM  (97) 230 of 27  May 
1997 

OJ  L 329/34  of 30.12.1993. Article  16 of the Directive  provides  for the Commission  to 
submit  a report  by 31 December  1995 on the June  1994 EP elections  only.  But in order  to 
allow  for  a global  evaluation  of the application  of the  Directive  including  in the three  new 
Member  States, the presentation  of the report was  postponed. 

In Ireland, nationals of another Member State have been able to vote since the  first 
elections by direct universal  suffrage  of  1979. The Netherlands  granted  the right to 
vote to its non-national *EU residents who had lost their voting rights due to residence 
abroad. In Belgium, nationals of other Member States could vote provided that they 
had been in the population register  for  at least three years and had lost their voting 
rights in their home Member State on account of their residence in Belgium. Lastly, 
all  Irish  nationals  and  Commonwealth  citizens  had  the right to  vote  in  the  United 
Kingdom. 

As far  as the right to  stand as a candidate was concerned, prior to the  Directive 
only  two  Member  States  allowed  non-nationals  to  stand  as  candidates  in  their 
territory.  Italy  welcomed  nationals  of  all  Member  States  to  stand  for  election 
regardless  of  their  residence  since  1979  and  the  United  Kingdom  allows  Irish 
nationals to stand as candidates. 

2.  The scope of Article 8B (2) of the EC Treaty and the objectives set out in 

Directive 93/109 

In granting the right to vote and to stand as a candidate to Union citizens resident 
in another Member State, Article 8 B of the EC Treaty does not seek to harmonise 
electoral laws of the Member States but merely to eliminate the nationality condition 
which, in most cases, meant that Union citizens did not enjoy electoral rights outside 
their own  Member State. 

Similarly, its provisions and implementation are without prejudice to the uniform 
electoral procedure provided for  in Article 138 (3) of the EC Treaty.  Article  8B is 
concerned  exclusively  with  extending  electoral rights to  Union  citizens  resident  in 
another Member State, under the same conditions as nationals of that State, whereas 
Article 138 (3) aims to introduce, throughout the Union, a set of common rules on the 
basis  of which  EP elections  are to be held. These concern,  for  instance,  the voting 
system,  the  scrutiny  of  members'  credentials,  the  rules  on  incompatibility,  the 
allocation of seats and other matters. 

Existing electoral rights are also unaffected by the provisions of Article  8B (2). 

Members States retain their competence to maintain or grant electoral rights to third 
country  nationals  residing  in  their  territory.  Similarly,  the  rules  governing  the 
exercise of voting rights by expatriate Union citizens in favour  of their own national 
candidates through embassies, consulates or by proxy, are expressly outside the scope 
of the Directive. 

In pursuing  the  aims  set  out  by  Article  8B  (2), Directive  93/109  laid  down  the 
principles under which EU citizens resident in another Member State may exercise 
their  rights  in  their  Member State  of  residence  provided  that  they fulfil  the 
conditions imposed by the electoral law of that Member State with regard to its own 
nationals. These principles are: 

•  The freedom  of  choice  - Union  citizens  are  free  to  choose  whether  to  exercise 

their rights in their Member State of origin or in that of residence. 

•  A  single  vote  and  a  single  candidature  -  No  one  may  vote  or  stand  as  a 
candidate in more than one Member  State in the same EP election. By opting to  vote 
or to stand in one Member  State, the EU citizen automatically  loses the same right in 
the  other  Member  State.  In  order  to  avoid  double  voting  and  double  candidature, 
Member States exchange information on citizens exercising their rights abroad. 

•  First  entry  into  the  electoral  roll  in  the  Member  State  of  residence  by 
application  only  -  EU  citizens  wishing  to  exercise  their  franchise  in  their  Member 
State of residence must apply to be entered on the electoral roll. 

•  Equal  access  to  electoral  rights  -  On  the  basis  of  the  principle  of  non 
discrimination  EU  citizens  aie  to  benefit  from  electoral  rights  under  the  same 
conditions as nationals of the State of residence. This includes, for example, access to 
the same appeal procedures with regard to omission or errors in the electoral roll or in 
the application to  stand  as a candidate or an obligation to vote extended  to  registered 
non-nationals.  Similarly, once on the electoral roll, the EU citizen remains on it under 
the same conditions as nationals or until he/she requests to be removed. 

•  Extra territorial  effect of the rules of disqualification of candidates  - No  one 
deprived of the right to stand as a candidate in his/her Member  State of origin may be 
elected to the European Parliament in his/her Member State of residence. 

•  A duty to inform - In order to ensure that Community  voters living in a Member 
State  other  than  their  own  are  made  aware  of  their  new  entitlements,  the  Directive 
imposes  an  obligation  on  the  Member  State  of  residence  to  inform  its  Community 
residents,  "in  good  time and  in an appropriate manner" of the  ways  in  which their 
rights may be exercised 

•  Derogations  only  if  warranted  by  a  specific  situation  in  a  Member  State  -
Article 8B exceptionally  allows for derogations to the principle  of equal treatment  to 
be  introduced  where  warranted  by  the  specific  situation  in  a  Member  State.  The 
Directive  contains  two  derogations.  The  first  one  relates  to  minimum  residence 
requirements  that  may  be  imposed  on non-nationals  by  those  Member  States  whose 
proportion  of  non-national  EU  citizens  exceeds  20% of  enfranchised  Union  citizens. 
The  second  one  concerns  those  Member  States  in  which  EU  residents  have  already 
taken  part  in  national  elections  and  to  that  effect  were  entered  on  the  electoral  roll 
under  exactly  the  same conditions  as nationals.  The  Directive  allows  these  Member 
States to refrain  from  applying some of its provisions in respect of such nationals. 

•  Transitional provisions  applicable  only  to  the June  1994  elections:  The  four 
transitional provisions concern the formalities  required for  entry into the electoral  roll 
and the presentation  of candidatures  already underway  in some Member  States  at the 
time of the adoption of the Directive. Their insertion was dictated by the need to cope 
with the limited time available between the adoption  of the Directive  and the  holding 
of the 4,h direct elections to the European Parliament. 

CHAPTER I:  THE JUNE  1994  ELECTIONS 

National rules prevail 

Pending  the  adoption  of  a  uniform  electoral  procedure,  European  Parliament 
elections  are  governed  by  national  legislation,  by  the  1976  Act  concerning  the 
elections  of  the  representatives  of  the  European  Parliament  by  direct  universal 
suffrage3  and  finally  by  the  provisions  of  Article  8B  (2)  and  by  those  of  directive 
109/93 which implements them. 

The  1994 elections  to  the  European  Parliament  were  held  on  9 June  in  Denmark, 
Ireland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom and on  12 June in Belgium, Greece, 
Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Luxembourg and Portugal. 

The  Accession  Act  provided  for  the  new  Member  States  to  hold  their  first 
European  Parliament  elections  by  direct  universal  suffrage  within  the  first  two  years 
following  accession4. Sweden chose to elect its representatives  on  17 September  1995 
whereas  Austria  and  Finland  held  their  first  EP  elections  in  the  course  of  1996, 
namely on the  13th and 20th October respectively. 

All twelve  Member  States  implemented  the provisions  of Directive  93/109  within 
the  prescribed  deadline  and  in  time  for  the  June  1994  elections.  The  three  new 
Member  States  adopted  the  necessary  provisions  by  1996  and  applied  them  in  their 
first  EP  elections.  Detailed  references  to  all  implementation  laws  may  be  found  in 
Table 6, annexed. 

3.  The information  campaign 

3.1 

A duty to inform 

The obligation  set out  in Article  12 of the Directive  to inform  EU citizens  in good 
time and  in an appropriate  manner,  leaves Member  States free  to decide how to  carry 
out  the  information  campaign.  The  objective  is  of  course  to  mobilise  expatriates 
sufficiently  in advance  in order to allow them to request  their entry  into  the  electoral 
roll or, in the case of candidates, to allow them to fulfil  the necessary  requirements to 
present their candidature. 

The need  for  an effective  information  campaign was underlined  from  the outset by 
the  European  Parliament  whose  members  adopted  resolutions  calling  for  an 
appropriate  information  campaign  and  for  "...Union  citizens  to  be  informed  on  the 
same  basis  as  nationals  of  the  Member  States  and  in  particular  to  receive  letters  of 
the  period  of 
in  person 
notification  addressed 

..."5.  Throughout 

them 

to 

3 
4 
5 

OJL  278 of  8.10.1976 
Art 31 ( 1) and (2) of the Act of Accession  in OJC241/27 of 29.8.1994 
Resolution  B3-0064/94of 20 January  1994 on  Voting  Rights  for  citizens  of the  Union  in 

implementation  a number  of petitions  and  written  and  oral  questions  were  presented 
by MEPs focusing  on the access of non-nationals to their new rights and notably  their 
right to be  informed. 

3.2 

Its implementation 

Generally  speaking,  for  the  June  1994  EP  election,  Member  States  chose  one  of 
two  approaches  : To  carry  out  an  information  campaign  addressed  to  the  public  in 
general or to forward  individual letters to registered Union citizens. 

In the first  category were Belgium, France, Spain, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, 
Portugal,  Austria  and  the  United  Kingdom.  In  these  Member  States,  an  information 
campaign  was  initiated  by  the  central  government  but  the  final  responsibility  for 
relaying the information  to the general public was left  to local authorities. In some of 
these  Member  States  these  authorities  took  it  upon  themselves  to  address  voters 
personally 
in  some 
municipalities of Belgium and in some German Lander. 

through  direct  mailing.  This  was  the  case  for 

instance 

Table  1 indicates  by  Member  State,  the  measures  adopted  to  inform  the  public. 
They  ranged  from  press  releases  and the distribution  of  leaflets  in various  languages 
to  compulsory  posting  ofpublic  notices. Throughout  the Union television  appears  to 
have played a minor role in diffusing  the  information. 

Other  Member  States  adopted  the  second  approach  and  informed  registered 
Community  voters  of  their  rights  through  direct  mailing.  This  was  the  case  in 
Luxembourg  where  an  information  leaflet  was  published  in  5  languages  and 
forwarded  to  all  residents.  In  Denmark,  Sweden  and  Finland  individual  letters 
containing  a brief explanation of the new rights as well as an application to vote were 
addressed  to  all  eligible  EU  residents  three  to  six  months  before  polling  day.  In 
Northern  Ireland  an  information  leaflet  was  distributed  to  every  household.  Finally, 
the Netherlands,  in  accordance  with  Article  15 c  of  the  Directive,  forwarded  a  letter 
informing  all registered EU citizens that they would be entered on the Dutch  electoral 
roll unless they specifically  opted to vote in their Member State of origin. 

Private  associations  and  businesses  also  contributed  on  a voluntary  basis  to  relay 
the  information  to  the  public.  Such  campaigns  were  carried  out  in  Belgium,  Spain, 
France, Germany, Luxembourg where migrant organisations were particularly  active. 

In  the  course  of  the  evaluation  meetings  of  experts  of  the  Commission  and  the 
Member  States  it  emerged  that  there  was  awareness  of  the  advantages  of  addressing 
information  directly  to  EU  citizens.  Two  Member  States  in  particular,  Portugal  and 
Spain,  indicated  that they  were  considering  reinforcing  such contacts  for  the next EP 
elections  whereas  the  United  Kingdom  and  Ireland  due  to  the  lack  of  a  central 
population register are unable to introduce such a system. 

European  Parliament elections, OJ C 44 of  14.2.1994, p. 159 and Resolution  B3-0433/94 on 
obstacles to, and discrimination  against,«EU citizens participating  in the European  elections, 
OJC  128of9.5.1994,p.316: 

In evaluating  the  importance  of the  information  campaign  it  should  be  considered 
that  June  1994  was  the  first  time  in  most  Member  States  when  non-nationals  had 
access to  voting  rights. EU citizens  were not necessarily  aware of the  ways  in  which 
the  new  entitlements  could  be  exercised  as  they  inevitably  differed  from  the  ones 
applying in their own Member States of origin. Moreover, the strict deadlines  between 
the date of  implementation  of the  Directive  (6 February  1994) and  polling  day  (9-12 
June  1994) made it difficult  to relay adequate information  on the new entitlements. 

On the basis  of the above  it can be concluded  that  delegating  the  responsibility  to 
inform  citizens to the local level although it allows to pitch the campaign to particular 
needs,  does  not  always  ensure  that  the  information  is  accessible  in  an  equal  manner 
throughout  the  country.  Direct  mailing  on  the  other  hand  ensures  an  even  handed 
approach  and has the advantage of making the non-national  citizen  aware  in due time 
not  only  of  the  existence  of  a right  but  also  of the conditions  under  which  it  can  be 
exercised. This method should therefore  be encouraged. 

Non-governmental  organisations  also contribute to mobilise  the  EU electorate  and 
their  participation  in  the  information  effort  should  be  encouraged  through  financial 
aid. In Germany  for  instance, it was found that registration levels were higher in those 
regions where direct mailing was combined  with an effective  campaign  on the part of 
private organisations. 

3.3 

The role of the European institutions 

In the  1994  EP  elections, the  campaign  to  inform  EU  citizens  of  their  new  rights 

was carried out mainly by the Member States6. 

In  its  effort  to  monitor  the  impact  of  the  rights  flowing  from  citizenship  of  the 
Union,  in  June  1995 the  Commission  carried  out  an  opinion  poll  via  Eurobarometer 
addressing  a  number  of  questions  related  to  the  awareness  and  the  emotional 
attachment to citizenship of the Union as well as to rights attached to  it7. 

Concerning  the  right  to  vote  in  European  elections  in  the  Member  State  of 
residence,  82%  of  interviewees  were  aware  of  this  right.  The  highest  scores  were 
registered  in  Germany  and  in the Netherlands  (89%) whereas  the  lowest  scores  were 
registered  in Greece (64% ). 

The right  to  stand  as a candidate  in the Member  State of residence  was  familiar  to 
76%) of interviewees  with the highest  score registered  in Luxembourg  (82% ) and the 
lowest  again  registered  in Greece with  56%. Twelve per cent of interviewees  thought 
that  there  was  no  right  to  vote  in  the  Member  State  of  residence  whereas  16%  were 

The EP published  a booklet on the right to vote in the Member State of residence which 
contained  an overview of the electoral  laws in the various Member  States which was made 
available through the press offices  of the Parliament  in the different  Member  States 
(Infomemo:  special elections  18 May  1994.) 
The opinion  poll was conducted  on the basis of 500 telephone  interviews  in every  Member 
State. 

persuaded  that  European  citizens  could  not  stand  as  candidates  outside  their  own 
Member State. 

Although  purely  indicative  these  results  show that  efforts  still  need  to  be made  in 
order to ensure that the European electorate is fully  informed  of one of the basic rights 
deriving from  citizenship of the Union. 

4. 

Who is entitled to participate  and the conditions for  the exercise of this 
right. 

The following  are entitled to vote and stand as candidates in their Member  State of 

residence provided they express a wish to do so: 

•  Citizens of the Union who are not nationals of their Member State of residence; 
•  who fulfil  the conditions to vote and stand applicable to nationals of that State; and 
•  who are not deprived of their rights in their Member State of origin. 

4.1 

The first application to enter on to the electoral roll 

"A Community voter exercises his right to vote in the Member State of residence if 
he  has  expressed  the  wish  to  do  so".  This  provision  is  translated  in  practice  by  the 
need  for  the  EU  citizen  to  request  to  be  entered  on the  electoral  roll  of  his  Member 
State of residence. 

This  obligation  may  appear  to  be  discriminatory  in  those  Member  States  where 
entry  into the electoral roll is carried out automatically  for nationals, on the basis of a 
population register for  instance8. But it should be considered that such an  application, 
requested  only  for  the  first  entry  into  the  roll,  in  fact  safeguards  the  EU  citizen's 
freedom  to  choose  whether  or  not  to  participate  in  the  electoral  process  of  his/her 
Member State of residence. 

For  the  1994  elections,  with  the  exception  of  Ireland,  the  Netherlands  and  the 
United  Kingdom,  Member  States  entered  their  EU  residents  on  the  electoral  roll  on 
the basis of an application. 

Ireland  benefited  from  the  transitional  provision  enshrined  in  Article  15(a)  as  its 
EU residents were entered  on the  electoral  roll before  the Directive was adopted.  The 
Netherlands  under  Article  15  (c)  was  entitled  to  maintain  its  national  system  of 
automatic  registration  on  the  basis  of  the  population  register  for  the  1994  elections9 
and the United Kingdom and again Ireland, on the basis of the derogation  provided  for 
in  Article  14  (2),  received  dispensation  from  registration  formalities  for  their 
respective  nationals  as  these  citizens  were  already  able  to  take  part  in  national 
elections. 

Automatic registration  is in fact the rule in all Member  States with the exception  of Greece, 
France and  Portugal 
Cf.  infra  paragraph 9 

The  application  to  enter  into  the  electoral  roll  must  be  made  on  the  basis  of  a 
formal  declaration  containing  the  voter's  nationality  and  address  and,  where 
applicable, the  last  constituency  in his  Member  State  of origin.  The  EU  voter  is also 
requested  to  state  that  s/he  will  exercise  his/her  vote  in  his/her  Member  State  of 
residence only. A false  statement is punished in all the Member  States either by a fine 
or  a  term  of  imprisonment.  Possible  sanctions,  however,  differ  greatly  from  one 
Member  State  to  another  ranging  from  8  days  to  8  years  imprisonment  or  the 
equivalent  fine  (cf.  Tables  1 for  voters and  3 for  candidates). If voting  is  compulsory 
in the Member  State of residence, Community  voters who have expressed  the wish to 
do so are obliged to vote. This is the case in Belgium, Luxembourg and Greece. 

A  review  of  the  application  of  the  different  criteria  that  have  to  be  met  by  EU 

citizens shows the  following: 

The  nationality  criterion:  Besides  the  indication  of  the  voter's  nationality,  three 
Member  States  require  candidates  to  indicate  the  date  from  which  they  have  been 
nationals of a Member State.  However the only instance, where this criterion is linked 
to the exercise of the right to stand as a candidate is in Germany. Here, nationals must 
have held German nationality  for at least one year, on the day of the election,  whereas 
other  Union  citizens,  in  accordance  to  Article  3(2)  of  the  Directive,  are  deemed  to 
have  met  this  condition  if they  have  been  nationals  of  a Member  State  for  the  same 
period10 thereby meeting the requirement of non-discrimination. 

Proof  of  identity:  Articles  9(3) and  10(3) of the Directive  allow  Member  States to 
introduce  the  option  of  requesting  the  production  of  a  valid  identity  document  for 
enrolment  of  voters  and  application  for  candidates.  Only  six  Members  States  made 
use  of  this  option,  the  remaining  preferring  to  rely  on  the  citizen's  declaration  (cf. 
Table 5 ) 

The concern of the Commission's  services  in this case was geared toward  ensuring 
that  Union  citizens  were  effectively  allowed  to  enter  in  the  electoral  roll  simply  by 
producing  a  valid  identity  document  issued  by  their  own  national  authorities.  An 
example of the above is the adoption by Spain of Real Decreto  157/1996 that removes 
the obligation  for  Union  citizens  to produce  a Spanish  residence  permit  to  gain  entry 
on the electoral roll. 

The residence  criterion:  In  the  absence  of  a  definition  of  residence  either  in  the 
Treaty or in the text of the Directive, it is up to Member States themselves to apply, in 
a non-discriminatory  way, to their  nationals and to Union citizens  alike, the  residence 
concept as it flows  from  their own national  legislation. 

Section 6b §1 (l)and  § 2(1) of the European  Elections Act-EuWG. Consequently  non-
German  candidates are required  to submit to the returning officer  along with the  nomination 
a statutory  declaration  as to the length  of time for which they have been  nationals of one of 
the other  Member States of the European  Union (cf.  section  11(2) of the European  Elections 
Act-EuWG) 

The Directive however does contain  a provision on the subject.  In order to avoid a 
requirement  by  Member  States  that  all  electors  should  complete  a  residence  period 
which in practice could be attained easily be nationals but only with difficulty  by non-
nationals,  Article  5 indicates  that  a requirement  of a minimum  residence  period  may 
be  deemed  to  have  been  fulfilled  by  non-nationals  if  they  resided  for  an  equivalent 
period  in  another  Member  State.  This provision  is to  apply  without  prejudice  to  any 
specific  condition  as to the length of residence  in a given constituency  as long as this 
is applied in a non-discriminatory  way. 

Accordingly,  in  Germany,  the  residence  period  of  three  months  required  from 
nationals  and non-national  residents  is deemed to be fulfilled  by the latter  if the  same 
period  was  spent  in  another  Member  State  of  the  European  Union11. But  in  France, 
nationals  and  community  voters  alike  are  subject  to  a  six  month  residence  period  if 
they  choose  to  enrol  in  the  commune  where  they  elect  their  residence  whereas  no 
residence  period  is  requested  if  they  enrol  in  the  commune  of  their  domicile12.  In 
Northern Ireland, nationals and non-nationals alike are subject to a three month period 
of residence in the constituency before they may vote. 

The  application  of  the  rule  of  equal  treatment  as  far  as the  residence  condition  is 
concerned  also  means  that  Community  voters  benefit  from  the  same  treatment  as 
nationals  if the  latter  are allowed,  for  instance, to exercise their electoral  rights  in the 
place  of their  secondary  residence.  An  example  of  such may  be  found  in  the  French 
legislation  which  allows  nationals  and  non-nationals  alike  to  enrol,  under  certain 
conditions  in  the  municipality  of  their  secondary  residence,  provided  of  course  that 
the Community nationals are effectively  resident somewhere else in French territory13. 

4.2  Maintenance on the electoral roll 

Once  entered  on the electoral  roll  of their  Member  State of residence,  EU  citizens 
remain on it, under the same conditions as nationals, until they request to be removed 
from  it  or  until  they  are  automatically  removed  because  they  no  longer  fulfil  the 
necessary  residence  conditions.  This  is  a  particularly  important  provision  of  the 
Directive  which  in  fact  enables  Union  citizens  living  in  another  Member  State  to 
gradually  integrate in the electoral process of the host Member State. 

For  the  next  European  Parliament  elections,  newcomers  or non-national  residents 
who did not take part in the  1994 EP elections in their Member  State of residence and 
who wish to do so for  1999 will need to submit their first application to be entered on 
the  electoral  roll, within the prescribed  national  deadlines  (cf.  Table  7). On the  other 
hand  EU  residents  who  have  already  registered  in  1994 will  not  need  to  renew  their 
applications14.  This  split  of  the  expatriate  EU  community  may  need  careful 
implementation  especially  on  the  part  of  those  Member  States  which  establish 
electoral rolls on the basis of their population registers. 

1 * 
12 
13 
14 

Cf.  Section  6 §1 (2) and  §3 (2) European elections Act -EuWG 
Cf.  Article LI 1  French electoral  code 
Loi du 5 février  1994 n°94-104 Article LI 1  (2) of the electoral code 
Except  in Greece, Portugal and  France where nationals and non-national  residents are 
entered  on the roll on application  only. 

In  Germany  however,  due  to  the  absence  of  a  permanent  electoral  roll,  Union 
citizens are required to apply to register for every single EP election even if they took 
part  in  the  previous  election  and  to  that  effect  were  entered  on  the  electoral  roll  in 
Germany.  Considering  that  German  nationals  are  entered  on  the  electoral  roll 
automatically  on  the  basis  of  the  population  register  and  therefore  do  not  need  to 
apply to register,  this practice is regarded by many citizens as being discriminatory  in 
their  regard.  The  Commission  is  presently  investigating  the  situation  with  the 
Member  State concerned. 

4.3. 

The disqualification  rule 

Union  citizens  that  lose  their  right  to  vote  or  to  stand  as  a  candidate  in  their 
Member  State of origin through an individual criminal  law or civil law decision, may 
not  regain  these  rights  simply  by  moving  into  another  Member  State.  Besides  being 
subject  to  disqualification  rules  in  their  own  Member  States,  EU  citizens  are  also 
subject  to  the  rules  in  force  in  their  Member  State  of  residence  and  applicable  to 
nationals of that State. 

In order to operate a system of concurrent disqualifications,  the Directive  provides 
for  the Member  States to exchange  information  on voters on an optional  basis and to 
require  an  attestation  from  the  candidate's  Member  State  of  origin  attesting  his 
eligibility. 

Thus  all  Member  States  with  the  exception  of  Ireland15,  Sweden  and  the  United 
Kingdom  made  use  of the  option  in Article  9 (3-a) and  requested  that  voters  state  in 
the  formal  declaration  that  they have not  been deprived  of their  right  to  vote  in  their 
Member  State  of  origin.  But  only  four  actually  verified,  if  such  a  statement  was 
correct, making Article 7 (1) the least used option in Directive 93/109 (cf.  Table 5). In 
Italy, clarification  of the implementing law is still underway16. 

Concerning  candidates, the Commission's main concern was to ensure that even in 
those  Member  States  where  it  is  up  to  the  national  Parliaments  to  decide,  after  the 
elections, whether  candidatures  are admissible, the attestation  from  the Member  State 
of  origin  foreseen  by  Article  10 (3)  is required  at the time  of the  presentation  of  the 
candidature.  Thus,  the  Dutch  authorities  have  recently  informed  the  Commission  of 
their intention to implement such a system17. 

Throughout  the control  of implementation  very  few  Member  States reported  cases 
of  disqualified  EU  citizens  attempting  to  vote  in  the'  Member  State  of  residence. 
Applications  to  register  were  turned  down  more  often  due  to  registration  deadlines 
rather than to disqualification  of entitlements. 

15 

16 

17 

In Ireland the legal system does not provide for the possibility of loosing the right to vote 
through  a court decision. 
Article  14, Bill 95/97 modifying  Law n°483 is presently being examined  by the Camera dei 
Deputati 
Draft  bill adopted  by the Dutch government on  19 September  1997 

12 

It is worth noting that the United  Kingdom  is the only  Member  State that  deprives 
its own citizens of the right to vote and to stand  if they have resided  abroad  for  more 
than  20 years.  These  British  nationals,  if they  are resident  in  another  Member  State, 
qualify  to  participate  as  voters  and  candidates  in  their  Member  State  of  residence, 
because they  have  been  deprived  of their  rights  simply  on account  of  their  residence 
abroad.  Similarly to enfranchise  these expatriate EU citizens, Luxembourg which may 
require of its non-national  residents  a period  of 5 years'  residence  before  granting  the 
right to vote, has included  in its law a specific  provision  eliminating  this  requirement 
for  those non-national  citizens who have lost their rights due to a period  of  residence 
abroad18, in accordance to Article  14(1). 

CHAPTER II:  EVALUATION OF THE APPLICATION OF THE DIRECTIVE 

5.  The participation  of non-national  voters and candidates 

Voters 

Available information  shows that there was a very low participation of non-

national voters in the Member State of residence for the June  1994 elections. Amongst 
the Twelve aggregate non-national voter turnout was of 5.11%. In the new Member 
States in their first EP elections held in  1995 and  1996 it increased considerably to 
18.19%.. Aggregate turnout in the Fifteen  was of 5.87%. 

These figures relate to registered voters oniy. With the exception of Greece, 

Luxembourg and Belgium where voting is compulsory, it is impossible to determine 
how many non-national residents actually voted. This is due to the fact that non-
nationals are listed together with nationals and the secrecy of the ballot makes it 
unconstitutional  in most MS to know if and how a citizen voted. 

Table  1  contains, per Member  State, the general level of participation, the total 
electorate, the number of potential non-national voters and the numbers of those who 
actually enrolled  in their Member  State of residence. The percentage of the non-
national registered voters varied from  a peak of 44.11% in Ireland where the right to 
vote in European Parliament elections dates back to  1979 to a low of  1.55%  in 
Greece. It should be noted that no figure  is available from the Netherlands on account 
of the application of the transitional provision for automatic voter registration on the 
basis of the population register. Similarly, there are no figures concerning  Irish 
nationals voting in the United Kingdom and British nationals voting in Ireland on 
account of the fact that these citizens where entered on the electoral lists under exactly 
the same conditions as nationals, in conformity  with the derogation provided  for in 
Article  14(2). 

Needless to say that in the above figures are not included those EU citizens that 
voted in their Member State of residence but in favour of candidates from  their own 
Member State through embassies, consulates or by proxy (cfr Table 2). 

Article  1  (4)  loi 28 janvier  1994 

13 

Candidates 

Throughout the Union 53 non-national candidates stood for election and one was 

successfully  elected in her Member State of residence19 (cf.  Table 3). 

6.  The reasons for  a low turnout 

The novelty of the rights: The Maastricht Treaty enfranchised  non-national EU 
citizens in November  1992. Prior to this only four Member States granted voting 
rights to nationals from  other Member States. 

Strict registration  deadlines: Directive  109/93 was adopted on 6 December  1993. 
Member  States had to introduce the implementing laws by  1  February  1994 and 
apply them in the June  1994 EP elections. In most Member  States, normal 
registration deadlines were extended in order to allow non-nationals to enter into 
the electoral roll, as specifically  called for in Article 9 (1) of the Directive and 
echoed in a resolution of the EP20. In spite of these efforts,  in some Member 
States non-nationals barely had  15 days in which to register.  Inevitably the strict 
deadlines also had an impact on the candidature of non-nationals who had 
difficulties  in building up an electorate and asserting their positions (cf. Table 1 
for voters and Table 3 for candidates). 

Insufficient  information campaign: As explained above in paragraph 3.2 best 
results wrere attained when the non-national electorate was mobilised through 
direct mailing and the participation of non-governmental  organisations. But this 
was the exception to the rule of administrative posting used by  10 Member States. 

The option  to vote for  candidates of the  Member State of origin: One of the main 
principles of the Directive is to ensure the citizen's freedom  to choose where to 
exercise his/her rights. All Member States with the exception of Ireland grant 
their expatriate citizens the right to vote for their own national candidates in 
European  Parliament elections through embassies, consulates, by proxy or 
correspondence. Incomplete data shows that roughly 6.57 % of EU citizens living 
in another Member  State made use of this possibility (cf.  Table 2). 

Access  to political  activity prior to elections and its impact on the participation  of 
non-nationals  as  candidates.  Although  present  EC  Treaty  provisions  merely 
grant  voting  rights  without  mentioning  other  political  rights  such  as  the  right  of 
association  and  freedom  of  expression,  information  provided  by  Member  States 
shows that in theory access to political activity is open to EU citizens. 

19 
20 

Ms Wilmya Zimmermann, a Dutch  citizen resident  in Germany  (PSE/D) 
EP Resolution  B3-0433 of 21.4.1994 called for the registration  deadline to be extended, 
throughout the  Union, to 31 May  1994, OJ C 128/316 of 9.5.1994 

14 

Yet  some  Member  States  subject  the  political  activity  of  non-nationals  to  a 
number  of  conditions  and  political  parties  admit  non-nationals  at  their  sole 
discretion  (cf.  Table  2). The  link  between  voting  rights  and  the  participation  in 
the  political  debate  is  all  the  more  clear  if  we  consider  that  in  some  Member 
States  only  political  parties  are  entitled  to  present  candidates  for  European 
Parliament elections. 

National rather than European issues debated: In almost all the Member State, 
European Parliament elections have been centred around national issues. 
Consequently expatriate EU citizens may have felt  more comfortable  voting  for 
candidates of their own Member State to whom they could relate in a well-known 
political context21. 
In one Member State (L) it was found that the highest registration turnout was 
amongst second/third generation immigrants. This could indicate that those who 
could relate to national issues and were sufficiently  integrated in their host 
Member State were more likely to participate in its electoral process. 

Overall decline in voter turnout: Alongside the above mentioned reasons  specific 
to non-nationals voters and candidates, the steady decline in national voter 
participation  in European Parliament elections to an all time low of 56.5% in June 
1994 should be considered as a contributing  factor. 

7. 

The exchange of information between Member States 

The mechanism set up by the Directive 

The exchange  of  information  as set out  in Article  13 was  established  primarily 
to  avoid  the  double  vote  and/or  the  double candidature whilst  safeguarding  the 
citizen's  freedom  to choose  in which Member  State to cast his/her  vote.  Secondly, 
it  also  serves  the  purpose  of  preventing  citizens  deprived  of  their  rights  to 
vote/stand  in  their  Member  State  of  origin  to  regain  them  simply  by  moving  to 
another Member  State - but this aspect of the information  exchange  was dealt  with 
under paragraph 4.3 

The mechanism  provides  for  the Member  State of residence, on the basis of the 
formal  declaration,  to  inform  the Member  State of origin  of all  the  names  of  their 
nationals  entered  into  the  electoral  roll  or  standing  as candidates.  As  a result,  the 
Member  State  of  origin  takes  the  appropriate  steps  to  prevent  its  own  nationals 
from  voting  or  standing  more  than  once  -  usually  by  deleting  their  names  from 
their own electoral roll. 

") i 
-l 

A spontaneous  inquiry of officials  of the European  institutions to which  roughly 2% of the 
staff replied  revealed  that the most important reason preventing them from  voting in their 
Member State of residence was the fact that the election campaign  was focused  exclusively 
on national  issues. Cf.  also Eurobarometer survey on the possible factors  influencing  the vote 
as well as Blondel, Sinnott, Svensson,  Participation and the legitimacy of European 
integration.The nature, sources  and implications of low turnout in EP elections,  European 
University  Institute,  Florence, April  1997. 

15 

Its implementation • 

During  the  expert  meeting  held  in  July  1995,  there  was  agreement  amongst 
delegations  that  prior  to the June  94 elections, the  information  exchange  did  not 
work  satisfactorily.  The  problems  were  linked  either  to  time  constraints  for  the 
exchange of information  itself or to practical  difficulties  affecting  the reliability  of 
the information.  For instance: 

a)  Information  arrived too late and could not be processed 
b)  It was insufficient  and not addressed to the proper  authorities 
c)  The vector used  was not compatible 

In the case of the elections held in the three new Member States in the course of 
1995 and  1996, the problem of avoiding the double vote was tackled mainly on the 
basis of the citizen's  declaration  that they had  not  taken  part  in  the  June  1994  EP 
elections in their Member State of origin. The reason for this was that  although  co 
operation  with  the  Twelve  was  forthcoming,  the  electoral  lists  relating  to  those 
elections were not always available. 

Besides  these  problems  that  were  common  to  all  the  Member  States,  other 
issues are specific  to some Member  States only. In the United  Kingdom  and  in the 
Republic  of  Ireland,  for  instance,  electors'  names  cannot  be  removed  from  the 
annual  electoral  register  once  they  have  been  entered  into  it.  For  all  practical 
purposes these  Member  States cannot use the  information  relating  to their  citizens 
registered  as  electors  in  other  Member  States  which  is  .notified  just  before 
elections,  as  the  electoral  roll  is  finalized  in  February  of  each  year  and  the 
exchange  of  information  with  the  other  Member  States  takes  place  in  June.  This 
situation  however  is  mitigated  by  the  fact  that  there  is  an  annual  update  of  the 
electoral  roll  on  the basis  of  a household  canvassing. Nationals  and  non-nationals 
who leave Ireland or the United  Kingdom do not have to request to be deleted  from 
the  electoral  roll  as  this  is  done  automatically  at  the  annual  review.  Another 
mitigating  factor  for  Ireland  is  that,  with  the  exception  of  diplomats  and  their 
spouses, Irish citizens resident abroad are not entitled to be registered  for or to vote 
at European Parliament elections. 

In  another  Member  State,  the  implementing  legislation  did  not  contain  any 
provision  for  the  names  of  Community  voters  entered  on  the  electoral  roll  at  a 
previous election to be notified  to their Member States of origin. This situation  has 
now changed  through an amendment to the implementation  law22. 

A similar  problem  is to  be  found  in Ireland.  Its permanent  EU  residents  which 
took  part  in  the  June  1994 elections  have never  manifested  their  intention  to  vote 
there as they were entered on the electoral roll under exactly the same conditions as 
nationals  in  fulfilment  of Article  15 (c) of the Directive. If they  continue  to  reside 

Law amending the Law on the election of Danish  representatives to the European  Parliament 
of  13 January  1997 

16 

in  Ireland  these  EU  citizens  shall  remain  in  the  electoral  roll  under  the  same 
conditions as nationals, in application of Article 8 (4) the Directive. But as they did 
not fill the formal  declaration for entry into the roll in  1994, the Irish authorities do 
not  have,  at  present,  the  information  which  will  be  necessary  to  notify  their 
Member  States  of origin  in  1999 and enable them to  delete their  names  from  their 
own electoral rolls23. 

Means of  improvement 

Any  improvement to the information  exchange mechanism  must take into  account 
the fact  that Directive  93/109 based  on Article  8B24 may not  encroach  on an  uniform 
electoral  procedure.  This  means  that  any  envisaged  solution  cannot  be  based  on  the 
establishment  of a period of time within which the exchange of information  must take 
place  or  on  the  introduction  of  a  deadline  for  its  completion.  Both  would  involve  a 
change in the registration dates which in turn would require harmonisation  of national 
electoral laws. 

Another  issue  to  be  looked  at  is  the  scale  of  the  problem  the  exchange  of 
information  is  meant  to  solve.  Throughout  the  control  of  implementation  of  the 
Directive,  there  was  no  report  from  Member  States  on  significant  cases  of  double 
voting.  On  the  contrary,-  Member  States  reported  that  the  few  cases  of  double 
registration  tended  to be linked  to mistakes  due, in part  at  least, to the  novelty  of the 
rights  involved.  Any  improvement  to  the  exchange  of  information  mechanism 
therefore  must not be disproportionate to the problem at hand. 

This  may  not  be  the  case  for  instance,  if  the  approach  chosen  would  be  a  stricter 
control  of  double  voting  after  the  elections.  The  means  to  achieve  this  could  be  a 
reinforcement  of the sanctions for false  statements.  The advantage here is that  checks 
could  be  carried  out  without  time  constraints.  The  drawback  is that  sanctions  would 
be linked to the double registration and not to the double vote itself, due to the lack of 
records  on  actual  voters.  Furthermore,  to  be  effective,  sanctions  would  have  to  be 
dissuasive  throughout  the  Union  and this  could  inevitably  entail  adjustments  as  they 
differ  greatly  from  one  Member  State  to  another  (cf.  Table  3).  Finally,  as  some 
complaints  to  the  Commission  point  out,  the  increased  threat  of  sanctions  may 
dissuade  some  citizens  from  exercising  their  option  to  vote  in their  Member  State of 
residence. 

In  absence  of  a  uniform  electoral  procedure,  therefore,  the  answer  must  be  found 
within the present  system25. 

23 

24 

25 

This problem  does not concern newcomers to Ireland as their entry into the electoral roll will 
be carried  out  in conformity  with  Article 9, through  a formal  declaration, the contents of 
which  will be notified  to the Member State of origin (Sec 6(1)  and 2) European  Parliament 
Elections Act  1997) and  infra  paragraph  8.2 
Article  8B (2) specifically  indicates that conferring  voting rights to EP elections shall be 
"...without  prejudice  to Article  138(3) and the provisions adopted  for  its  implementation..." 
cfr  infra  Chapter  III, paragraph  9 

17 

8. 

Derogations and transitional provisions 

8,1 

Derogations 

Directive  93/109  contains  two  derogations  to  the  general  principle  of  non 
discrimination.  The derogations,  warranted  by a specific  situation  in  a Member  State 
are provided  for  in Article  14 and  are  subject  to  review.  The  directive  itself  requires 
the  Commission  to  submit,  by  31 December  1997 and thereafter  18 months  prior  to 
each election,  a report to the European Parliament and the Council  in which it  verifies 
whether  the  grant  of  a derogation  to  a Member  State  is  still  warranted  by  a  specific 
situation  in that  Member  State. Adjustments  may be proposed  by the Commission,  if 
necessary. 

The first derogation  provided  for by Article  14 (1), enables Member  States that  on 
1 January  1993 detain a proportion of non-national  Union citizens that exceed  20% of 
the total number  of eligible citizens residing  in its territory to restrict  the right to vote 
and  to  stand  as  a  candidate  to  those  non-nationals  who  have  completed  a  residence 
period of five and  10 years respectively. 

On the  reference  date, Luxembourg  was the  only  Member  State to  apply  for  such 
for  such  a  derogation  and  it  fully  qualified  for  it  as  the  percentage  of  non-national 
citizens residing in the Grand-Duchy in January  1994 was  of 29,4%. 

The right  to  vote  is granted  to EU non-nationals  who have  completed  a minimum 
residence  period  of  5 years  in  the  Grand-Duchy  during  the  last  6 years,  prior  to  the 
request  to  be  entered  on the  electoral  roll.  The  right  to  stand  as  a candidate  is  given 
after  at least  10 years'  residence completed  in the course of the last  12 years26.  These 
provisions  in  fact  allow those  who  are permanently  resident  in  Luxembourg  to  leave 
the  country  for  a period  of  one  year  without  losing  their  voting  rights  in  the  Grand-
Duchy.  Similarly  EU citizens who have lost their right to vote in their home  State by 
reason  of  their  residence  abroad  are  not  subject  to  this  minimum  residence 
requirement. 

For entry  into the electoral roll, a residence certificate,  issued by a public  authority 
attesting  the  period  of  time  for  which  the  non-nationals  has  resided  in  Luxembourg 
must  be  produced.  As  this  requirement  is  not  mentioned  in  the  Directive,  the 
Commission's  services  examined  the  issue  with  the  Luxembourg  authorities.  It  was 
concluded  that such a requirement was legitimate and proportionate  in so far  as it was 
the only means to determine  if the residence condition  was fulfilled.  The certificate  is 
requested  only  once  -  for  the  first  entrance  into  the  electoral  roll  -  and  may  be 
obtained  fairly  easily from  the municipality of residence at a minimum  cost. 

Moreover  in  Luxembourg,  candidates'  lists  may  not  be  composed  exclusively  of 
non-nationals27.  This  provision  was  confronted  with  Article  14(1)28  and  found  to  be 

26 
27 

Articles  1  (4) and 98 (4) Loi du 28 janvier  1994. 
Article  106 (2) Loi du 28 janvier  1994 

18 

compatible  with  the  Directive.  As  Luxembourg  benefits  from  a  derogation  on  the 
basis  of  its  large  population  of  non-national  EU  residents,  this  measure  appears 
appropriate  to  avoid  polarisation  between  national  and  non-national  lists  thus 
encouraging  the  non-national  candidates  to  participate  alongside  nationals,  in  the 
same lists29. 

The  Luxembourg  authorities  have  informed  the  Commission  that  at  present  there 
are  109.613  non-national  EU citizens  of voting  age resident  in Luxembourg  and  that 
they  constitute  33,4  %  of  the  total  number  of  eligible  EU  citizens  resident  in  the 
Grand-Duchy.  These figures may be overestimated by a margin of error of between  7 
to 8%o points30. 

Considering that these figures  fall within the prescribed limits set by Article  14(1), 
on  the  basis  of  the  above,  the  Commission  submits  that  the  derogation  awarded  to 
Luxembourg  should  be  extended,  on the same basis to the next  European  Parliament 
elections. 

The second  derogation  concerns those Members  States which, on  1 February  1994 
granted  voting  rights  to  nationals  of  other  Member  States  in  their  national  elections 
and  for  that  purpose  entered  them  on  the  electoral  roll  exactly  under  the  same 
conditions  as  nationals.  These  Member  States  are  exempted  from  the  provisions  of 
Articles 6 to  13 generally in connection with registration  formalities. 

The  Member  States  that  qualify  for  such  a derogation  are  Ireland  and  the  United 
Kingdom with respect to each others' nationals. Considering that these voters exercise 
their  rights  under  the  exact  same  conditions  as  nationals  in  all  other  elections,  the 
Commission accepts that this system be confirmed  for future  EP elections. 

8.2. Transitional provisions 

The Directive contains four transitional provisions applicable to the  1994 elections 

only. 

The  first  provision  contained  in  Article  15  (a),  relates  to  those  Member  States 
where citizens of the Union already had the right to vote by  15 February  1994. If they 
names  appeared  on the electoral  roll by that  date, they were not  required  to  make  an 
application  to  register.  This  was  the  case  in  Ireland  where  EU  citizens  have  had  the 
right to vote in EP elections since 1979. 

On this basis, for the  1994 elections, the registration procedure for non-national EU 
citizens was unchanged  from  previous elections  and identical to that for  Irish  citizens 
as the registration authorities were required to register all eligible electors. 

28 

29 
30 

"This provisions (i.e. concerning the minimum  residence period) are without 
prejudice to appropriate measures which this Member State may take with 
regard to the composition  of lists of candidates and which are intended in 
particular to encourage the integration  of non-national  Union citizens " 
Cf.  penultimate recital of the Directive 
Repertoire Général des Personnes Physiques -  reference  period October  1997 

19 

This  will  be  changed  in  the  next  European  Parliament  elections.  Non-national 
Union citizens, other than British nationals, who were not entered  on the register of 
electors  for  the  1994 EP elections will  have to  apply,  in writing to  be registered  as 
voters in Ireland. The application  can be made throughout  the year,  at the  latest  15 
working days before polling day31. 

The second  and  fourth  transitional  provisions  were  generally  designed  to  ensure 
that in spite of the strict deadlines for  implementation  of the Directive, the national 
legislations in force at the time, effectively  allowed Union citizens to be entered in the 
electoral roll or to submit their candidature, in time for the June EP elections.  In most 
Member States, the traditional registration deadlines were extended in order to allow 
for non-nationals to enter into the electoral roll or to stand as candidates (cf.  Tables 1 
and 3). 

The third transitional provision,  Article  15 (c), allowed those Member States that 
do not draw up a specific  electoral roll but rely on population registers to apply the 
same system to its non-national EU residents and disregard Articles  8 (manifestation 
of the will to vote in the Member State of residence) and 9 (application to enter into 
the roll). 

The Netherlands qualified  and made use of  such a provision. Thus, in May 1994 
all  eligible  voters,  irrespective  of  nationality,  were  automatically  entered  on  the 
electoral  roll on the basis of the population register. Non-national  EU citizens were 
nevertheless informed  individually of this fact and received, at their home address, a 
standard  form  in  which  they  had  to  indicate  whether  they  wished  to  vote  in  their 
Member  State of origin or in the Netherlands32. The form  had to  be returned  at the 
latest three weeks before  polling  day, failing  which the EU voter was  automatically 
registered  as  voter  in  the  Netherlands.  The  voter's  Member  State  of  origin  was 
informed  of this  fact  and  the  EU  citizen  automatically  lost  his  right  to  vote  in  his 
Member State of origin. 

But a situation whereby an EU citizen automatically looses his right to vote in his 
Member State of origin simply because he/she has not reacted in time to a letter does 
not  seem to  offer  sufficient  protection  to  the  citizen's  freedom  of  choice  as  to  the 
Member State in which to cast his/her vote. 

As announced by the Dutch government at the time of the implementation  of the 
Directive, the present system is likely to be changed. To that effect,  a government bill 
was presented on 19 September  1997. It proposes that non-nationals registered in their 
municipality  of residence  shall  continue to receive, before  the  elections,  a standard 
form asking them in which Member State they wish to vote. Should the form  not be 
returned  on time the EU citizen  is considered  to have opted to vote  in his Member 
State  of  origin.  By  so  doing,  two  obligations  established  by  the  Directive  will  be 
fulfilled  - the duty to inform the citizen in good time and in appropriate manner of his 

3 ' 
32 

Sec 6(1)  and 2) European  Parliament Elections Act  1997 
Articles Y 3 b4 and Y33  of Law 26 January  1994 amending the electoral  law. 

20 

electoral rights and secondly the respect of the citizens' freedom  to choose whether or 
not to take part in elections in the Member State of residence. 

21 

CHAPTER  III.  CONCLUSIONS 

Council Directive 93/109/EC was applied to the last European Parliament  elections 
in  all  the  Member  States  enabling  expatriate  Union  citizens  to  take  part  in  the 
elections in their Member State of residence. 

The  analysis  of  the  implementation  laws  is  complete  and  on  its  basis  the 
Commission  considers  that  overall  the  Directive  has been  implemented  satisfactorily 
by the Member  States. In the meantime a number of minor adjustments  to those  laws 
have been carried out by the Member States. 

But  the  results  of  the  June  1994  election  highlighted  two  shortcomings  in  the 
participation  of  non-national  EU  citizens.  First  and  foremost  there  was  a  lack  of 
information  about  new  rights.  Secondly  there  was  a  dramatically  low  rate  of 
successful  non-national candidates. 

The Commission  submits that at this stage, the Directive  itself does not need to be 
changed.  This  being  said,  improvements  in  its  application  should  be  carried  out  by 
Member  States  specifically  with  regard  to  Articles  12  and  13,  with  a  view  to 
increasing  participation  of  non-national  voters  and  candidates  and  to  fine  tune  the 
mechanism  for the exchange of information  between the Member States. 

Finally,  considering  the  most  recent  population  figures,  the  derogation  for 
Luxembourg  with regard  to a minimum residence period  should be confirmed  for  the 
next European Parliament elections. 

9.  SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS IN THE APPLICATION OF THE DIRECTIVE: 

Information campaign 

Member  States  should  substantially  increase  their  efforts  to  inform  their  non-
national  EU  residents  as  provided  for  by  Article  12  of  the  Directive.  This  is 
particularly  the  case  for  those  Member  States  that  do  not  contact  their  EU  citizens 
individually  and make use of administrative posting only. 

A particular  effort  should  be made to inform  EU citizens  of registration  deadlines. 
Those  that  already  enrolled  in their  Member  State  of  residence  for  the  1994  election 
will  remain  in  the  electoral  roll  until  they  request  to  be  removed  from  it  but 
newcomers  might  not  even  be  aware  of  the  deadline  for  registration  in  the  host 
Member  State.  Although  in  the  majority  of  Member  States  the  average  deadline  for 
registering  in  the  electoral  roll  is eight  weeks  prior  to  polling  day,  in  some  Member 
States citizens must apply  over a year before elections are held (cf.  Table 7) 

To overcome the  information  deficit,  in  1996 the European Commission  launched, 
together  with  the  European  Parliament,  a vast  information  initiative, "Citizens  First", 
geared  to  promote  information  on  citizens'  rights  under  Community  law.  It  issued, 

22 

amongst  several  other  guides,  the  guide  "Living  in  another  Member  State"  which 
contains  general  information  on the rights  and  obligations  arising  when  moving  into 
another Member  State as well  as references  on how electoral  rights  may  be  exercised 
in the Member State of residence. 

Available  with  the  guide  "Living  in  another  Member  State" are  fifteen  factsheets 
on  how  to  vote  and  stand  as  a  candidate  in  European  Parliament  elections.  The 
factsheets,  for  each  Member  State, are available  in all  official  languages  through  the 
Internet  and  may  also  be  requested  like  the  guides,  free  of  charge,  by  telephone33. 
They  have  been  drafted  by  the  Commission  and  approved  by  national  authorities. 
They  contain  practical  and  detailed  information  on  each  Member  State's  legislation 
and feature the documents that have to be produced to be entered on the electoral  roll, 
the  deadlines  for  registration,  the  means  of  appeal  available  to  the  citizen  and  the 
contact  points  in  the  Member  States  where  the  citizen  may  obtain  further  help  and 
assistance. 

As  part  of  the  Single  Market  Action  Plan  endorsed  by  Member  States  at  the 
Amsterdam  Summit,  a  permanent  "Dialogue  with  Citizens" will  be  established  as  a 
successor  to  "Citizens  First".  For  the  next  European  Parliament  elections  therefore, 
the  European  Commission  together  with  the  European  Parliament  will  be  able  to 
provide  clear  and  detailed  information  on how  voting  rights  can  be  exercised  in  all 
Member States and in all official  EU languages. 

In  addition,  the  Citizens  First  Signpost  service  will  be  available  to  help  people 
when  they  have  difficulties  in  knowing  how  to  exercise  their  rights  Typically  the 
service  will  give  people  details  of  the  appropriate  points  of  contact  at  European, 
national or local  level. The Signpost  Service has been open since  1996, and  questions 
can  be  put  simply  by  using  the  telephone  line  or  by  Internet.  These  questions  from 
citizens  are  important  because  they  give  the  Commission  a  direct  "feedback"  about 
the practical problems which people face when using their EU rights. 

Exchange of information between Member States: 

In  order  to  curb  the  double  vote, Article  13 requires  Member  States  to  exchange 
information  about  their  nationals  voting  in  their  Member  State  of  residence.  The 
Commission  submits  that  substantial  improvement  in  the  application  of  the  current 
provisions should be carried out. 

The  objective  is  to  find  a  reliable,  flexible  and  cost  effective  way  for  Member 
States to exchange  information  about their nationals voting  in another  Member  State, 
in time to  introduce  modifications  to the electoral  rolls. Furthermore  the  exchange  of 
information  must  be  carried  out  in  respect  of  the  rules  protecting  individuals  with 

33 

Internet address: http://europa.eu.int/citizens.  Telephone numbers in the various  Member 
States: Austria (0660-6811), The Netherlands (0800-8051), Italy (167-876166)  Belgium 
(0800-92038  in Dutch and 0800-92039  in French), Sweden (020-794949),  Luxembourg 
(0800-2550), France (0800 90-9700), Greece (00800-3212254), Portugal  (0800-222001), 
Spain (900-983198), Germany (0130-850400), UK (0800-581591), Ireland  (1-800-553188), 
Finland  (08001-13191) Denmark (8001 -0201 ) 

regard to the processing and free movement of personal  data34. In order to achieve this 
the Commission's  services.are presently working with Member States with a view: 

• 

• 

• 
• 

to pinpoint  the  national  authorities  to whom  the notification  must  be addressed  by 
the Member  State of residence 
to  identify  the  exact  information  that  Member  States'  need  to  delete  the  voter's 
name  from  their  own  electoral  register  as  well  as  the  time  which  is  necessary  to 
keep such information  in order to delete the voter's name 
to agree on a common format for a standard form  for the exchange of  information 
to  explore  ways  in  which  the  exchange  of  information  may  be  carried  out 
electronically  in order to speed up proceedings. 

Should the above mentioned issues be resolved, the main problems identified  in the 
monitoring  of  the  implementation,  i.e.  reliability  of  the  information  and  time 
constraints, will have been addressed. 

However, should the attempt fail  and the system as presently conceived prove to be 
incompatible with wide ranging registration deadlines in the Member  States (cf.  Table 
7), the  only  alternative  would  be to modify  the Directive. But  in this  case  the  option 
available  would  be  to  eliminate  the  citizens'  freedom  to  choose  in  which  Member 
State  to  cast  his  vote  or  to  restrict  that  choice  to  a  specific  time  frame  which  would 
allow for double registrations into the electoral rolls to be corrected. 

'to* 

Concerning  candidates,  in  order  to  assist  electoral  officers  dealing  with  the 
applications  of  non-national  EU  citizens  standing  as  candidates,  the  Commission 
suggests that Member  States should circulate  in advance of the next EP elections, the 
indications  of their competent  administrative  authorities that will  issue the  attestation 
of  eligibility  required  by  Article  10  (2)  and  include,  if  possible,  a  sample  of  the 
attestation. 

Access  to political activity prior to elections 

Although  not  foreseen  by  a  specific  provision  of  the  directive,  the  Commission 
would  like  to  draw  the  attention  to  the  need  to  facilitate  the  participation  of  non-
national  EU  citizens  in  the  political  life  of  their  Member  State  of  residence.  This  in 
order  to  ensure  that  the  right  to  stand  as  a  candidate  is  more  accessible  and  widely 
enjoyed  by non-national EU citizens. 

The  European  Parliament  has  already  called  for  an  increased  role  of  European 
political  parties35  and  is  presently  drafting  a  proposal  for  a  procedure  incorporating 
common  principles  for  the  election  of  members  of  the  European  Parliament  in 
accordance to Article  138(3) as reviewed by the Amsterdam Treaty36. Throughout  this 

34 

3:1 

36 

Council  Directive 95/46/EC of 24 July  1995 on the protection of personal data, OJ L L281/31 
of  23.11.1995 
Cf.  also Resolution of the European  Parliament on the constitutional  status of European 
political  parties adopted  on  10.12.1996 - Doc PE 254.448 
Working document of 22 October  1997- Committee on Institutional  Affairs  -  Doc PE 
224.331 

24 

process special attention should be paid to the contribution that EU citizens resident in 
a  Member  State  of  which  they  are  not  nationals,  may  offer  towards  the  democratic 
process in the Union. 

Information  provided  by Member  States indicates that, in theory access to political 
activity  is  open  to  all  EU  citizens  (cfr  Table  2).  This  being  said,  at  national  level 
efforts  should  be deployed  to remove any potential  obstacles to the political  activity 
of  non-nationals  Union  citizens.  The  role  of  political  parties  is  of  course  paramount 
towards  the  achievement  of  this  goal.  Not  only  because  they  are  an  important 
instrument  of democratic participation  but first and foremost  because they  are able to 
promote  the  candidature  of non-national  Union  citizens.  Yet  in  some Member  States 
political  parties  admit  non-nationals  at their  sole  discretion.  The  link  between  voting 
rights  and  the participation  in the political  debate  is all the more clear  if we  consider 
that in some Member  States only political parties are entitled to present candidates  for 
European Parliament elections. 

The Commission for its part will fulfil  its role of guardian of the Treaty and take all 
the  necessary  steps  towards  ensuring  that  discrimination  on  the  basis  of  nationality 
does not  hinder Union citizens from presenting their candidature. 

25 

TABLE  1* 

IMPLEMENTATION  OF COUNCIL  DIRECTIVE 93/109/EC 

PARTICIPATION OF NON-NATIONAL  EU-VOTERS  -  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT  ELECTIONS  1994 

Member 
State 

Deadline  for 
registration 
as  voter 

General  level of 
participation  in 
elections 

Potential  non-
national 
EU-voters 

Belgium 
(voting is 
compulsory) 

7.2.94 
-31.3.94 

90.7% 

471,277 

(total electorate: 
7.096,273) 

Non-national  EU 
voters  enrolled 
and  percentage 
of  non-national 
electorate) 
24,000 

(5.1%) 

Denmark 

9.3.94 
-  28.4.94 

52.9% 

27,042 

6,719 

(total  electorate: 
3.994.200) 

(24.85%) 

Sanctions for  voting twice  or 
false  declarations 

Information  campaign 

Imprisonment  8-15 days, and/or 
fine  26 - 200 BF (Art.  1, law 
23.3.1989 as amended) 

Double vote: fine 
False Declarations: fine or 
imprisonment  up to 4  months 

Press conference  by the Ministry of the 
Interior, information  note in  official 
journal, information  brochures. 
Municipalities have responsibility'  for 
decentralised  information  campaign. 
Individual  letters to all foreign  EU 
nationals over  18 

Germany 

end March -
- 9.5.94 

60% 

(total electorate: 
60,473,927) 

1,200,000 

80,000 

(6.66%) 

Fine or imprisonment  not 
exceeding three years 

Greece 
(voting is 
compulsory) 

8.1  .94 
-31.3.94 

71.2% 

ca.  40,000 

622 

(total  electorate: 
8.485.495) 

(1.55%) 

Spain 

3.1.94 
-15.2.94 
and 
25.4. 94 
-2.5.94 

59.1% 

192,074 

24,227 

(total  electorate: 
18,664.053) 

(including 
minors on 
31.12.1993) 

(12.61%) 

Imprisonment  3 months - 5 years 
and barred from  public office  as 
provided for in Art. 63 of the 
Penal  Code.  1-5 years Art.  104 
and  108 of the Electoral  Law. 
Double vote: 6 months 
imprisonment,  disqualification, 
and fine from  30,000 to 300.000 
ptas  (Art.  142 LOREG) 

Municipalities  have responsibility  for 
decentralised  information  campaign. 
Measures vary from  folders  in 9 
languages to individual  information  in 
different  languages. Radio and  TV 
programmes. 
One TV spot sponsored by Government. 
In January  1994, information  from  the 
Ministry of the Interior was relayed  under 
the responsibility  of local  authorities. 

Radio spots, press announcements, 
posters, all sponsored by  Government 

France 

14.3.94 
-  15.4.94 

52.7% 

1,427,315 

47,508 

(total electorate: 
39,044,441) 

(3.38%) 

Ireland 

44% 

ca. 13,600 

6,000 

- 24.5.94 

(total  electorate: 
2,639,000  including 
British citizens) 

(excluding 
British 
citizens) 

(excluding  British 
citizens) 
(44.11 %) 

For false  declaration:  1 year 
imprisonment and  100.000FF 
fine. 
Double vote: 2 years 
imprisonment and  100,000 FF 
fine 

Double vote: fine not exceeding 
1,000  IEP and/or max. 2 years 
imprisonment.  False declarations: 
fine  not exceeding 50 IEP and/or 
imprisonment max. 3 months 

Compulsory administrative posting in 
every "commune". Préfets of police 
pitched the information  campaign in 
accordance to the number of non-
nationals EU citizens in each 
"département", through press releases and 
radio announcements.. Private associations 
also participated. 
Press release, compulsory public notice 
and information  sheets to EU embassies in 
Dublin 

Italy 

26.2.94 -
24.3.94 

73,7% 
(total electorate: 
48,372,726) 

152.139 

2.809 

(1.8%) 

Double vote:  1 - 3 years 
imprisonment and  fine 
100,000/500,000  LIT 

Information  leaflets  forwarded  to mayors 
for compulsory posting in municipalities. 

88.5% 

105,000 

6,907 

10,000/100,000 FL fine 

Luxembourg 
(voting is 
compulsory) 

-  1.3.94 

Netherlands 

Deadline  for 
opt out until 
19.5.94 

Austria  ** 

Portugal 

30.8.1996 
(reference 
date) to 
10.10.96 

1.3.94 
-15.3.94 

(total  electorate 
198,370) 

(6,58%) 

36% 

ca. 160,000 

No data available 

(total electorate: 
11,618,677) 

67.73% 
(total electorate 
5,800,377) 

91,385 

7.261 
(7.94 %) 

35.5% 

30,519 

715 

(total electorate: 
8,555, 733) 

(includes under 
18 years old) 

(2.34%) 

Finland  ** 

June to 
15.8.96 

60.3% 
(total  electorate 
4.108.703) 

11.296 

2.515 
(22%) 

Information  leaflet published  in 5 
languages and forward  to all residents 
nationals and non-nationals alike. 

Individual  letters to all foreign  EU 
nationals 

Ministry of interior produced  information 
sheets in German. In large municipalities 
EU nationals were informed  in writing of 
their entitlements. Further  information  on 
radio, TV, newspapers 
Press announcements, Radio, TV. 
Information  brochure and poster in 5 
languages sponsored by Government and 
distributed to local authorities and 
embassies. 
Letter to all  registered  EU citizens in 
Finnish, Swedish, English  , German  and 
French forwarded  in June with  attached 
application  form,  informing  them of their 
entitlements. 

Double vote: imprisonment up to 
1 month or fine up to 5,000 NLG. 
False declaration:  imprisonment 
up to 6 years or fine up to 
100,000 NLG 
False declaration: Fine up to OS 
3,000 or two weeks  imprisonment 
vote by an non-eligible: 6 months 
imprisonment or fine 
corresponding to 360 daily units 
Double vote and  false 
declarations: up to  1 year 
imprisonment and 50 days fine 
(art  14 Lei  14/87 and art 53B Lei 
69/78). 
Double vote: fine or 
imprisonment of maximum  I year 
False declarations: fine or a 
maximum  of 2 years 
imprisonment 

Sweden** 

1.5.1995-
3.7.1995 

41.64% 
6 551 781 

Ca.  150 000 

36  191 
(24%) 

Double vote: no penalty 
False declaration: fine or 
imprisonment not exceeding 6 
months 

United 
Kingdom 

EU Total 

17.2.-29.3 
(late claims 
for 
registration 
were accepted 
until  22.4.94) 

36.4% 

ca. 400.000 

7.845 

Fine of up to  1,000  GBP for 
cither. 

(total  electorate: 
43,770.000 
(including  Irish 
citizens) 

(excluding 
Irish  citizens) 

(excluding  Irish 
citizens  (1.96%)) 

ca.  4.471.647 
(-NL 
4.311.647) 

ca. 253.319 (c.xcl. 
NL) 

*  Information  provided  by the  Member  States 

Letter with, registration form  forwarded 
on 6 April to all Union citizens on 
register of population.  Those taking up 
residence afterwards  were given a 
registration form when they  registered 
their  residence 
Press release and TV broadcast  in 
Swedish onlv. 
Press release, official  statement  and  • 
information  sheets to embassies and 
consulates, private associations, electoral 
registration  officers  and  Citizens  Advice 
Bureaux.  In N.  Ireland,  information 
leaflets delivered to even'  household. 

** Sweden  held  its  first  EP elections  on  17 September  1995, Austria  on  13 October  and  Finland  on 20 October  1996 

TABLE  2* 

POSSIBILITIES FOR  PARTICIPATION BY  NATIONAL VOTERS LIVING ABROAD  -  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT  ELECTIONS  1994 

IMPLEMENTATION  OF COUNCI L DIRECTIVE 93/109/EC 

Member  State 

Citizens  living  in  another  EU  MS 

Citizens  residing  in  another  IMS and  voting for  candidates  of the  MS of origin  by 
correspondence,  by proxy or  at  local embassies  and  consulates 

Belgium 
(voting  compulsory) 
Denmark 

Germany 

Greece 
(voting compulsory) 
Spain 

France 

Ireland 

Italy 

Luxembourg 
(voting  compulsory) 
Netherlands 

Austria** 

Portugal 

Finland** 

Sweden** 

130,000 

40,000 

290,000 

360,000 

470,000 
(of which  199,439 are enrolled  in 
the Spanish electoral  register) 
343,828 

c. 38,000 
(excluding  592,000 Irish  citizens 
resident  in the  UK) 
1,200,000 

11,000 

240,000 

220,000 

Almost  840,000 
(including 87,307  registered) 

150,000 

57,000 

United  Kingdom 

ca. 600,000  (excluding residents  in 
the Republic of Ireland) 

Yes, by correspondence, in consulates, following  specific  request. Art  1 (2) (I).  1,162 
Belgian citizens made use of this possibility  for the  1994 EP elections. 
Yes, in embassies and consulates. Registration  in electoral roll  upon  request. 

Yes, by correspondence 

Yes, in embassies and consulates.  47,947 voted  for Greek  candidates. 

Yes. Approximately  50,000  Spanish citizens made use of this possibility for  the  1994 EP 
elections. 

Yes, in consulates. 17,139 French citizens made use of this possibility for the  1994 EP 
elections. 
No, except lor postal voting for diplomats and their  spouses posted  abroad. 

Yes, in embassies and  consulates 

Yes by correspondence. Art  l( 1 ) (4) 

Yes.  Y 6 1 

Yes. 

Yes. By correspondence. DL 95-C/76. Registration  in electoral roll is not compulsory but 
necessary to vote,  hi the  1994 elections, 20,844  Portugese citizens made use of this 
possibility. 
Yes, in embassies and consulates. 

Yes, in embassies and consulates and by correspondence  for  Swedish  citizens living in 
Germany. 
Yes, by proxy, if they had not been absent  from  the UK  for more than  20 years 

Information  provided  by the  Member  States 

* 
** Austria,  Finland  and  Sweden  acceded  to the  EU on 01.01.1995,  and  did  not  participate  in the  1994  EP elections. 

Citizens  resident  in  another  EU  1 
MS that  opted  to vote in  their  MS 
of residence for  candidates  of  their 
MS of  residence 
estimate between 5,000 and 6,000 

3,580 

24,708 

10,510 

4,571 

16,300 

1,899 
(excluding Irish citizens resident  in 
the  UK) 
54,000 

no data  available 

no data  available 

Not applicable  ** 

16,219 

Not applicable  ** 

Not applicable  ** 

no data  available 

TABLE  3* 

IMPLEMENTATION  OF COUNCIL  DIRECTIVE 93/109/EC 

». 

PRESENTATION  OF NON-NATIONAL EU  CANDIDATES  -  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ELECTIONS  1994 

Conditions to be  fulfilled 
For  application 

Financing 

Sanctions for  standing 
twice 

EU 
candidates 

Successful 
EU 
candidates 
none 

private 

private 

8 - 15  days  imprisonment 
and fine of 26 -200 FB (Art 
1 law 23.3.1989 as 
amended) 
Fine. The election of the 
candidate who stood twice 
is declared void. 

18 
(out of 534) 

1 

none 

Member 
State 

Belgium 

Deadline  for 
registration  as 
candidate 
1. 4. 94 

Denmark 

4 weeks  before 
election 

Germany 

VA) 

Û 

66 days  before 
election  for 
Lander  list and 
68 days  before 
election  for  the 
Bund  list 
(Federal 
Parliament) 

Greece 

at latest  10 days 
after  the 
announcement  of 
the elections 

Spain 

4.-9.5.1994 

21 years 
lists presented by 5 elected 
representatives  (all confounded)  or 
supported by 5.000 voters 
18 years 
lists presented by parlies that  arc 
represented  in  national  Parliament 
or EP or supported by a number of 
voter equivalent  to 2% of the valid 
votes cast  in the previous  general 
election. 
18 years. Lists  may be presented by 
political parlies or associations. 
Lists of parties or  politicial 
associations which arc not 
represented  with at least  5 elected 
members  in the EP. Bundestag  or 
Landtag need respectively  4.000 
signatures (lists for  the Bund) and 
in case of the lists fcr  the Land 
signatures of  1/1000 of the 
registered  voters of the Lander  with 
a  maximum  of 2.000 authorised 
voters. 
25 years. 

private 

partly  State  financing  of 
political  parties and 
associations.  Reimbursement  of 
parts of cost  if mprc than 0.5  % 
of total  number of voles is 
obtained  (1 DM per vote) 

Imprisonment  for up to 3 
years or fine 

12 

1 

18 years 
List  presented by a parly,  coalition 
or a federation,  supported by 
15.000 voters or 50 elected 
representatives (Art 220 (4)) 

partly  public 3.000,000 pis per 
seal,  100 pis per vote if at  least 
one scat gained -  Art. 2271y2). 
Electoral  mailing  is also 
financed bv the State. 

Imprisonment  6 months -
5 years and barred  from 
public office  2-5 years as 
provided  for  in  Article 63 
Penal  Code and  Art.  32 of 
Presidential  Decree 
92/1994. 
As a falsehood  in a  public 
document:  Imprisonment 
from  6-8 years and fine of 
100.000 to  1.000,000 pis 

Not  available 

none 

1 

none 

France 

27.5.1994 

Ireland 

7-14.5.1994 

23 years.  100,000 FF deposit 
(reimbursed  if list obtains more 
than  5% of the votes) 
21 years. 1,000  IEP deposit 
(reimbursable  if candidate obtains 
1/3 of votes necessary to win) 

partly  public 

private 

partly  public 

The election  of a candidate 
who stood twice  is declared 
void. 
Fine for false declaration on 
nomination  paper not 
exceeding 500 IEP and/or 
imprisonment  not 
exceeding 6 months 
For false  declaration: 
imprisonment  up to 3 years 

5 

none 

None 
(excluding 
British 
citizens) 

none 
(excluding 
British 
citizens) 

1 

2 

none 

Italy 

39 days  before 
election 

Luxembourg 

60 days  before 
election 

Netherlands 

27.4.1994 

VA) 

Austria  ** 

6.9.1996 

Portugal 

4-18.4.1994 

25 years.Lists presented  by political 
groups or parties represented  in one 
of the two chambers, or support by 
30,000 voters  in the  constituency. 
Since  1979 all EU citizens may 
stand as candidates 
21 years 
list presented by 250 voters, or an 
MEP, or a national MP. 
List must not contain more than  50 
% of non-national  members 
18 years 
10 signatures of voters and 25,000 
NLG deposit. No more than 30 
candidates per list 
19 years of age before January  1st 
of the year of the elections. 
Candidates may be nominated  by 
political parties, by 3 members of 
the Federal Parliament, by 1 
Austrian  MEP or by 2.600 
registered voters 
18 years. List presented  by political 
party or coalition of political  parties 
only. 

partly public if list obtains more 
than  5% of votes 

25,000/750,000  FL fine 

8 
(out of  120) 

none 

private 

Each  political party which  is 
represented  in the EP is entitled, 
on request to a contribution to 
its campaign  costs, after  the 
election  has taken place (Sec 2B 
Party Act) 

private or from  political  party 
funds  (Lei 72/93). 

2 
(out of 246) 

none 

none 

none 

none 

none 

standing twice: 
imprisonment  up to 1 
month, fine up to 5,000 
NLG 
For false  declarations  fine 
up to OS 3,000 or 
imprisonment up to two 
weeks (Section  31(6) of the 
European Elections  Order) 

100 days financial  penalty 
and 2 years  imprisonment 
For false  declarations: 
accessory  penalty: loss of 
passive voting rights for the 
following  elections. (Art.  14 
A Lei  14/87) 

Finland** 

31 days prior to 
election  (i.e. 19 
September  1996) 

Sweden** 

United 
Kingdom 

w 

^ 

16 junc  1996-
for  registered 
parties-
otherwise  names 
may be entered 
on ballot  papers 
for as long as 
ballot paper can 
be printed  in 
lime for  polling 
dav 
17.2-29.3.1994 
(prolongation 
until  22.4.94) 

18 years of age by election day 
Political  parlies (max  16 
candidates),  consituency 
associations formed  by  1.000 
persons (max  1 candidate) 
Electoral  alliances between  parties 
and  common  lists of constituency 
associations  (max  16 candidates) 

partly public before the elections 
to parties represented  in 
Parliament and to certain 
citzens'  organisations 
private contributors as well 

18 years of age by polling day 

No particular  restrictions on 
nomination  of candidates 

public: Sum of SKR 30 million 
divided  between  the  parties 
represented  in the  Swedish 
Riksdag 

Double candidature: fine or 
a  maximum of two years 
imprisonment 
For false  declarations: 
Votes cast for candidate are 
declared  null but party or 
common  list  proposing 
candidate benefits  from 
them. 
False declarations: fine or 
term of imprisonment  not 
exceeding  six  months 
No penalty for  double 
candidature. 

none (out of 
207) 

none 

2 (oui of 577) 

none 

21 years. 
deposit  of  1.000  GBP 
30 electors  in  support 

private 

2 (out  of 545) 

none 

False statement  in 
particular:  Fine not 
exceeding  ! .,000 GBP. 
Serious offences.  Standing 
twice:  fine  not  exceeding 
5.000 GBP and  prison 
sentence up to 6 months. 

Information  provided  by the  Member  States 

* Sweden  held its  first  EP elections  on  17 September  1995, Austria  on  13 October  and  Finland  on 20 October  1996 

TABLE  4* 

Member  State 

Belgium 

Denmark 

Germany 

G recce 

Spain 

France 

Ireland 

Italy 

POLITICAL  PARTICIPATION  OF NON-NATIONAL EU  CITIZENS PRIOR  TO  ELECTIONS 

Can  non-nationals  found  a 
political  party? 
Yes 

Can  non-nationals join  a 
political  party? 
Yes 

Is there  a  quota 
restriction? 
No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Other 
restrictions? 
None 

None 

Yes.  non-nationals  may  co-found 
a party.  However,  it will  loose its 
parly status  if the  majority  of its 
members or the  members of the 
Board arc  foreigners. 

No 

Y'cs. Although  the law  on 
political  parties of  1978 
recognises  this right  for  Spanish 
nationals only,  it is considered  to 
be  unconstitutional. 
Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes. when allowed  by the  statutes 
of the party. 

At the discretion  of the  political 
party 
Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes: Both  political  parties and 
their  Boards  may  not  have more 
than  50% of non-nationals  as 
members. Article  2 (3) Parly 
Law.  For the European  elections 
other political  associations  are 
considered  as political  parties 
and  for these there  is no quota. 
no data  available 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Yes. Political  activity of 
foreigners  may be subject  to 
restrictions,  under certain 
conditions.  Articles 6 and 37 of 
Foreigners Law 

no data  available 

The  internal  structure and the 
operations of political  parties 
should be democratic  (Article 6 
of the  Constitution) 

No 

None 

None 

A list of candidates  may not be 
composed of a majority  of non-
nationals (Art  106 (5), law 
25.2.79) 
Non-nationals  may only stand  for 
elections to the EP and  local 
authorities. 
No 

Luxembourg 

The  Netherlands 

The  Constitution  gives the  right 
of association  only to  nationals 
but  in practice  non-nationals  also 
benefit. 
Yes 

Austria 

Yes 

Portugal 

Finland 

Sweden 

Article 15 of the Constitution 
gives political rights to nationals 
only. These arc extended to non-
nationals EU citizens (for EP and 
municipal elections on the basis 
of reciprocity).The Law on poli 
tical parties  (DL 595/74) docs 
not envisage the forming of 
political parties by non-nationals. 
The reform of these provisions is 
currently featured  in the Govern 
ment's legislative programme. 
Yes, if they reside in Finland and 
are over 15 years of age 
Yes 

United Kingdom 

Yes 

* Information  provided by the Member States 

Yes at the discretion of political 
parties. Main political parties 
have non-national members 

No 

Polling stations may not be 
composed exclusively  by non-
nationals. Art 9° B Lei 14/87( to 
avoid polarisation) 

Yes, if they reside in Finland 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

None 

None 

None 

TABLE 5* 

Member State 

Belgium 

Denmark 

Germany 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Ireland 

Italy 

Luxembourg 

Netherlands 

IMPLEMENTATION OF COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 93/109/EC 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DIRECTIVE'S OPTIONS BY MEMBER STATES 

ART 7 §1: The MS of residenee may 
check whether non-nationals who have 
expressed a desire to exercise their right to 
vote there have not been deprived of that 
right in their home MS through an 
individual civil or criminal law decision. 

ART 9 §3 : The MS of residence may also 
require a Community voter to: a) state that 
he has not been  deprived of the right to vote 
in his home MS; b) produce a valid identity 
document; c) indicate the date from which 
he has been resident in that State or in 
another MS. 

ART  10 § 3  : The MS of residence may 
require a Community national entitled to 
stand as candidate to produce a) valid 
identity document ; b) state the date from 
which he has been a national of a MS. 

Yes. Art 3 bis L  (d'office) 

No 

a) Yes. Art  1  §3, 2, 2° Loi 23 
mars 
b) No 
c)No 
No. 

No 

No 

a) Yes. 11 §2 Nr lb-Id Eu WG 
b) Yes.  11 § 2 Nr  lb-Id EuWG 

a) Yes. Art 5 §2. 
b) Yes. Art 5 §2. 

a) Yes. Art 220 bis §2 LO 
b) Yes. Art 220 bis §2 LO 

No 

No. 

No 

Yes. Art 6a § 2 Nr 2 EU WG in 
relation with Art. 17 a §5 Eu WO. 
(when necessary, in case of 
doubt) 
Yes, after the exchange of the 
necessary information  with the 
other MS (Art  6 Law 2196/94. 
Yes. Art,3 d) RD (when 
necessary) 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No. 

a) Yes. Art.6 § 2 Nr 2 ELTWin 
relation to  17a(4) Eu WO 
b) Yes. 
c) Yes 
a) Yes. Art 4 §3 a) 
b) Yes. Art 4 §3 b) 
c) Yes. Art 4 §3 c) 
a) Yes. Art3§ld)RD. 
b) Yes. Art 3 § 2 RD 
c)No 
a) Yes. Art 2 §4 
b)Yes 
c)No 
No 

a) Yes. Art2 $2 -  preferably 
presenting a  certificate. 
b)No 
c)No 
a) Yes. Art  1, (2)  1° d) 
b) Yes. Art  1,(2)  2° 
c) Yes . Art  I. (2) 3° 
a) Yes. Y33 I 
b)No 
c)No 

ART  14 § 1 : If the proportion of eligible 
non nationals exceeds 20% of eligible 
voters, derogation to conditions of access to 
vote and to candidatures are possible. 
ART  14 § 2 : If national law allows non-
nationals to vote for national  Parliament 
elections, Art 6-13 are not applicable to 
them. 
No 
No 

No 
No 

No 
No 

No 
No 

No 
No 

No 
No 

No 
Yes for resident  British citizens 
only 
No 
No 

a) Yes. Art 98 (2°) 
b)No 

Yes,§l. Art 106 (5) 
No 

No 

No 
No 

Austria 

Portugal 

Finland 

Sweden 

United  Kingdom 

No 

No 

Yes (when necessary) 

No 

No 

a)Yes : Section 5(1) WEG 
b) Yes 
c)No 
a) Yes Art 20 (9 -d) Lei 69/78 
(RE) 
b) Yes. Art 20 (3) (RE). 
c)No 
a) Yes when necessary 
b)No 
c)No 
No 

No 

a) No 
b)No 

a) Yes, art 24, lei 14/79 
b)No 

No 

No 

No 

1 
1 

No 
No 

No 
No 

No 
No 

No 
No 

No 
Yes. For Irish citizens only 

Information  provided  by the Member States 

TABLE  6* 

Member 
State 
Belgium 

Denmark 

Germany 

Greece 

Spain 

__ 
France 

_ _ __ 
Ireland 

Italy 

Luxembourg 

The 
Netherlands 

Austria 

Portugal 

Finland 

Sweden 

United 
Kingdom 

IMPLEMENTATION OF COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 93/109/EC 

TRANSPOSITION MEASURES IN THE MEMBER STATES 

Directive implemented  by: 

Loi du 11.4.94 modifiant  la Loi du 23 mars 1989 relative à l'élection du PE et portant 
exécution de la directive du Conseil des Communautés Européennes 93/109 du 6.12.93 in 
MB n° 10288 du 16.4.94 
Lov nr. 1086 af 22.12.93 om aendring af lov nr. 746 af 7.12.1988 om valg af danske 
repraesentanter til Europa-Parlamentet (L); Indenrigsministeriets bekendtgofelse nr. 79 af 
31.1.1994 om slettelse af den danske valgliste af personer, der er optaget pâ valglisten i en 
anden medlemsstat (N79); Indenrigsministeriets bekendtgerelse nr. 80 af 31.1.1994 om EU-
borgeres optagelse pâ valglisten til valg til Europa-Parlamentet (N80); Lov af 13.1.1997 om 
asndring af lov om valg af danske repraesentanter til Europa-Parlamentet. 
Drittes Gesetz zur Anderung des Europawahlgesetzes von 8.3.94, BGBI1994,1, p. 419, 
12.3.1994, Zweite Verordnung zur Anderung der Europawahlordnung von  15.3.94, BGBI 
1994,1, p.544, von  19.03.1994 
NôuoçaptG. 2196 rqç  22MapTiou  1994, ETtioriun, E(pT]pEp(ôa TT|Ç eXXtiviKf|ç KupépvT|ar]ç, 
TÔUQÇ 1  oeipd 41 Tnç 22 Map-riou 1994 KQI npoeSpucé ôttiTayua api8. 60/1994  (49 A) 
Ley Organica  13/94 de 30.3.94, BOE n° 77,102259 de 31.3.94 (LO); Real Decreto 2118/93 
de 3.12.93, BOE n° 290, 34662 de 4.12.94 (RD); Orden del Ministerio de Economia y 
Hacienda 30393 de 20.12.1993, BOE n° 305 de 22.12.1993 (O.30) e Orden del Ministerio de 
Economia y Hacienda de 28.1.94, BOE n° 25 de 29.1.94 (O.20). Real Decreto  157/1996 de 
2.2.1996 por el que se dispone la actualizacion mensual del censo electoral y se regulan los 
datos necesarios par la inscripcion en el mismo modificado con Ley Organica 1/1997 de 

30.5.1997, BOE n° 130 de 31.5.97 

Loi n° 94-104 du 5 février  1994 relative à l'exercice par les citoyens de l'Union Européenne 
résidant en France du droit de vote et de l'éligibilité au Parlement Européen (L); Décret n° 
94-206 du  10 mars 1994 pris pour l'application de la loi 94-104 du 5 février  1994 (D). 
European Parliament Elections (Voting and Candidature) Regulations  1994 of 31.12.1994; 
European Parliament Elections Act 1993, Electoral Act 1992; European Assembly Elections 
Acts  1977 and  1984, Statutory Declarations Act  1938; European Parliament Elections Act 
1997 
Decreto Legge n° 128 del 21.2.1994, GU n° 47 del 26.2.1994 reiterato dal DL n° 408 del 
24.6.94 convertito dalla Legge n° 483 del 3.8.1994, GU n° 183 del 6.8.1994 
Loi du 28 janvier  1994 fixant les modalités de l'élection des représentants du Grand Duché 
de Luxembourg au Parlement Européen. 
Wet van 26 januari  1994 houdende wijziging van de Kieswet ter uitvoering van richtlijn n. 
93/109/EG van 6.12.93 tot vaststelling an de wijze van uitoefening  in de Lid-staat van 
verblijf van het actieve en passieve kiesrecht bij de verkiezingen van het europese parlement, 
Staatsblad  1994,58. 
Bundesgesetz tiber die Wahl der von Osterreich zu entsendenden Abgeordneten zum 
Europâischen Parlament (Europawahlordnung -  EuWO, BGBI. Nr 117/1996) 
Bundesgesetz Uber die Fiihrung stândiger Evidenz der Wahl - und Stimmberechtigten bei 
Wahlen zum Europâischen Parlament (Europa-Wàhlerevidenzgesetz - Eu WEG, BGBI. Nr 
118/1996) 
Lei 3/94 de 28.2.94 (RE); Lei 4/94 de 9.3.94 (PE), Diario da Republica Série A n° 57 de 
9.3.94 
Laki Suomesta Euroopan parlamenttiin valittavien edustajien  vaaleista (272/95) 3.3.1995 

Lag om val till Europaparlamentet utfardad  den 20 april  1995, SFS  1995:374 (repealed) 1 
kap. 4, 8 och  13 §, 5 kap. 16 och 18 §, 7 kap. 5 och  12 § vallagen (SFS  1997:157) 
European Parliamentary Elections (Changes to the Franchise and Qualification  of 
Representatives) Regulations  1994 of 17.2.1994 

*  Information  provided by the Member States 

3^ 

TABLE  7* 

DEADLINES FOR APPLICATION TO ENTER INTO THE ELECTORAL ROLL 

In accordance to Article 9 (4) of Directive 93/109, EU citizens resident in another Member State who 
registered as voters in their Member State of residence for the June 1994 EP elections will remain on 
the electoral roll under the same conditions as nationals until they request to be removed from it or 
until they are removed automatically because they no longer fulfill  the necessary residence conditions. 

Other EU citizens wishing to vote in the Member State of residence in the next EP elections will have 
to request to be entered on the electoral roll. 

Below are indicated per Member State where and when the application must be submitted. 

Member  State 

Application  to be entered  on 
the electoral  roll to be 
submitted  to: 

Belgium 

municipality of residence 

Deadline 

Any time of the year except between  1  April and 
polling day on election year. 
Deadline for next EP elections: 31 March  1999 

Denmark 

district of registered  residence  Not later than 6 weeks before  polling day 

Germany 

municipality of residence 

At the latest 34 days before  polling day 

Greece 

municipality of residence 

Spain 

municipality of residence 

France 

municipality of residence 

Ireland 

County or City Council of 
residence 

Italy 

municipality of residence 

Luxembourg 

municipality of residence 

Netherlands 

municipality of residence 

Austria 

municipality of residence 

1 -10/April of each year 
Deadline for next EP elections:  10 April  1999 
At the latest 41 days before  polling day 

Last working day in December for  definite 
registration  in  1  March of the following  year. Dead 
line for the next EP elections: 30 December  1998 
Applications can be made throughout the year, 
Deadline for next EP elections:  13 working days 
before polling day 
At the latest 90 days before  polling day 

By  1  April of each year. 
Deadline for next EP elections: 31 March  1998 
Must be entered at the latest 42 days before  polling 
day on the population  register. 
For next EP elections: return form  to municipality 
of residence at the latest 3 weeks before  polling day 
At the latest 65 days before  polling day 

Portugal 

Finland 

electoral board of municipality  Between 2 and 31 May of each  year. 
of residence 
population registration  office 

Deadline for the next EP elections 31 May  1998 
At the latest 66 days before  polling day 

Sweden 

local tax office 

At the latest 30 days before  polling day 

United 
Kingdom 

local registration  office  (ERO)  Must be resident in the UK by qualifying  date 

^ 

|_ 

* Information  provided  by the Member States 

which  is  10 October of any year and  1 September 
for NI. For next EP elections return form  to local 
ERO no later than  16 December  1998. 

3, S 

ISSN 0254-1475 

COM(97) 731 final 

DOCUMENTS 

EN 

06  01  05 

Catalogue number  :  CB-CO-97-752-EN-C 

ISBN  92-78-29910-3 

Office  for Official  Publications of the European Communities 

L-2985  Luxembourg 

33