COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION on the application of Directive 93/109/EC to the June 1999 elections to the European Parliament - Right of Union citizens residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals to vote and stand in elections to the European Parliament
Date: 2000-12-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: member country, national, parliamentary election, right to stand for election, right to vote

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 18.12.2000
COM(2000)843 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION

on the application of Directive 93/109/EC to the June 1999 elections to the
European Parliament

Right of Union citizens residing in a Member State of which they are not
nationals to vote and stand in elections to the European Parliament

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION

on the application of Directive 93/109/EC to the June 1999 elections to the European
Parliament

Right of Union citizens residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals to
vote and stand in elections to the European Parliament

1.

INTRODUCTION

The right to vote and stand in municipal elections and elections to the European
Parliament in the Member State of residence is one of the new rights conferred on
Union citizens under the Treaty.

the EC Treaty and was put

The right to vote and stand in elections to the European Parliament is enshrined in
into effect by Council
Article 19(2) of
Directive 93/109/EC1 of 6 December 1993 laying down detailed arrangements for the
exercise of the right to vote and stand as a candidate in elections to the European
Parliament for citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not
nationals2.

Directive 93/109/EC was applied for the first time on the occasion of the elections to
In accordance with Article 16 the
the European Parliament
Commission reported to Parliament and the Council on the application of the
Directive to those elections4.

in June 19943.

Although the Directive does not provide for a second report to be drawn up on the
June 1999 elections, an appraisal would appear to be necessary for a number of
reasons. The first is the circumstances in which the Directive was applied in 1994;
given the date the Directive was adopted, it was incorporated into the Member States'
implementing
law only shortly before the June 1994 elections (the national
legislation was adopted between 22 December 1993 and 11 April 1994), leaving little
time for the targeted campaigns needed to inform Union citizens of their rights and
how to exercise them. Second, because of the special circumstances of the 1994
elections, the conclusions of the subsequent report were provisional, particularly as
regards Article 12 (the duty to inform) and Article 13 (information exchange system
to prevent electors voting twice) of the Directive. Finally, as a result of collaboration
between the Commission and national government departments, several changes

1

2

3

4

OJ L 329, 30.12.1993, p. 34.
The Directive relates only to voting in the MS of residence for the list of candidates of that
Member State. Some Member States give their nationals residing in other Member State the right to
vote for lists in the country of origin. This is governed solely by the domestic law of the Member State
of origin.
The first elections to the European Parliament
17 December 1995, 13 October 1996 and 20 October 1996 respectively.
COM(1997) 731 final.

in Sweden, Austria and Finland were held on

2

have been made to the detailed arrangements for exchanging information (under
Article 13 of the Directive), the effectiveness of which needs to be verified.

The purpose of this communication is therefore to assess the application of the
Directive to the June 1999 elections, highlight the main problems that emerged, and
publicise and encourage the good practices developed in certain Member States, with
the aim of increasing participation by Union citizens in the political life of their
Member State of residence.

This communication should also be seen in the light of
the Commission's
commitment to ensure proper application of Community law and to bring the Union
closer to its citizens. The political rights conferred on Union citizens residing in a
Member State of which they are not nationals are an important factor in fostering a
sense of belonging to the European Union and a key element
in successful
integration in the Member State of residence.

This communication will concentrate on problem areas, in particular the provision of
information to Community nationals and the way the information exchange system
works.

2.

DIRECTIVE 93/109/EC

2.1.

General presentation

In pursuing the aims laid down in Article 19(2) of the EC Treaty, Directive 93/109
lays down the principles under which Union citizens residing in a Member State of
which they are not nationals can exercise their rights in their Member State of
residence, provided that they meet the conditions laid down by the electoral law of
that State with regard to its own nationals. These principles are:

Freedom of choice

Union citizens are free to exercise their rights in their Member State of origin or in
their Member State of residence.

Single vote and single candidacy

No one may vote or stand as a candidate in more than one Member State in the same
election to the European Parliament. By opting to vote or stand in one Member State,
the Union citizen automatically loses that right
in the other Member State. To
prevent electors voting or standing twice, the Member States exchange information
on their nationals who exercise their electoral rights in another Member State.

First entry on the electoral roll in the Member State of residence by application
only

Union citizens who wish to exercise their right to vote 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, Union citizens must enjoy
electoral rights in their Member State of residence on the same terms as nationals of
that State. This includes, for example, access to the same appeal procedures with

3

regard to omissions or errors in the electoral roll or applications to stand as a
candidate, or the extension of compulsory voting to non-nationals. Similarly, once on
the electoral roll, the Union citizen remains registered on the same terms as nationals,
unless he or she specifically asks to be removed. This also means that Union citizens
must be able to participate fully in the political life of their Member State of
residence, particularly as regards membership of existing political parties or the
setting-up of new political parties.

Extra-territorial effect of the rules on the disqualification of candidates

Persons deprived of the right to stand in their Member State of origin may not be
elected to the European Parliament in their Member State of residence.

A duty to inform

To ensure that Community electors living in a Member State other than their own are
aware of their new entitlements, the Directive requires the Member State of residence
to inform such persons “in good time and in an appropriate manner” of how they
may exercise these rights.

Possibility of derogations where warranted by a specific situation in a
Member State

Article 14 exceptionally allows for derogations from the principle of equal treatment
where this is warranted by problems specific to a given Member State. The Directive
contains two derogations. The first relates to minimum residence requirements which
may be imposed on non-nationals by Member States where the proportion of Union
citizens of voting age who are resident there but not nationals exceeds 20% of all
electors. The second concerns Member States in which Community 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. In this situation the
Directive allows the Member States to refrain from applying some of its provisions
(Articles 6 to 13) to nationals of other Member States.

2.2.

Transposal of the Directive

Under Article 17, the Member States had until 1 February 1994 to incorporate the
Directive into national law so that it would be in force by the June 1994 elections.

All the Member States transposed the Directive in time for its application in
June 1994, although in many cases the date of implementation was very close to the
elections (between 22 December 1993 and 11 April 1994).

Overall, the Directive has been satisfactorily transposed by the Member States, some
of which made a few minor amendments to their implementing legislation at the
Commission's request.

the infringement procedure provided for in
In one case (involving Germany),
Article 226 of the Treaty has had to be initiated and pursued up to the reasoned
opinion stage. Under German legislation, an electoral roll is drawn up for each
election and subsequently destroyed. For the purposes of establishing this electoral
roll, the law implementing the Directive made a distinction between electors of
German nationality and other Union citizens. German electors were entered
automatically on the roll, which was drawn up on the basis of population registers.

4

By contrast, non-German electors could be enrolled only on request, even if their
names had been entered on the municipal population register and even if they had
already been included on the electoral roll for the previous election and their
situation had not changed. Union citizens therefore had to repeat their request for
entry on the electoral roll before each election, whereas Article 9(4) of the Directive
states that Community voters who have been entered on the electoral roll shall
remain thereon, under the same conditions as voters who are nationals, until such
time as they request
to be removed or until such time as they are removed
automatically because they no longer satisfy the requirements for exercising the right
to vote.

The infringement proceedings are still
amend
intention to
Directive 93/109/EC.

its national

in motion. Germany has announced its
into line with

bring it

legislation to

Incorrect transposal of the Directive in Germany had significant repercussions on
participation by Union citizens in the June 1999 elections (see point 3.2).

3.

THE JUNE 1999 ELECTIONS

3.1.

General overview

In general, the June 1999 elections to the European Parliament saw an overall drop in
turnout, continuing the trend since Parliament was first elected by direct universal
suffrage.

The table giving voting figures in the fifteen Union Member States shows that slight
increases in turnout were recorded only in Belgium, Spain, Greece, Ireland and
Portugal. However, it is worth noting that the elections in Belgium and Spain were
held on the same day as national and municipal elections respectively. In some
countries there was a very significant fall in turnout, for example in Finland, Austria
and Germany. Turnout in the European Union as a whole fell from 56.5% in 1994 to
49.7% in 1999 (at the first elections, held in 1979, it was 63%).

Overall turnout at EP elections in 1994 and 1999

A

B5

D DK E

F

FI GR5

I

IRL L5 NL

P

S UK EU

67.7

90.7

60

52.9

59.1

52.7

60.3

71.2

73.7

44

88.5 36

35.5

41.6

36.4

56.5

49.4

90.8

45.2

50.5

63.1

46.8

30.1

75.3

70.8

50.2

88.5 29.9

40

38.8

24

49.7

94

99

%

5

Voting is compulsory in Belgium, Greece and Luxembourg.

5

3.2.

Participation in the June 1999 elections by Union citizens residing in another
Member State

Once again the proportion of Union citizens entered on the electoral roll of their
Member State of residence was generally low and varied greatly from country to
country, as is evident from the following table:

Proportion of Union citizens registered to vote in their Member
State of residence

%

A

B

D DK E

F

FI GR

I

IRL L NL

P

S UK EU

7.9

5.1

6.7

24.9

12.6

3.4

22

1.6

1.8

44.16 6.6

--

2.3

24

1.96

5.9

15.1

7.7

2.1

26.6

22.4

4.9

28.1

1.8

9.2

43.9

8.8

16.9

13.6

27.2

23.1

9

94

99

it

is worth noting that,

in all Member States except Germany,

However,
the
proportion is on the increase. Moreover, the rate of voter registration is very low in
the two Member States which have the greatest number of Union citizens from
another Member State (Germany and France - host to 63% of the Union citizens
residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals), thus bringing down the
Union average (which would be 17.3 % without France and Germany).

Infringement proceedings have commenced against Germany for incorrect transposal
of Directive 93/109/EC.

Union citizens registered in 1994 who, as a result of the incorrect transposal, had to
apply to be re-entered on the electoral roll in 1999, in breach of the Directive, were
not adequately informed of this requirement or of the relevant time-limits. This
explains the fall in turnout and prompted most of the complaints to the Commission
and petitions to Parliament (see Annex 5).

The percentage of voters registered in France changed very little compared with
1994 (an increase from 3.38% to 4.9%) and remains well below the Union average.

Greece has the lowest rate of registration of all the fifteen Member States, with only
very little change compared with 1994.

No figures are available on how many Community citizens residing in a
Member State of which they are not nationals actually turned out to vote. The only
available figures are for the number of such citizens included on the electoral roll
and, in some Member States, the number of such citizens registered to vote in their
Member State of origin. However, it can be assumed that the great majority of Union

6

Excluding British nationals.

6

citizens who go to the trouble of asking to be included on the electoral roll actually
exercise their right to vote and that, consequently, the abstention rate for such
persons is insignificant.

Useful information might be gleaned from a comparison of these figures with those
for the number of citizens residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals
who vote for lists in their country of origin. Unfortunately, only nine Member States
have supplied such data - A, B, D, DK, E, I, IRL, NL and P. Also, some
Member States (FI, IRL, L, NL, UK) have not broken down by nationality the data
on Community nationals registered to vote, so that no comparison of the two sets of
figures is possible. Nevertheless, despite these gaps, Annex 6 does highlight some
broad trends. For example, there are enormous differences between Member States:
while voting in the country of origin is negligible in some Member States (B, IRL),
in others it is more common than voting in the Member State of residence (A, E, I,
P). No doubt there are a number of reasons for this state of affairs, such as the
provisions of the electoral legislation in the Member State of origin, the extent of
effective links with the Member State of origin and the efforts made to inform people
and encourage them to vote in the Member State of origin. In any event, this is an
additional factor to be taken into account when analysing the turnout of Union
citizens in the Member State of residence. No doubt the large proportion of voters
who decide to vote for lists in their Member State of origin is also connected with the
fact that political debate during the election campaign focuses little on European
issues, but mainly on matters of national concern.

It can also be argued that the registration rate is influenced by the growing trend
towards short-term stays in another Member State for professional or other reasons.

Union citizens residing in another Member State would probably be more inclined to
exercise their electoral rights in their Member State of residence if they felt they
were properly represented and their views heard. It is therefore important to give
life of their
them a real opportunity to play an active part
Member State of residence. Annex 5 shows that the right to set up and join political
parties in the Member State of residence is not guaranteed in all Member States. The
Commission would reiterate7 that political rights are a necessary precondition for
exercising the right to vote and stand in elections enshrined in Article 19 of the
Treaty, particularly as in most Member States only political parties are allowed to put
forward candidates for the European elections. Without the right to full participation
in local political life, the right to stand in elections is incomplete.

in the political

Against this background it is not surprising that, as in 1994, very few candidates
stood for election - or were elected - in Member States of which they were not
nationals. The table below shows the number of non-national candidates and the
number of non-national elected MEPs in the June 1999 elections in each
Member State.

7

See second Commission report on Union citizenship (COM(1997) 230 final), point 1.4.

7

Number of non-national candidates and elected MEPs by
Member State

A

1

0

B

14

2

D DK E

16

0

0

0

10

0

F

8

1

FI GR

0

0

5

0

I

6

1

IRL L NL

0

0

--

--

2

0

P

0

0

S UK EU

0

0

--

--

62

4

Candidates

Elected

In 1994, 53 non-national candidates stood for election in their Member State of
residence and only one was elected.

3.3.

Informing Union citizens (Article 12 of the Directive)

The June 1994 elections were the first in which non-nationals could take part8.

In its report on the 19949 elections to the European Parliament, the Commission
concluded that not enough had been done to inform citizens of their new entitlements.
It therefore suggested that 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.

There is no doubt that an enormous information effort was required if the rights
conferred - by virtue of Union citizenship - on more than five million Europeans of
voting age living in another Member State were to be exercised, as these citizens
were unaware not only of their rights, but also of how to go about availing
themselves of these rights in their Member State of residence. Moreover, the relevant
procedures might well have differed from those in their Member State of origin.

We may well be justified in thinking that most of the persons concerned are now
aware of their right to vote in their Member State of residence, but there is equal
justification for supposing that most of them are not sufficiently familiar with the
procedures for exercising that right, in particular how to be included on the electoral
roll. This point emerges from the complaints received by the Commission and the
many petitions handled by the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions (see
Annex 5).

The table in Annex 1 shows the type of information campaign conducted in each
Member State and the percentage of non-national Union citizens entered on the
electoral roll. It is encouraging to note that six Member States sent information direct
to potential electors (Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Spain, Ireland10 and the

8

9

10

Except in Ireland and the United Kingdom, which had already granted non-nationals the right to vote.
COM(1997) 731 final.
Information sent to all households on how to exercise the right to vote.

8

United Kingdom11). In other Member States (Italy, Germany), some municipal
authorities sent the requisite information direct to electors, although it is difficult to
evaluate its scope. This type of information once again proved its effectiveness, as
the rate of registration of Union citizens in the six Member States named was 23.5%,
compared with 9% for the Union as a whole.

Under Article 12 of the Directive, Member States must inform Community voters and
Community nationals entitled to stand as candidates in good time and in an
appropriate manner of the conditions and detailed arrangements for the exercise of
the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections in that State. A first remark
to be made on this Article is that its scope is not confined to the first elections
conducted in accordance with the Directive. Nothing in the Article itself or in the
general scheme of the Directive points to such a conclusion.

It
is also worth noting the difficulties in defining the concept of conveying
information "in an appropriate manner". In reply to a Parliamentary question12, the
Commission stated that the only obligation incumbent on Member States is to inform
residents in an appropriate manner whereas the choice of the way in which this
information is carried out is left entirely to the discretion of the Member States
themselves. While Member States are clearly given a broad margin of discretion,
information must nonetheless be provided with due regard for the aims of the Article
and in line with the stated objectives of the Directive.

The Commission considers that Member States must specifically inform the Union
citizens residing on their territory of the detailed arrangements and conditions for
exercising their electoral rights. This means that a Member State cannot fulfil its
obligation under Article 12 merely by providing the information it normally provides
for its own nationals. If this were the case, Article 12 would be deprived of any
practical effect, which cannot be allowed. The information must therefore be tailored
to meet the specific information requirements of those electors.

The Commission therefore feels that, in assessing whether this provision of the
Directive is properly implemented, account must be taken not of the law transposing
it but of the practical results of the provision of information and its effects on the
turnout of Union citizens in the European Parliament elections. The Commission is
aware of the difficulties in laying down minimum thresholds below which Article 12
of the Directive could be considered to be incorrectly applied. The very nature of the
exercise means that a case-by-case approach must be adopted rather than setting
general criteria or thresholds in advance.

The Commission considers that the Member States where the registration rate is
lower than the EU average (which is already low because of the statistical weight of
Germany and France) should implement specific information measures, which might
include sending personalised information by post or providing EU citizens with
appropriate information whenever they have contact with the local or national
authorities.

11

12

Idem.
Written question No E-3111/95 - OJ C 79, 18.3.1996, p. 50.

9

The Commission considers that a very low participation rate well below the Union
average, is an indication of inappropriate provision of information and could result in
the Member State in question being held responsible for incorrect application of
Article 12 of the Directive.

3.4.

The information exchange system

Article 13 of the Directive provides that Member States shall exchange the
the
information required for the implementation of Article 4. To that end,
Member State of residence shall, on the basis of the formal declaration referred to in
Articles 9 and 10, supply the home Member State, sufficiently in advance of polling
day, with information on the latter State's nationals entered on electoral rolls or
standing as candidates. The home Member State shall, in accordance with its
national legislation, take appropriate measures to ensure that its nationals do not
vote more than once or stand as candidates in more than one Member State.

This Article follows naturally from the two basic principles of the Directive: freedom
of choice, and a single vote and a single candidacy.

identifying the exact information required by Member States in order to delete

pinpointing the national authorities to whom the notification must be

At the 1994 European Parliament elections, the Commission detected a number of
flaws in the implementation of the information exchange system. In its subsequent
report13, it stated that its services were working with Member States with a view to:
•
addressed by the Member State of residence;
•
a voter's name from their own electoral roll;
•
•
proceedings.
However, the Commission went on to state that, should the attempt fail and the
system as presently conceived prove to be incompatible with widely different
registration deadlines in the Member States, the only alternative would be to amend
the Directive.

agreeing on a common format for the form used to exchange information;
exploring ways in which the exchange can be made electronically to speed up

The Commission has endeavoured to implement these recommendations in close
cooperation with the Member States. Efforts have been concentrated on circulating a
list of the national authorities responsible for receiving data, defining the data to be
sent to the Member State of origin (drawing up a standard form), adopting a single
electronic exchange format and laying down the practical arrangements for
information exchange (computer diskettes and/or e-mail).

All conceivable measures in connection with the Directive have therefore been taken
and their performance in 1999 now needs to be assessed.

following the

In order to assess properly the working of the information exchange system at the
the Commission sent
June 1999 elections
Member States a questionnaire on 12 July 1999 on the application of the Directive to
the June 1999 elections. Annex 2 contains their appraisal of the effectiveness of the
information exchange mechanism and their thoughts on whether to amend the
Directive on this point.

changes made,

13

COM(1997) 731 final, p. 24.

10

In general, most Member States (B, DK, DE, ES, IRL, IT, P, UK) found that the
information exchange system worked better than in 1994.

roll citizens registered in another Member State. Spain,

However, only Austria, Belgium, Denmark and Finland replied in the affirmative to
the question of whether the data received made it possible to identify and delete from
Italy,
the electoral
Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Portugal were able to do so only partially. Many
different reasons are given for the system's lack of effectiveness including:
• incomplete information;
• information received too late;
• illegible computer media;
• unusable information on paper;
• legal obstacles to amending the electoral roll once established.

In general the Member States see no need to amend the Directive with respect to the
information exchange system. However, some of them (A, B, I, NL) highlight the
need to set a period of time for the information exchange procedure which would
allow all Member States to delete the persons in question from their electoral rolls.
Others (IRL, UK) even suggest abolishing the exchange system altogether and
replacing it with a statement on the part of the elector.

to a number of practical

In view of the Member States' replies, it appears that the present system could be
retained, subject
improvements. For example, further
discussion is needed on the data required for identification in each Member State,
which vary enormously according to each State's administrative traditions. Practical
solutions must also be found to the problems posed by countries which do not have a
centralised register.

Nevertheless, we must not lose sight of the fact that the information exchange system
must remain simple; otherwise it would be disproportionate to the scale of the
problem it sets out to resolve.

The actual exercise of exchanging information threw up a number of new problems,
which will no doubt worsen at future elections and must be resolved.

The most serious of these problems - in terms of its consequences - is that electors
included on the list communicated, as part of the exchange provided for in
Article 13, by the Member State of residence were removed from the electoral roll in
their home Member State, although they had already left the territory of the Member
State of residence and returned to their home Member State. The persons concerned
were deprived of their right to vote in the European Parliament elections. This matter
will have to be discussed with the Member States in order to establish the causes and
find a practical solution.

Several Member States pointed to the gap in the Directive regarding persons with
dual nationality where both countries are EU Member States. In the absence of any
relevant provisions in the Directive, this is a potential source of double voting.

However, the question of dual nationality falls outside the scope of the Directive,
which is concerned with Union citizens residing in a Member State of which they are
not nationals. A citizen who has dual nationality,
including nationality of the
Member State of residence, is not, by definition, residing in a Member State of which
he is not a national.

11

In any event, whatever the real extent of the problem, dual nationality is a potential
source of double voting. It is therefore worth investigating whether this loophole can
be closed using the information exchange system. The Commission feels that,
although formally this question falls outside the scope of the Directive, it should be
examined further in discussions with the Member States on the information exchange
system.

Two Member States have raised the question of the different regulations governing
residence, which may lead to a situation where a person is considered as legally
resident in two different countries. The Commission feels that this problem deserves
to be examined and discussed further with the responsible authorities in the
Member States.

4.

CONCLUSIONS

4.1.

Informing citizens

Participation in elections in the Member State of residence admittedly depends on
various factors and should be seen in the light of the overall reduction in election
turnout. Nevertheless the divergences between the rate of registration on the different
Member States' electoral rolls are too wide to be attributed solely to factors that
cannot be influenced by information campaigns.

The Commission's view is that, although Member States enjoy great discretionary
power in choosing the practical arrangements for informing Union citizens, this
should be done "in good time and in an appropriate manner". Member States where
the rate of registration is well below the Union average (chiefly Greece, Germany
and France) must therefore do their utmost to meet in full their obligation to inform
Community nationals by improving the effectiveness of
information. The
Commission feels that these three Member States must now make a start towards
achieving that goal.

The Commission encourages all the Member States which have not yet done so to
use a system of direct personal letters sent out by post to Community electors
residing on their territory. As far as possible, Member States should enable citizens
to enter their names on the electoral roll simply by filling in a form and returning it
by post.

The Commission feels that other avenues should be explored,
in particular the
possibility of providing Community nationals with application forms for electoral
registration whenever they have contact with the local or national authorities. Efforts
must now focus as much on encouraging and helping citizens to enrol in the
Member State of residence as on informing them of their right to vote and stand in
elections. Whereas traditional information campaigns are mounted only in the run-up
to each election, encouraging citizens to register must be a permanent task.

4.2.

The information exchange system

the operation of

the information exchange system has proved
Once again,
unsatisfactory. There are two factors at work here - failure by some Member States to
adhere to the rules laid down for exchanging information and the electoral legislation
of some of the Member States.

12

In cooperation with the authorities responsible in the Member States,
the
Commission intends to press ahead with efforts to improve the practical exchange of
information within the present
legislative framework. The Commission believes
there is no need to amend the Directive, even though the lack of harmonised
time-limits for inclusion on the electoral roll makes the exercise difficult to put into
practice.

The Commission would also stress that any system that is introduced must remain in
commensurate with the scale of the problem it is meant to resolve.

13

Annexes

14

Information campaign

Description of the information campaign

Government delegated responsibility to municipalities to inform non-nationals of voting procedures.
Information campaign through Internet.

Announcement
offices - announcement on Internet and in national newspapers.

in the Official

Journal – Leaflet distributed through local authorities and post

Member
State

Austria

Belgium

Denmark

Information letter by Home Office sent to all non-national EU citizens.

Finland

France

Germany

Personal information letter sent to all citizens. Information also given in national press.

Information campaign by Government Information Service. Hotlines providing information. Internet sites of
EP, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Home Office. Radio announcements.

Official announcement published in three national daily newspapers and one weekly newspaper. Official
announcement published in several regional newspapers. Leaflet in all EU languages distributed by the Home
Office of the Länder. Campaign on Internet. Several initiatives from Länder and local authorities.

Greece

Media and advertising leaflets.

15

ANNEX 1

Percentage of non-
national citizens
registered

15.1%

7.7%

26.6%

28.1%

4.9%

2.1%

1.8%

Ireland

Factsheet highlighting electoral rights of resident Community citizens enclosed with standard registration
forms issued to households (also sent to all Community citizens known to have taken up residence since 1994).
In November 1998, national newspaper campaign for the draft 1999/2000 register, which would be used for
1999 European and local elections. Notices in national newspapers on 7 and 16 May 1999 highlighted the
electoral rights of resident Community citizens at the elections and the closing date for registration of 24 May
1999.

Italy

Information campaign through local authorities. Regional TV, radio and press campaigns. Information letter
sent to non-national EU citizens

Luxembourg

Information brochure published by Government. Personal letters sent in various languages. Information and
awareness-heightening meetings at
local authority level. Advertisements in local authority newsheets.
Campaign posters.

Netherlands

Registration form and information letter sent to all non-national Community citizens (in all official languages
of EU). Announcements by local authorities. Information call centres. Letter sent to political parties informing
them of the rights of non-national EU citizens. Media campaign: TV, radio and leaflets. Media campaign by
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and personal letters addressed to Dutch nationals residing in other Member States.

Portugal

Spain

Leaflet published in various EU official languages directed at residents in Portugal. Also information through
the media (TV, radio and newspapers)

Campaign consisting of advertisements on national TV and radio and regional TV and leaflets distributed in
English, French, German and Spanish explaining voting rights. Local councils carried out their own campaigns
targeted at Community citizens in their area. Personal letters sent to all Community citizens registered in the
municipalities of Spain. Letter included information on the elections and designed so that the citizen only had
to mark whether he wished to vote in Spain or not and return the letter to his local authority.

43.9%

9.2%

8.8%

16.9%

13.6%

22.4%

16

Sweden

All EU citizens on population register in Sweden received information and registration forms sent direct to
their homes. EU citizens moving to Sweden after April received the information and registration forms sent to
them by local tax centres.

United
Kingdom

Leaflet issued in August 1998 sent to all embassies and cultural organisations asking to assist in distribution.
Information campaign same as 1994. Leaflet sent in May to all households reminding them of their right to
vote and new voting system implemented.

27.2%

23.1%

17

Workings of the information exchange system

ANNEX 2

Member State

With
data
the
received, were you
able to identify and
remove citizens from
the electoral register?
If not, why not?

With the information
be
sent, will
it
possible
to identify
and remove citizens
from the
electoral
register? Why?

In your view, how
the
did
well
information exchange
function,
system
especially
as
compared with 1994?

Is the present system
for
adequate
preventing
double
voting?

you

think
Do
93/109/CE
Directive
needs to be amended?
If so, in what ways?

Germany

Austria

No, because of the way the
exchange
information
into
put
system was
practice. The UK sent no
information, and half the
notifications from the other
were
Member
incomplete (constituencies
where voters last registered
were not stated).

States

Austria was able to identify
the citizens concerned and
prevent double voting.

Notifications were sent by
German local authorities on
paper, using the standard
form. The data sent were
used to identify persons
registered in Germany.

Sending the data on the
standard form created extra
work. Receiving the data
on diskettes lightened the
workload
considerably
compared with 1994.

Not applicable.

Using the data supplied by
Austria, the other Member
States were able to identify
voters and remove them
from their national electoral
registers.

18

the

theory

In
present
system is adequate, but its
practice
application
leaves
something to be
desired.

in

data

The dates for receiving and
sending
for
exchange
information
purposes
be
harmonised.

should

If the problems cannot be
eliminated,
the Directive
could be amended in such
as way as to do away with
the
of
exchange
information, which could
be replaced by an official
statement by the voter.

in

so
about

The Directive should be
that
amended
all
information
citizens
a
residing
Member State of which
they are not nationals is
kept
a
in
centralised
Commission
data base. At the very least,
the deadlines for sending
data should be harmonised.

together

Belgium

Yes.

It depends on how each
Member State organises the
system.

Checks were more effective
than in 1994, thanks to the
use of diskettes.

It would be hard for the
existing system to eliminate
double voting completely.

arrangements

for
The
information
exchanging
should be
tighter, with
diskettes or e-mail used as
a matter of course and a
deadline
the
set
exchange of information.

for

Denmark

Yes.

had

pieces

people,

Some Member States may
difficulty
have
as
identifying
certain
of
information which might be
to the MS of
important
origin (maiden name) were
not
last
supplied. The
constituency in the MS of
always
origin was
stated, particularly in the
case of voters registered in
1994.

not

Except with the UK,
the
information
exchange of
generally went better than
in 1994.

Non

existing

We can be fairly sure that
system
the
prevents Danish nationals
voting twice. However, the
system makes no allowance
dual
people with
for
nationality, Danish and that
of another Member State,
or of the fact that, under the
rules for deciding where a
person is domiciled, which
vary from one Member
State to another, a person
may be legally domiciled in
States
several Member
under
applicable
the
national rules.

19

Spain

Finland

France

Greece

Yes.

9 870
were
citizens
identified, accounting for
60% of
the notifications
received from MS.

identified were
Those not
not on electoral registers in
Spain, or their registration
was questionable.

The system worked better
thanks to
than in 1994,
computerised
data
processing.

Yes.

problems:

Main
no
information was supplied
by
it
arrived late or it was hard
to computerise.

countries,

some

One problem did crop up:
citizens had been removed
from Spanish
electoral
registers
information
received from other MS,
although they had already
left the MS concerned.

on

There should therefore be a
updating
for
procedure
information before voting
cards are sent out. It should
rule out automatic removal
from registers.

See previous answers.

Yes,
it was possible to
identify all voters. It would
not have been possible
without computerisation.

No reply.

No, for two reasons:
- there is no provision in
legislation for the removal
from the register of Greek
nationals abroad who vote
for
candidates
abroad;

Greek

not

- because the data received
the
did
information
to
identify voters.

contain
needed

Additional information was
attached to the data sent on
to
diskette
facilitate identification of
persons.

order

in

The data should be sent no
later than 60-70 days before
polling day.

current

The
system is
satisfactory, provided that
MS send data in good time.

No reply.

Cannot say.

No reply.

No reply.

No reply.

There are still shortcomings
in the present system.

The system could be further
improved.

Detailed
instructions
regarding how the rolls in
each MS are
structured
should be supplied.

20

Ireland

Italy

Luxembourg

Probably not, for the same
reasons as Ireland could not
identify Irish citizens.

The exercise was better
managed than in 1994,
operating generally in line
with
agreed
the
arrangements.

body

The absence of a national
for
coordinating
in
sending
the
Germany
Netherlands
in
numerous tranches of paper
copies
received,
being
which was unsatisfactory.

notifications
and
resulted

As home Member States
cannot
their
identify
citizens from notifications
received,
present
the
system does not seem to
have the capacity to prevent
double voting.

There is no direct evidence
that double voting occurs at
European
so
perhaps
information
exchange between MS may
be unnecessary.

elections,

The resources applied to
information
exchange
would be better employed
encouraging
to
vote.

citizens

inadequate

The data provided was
wholly
to
enable to identify whether
the persons concerned were
Ireland.
in
registered
Additional
information is
needed, such as their last
full
in
Ireland and the year they
left.

address

postal

There is no provision in
Irish law for the removal of
a person’s name from the
register. Anyway,
Irish
citizens living abroad for
more than 18 months are
in
entitled to vote
not
Ireland.

In principle, yes.

The system worked slightly
better than in 1994.

the

With
information
received we were able to
identify and eliminate only
a few cases: 15 308 out of
the
notifications
received.

57 298

It might be worth amending
the Directive to include a
for
single
registration and information
exchange.

deadline

the

voting

In
present
circumstances, checks for
are
double
the
inadequate,
given
in
shortcomings
the
information
exchange
system and the absence of
rules
dual
governing
nationality.

Using the data recorded, it
was possible to identify
persons
in
Luxembourg.

registered

No change compared with
1994.

The present system does
not seem such as to prevent
double voting entirely.

In most cases, yes. The
were:
main
problems
incomplete
addresses
giving only the country and
not
the municipality, and
lack of data on the length of
the period of
residence
abroad.

21

of

Whatever else happens, the
scope
the Directive
needs to be extended to
include rules for citizens
with dual nationality. The
the MS set
fact
different
for
deadlines
voter registration is a major
stumbling-block.

that

The Directive does not
seem to contain enough
criteria for assessing the
position of EC nationals
regarded as residing in their
country of origin (under
that country's laws) and in
State
another Member
(under the latter's laws).

Netherlands

of

cases

double
Seven
registration were detected.
However, most of the data
nationals
on
Dutch
in
registered as electors
other Member States (60
000) arrived too late to be
checked (manually) or on
diskettes which were often
illegible.

Yes. The categories of data
used were agreed on at the
European level.

The system works better in
theory than in practice. See
next answer.

22

still

also

Main problems detected: no
account is taken of people
with dual nationality. There
are
problems
determining the MS in
which nationals thought to
be residing in a particular
MS under that MS's law
and in another under the
law of the latter were to be
registered. Furthermore,
it
appears that some Member
States
automatically
sent nationals living abroad
voting cards for
the EP
elections or entered them in
their
registers without
clearly informing them of
the consequences of such
an
huge
amounts of data which MS
have to exchange with each
other have to be checked
short
within
extremely
deadlines. The
different
deadlines set by the MS for
registers
up
drawing
complicate matters
still
further.

action.

The

Portugal

There may be difficulties
owing to the fact that only
the country of origin is
stated.

Generally,
it was possible
to identify and remove the
people concerned using the
data
Main
received.
problems: data incomplete,
data sent to consulates (NL
and L) and lack of data
from UK.

Greater
would seem to be needed.

harmonisation

The system worked better
than in 1994 and made the
to
whole exercise easier
carry out. There needs to be
a stricter definition of the
bodies responsible for the
exchange and the fields to
be filled in for the purpose
of identifying voters. More
information is needed on
the practices followed in
for
country
each
transcribing
and
names
using abbreviations.

The Directive seems to be
satisfactory. Problems tend
the
to
practical level.

occur more

at

exchange

in
form was

an
The
electronic
an
improvement on the 1994
exercise. But
are
practical difficulties in MS
which
maintain
decentralised systems.

there

United Kingdom

Under existing law, it is not
possible to make deletions
from registers in force. A
new system will be in place
in time to enable deletions
at the 2004 EP elections.

The system of exchange
was confirmed too late to
fund and put in place the
arrangements necessary to
send data to other MS.

23

be

helpful

it
The UK suggests that
would
to
consider how exchange of
information can best be
arranged in countries with
decentralised
electoral
registration systems.

as

The present system appears
to operate satisfactorily in
that double-voting has not
been
a
identified
problem at EP elections.
Perhaps the very act of
completing
distinct
application form and being
aware
the warnings
against double voting is
sufficient deterrent.

of

a

functioned
in

It
unsatisfactorily
elections as
ones.

as
these
in previous

various

reasons

No. As it was not possible
for
to
remove some 3 000 persons
from the Swedish electoral
roll, there will probably be
come voters who voted
twice. It is likely that some
of
those persons believe
that this is authorised.

registration

period
The
should be the same in all
Member States and should
be well in advance of the
date on which the electoral
lists are closed in each
addition,
country.
In
information
be
improved.

should

Sweden

Frequently the data
No.
sent did not state where the
person was registered as a
voter.

Inland

Revenue
The
Service received data on
6 374 Swedish citizens who
had said they would vote in
another Member State. Of
these, 3 420 were removed
from the electoral roll
in
Sweden.

The data on 2 618 persons
arrived too late to enable
them to be removed from
the roll. Some 150 persons
could not be identified.

24

Information exchange system

ANNEX 3

Member State Date of issue of data on
nationals
non-EU
registered to vote in MS

Method of sending data Date of

receipt of data on
nationals registered to vote in
another MS

Method of receiving data

Austria

From 26.4 to 8.6.2000

E-mail or diskettes

From 25.3 to 10.6

Diskette, e-mail, paper

Belgium

27.4.1999.

Diskettes and paper

From March to June

Denmark

Not provided

Not provided

From 15.4.99 to 16.6.99

Diskette

Diskette

Finland

Not provided

Not provided

April and May

Diskette, CD-Rom and paper

France

Not provided

Not provided

Not provided

Not provided

Germany

Not provided

Paper

From 19.4.99 to 8.6.99

E-mail, floppy disks and paper

Greece

7.6.99

Diskettes and paper

Not provided

Diskette

Ireland

10.5.99 and 28.5.99

Diskettes

From 12.3 to 13.6

Diskettes and paper

25

Italy

17.5.99

Diskettes

From 27.4 to 9.6

Diskette

Luxembourg

Not provided

Not provided

Not provided

Not provided

Netherlands

After 28.4.99

Not provided

April/May

Paper and diskettes

Portugal

From 28.4 to 30.5

Diskettes and e-mail

From 14.4 to 28.5

Diskettes, e-mail and paper

Spain

28.4 and 27.5

Diskette and e-mail

From 26.4 to 10.6

Diskettes, paper and e-mail

Sweden

20.5

Not provided

From 5.4 to 11.6

Diskettes and paper

United
Kingdom

Not provided

Not provided

From 25.3 to 8.6

Diskette and paper

26

ANNEX 4

Percentages of potential and actual non-national voters

Member State

Total number of
electors

Number of EU
citizens of voting
age

Percentage of
potential EU
electors

Numbers voting

Number of EU
citizens
registered

Actual
percentage of EU
voters

14

Germany

60 786 904

1 573 316

Austria

Belgium

5 847 660

97 359

7 343 464

496 056

Denmark

4 012 440

46 400

Spain

Finland

France

Greece

Ireland

Italy

33 816 379

290 085

4 141 098

13 898

40 132 517

1 427 315

8 912 901

2 864 361

40 000

67 900

48 274 956

109 800

2.52

1.64

6.36

1.15

0.85

0.33

3.44

0.45

2.34

0.23

27 468 932

2 888 733

6 668 079

2 023 306

21 334 125

1 248 122

33 643

14 659

38 233

12 356

64 904

3 911

18 766 155

70 056

6 711 728

736

1 438 287

34 181 853

29 804

10 136

0.12

0.51

0.57

0.61

0.30

0.31

0.37

0.01

2.07

0.02

14

Given the absence of data on actual turnout in the elections by EU citizens included on the electoral roll in their Member State of residence, all EU citizens enrolled are
deemed to have actually voted. The percentage given are therefore over-estimates.

27

Luxembourg

219 187

111 500

34.75

188 062

9 811

Netherlands

11 859 368

167 332

Portugal

8 695 600

30 519

United Kingdom

44 481 588

400 000

Sweden

6 664 205

148 470

1.39

0.35

0.89

2.19

3 544 408

28 284

3 480 948

10 681 079

2 588 514

4 149

92 378

40 433

5.22

0.24

0.05

0.86

1.56

28

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS AND PETITIONS BY MEMBER STATE CONCERNED

ANNEX 5

Complaints

Petitions

A

2

-

B

1

-

D

15

11

DK

-

-

E

-

2

F

2

1

FI

GR

-

-

1

-

I

1

1

IRL

-

-

L

-

-

NL

-

-

P

1

-

S

-

-

UK

-

-

29

INVOLVEMENT OF NATIONALS OF OTHER EU MEMBER STATES IN POLITICAL ACTIVITY PRIOR TO THE ELECTIONS

15

Can an EU citizen set up a
political party?

Can an EU citizen join a
political party?

Are there any quotas?

Are
restrictions?

there

any

other

ANNEX 6

Yes, a non-national can be the
joint
founder of a party. The
organisation loses its party status,
however,
if the majority of its
members or of the members of
the
are
foreigners.

committee

executive

Yes, where the party rules so
allow.

(Article 2(3) of

Yes. Not more than 50% of the
members of a party or of its
executive committee may be non-
nationals
the
Political Parties Act). For the EP
political
other
elections,
associations
as
are
political parties and no quotas
apply to them.

regarded

In certain circumstances
Yes.
political activity by foreigners
may
certain
subject
restrictions (under Articles 6 and
37 of the Aliens Act).

be

to

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

No.

No.

No.

To be eligible, an EU citizen must
be registered as a voter in the
local authority area where he
resides (Article 41(1) of the Act
of 23 March 1989 as amended).

No.

Member State

Germany

Austria

Belgium

Denmark

15

Table taken from the report on the application of Directive 93/109/EC to the EP elections in June 1994 (COM(1997) 731 final.

30

Spain

Finland

France

Greece

Ireland

Italy

Luxembourg

Netherlands

Yes.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

Yes.

The constitution confers the right
of association only on nationals,
but
non-nationals
enjoy the right as well.

practice

in

The Political Parties Act of 1978
confers this right only on Spanish
nationals but
regarded as
is
unconstitutional.

Yes.

No.

The internal structure of parties
and the way they function must
be democratic.

Yes, if he resides in Finland and
is more than 15 years old.

Yes, if he resides in Finland.

No.

Yes.

No.

No.

No.

It is up to the party concerned
how it responds.

No data available.

No data available.

No.

No.

No.

No.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

31

No.

No.

Restriction authorised by the
Directive: a list of candidates may
not
non-
nationals (Article 106(5), Act of
25 February 1979).

consist mostly

of

as
Non-nationals may
candidates only in EP and local
elections.

stand

Voters at any one polling station
may not exclusively be non-
nationals (Art 9-B of Act No
14/87)
voting
that
patterns cannot be identified.

their

so

No.

No.

Portugal

is reserved for
No. This right
Portuguese nationals residing in
Portugal, Article 5. DL 595/74,
Articles 15 and 51 of
the
Constitution.

United Kingdom

Sweden

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

No.

No.

32

Number of nationals resident abroad voting in the Member State of origin and in the Member State of residence16

ANNEX 7

Germany

Austria

Belgium

Spain

Ireland

Italy

Netherlands

Portugal

2 708

30 911

136

342 504

220

1 003 353

17 010

94 957

44 644

4 291

15 463

15 579

2 638

53 363

16 592

24 363

Number
voting in the
Member
State of
origin

Number
voting in the
Member
State of
residence17

16

17

This table shows only general trends, as only nine Member States have sent in data on nationals residing in another Member State who voted for lists in the Member State of
origin and only five Member States have broken down by nationality the data on Community nationals on their electoral roll.
These figures are under-estimates, as Finland, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Luxembourg and the Netherlands did not break down by nationality the data on Community
nationals on their electoral rolls.

33