Communication from the Commission - European elections 2004 - Commission Report on the participation of European Union citizens in the Member State of residence (Directive 93/109/EC) and on the electoral arrangements (Decision 76/787/EC as amended by Decision 2002/772/EC, Euratom) {SEC(2006) 1645} {SEC(2006) 1646} {SEC(2006) 1647}
Date: 2006-12-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU national, European Parliament, European Union, European election, right to stand for election, right to vote

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 12.12.2006 
COM(2006) 790 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 

European elections 2004  

Commission report on the participation of European Union citizens in the Member State 
of residence (Directive 93/109/EC) and on the electoral arrangements (Decision 
76/787/EC as amended by Decision 2002/772/EC, Euratom) 

{SEC(2006) 1645} 
{SEC(2006) 1646} 
{SEC(2006) 1647} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 

European elections 2004 

Commission report on the participation of European Union citizens in the Member State 
of residence (Directive 93/109/EC) and on the electoral arrangements (Decision 
76/787/EC as amended by Decision 2002/772/EC, Euratom) 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The right to vote and stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament in 
the  Member  State  of  residence  is  an  essential  part  of  European  Union  citizenship. 
This right is enshrined in Article 19(2) of the EC Treaty and was put into effect by 
Council Directive 93/109/EC1.  

The 2004 elections were the sixth direct elections to the European Parliament. They 
were held in the 25 Member States of the enlarged European Union, with the number 
of seats increased to 735.  

The  10  Member  States  which  acceded  to  the  European  Union  on  1  May  2004 
notified their respective national transposition measures in time. At the moment there 
are no infringement procedures open2. 

In order to evaluate the participation of non-national citizens of the European Union 
in elections in the Member State of residence and to obtain a complete overview of 
the  application  of  the  Directive,  the  Commission  invited  Member  States  to  provide 
both  statistical  and  qualitative  information  on  the  elections,  using  a  detailed  and 
comprehensive questionnaire3. 

The  report  is  based  principally  on  information  provided  by  Member  States  in 
response to the questionnaire. 

The purpose of this report is to assess the application of the Directive. In line with its 
assessment,  the  Commission  proposes  amendments  to  the  Directive  concerning  the 
exchange of information between Member States, with a view to preventing people 
from  voting  twice  or  standing  for  election  in  two  places  and  as  regards  the 
administrative formalities for standing as a candidate. 

The Commission is fully aware that besides appropriate administrative arrangements, 
a number of other factors have a significant impact on the participation of citizens in 

1 
2 

3 

OJ L 329, 30.12.1993, p. 34. 
The infringement procedure referred to in the previous report was closed in December 2000 following 
amendment of the German legislation. 
The  Commission  sent  the  letter  with  the  questionnaire  to  all  Member  States  on  18  November  2004; 
answers reached the Commission between 8 December 2004 for the first and 25 January 2006 for the 
last Member State. For further details on the questionnaire see the Commission Staff Working Paper at 
Annex. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
the EP elections, such as their awareness of the political process at the EU level, the 
mobilisations of political forces and communication policy. 

The  Commission  intends  to  give  consideration  to  these  issues  at  a  later  stage  and 
before  the  next  round  of  European  elections,  in  cooperation  with  the  European 
Parliament, Member States and relevant stakeholders.  

While the 1976 Act4 on the election of representatives of the European Parliament by 
direct  universal  suffrage  as  amended  by  Council  Decision  2002/772/EC,  Euratom5 
does  not  require  the  Commission  to  report  on  its  application,  in  this  report  the 
Commission  draws  the  attention  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  to 
problems with the implementation of the Act raised by Member States. 

2. 

PREPARING FOR THE 2004 ELECTIONS 

2.1.  Meetings with electoral experts from the Member States 

The  Commission  organised  two  meetings  in  2002  and  2003  with  electoral  experts 
from the Member States on the implementation of Article 13 of the Directive, which 
lays  down  arrangements  for  preventing  people  from  voting  or  standing  for  election 
twice. The aim of the meetings was to improve the operability and effectiveness of 
the information exchange system set up between Member States under Article 13.  

2.2. 

Communication  from  the  Commission  on  measures  to  be  taken  by  Member 
States to ensure participation of all EU citizens in the 2004 elections 

Bearing in mind that the elections were to be held shortly after the date of accession 
of  the  10  new  Member  States  and  wishing  to  ensure  that  all  EU  citizens  would  be 
able  to  participate  in  the  elections,  the  Commission  issued  a  Communication6  in 
April  2003.  The  Communication  aimed  to  speed  up  the  implementation  of  the 
relevant  acquis  and  ensure  registration  of  all  citizens  on  the  electoral  rolls  in  good 
time, in both the current and the future Member States.  

2.3. 

Luxembourg derogation 

In  January  2003,  the  Commission  submitted  a  Report7  under  Article  14(3)  of  the 
Directive, on granting derogation pursuant to Article 19(2) of the EC Treaty. Article 
14 allows a Member State to restrict the right to vote to Community voters who have 
resided  in  that  Member  State  for  a  minimum  period,  which  may  not  exceed  five 
years. The condition for granting the derogation is that the proportion of EU citizens 
of  voting  age  who  reside  in  that  Member  State  but  are  not  nationals  of  it  exceeds 
20%  of  the  total  number  of  EU  citizens  residing  there  who  are  of  voting  age.  The 
Commission concluded in the Report that the circumstances warranting the granting 

4 

5 
6 
7 

The  Act  is  annexed  to  Decision  76/787/ECSC,  EEC,  Euratom  of  20  September  1976  -  OJ  L  278, 
8.10.1976, p. 5. 
OJ L 283, 21.10.2002. 
COM(2003) 174. 
COM(2003) 31. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
of  the  derogation  to  Luxembourg  still  existed  and  there  was  therefore  no  need  to 
propose any adjustment. 

2.4. 

Cyprus decision 2004/511/EC of 10 June 8 

Pursuant to Protocol 10 on Cyprus of the Act of Accession of 20039, which stipulates 
that application of the acquis shall be suspended in those areas of Cyprus in which 
the  Government  of  the  Republic  of  Cyprus  does  not  exercise  effective  control, 
elections  for  the  2004-2009  term  were  not  held  in  those  parts  of  Cyprus,  although 
national legislation also allows Cypriot citizens living in the part of the isle where the 
Government  of  the  Republic  of  Cyprus  does  not  exercise  effective  control  to 
participate in the elections. 

Decision  2004/511/EC  stipulates  that  in  the  event  of  the  entry  into  force  of  a 
comprehensive  settlement  of  the  Cyprus  problem,  extraordinary  elections  of  the 
representatives  of  the  people  of  Cyprus  in  the  European  Parliament  will  be  held  in 
the whole of Cyprus for the remainder of the 2004-2009 term or any subsequent term 
of the European Parliament.  

2.5.  Measures  taken  to  ensure  a  common  interpretation  of  Article  9(2)  of  the  1976 
Act  concerning  the  election  of  representatives  of  the  European  Parliament  as 
amended  by  Council  Decision  2002/772/EC,  Euratom  –  the  date  for  making 
public the results of the elections 

Council  Decision  2002/772/EC,  Euratom  amending  the  1976  Act  on  election  of 
members  of  the  European  Parliament  took  effect  on  1  April  2004.  The  2004  EP 
elections  were  thus  held  under  the  amended  provisions.  The  new  Article  9(2) 
regulates  the  exact  timing  of  publication  of  the  results,  stipulating  that  Member 
States may not officially make the results of their count public before close of polling 
in the Member State whose electors are the last to vote. 

The  Commission  drew  the  attention  of  the  Member  States10  to  its  interpretation  of 
Article 9(2), asking them not to publish the results of their count before 22.00 CET 
on  13  June  at  the  earliest  (when  the  polls  were  to  close  in  the  last  Member  States: 
Italy, Poland and Slovakia) and stressing that not even initial or partial counts should 
be made public by electoral authorities before that time. 

8 

9 
10 

Council Decision 2004/511/EC of 10 June 2004 concerning the representation of the people of Cyprus 
in the European Parliament in case of a settlement of the Cyprus problem - OJ L 211, 12.6.2004, p. 22. 
OJ L 236, 23.9.2003, p. 955. 
Two  letters  were  sent  to  Member  States  on  4  May  and  7  June  2004  by  The  Directorate-General  for 
Justice, Freedom and Security. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.6. 

First  EP  elections  organised  in  Gibraltar  and  important  developments  in  the 
case-law 

In  2004  the  United  Kingdom  held  EP  elections  in  Gibraltar  for  the  first  time, 
pursuant to the 1976 Act, having adopted national legislation enabling the Gibraltar 
electorate to take part in EP elections11. 

In  its  judgment  of  12  September  200612  the  Court  of  Justice  confirmed  the 
Commission’s  view  that  the  United  Kingdom  legislation  granting  the  franchise  in 
Gibraltar  to  "qualified  Commonwealth  citizens"  which  include  certain  non-British 
third  country  nationals,  had  extended  the  voting  rights  within  the  margin  of 
discretion  presently  given  to  Member  States  by  EU  law.  Furthermore,  in  this 
judgement and in a second judgement of the same day concerning the right to vote of 
Dutch citizens residing in Aruba13, the Court stressed that it is currently for Member 
States  to  regulate  aspects  of  EP  electoral  procedure  not  harmonised  at  Community 
level, and in particular to define the persons entitled to vote and stand as candidate. 
However, they must respect Community law, including its general principles, under 
the Court’s control.  

3. 

PARTICIPATION  IN  THE  2004  EP  ELECTIONS  –  APPLICATION  OF  DIRECTIVE 
93/109/EC 

3.1. 

General overview  

As recognised in the Commission's Plan D for democracy, Dialogue and Debate14 the 
lower  level  of  participation  in  the  elections  has  reinforced  the  sense  of  lack  of 
confidence  in  the  political  process.  The  Commission  is  very  concerned  about  the 
decline  in  the  overall  turnout  in  the  elections  to  the  European  Parliament  which 
continued in the 2004 elections. With a much bigger electorate as a result of the 2004 
enlargement, 45.6% of the total electorate voted. 

Trends in turnout  

11 

12 
13 
14 

The  UK  statute  was  adopted  following  the  “Matthews  v.  UK”  case  in  which  the  European  Court  of 
Human  Rights  ruled  against  the  United  Kingdom  because  no  European  elections  had  been  held  in 
Gibraltar – Judgment of 18 February 1999. 
Case C-145/04, Spain v. UK. 
C-300/04, Eman and Sevinge (elections to EP in the Aruba). 
The Commission's contribution to the period of reflection an beyond - COM(2005) 494. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Citizens'  participation  in  the  democratic  life  is  essential  and  should  be  further 
promoted,  by  a  coordinated  endeavour  of  all  actors  involved,  the  European 
institutions, the Member States and the civil society. In this context, the Commission 
follows closely, and stands ready to contribute to the European parliament’s survey, 
carried  out  with  national  Parliaments,  on  increased  voter  participation  and  how  to 
improve turnout in elections. 

In 2004 an increase in turnout was recorded in some Member States whereas others 
witnessed  a  significant  fall  in  turnout.  EU-15  voter  turnout  was  49.1%,  below  the 
49.8% turnout in 1999. EU-10 voter turnout was 26.9%. 

In this context it has to be taken into account that in some Member States voting is 
compulsory. 

Overall turnout – 2004 

AT 

BE 

CY 

CZ 

DE  DK 

EE 

EL  ES 

FI 

FR 

HU 

IE 

42.43  90.81  71.19  28.32 

43 

47.9  26.83  63.4  45.1  39.4  42.76 

38.5 

58.8 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV  MT  NL 

PL 

PT 

SE 

SI 

SK 

UK 

EU 

73.1 

48.38 

89 

41.34  82.37  39.3  20.87  38.6  37.8  28.3  16.96  38.83  45.6 

3.2. 

Participation of non-national EU citizens in the Member States of residence – as 
voters. 

Not all Member States supplied data on non-national EU citizens registered as voters 
for  the  EP  elections  and  even  fewer  Member  States  could  provide  data  on  whether 
these citizens actually voted.  

Given the fact that, under Articles 8 and 9 of the Directive, citizens have ask to be 
enrolled on the electoral rolls of their Member State of residence, data on the number 
of  citizens  enrolled  may  be  considered  a  reliable  indicator  of  trends  in  voter 
participation. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
 
Proportion of non-national EU citizens registered to vote in their Member State of 
residence (%)15 

Country  AT  BE  CY  CZ  DE  DK  EE  EL  ES 

FI 

FR  HU 

IE 

1994 

7.9 

5.1 

1999 

15.1 

7.7 

- 

- 

2004 

16 

11.5 

4.4 

- 

- 

- 

6.7 

24.9 

2.1 

26.6 

- 

- 

1.6 

12.6 

22 

3.4 

1.8 

22.4 

28 

4.9 

- 

- 

44.1 

43.9 

6.1 

26.7 

12.2 

3.9 

18.5 

18.3 

13.1 

11 

39 

Country 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV  MT  NL 

PL 

PT 

SE 

SI 

SK  UK 

EU 

1994 

1999 

2004 

1.8 

9.2 

- 

- 

6.6 

8.8 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

16.9 

10.9 

17.5 

10.3 

14.4 

12.8 

- 

- 

- 

- 

2.3 

24 

13.6 

27.2 

- 

- 

- 

- 

1.96 

5.9 

23.1 

9 

- 

25.1 

7.2 

8.6 

- 

11.9 

While  bearing  in  mind  these  reservations,  we  may,  however,  conclude  that  the 
percentage of EU citizens registered to vote in their Member State of residence was 
low in 2004 EP elections.  

While  general  turnout  in  the  elections  is  falling,  entry  in  the  electoral  roll  of  non-
national EU citizens for the EP elections has increased in comparison with previous 
elections: 5.9% in 1994, 9% in 1999, 11.9% in 2004. This rise could be the result of 
increasing awareness of EU citizens’ rights, the Member States’ efforts to encourage 
participation, as well as the increased mobility of the EU citizens. 

3.3. 

Participation of non-national EU citizens in the Member States of residence – as 
candidates 

Statistics on non-national EU citizens standing as candidates in the elections reflect 
weak participation in the political life of the Member States of residence. 

There  was  a  slight  fall  in  the  number  of  non-national  candidates  compared  to  the 
1999 elections when 62 stood for election.  

Country 

AT  BE  CY  CZ  DE  DK  EE  EL  ES 

FI 

FR  HU 

IE 

Candidates 

Elected 

1 

0 

8 

0 

0 

0 

5 

1 

13 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

4 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

8 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Country 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV  MT  NL 

PL 

PT 

SE 

SI 

SK  UK  EU 

15 

Proportions calculated on the basis of number of non-national EU citizens of voting age residing in the 
MS and the number of non-national EU-citizens enrolled on the electoral roll of that MS – where both 
figures were provided in answer to the questionnaire. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Candidates 

Elected 

0 

0 

0 

0 

8 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

1 

- 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

57 

3 

Several factors can be assumed to lie behind this downward trend. 

In some Member States, there was criticism of the heavy administrative burden that 
candidates have to face when submitting an application to stand. Article 10(2) of the 
Directive laying down conditions for standing as a candidate provides inter alia that a 
Community  national  must  also  produce  an  attestation  from  the  competent 
administrative  authorities  of  the  home  Member  State  certifying  that  he/she  has  not 
been  deprived  of  the  right  to  stand  as  a  candidate  in  that  Member  State  or  that  no 
such disqualification is known to those authorities. Cases were reported where non-
national  EU  citizens  wishing  to  stand  as  a  candidate  had  difficulty  identifying  the 
authorities in their Members State of origin designated to issue such attestations. 

Another  possible  reason  for  the  low  participation  is  related  to  the  right  of  non-
national  EU  citizens  to  participate  in  the  political  life  of  the  Member  State  of 
residence.  

According  to  the  Opinion  on  participation  of  EU  citizens  in  the  political  parties  of 
the Member State of residence drafted by the EU network of independent experts on 
fundamental  rights16,  16  Member  States  recognise  the  right  of  non-national  EU 
citizens  both  to  join  existing  national  political  parties  and  to  found  a  new  political 
party  in  the  Member  State  in  which  they  reside.  Two  Member  States  make  a 
distinction  between  the  right  to  found  a  political  party  and  the  right  to  become  a 
member  of  a  political  party,  only  granting  the  right  to  the  latter.  In  seven  other 
Member States non-nationals may neither become members of political parties, nor 
found political parties.  

Non-national  voters  may  therefore  be  deprived  of  the  opportunity  to  exercise  their 
right to stand as a candidate, as in practice candidates are in the majority of cases put 
forward by political parties. The Commission encourages Member States to offer to 
non-national  resident  EU-citizens  the  possibility  to  become  members  of  national 
political  parties  under  the  same  conditions  which  are  open  to  their  nationals.  This 
would  considerably  facilitate  the  citizens'  participation  in  the  political  life  of  the 
Member  States  where  they  live  as  well  as  their  integration  and  it  would  enrich  the 
political life and enhance democracy.  

The  European  political  parties  may  also  play  a  role  in  promoting  an  enhanced 
participation of EU citizens in the democratic process at the European and national 
level.  

The Commission intends to examine further the compatibility with the Directive of 
the above mentioned national legislations. 

16 

Reference: CFR-CDF. Opinion 1.2005: 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/cfr_cdf/doc/avis/2005_1_en.pdf. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
 
3.4. 

Informing EU citizens of the right to vote and stand as a candidate 

The Eurobarometer survey conducted in 200217 shows that citizens of the Union are 
aware  of  their  right  to  vote  and  to  stand  as  a  candidate  in  the  EP  elections  in  the 
Member State of residence.  

However, in order to exercise this right every voter must have sufficient information 
on the practical arrangements. This is why Article 12 of the Directive provides that 
Member States must inform 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 these rights.  

The Commission reiterates its belief that Member States must specifically inform EU 
citizens  residing  on  their  territory  about  how  to  exercise  their  electoral  rights.  The 
information should be tailored to meet the specific information requirements of non-
national electors. 

A  wide  variety  of  different  means  were  used  by  national  authorities  to  inform 
citizens. The most common were brochures and leaflets, advertisements in different 
media and personal letters sent to citizens. In several Member States, the authorities 
provided information to non-national EU citizens not only in the official language or 
languages of the Member State but also in other EU languages. 

In the three Member States where participation exceeded 25%, personal letters sent 
to inform non-national EU citizens of the right to participate also included the voter 
registration form to be filled in. 

In  Denmark,  personal  letters  were  sent  both  to  non-nationals  who  had  already 
registered on the electoral rolls for EP elections and to non-nationals who had not yet 
been included. The latter was accompanied by the relevant registration form. 

In  Ireland,  personal  letters  were  sent  to  non-national  citizens  identified  by  the 
electoral  authorities  since  the  last  elections  in  1999,  including  the  relevant 
registration  form.  In  addition,  an  advertising  campaign  urging  people  to  check 
whether they were registered was carried out. Newspaper advertising was undertaken 
in 2004 to inform non-national EU citizens, including citizens of applicant Member 
States, of their entitlement to be added to the electoral register.  

In  Sweden  the  Election  Authority  sent  a  personal  letter  to  all  non-nationals  with 
information about the procedures for the election, including a special form to be used 
either to be included on the electoral roll or to be deleted from it. The personal letter 
included also a leaflet in eight different languages with information on how to fill out 
the attached form.  

Personal  letters  sent  to  every  non-national  EU  citizen  seems  to  be  efficient 
particularly  when  they  contain  relevant  information  tailored  to  the  addressee  in  as 
many  languages  as  possible  and  when  they  contain  the  registration  form  with 
instructions  that  can  be  sent  back  to  the  competent  authority.  The  Commission 

17 

Flash Eurobarometer No 133. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
strongly  encourages  all  the  Member  States  to  apply  this  practice,  which  is  highly 
beneficial in promoting the effective exercise of the right to vote.  

Some  Member  States  reported  having  provided  information  through  various 
channels, such as public services of all levels that have frequent and  mass contacts 
with citizens. 

The potential role of the political parties could be crucial, especially in encouraging 
participation  as  a  candidate.  Furthermore,  the  European  Institutions  should  also 
contribute to an appropriate information of the citizens about their right to vote and 
stand as candidate. 

3.5. 

Preventing people from voting or standing twice 

Article  4  of  the  Directive  prohibits  EU  citizens  from  voting  or  standing  as  a 
candidate in more than one Member State in the same election. To that end, Member 
States are obliged under Article 13 to exchange information on EU citizens who have 
been entered on the electoral roll or have stood as a candidate in the Member State of 
residence. An information exchange system was set up in order to apply Article 13: 
on  the  basis  of  information  sent  by  the  Member  State  of  residence  to  the  home 
Member  State,  the  latter  deletes  from  its  own  electoral  roll  any  persons  who  have 
been added to the electoral roll in the Member State of residence. 

As  from  the  1994  elections,  the  Commission  found  that  the  information  exchange 
system  was  not  functioning  as  it  should18.  Consequently,  efforts  were  made  with 
Member States to implement a series of practical measures to increase the operability 
and  effectiveness  of  the  system:  a  standard  form  and  format  of  personal  data  to  be 
sent  to  the  Member  State  of  origin  was  adopted,  practical  arrangements  for 
information  exchange  (diskettes  and/or  email)  were  laid  down  and  a  list  of  the 
national authorities responsible for receiving data was circulated among the Member 
States. 

Information exchange system – as reflected in the answers to the questionnaire 

Despite all efforts almost all Member States concluded that there were shortcomings 
in  the  operability  of  the  information  exchange  system  and  its  effectiveness  was 
hampered by a number of difficulties. 

Almost all Member States reported that they encountered serious problems with data 
being  exchanged.  A  number  of  Member  States  failed  to  communicate  data  such 
maiden name, or place and date of birth that were necessary to allow such persons to 
be identified in the home electoral roll so that their names could be removed. Some 
Member  States  supplied  percentages:  Spain  reported  having  been  able  to  identify 
around 53% of the persons notified; in Poland the authorities could identify around 
69% of such persons; in Latvia this proportion was 73%; in the Czech Republic and 
Sweden 75%; and in Lithuania 85%. 

The second biggest obstacle to the proper functioning of the system, as identified by 
a large majority of Member States, was the fact that data often arrived too late to be 

18 

COM(97) 731, p. 23, and COM(2000) 843, p. 10. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
processed without additional emergency measures or in many cases even to be taken 
into account. 

Transliteration  of  names  or  addresses  turned  out  to  be  a  major  problem  in  Greece 
where, due to the different alphabet, the authorities were not able to identify persons 
communicated through the system. 

Several  Member  States  also  reported  adverse  experience  of  information  exchange 
with  Member  States  which  have  decentralised  registers,  resulting  in  practical 
problems  caused  by  the  tremendous  number  of  mostly  paper  communications  of 
varying quality from the authorities in charge of decentralised registers. 

The  methods  used  to  send  the  information  (email,  diskette,  etc.)  often  varied  even 
inside one Member State, which could also create confusion. 

It may be concluded that all the previous efforts made by the Commission with the 
Member States to improve the operability and effectiveness of the system had only 
limited  impact  and  failed  to  meet  expectations.  Overall,  only  five  Member  States 
considered  the  present  system  adequate  to  prevent  double  voting  without  the 
introduction of further changes. 

On the other hand, in several cases implementation of the current system led to EU 
citizens  being  deprived  of  the  right  to  vote  in  the  elections  in  their  home  Member 
State as a consequence of the exchange of information on non-national EU citizens, 
because  they  were  incorrectly  considered  as  still  wishing  to  vote  in  their  previous 
Member  State  of  residence  when  they  had  in  fact  returned  to  their  home  Member 
State and exercised political rights such as voting in local elections19. 

While the aim of the system is solely to prevent people from voting or standing twice 
and  it  does  not  allow  detection  of  attempts  to  do  so,  information  provided  by  the 
Member States seems to indicate that the number of cases of double registration or 
double voting by non-national EU citizens is low20; furthermore, these cases tended 
to  be  linked  not  to  deliberate  abuse  but  to  mistakes  and  misunderstandings  due  to 
unfamiliarity  with  the  legislative  arrangements  or  to  information  being  sent  twice, 
i.e. by Member States of residence and of origin.  

4. 

APPLICATION OF THE 1976 ACT CONCERNING THE ELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES 
OF  THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT  AS  AMENDED  BY  COUNCIL  DECISION 
2002/772/EC, EURATOM 

4.1. 

Publishing the results of the elections 

When  preparing  for  2004  EP  elections,  the  Commission  drew  the  attention  of  the 
Member  States  to  the  need  for  a  common  interpretation  of  Article  9(2)  concerning 
the timing of publication of the electoral results. 

19 
20 

See Petition No 592/2004. 
In the 2004 elections, only Germany reported an estimate of 120 cases and Luxembourg 4 cases. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
A majority of the Member  States  did  not publish results of the  EP  elections before 
polling closed in the last countries. However, some Member States published results 
before that time. The Commission would emphasize that in its view the purpose of 
the  Article  9(2)  is  to  ensure  that  the  early  release  of  information  on  results  in  one 
Member State does not influence the vote in any way in other Member States where 
polling is still going on. This is to guarantee free suffrage, which includes the voter’s 
freedom to form his/her own opinion. Free suffrage is a basic democratic principle, 
which is to be upheld in European parliamentary elections pursuant to Article 1(3) of 
the 1976 Act.  

4.2. 

The issue of double or multiple citizenship 

Several  Member  States  reported  that  voting  or  standing  twice  is  impossible  to 
prevent in the case of citizens of the Union who hold the nationality of more than one 
Member State. 

Although the question of dual nationality falls outside the scope of the Directive, the 
Commission  draws the  attention  to  this problem being a potential  source of  double 
voting which is also prohibited under Article 8 of the 1976 Act. 

5. 

CONCLUSIONS 

5.1. 

Proposals for amendments to Directive 93/109/EC 

The current information exchange system set up to prevent voting or standing twice 
has  proved  unsatisfactory.  The  main  reason  for  this  failure  is  that  some  Member 
States  are  unable  to  provide  the  necessary  data  on  registered  EU  citizens  enabling 
their  names  to  be  deleted  from  the  electoral  roll  in  the  home  Member  States.  The 
procedure is lengthy and cumbersome.  

The Commission, together with the Member States, tried in the past to improve the 
system to make it work efficiently in practice. Although several problems were more 
or less successfully tackled, others remain. The workload has also increased since the 
last elections, mostly due to enlargement and greater mobility of the EU citizens. 

A  second  problem  was  detected  regarding  participation  as  a  candidate  in  the 
elections.  It  seems  that  the  current  rules  on  submitting  an  application  to  stand  as  a 
candidate in the Member State of residence results in a heavy administrative burden 
for potential candidates which could be a factor in the low participation rate. 

Considering  these  shortcomings,  the  Commission  carried  out  an  impact  assessment 
and proposes amendments to the Directive. 

5.2. 

Problems detected in the implementation of the 1976 Act concerning the election 
of representatives of the European Parliament as amended by Council Decision 
2002/772/EC, Euratom 

The Commission detected that the interpretation by certain Member States of Article 
9(2)  concerning  the  timing  of  publication  of  the  electoral  results  in  2004  elections 
had led to early publication of the results in these Member States. Another problem 
was  identified  related  to  the  participation  in  European  elections  of  citizens  holding 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
the nationality of more than one Member State which could be a source for double 
voting. 

The  Commission  would  draw  the  attention  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council  of  the  European  Union  to  these  shortcomings,  which  might  lead  to  the 
violation of basic principles of democracy enshrined in the Community law. 

EN 

13 

   EN