REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS UNDER ARTICLE 25 TFEU On progress towards effective EU citizenship 2013-2016
Date: 2017-01-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: European Ombudsman, European citizenship, anti-discriminatory measure, diplomatic protection, equal treatment, free movement of persons, freedom of expression, freedom of movement, right to stand for election, right to vote

  EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 24.1.2017  COM(2017) 32 final   REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS UNDER ARTICLE 25 TFEU On progress towards effective EU citizenship 2013-2016  
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Article  25  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union  (TFEU)  requires  the 
Commission to report to the European Parliament, the Council and the Economic and Social 
Committee every three years on the application of the provisions (in Part Two of the Treaty) 
on non-discrimination and citizenship of the Union.1 This eighth report presented pursuant to 
Article 25 TFEU covers the period from 1 January 2013 to 30 June 2016.2  

This  report  reviews  the  provisions  in  Part  II  TFEU  regarding  Union  citizenship,  non-
discrimination, free movement and residence in the territory of the Member States, the right to 
vote and stand as a candidate at municipal and European Parliament elections in the Member 
State  of  residence,  the  right  to  consular  protection,  the  right  to  petition  the  European 
Parliament and the right to take complaints to the Ombudsman. The report accompanies the 
EU Citizenship Report – Strengthening citizens’ rights in a Union of democratic change. 

NON-DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF NATIONALITY (ARTICLE 18 TFEU) 
2. 
Article  18  TFEU3  prohibits  discrimination  on  grounds  of  nationality  within  the  scope  of 
application of the Treaties.4  
In  Rüffer5  the  Court  of  Justice  of  the  European Union  (the Court)  clarified  that  Articles  18 
and  21  TFEU  (on  free  movement)  preclude  national  rules  which,  in  any  legal  proceedings 
brought before the courts of a specific territorial entity in a Member State, grant the right to 
use a language other than the official language only to citizens of that State domiciled in that 
territorial entity.  

3. 

COMBATING  DISCRIMINATION  ON  THE  BASIS  OF  SEX,  RACIAL  OR  ETHNIC  ORIGIN, 
RELIGION  OR  BELIEF,  DISABILITY,  AGE  OR  SEXUAL  ORIENTATION  (ARTICLE  19 
TFEU) 

3.1. 

 Introduction 

Article  19  TFEU  stipulates  that  appropriate  action  may  be  taken  by  the  EU  to  combat 
discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual 
orientation.6  
In  January  2014  the  Commission  jointly  reported7  on  the  implementation  of  the  Racial 
Equality  Directive8  and  the  Employment  Equality  Directive.9  It  concluded  that  all  Member 

1  The  annual  reports  on  the  application  of  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the  European  Union  include 
updates on progress with respect to Union citizenship rights.  
2 Judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union issued since 30 June 2016 will be considered in the 
next Report under Article 25 TFEU. 
3 See also Article 21(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. 
4 This provision is without prejudice to special provisions in the Treaties. 
5  Case  C-322/13  Grauel  Rüffer.  The  case  concerned  the  use  of  German  before  the  civil  courts  in  the  Italian 
Province of Bolzano. 
6 See also Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. 
7 COM(2014) 2 final. 
8 Directive 2000/43/EC implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or 
ethnic origin, OJ L 180, 19.7.2000, pp. 22–26. 

2 

 
 
                                                            
States  had  transposed  the  Directives,  that  the  main  remaining  challenges  were  to  raise 
awareness  of  the  protection  in  place  and  to  improve  implementation  and  application  in 
practice,  and  it  underlined  that  strengthening  the  role  of  national  equality  bodies  could  be 
crucial to this.  
In  May  2015  the  Commission  reported10  on  the  implementation  of  the  Directive  on  Gender 
Equality11  as  regards  access  to  goods  and  services.  The  report  concluded  that  all  Member 
States had taken measures to transpose the Directive and establish the procedures and bodies 
for  its  implementation,  and  that  the  main  challenge  was  to  determine  how  Member  States 
ensure  that  their  administrative  and  judicial  authorities  and  equality  bodies  systematically 
provide victims with full protection in practice.  
In December 2015 the Commission published a list of actions to advance LGBTI equality.12 

The Commission supports equal treatment of the Roma, the largest ethnic minority in the EU. 
In  2013  following  a  Commission  initiative,  the  Council  adopted  a  recommendation  on 
effective Roma integration measures in the Member States.13  

The  Commission  published  annual  assessment  reports  on  the  implementation  of  the  EU 
Framework  for  National  Roma  Integration  Strategies14  based  on  information  from  each 
Member  State,  NGOs,  international  organisations  and  the  EU  Fundamental  Rights  Agency 
(FRA). 

3.2. 

Case law developments 

In  three  rulings  the  Court  interpreted  the  Employment  Equality  Directive  as  applied  to  the 
prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation and the notion of disability.  
In Accept15 the Court considered that a ‘patron’ of a football club's public statement that he 
would  never  hire  a  homosexual  player  could  establish  a  prima  facie  presumption  of 
discrimination based on sexual orientation. To rebut this presumption, the football club, as an 
employer,  was  not  required  to  prove  it  had  recruited  persons  with  a  particular  sexual 
orientation, since this would interfere with the right to privacy, but could refer, for example, 
to  equality  provisions  regarding  its  recruitment  policy,  or  to  having  clearly  distanced  itself 
from the statement. 
In  Kaltoft16  the  Court  refused  to  accept  that  EU  law  could  be  interpreted  as  laying  down  a 
general principle of non-discrimination on grounds of obesity in employment and occupation. 
However, the notion of disability in the Employment Equality Directive must be interpreted 

9 Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, OJ 
L 303, 2.12.2000, pp. 16–22. 
10 COM(2015) 190 final.  
11 Directive 2004/113/EC implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access 
to and supply of goods and services, OJ L 373, 21.12.2004, pp. 37–43. 
12 http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/files/lgbti_actionlist_en.pdf  
13 Council Recommendation of 9 December 2013 on effective Roma integration measures in the Member States 
(2013/C 378/01). 
14 The last report (COM(2016) 424 final of 27/6/2016) provides, for the first time, an overview of the measures 
put  in  place  by  Member  States  following  the  2013  Council  Recommendation  on  effective  Roma  integration 
measures in the Member States of 9 December 2013. 
15 Case C-81/12 Asociaţia ACCEPT (“Becali”). 
16 Case C‑354/13 Kaltoft.  

3 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                          
as meaning that the obesity of a worker constitutes a ‘disability’ where it entails a limitation 
resulting in particular from long-term physical, mental or psychological impairments which in 
interaction with various barriers may hinder the full and effective participation of the person 
concerned in professional life on an equal basis with other workers.  
Moreover, in Nikolova17 the Court ruled that the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds 
of  ethnic  origin  in  the  Racial  Equality  Directive  could  protect  a  claimant  who  was  not  of 
Roma origin, where the measure in question affected both persons of Roma origin and others 
who also lived in the same area and were affected by the measure.  

4. 

CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNION (ARTICLE 20(1) TFEU) 

4.1. 

Introduction 

Article 20 TFEU provides that any person who holds the nationality of an EU country is also 
a  citizen  of  the  Union.  Union  citizenship  is  additional  to  and  does  not  replace  national 
citizenship. While it is for each Member State to lay down conditions for the acquisition and 
loss of nationality, with due regard to Union law,18 granting the nationality of a Member State 
also  entails  granting  EU  citizenship  and  the  rights  that  go  with  it,  which  can  be  exercised 
throughout  the  Union.  Therefore,  the  Commission  considers  that  Member  States  should  use 
their  prerogative  of  awarding  citizenship  in  a  spirit  of  sincere  cooperation,  as  the  Treaties 
require.  

Against  this  background,  the  Commission  looked  into  national  ‘investor  schemes’  granting 
citizenship rights to non-EU nationals in return for investment. Most Member States operate 
schemes allowing investors who are non-EU nationals to reside in their territory.  

The Commission intervened in one Member State, which had granted citizenship to investors 
in return for investment alone. The Member State amended its scheme to add a requirement 
for a year’s effective residence before obtaining citizenship.19 The Commission is in dialogue 
with another Member State which grants citizenship in return for investment alone.  

In  the  reporting  period,  the  Commission  dealt  with  14  complaints,  56  letters/individual 
queries, 23 questions and 7 petitions from the European Parliament in this area, mainly related 
to information on how to obtain Member State nationality and the nature of EU citizenship. 
They  also  concerned  how  Member  States  should  exercise  their  competence  to  grant  their 
nationality with due regard to EU law. 

Case-law developments 

4.2. 
In Alokpa20 the Court stated that non-EU citizens who are the primary carers of an EU citizen 
child  can  reside  with  their  child  in  the  host  Member  State  by  virtue  of  Article  20 TFEU  if 
such  a refusal would deprive that EU citizen  of effective enjoyment of  the substance  of the 
rights conferred by virtue of the status of EU citizenship.  

17 Case C-83/14 Chez.  
18 Case C-135/08 Rottmann.  
19 http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-14-18_en.htm 
20 Case C-86/12 Alopka and others.  

4 

 
 
                                                            
5. 

RIGHT TO MOVE AND RESIDE FREELY IN THE TERRITORY OF THE MEMBER STATES 
(ARTICLES 20(2)(A) AND 21 TFEU) 

5.1. 

Introduction 

Under Articles 20(2)(a) and 21 TFEU, Union citizens are entitled to move and reside freely in 
the territory of the Member States, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in the 
Treaties and measures adopted to give them effect. 
Most  citizens  view  this  right  as  one  of  the  main  benefits  of  EU  membership.21  An  absolute 
majority  of  Europeans  across  all  EU  Member  States  think  that  free  movement  of  people 
within the EU brings overall benefits to the economy of their country.22 

In 2015, more than 15 million EU citizens were living or working in an EU country other than 
their country of citizenship. A far larger number of EU citizens made temporary visits to other 
Member States for holidays, visits to friends and family and for business. 

In  the  reporting  period,  the  Commission  dealt  with  613  complaints  from  citizens, 
309 letters/individual queries, 75 questions and 46 petitions from the European Parliament on 
the exercise of the right to free movement. Many concerned the right of entry and residence of 
non-EU  family  members  of  EU  citizens  (conditions  for  issuing  visas  and  residence  cards, 
additional formalities) and the conditions under which EU citizens can exercise their right to 
free movement. 

Mobile EU citizens who encounter instances of incorrect application of EU law can get help 
from  SOLVIT,23  which  has  been  established  to  react  quickly  and  find  solutions  at  national 
level. From 2013 to 2015, SOLVIT handled 979 cases on free movement of persons.24  
EU  citizens  can  also  address  the  Commission’s  Europe  Direct25  (EDCC)  portal,  which 
provides European citizens with general information on the EU and advice on Union citizens’ 
rights.  In  the  reporting  period,  EDCC  received  a  total  of  14,549  enquiries  on  the  free 
movement of persons. 

5.2. 

Case-law developments 

The  Court  has  interpreted  the  right  to  free  movement  in  a  number  of  recent  judgments.  In 
particular,  it  has  further  clarified  how  the  right  to  free  movement  applies  to  certain  cases 
involving economically inactive EU citizens, EU citizens looking for a job and third country 
family members of EU citizens.  

5.2.1  Access  to  benefits  and/or  social  assistance  by  economically  inactive  EU 
citizens 

The Court ruled in Brey26 that EU law does not preclude national legislation from making the 
grant of social assistance benefits to an economically inactive EU citizen subject to meeting 
the conditions for enjoying a right of residence in the host Member State set out in the Free 

21 57% of respondents to the Standard Eurobarometer 83, May 2015.  
22 71% of respondents to the Flash Eurobarometer 430 on EU citizenship, October 2015.  
23 SOLVIT is a service provided by national administrations throughout the EU and the EEA. National SOLVIT 
centres  take  on  board  citizens’  complaints  and  cooperate  via  an  online  database  to  help  citizens  solve  their 
problems out of court and free of charge. 
24 http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/scoreboard/performance_by_governance_tool/solvit/index_en.htm 
25 http://europa.eu/contact/ 
26 Case C-140/12 Brey. 

5 

 
 
 
                                                            
Movement  Directive.27  However,  the  Directive  requires  Member  States  to  show  a  certain 
degree of financial solidarity, particularly in case of temporary difficulties, and therefore not 
to  deny  automatically  social  assistance  benefits  to  EU  citizens  who  encounter  temporary 
difficulties while legally residing in another Member State. The host Member State must take 
into  account  all  the  circumstances  of  the  individual  case  to  assess  whether  the  inactive  EU 
citizen has become an unreasonable burden on its social assistance system. 

In  Dano28  the  Court  reviewed  the  case  of  an  economically  inactive  EU  citizen  who did  not 
fulfil the conditions set out in the Free Movement Directive (having sufficient resources) to 
claim a right of residence upon arriving in the territory of the host Member State. The Court 
held that national legislation which precludes granting special non-contributory cash benefits 
constituting  social  assistance  benefits  to  nationals  of  other  Member  States  in  that  situation 
complies with EU law. In order to determine whether an economically inactive EU citizen has 
sufficient  resources,  the  financial  situation  of  each  person  should  be  examined  specifically, 
without taking into account the social benefits claimed. 

5.2.2   Access to social assistance by jobseekers 
In  Alimanovic29  the  Court  held  that  jobseekers  from  another  Member  State  who  worked  in 
another  Member  State  for  less  than  a  year  and  then  looked  unsuccessfully  for  work  for  the 
following  six months, would retain  their  worker status for no less than six  months  – during 
which, they benefit from equal treatment and entitlement to social assistance benefits. After 
that  period,  the  host  Member  State  may  withdraw  such  benefits,  without  individual 
examination. 
In  Garcia-Nieto30  the  Court  clarified  that  job-seekers  from  other  Member  States  can  be 
excluded  from  social  assistance  during  the  first  three  months  of  their  job  search,  without 
individual examination unless they have previously worked in the host Member State (first-
time jobseekers). 

5.2.3  Residence of non-EU family members of EU citizens in the host Member State 

The  Court  clarified  specific  aspects  of  the  right  of  residence  of  non-EU  nationals  who  are 
family members of Union citizens in the host Member State.  
In Alokpa31 the Court stated that non-EU citizens who are the primary carers of an EU citizen 
child can reside with their child in the host Member State by virtue of Article 21 TFEU in so 
far as the EU citizen satisfies the conditions set out in the Free Movement Directive. 
In McCarthy32 the Court ruled that a Member State cannot require a non-EU family member 
of an EU citizen in possession of a residence card issued by another Member State33 first to 
obtain a visa to enter its territory.  

27 Article 7(1)b of Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of the citizens of the Union and their family members to 
move freely and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (the Free Movement Directive). 
28 Case C-333/13 Dano, see paragraphs 78-79. 
29 Case C-67/14 Alimanovic. 
30 Case C-299/14 García-Nieto and Others. 
31 Case C-86/12 Alopka and others. 
32 Case C-202/13 McCarthy. 
33 Thereby fulfilling the conditions set out in the Free Movement Directive. 

6 

 
 
 
                                                            
5.2.4  Residence of non-EU family members of an EU citizen's in the Member State of 
nationality of that EU citizen 

The  Court  further  clarified  the  conditions  under  which  non-EU  family  members  of  EU 
citizens may enjoy a derived right of residence in the citizens' Member States of nationality 
when  the  citizens  return  with  their  family  member  after  having  genuinely  and  effectively 
exercised their right to free movement. 
In  S  and  G34  the  Court  ruled  that  EU  citizens  who  reside  in  the  Member  State  of  their 
nationality but commute regularly for work reasons to another Member State fall within the 
scope of Article 45 TFEU and thus exercise their right to free movement as workers. A non-
EU family member derives a right of residence in the home Member State of an EU citizen 
who is resident in that Member State but regularly travels to another Member State to work, if 
refusal  to  grant  such  a  right  would  discourage  the  commuting  EU  citizen  from  effectively 
exercising his right to free movement as a worker. 
In O and B35 the Court ruled that where citizens exercise their right to free movement under 
Article 21 TFEU, their ‘genuine residence’ in the host Member State creates on their return a 
derived  right  of  residence  (on  the  basis  of  Article  21  TFEU)  for  the  non-EU  national  with 
whom they lived as a family member. In principle, this is where the EU citizen and the non-
EU  family  member  have  resided  in  the  host  Member  State  for  at  least  three  months  in 
accordance with the conditions set out in the Free Movement Directive36 and in doing so have 
created or strengthened their family life in that country. 

5.2.5  Residence of former family members of EU citizens 

The Court also ruled on cases of divorce between an EU citizen and a non-EU national who 
had  been  residing  in  a  Member  State.  In  Singh37  an  EU  citizen  left  the  host  Member  State 
before  commencing  divorce  proceedings,  while  the  non-EU  national  spouse  stayed  behind. 
The Court ruled that the latter retains a right of residence only where this existed at the time 
the divorce proceedings were launched. This interpretation was confirmed in NA.38 

5.2.6  Refusal to recognise names of mobile EU citizens 

In Bogendorff von Wolffersdorff39 the Court found that the refusal by the German authorities 
to  recognise  freely  chosen  forenames  and  surname  legally  acquired  in  the  UK  by  a  dual 
German–UK national but which include several tokens of nobility, constitutes a restriction on 
the freedom to move and reside across the EU. However, the Court ruled that the restriction 
could be justified on public policy grounds in that case, if it is appropriate and necessary to 
ensure the principle of equality before the law (in Germany), and provided detailed guidance 
to help the national court weigh the facts and law.  

34 Case C-457/12 S and G. 
35 Case C-456/12 O and B. 
36 Articles 7 or 16 of the Free Movement Directive. 
37 Case C-218/14 Singh.  
38 Case C-115/15 Secretary of State for the Home Department v NA.  
39 Case C-438/14 Bogendorff von Wolffersdorff.  

7 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
5.3. 

Commission action 

5.3.1  Support for Member States and citizens 

The Commission developed several tools to inform citizens and national authorities about free 
movement rights and how to apply them correctly. In particular, it is launching an e-learning 
tool  to  help  national  administrations  dealing  with  EU  citizens  understand  and  apply  free 
movement rules better.40  

In 2014 the Commission adopted a Communication, Helping national authorities fight abuses 
of the right to free movement,41 and a Handbook on addressing the issue of alleged marriages 
of convenience between EU citizens and non-EU nationals in the context of EU law on free 
movement  of  EU  citizens,42  the  main  purpose  of  which  was  to  help  national  authorities  to 
combat potential abuse of the right to free movement. 

The Commission also continued its work with Member State experts in its group of experts 
on  the  right  to  free  movement  of  persons,  to  identify  difficulties  and  clarify  issues  of 
interpretation of EU law on free movement of EU citizens, as well as to share information on 
abuse and fraud and exchange best practices. 

In  2013  and  2014  two  studies  evaluated  how  EU  free  movement  rules  are  applied  on  the 
ground and their impact at local level43 and a conference was held in February 2014 to discuss 
the impact of EU mobility at local level and exchange best practices.44  

In  November  2013  the  Commission  adopted  a  Communication  on  Free  movement  of  EU 
citizens and their families: five actions to make a difference,45 which explains the rights and 
obligations attached to free movement, sets out the conditions and limitations under EU law 
and addresses concerns raised by some Member States. The ‘five actions’ are designed to help 
Member States apply EU laws and tools to exploit their full potential, including by means of 
the full use of EU structural and investment funds.  

In 2013 the Commission published user-friendly information in this field in Freedom to move 
and live in Europe: a guide to your rights as an EU citizen.46 

5.3.2  Issues relating to the application of free movement rights  

The  Commission  continued  actively  to  ensure  the  effective  transposition  of  free  movement 
rights by all Member States. It identified and raised a number of issues, the vast majority of 
which Member States clarified or solved by amending their laws, or committing themselves to 
doing so.  

40  The  tool  will  be  made  available  in  all  official  languages.  National  administrations  will  also  be  able  to  add 
information they consider relevant concerning their national rules.  
41 COM(2014) 604 final. 
42 SWD(2014) 284 final. 
43  Evaluation  of  EU  rules  on  free  movement  of  EU  citizens  and  their  family  members  and  their  practical 
implementation 
2013) 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/citizen/document/files/evaluation_of_eu_rules_on_free_movement-final_report.pdf 
Evaluation  of 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/citizen/files/dg_just_eva_free_mov_final_report_27.01.14.pdf  
44 http://ec.europa.eu/justice/events/intra-eu-mobility-2014/  
45 COM(2013) 837 final. 
46 http://ec.europa.eu/justice/citizen/document/files/guide-free-mo-2013_en.pdf  

the  free  movement  of  EU  citizens  at 

level  (January  2014) 

impact  of 

(October 

local 

the 

8 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
By  the  end  of  2013  the  Commission  had  closed  infringement  proceedings  against  four 
Member  States.47  In  2014  and  2015  five  others48  adopted  new  legislation.  The  Commission 
remains in dialogue with them to ensure that outstanding concerns are properly addressed. 

The main issues raised in the proceedings concern the rights of entry and residence for non-
EU family members of Union citizens, including same-sex spouses or partners,49 in particular 
the  conditions  for  issuing  visas  and  residence  cards  to  non-EU  family  members,  and  the 
material and procedural safeguards against the expulsion of EU citizens.  

The Commission continued its work to uphold EU citizens’ rights to non-discrimination and 
to dismantle obstacles to free movement in cases relating to the recognition, in one Member 
State,  of  personal  names  attributed  or  changed  under  the  law  of  another  Member  State.  In 
2014 Belgium adopted a new law amending its Civil Code in response to points raised by the 
Commission. This allows parents to give a newly-born or adopted child the name of the father 
or the mother, or both. 

The  Commission  continues  to  monitor  implementation  of  free  movement  rules  and  works 
with the Member States concerned to tackle outstanding issues. 

5.3.3  Other  Commission  actions  or  intiatives  to  facilitate  the  exercise  of  free 
movement rights50 

(a) 

Facilitating the free circulation of public documents 

Europeans who live in another EU country or simply want to benefit from a right or comply 
with an obligation in another EU country may need to present a public document. Following a 
proposal51 in 2013 by the Commission, Regulation (EU) 2016/1191 to improve the circulation 
of public documents was adopted in 2016.  

Making the life of crossborder families easier 

(b) 
The  Succession  Regulation52  adopted  in  2012,  applicable  on  17  August  2015,  simplifies 
international successions (i.e. successions with cross-border elements: e.g. the deceased lived 
in a country other than that of his/her origin or had property in several countries or the heirs of 
the  deceased  live  in  a  different  country).  The  Regulation  determines  the  Member  State 
responsible  for  dealing  with  the  succession,  the  applicable  national  law,  enforcement  and 
proof across the European Union through the European Certificate of Succession. In 2014 the 
Commission adopted a Regulation53 implementing the Succession Regulation by establishing 
a number of forms, in particular the European Certificate of Succession form. 

47 Cyprus, Italy, Malta and Spain. 
48 Belgium, Germany, Poland, Sweden and the UK. 
49 See also the annual report on the application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. 
50  Not  all  the  actions  covered  by  this  section  constitute  application  of  the  provisions  of  Part  II  of  the  TFEU. 
However, they are referred to in this section as they all facilitate the exercise of free movement rights. 
51 COM (2013) 228 final. 
52  Regulation  (EU)  650/2012  on  jurisdiction,  applicable  law,  recognition  and  enforcement  of  decisions  and 
acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European 
Certificate of Succession, OJ L 201, 27.7.2012, pp. 107–134.  
53 Commission Implementing Regulation 1329/2014 establishing the Forms referred to in Regulation 650/2012 
of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of 
decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation 
of a European Certificate of Succession, OJ L 359, 16.12.2014, pp. 30–84. 

9 

 
 
 
                                                            
On  divorce  and  legal  separation,  the  Regulation  determining  which  country's  rules  should 
apply to an international divorce or legal separation54 now applies in 16 Member States. The 
Regulation  was  adopted  in  2010  in  the  context  of  enhanced  cooperation  by  14  Member 
States.55 Lithuania joined as from 201456 and Greece as from 2015.57 Citizens living in these 
16  Member  States  can  choose  that  the  law  applicable  to  their  divorce  or  legal  separation 
should  be  the  law  of  the  country  where  they  habitually  reside  or  where  they  last  habitually 
resided, or the country of nationality of either spouse or of the country where divorce or legal 
separation proceedings are being handled. 

On  matrimonial  and  parental  responsibility  matters,  the  Commission  adopted  in  2014  an 
evaluation report on the application of the so-called Brussels IIa Regulation58, after almost 10 
years of application. The Commission followed it up by proposing, on 30 June 2016, changes 
to the Brussels IIa Regulation to improve the EU rules that protect children in the context of 
cross-border  parental  responsibility  disputes  related  to  custody,  access  rights  and  child 
abduction.  The  proposed  revisions  are  expected  to  reduce  costs,  result  in  more  efficient 
proceedings  subject  to  clearer  rules.59  The  Commission  also  published  an  updated  Practice 
Guide  for  citizens  and  legal  practitioners  on  the  application  of  this  Regulation,  which 
determines what Member State courts should deal with a divorce, legal separation or marriage 
annulment and with matters of parental responsibility such as custody, access rights and child 
abduction, in cross-border circumstances.60 

On  family  mediation,  the  Commission  launched  in  2015  on  the  European  e-Justice  portal  a 
section dedicated to cross-border family mediation. The aim of this section is to promote the 
use of mediation. 

Making the exercise of free movement rights more effective for workers 

(c) 
In April 2014, a Directive to improve enforcement of workers' rights61 was adopted following 
a proposal made by the Commission in April 2013.62 It requires Member States to ensure that 
one  or  more  bodies  at  national  level  is  responsible  for  advising  and  providing  support  and 
assistance to EU migrant workers, including jobseekers, with the enforcement of their rights. 
Member States can also extend the competence of these bodies for all EU citizens exercising 
their  right  to  free  movement.  It  also  aims  to  improve  accessibility  to  comprehensive,  up-to-
date information at national and EU-level on the rights of mobile workers.  

54 Council Regulation (EU) 1259/2010 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to 
divorce and legal separation, OJ L 343, 29.12.2010, pp. 10–16. 
55  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Germany,  Spain,  France,  Italy,  Latvia,  Luxembourg,  Hungary,  Malta,  Austria,  Portugal, 
Romania and Slovenia. 
56 Commission Decision 2012/714/EU confirming the participation of Lithuania in enhanced cooperation in the 
area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation, OJ L 323, 22.11.2012, pp. 18–19. 
57 Commission Decision 2014/39/EU confirming the participation of Greece in enhanced cooperation in the area 
of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation, OJ L 23, 28.1.2014, pp. 41–42. 
58 Council Regulation 2201/2003/EC concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments 
in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation 1347/2000/EC, OJ L 338, 
23.12.2003, p. 1-29. 
59 http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-16-2359_en.htm  
60 http://ec.europa.eu/justice/civil/files/brussels_ii_practice_guide_en.pdf  
61 Directive 2014/54/EU on measures facilitating the exercise of rights conferred on workers in the context of 
freedom of movement for workers, OJ L 128, 30.4.2014, pp. 8–14. 
62 COM(2013) 236 final. 

10 

 
 
                                                            
Also  in  April  2014,  the  adoption  of  the  Directive  on  portability  of  supplementary  pension 
rights63  is  an  important  step  for  the  safeguarding  of  the  supplementary  pension  rights  of 
persons exercising their right to free movement. 
Following a proposal by the Commission,64 a new EURES Regulation was adopted in April 
201665. It aims to give workers and employers easy access to all European job vacancies and 
applications/CVs online (EURES portal), clear information on where and how to find jobs in 
other EU countries, and minimum support services for jobs seeking. It also aims to improve 
the  exchange  of  information  between  Member  States  on  labour  market  shortages  and 
surpluses to support a better coordinated intra-EU matching.  
The Directive on the enforcement of the posting of workers Directive66 has provided for new 
and strengthened instruments to fight and sanction circumvention of rules, fraud and abuses. It 
addresses  problems  caused  by  some  companies  and  increases  the  Member  States’  ability  to 
monitor  working  conditions  and  enforce  the  rules.  On  8  March  2016,  the  Commission 
presented  a  proposal  for  a  Directive  amending  the  Directive  on  posting  of  workers,67  to 
facilitate  the  provision  of  services  across  borders  within  a  climate  of  fair  competition  and 
respect for the rights of posted workers who are employed in one Member State and sent to 
work temporarily in another by their employer, specifically by ensuring fair wage conditions 
and a level playing field between posting and local companies in the host country.  
On  the  basis  of  a  Commission  proposal68,  a  European  Platform  was  established69  to  tackle 
undeclared  work  in  its  various  forms  and  falsely  declared  work  associated  with  undeclared 
work,  including  bogus  self-employment.  The  Platform  was  launched  on  27  May  2016.  Its 
activities may include the development of shared definitions and common concepts, exchange 
of  evidence-based  good  practices,  mutual  learning,  staff  exchange  and  joint  inspections  on 
cross-border level. 

6. 

RIGHT  TO  VOTE  AND  STAND  AS  A  CANDIDATE  IN  MUNICIPAL  AND  EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT ELECTIONS (ARTICLES 20(2)(B) AND 22 TFEU) 

6.1. 

Introduction 

Under Articles 20(2)(b) and 22 TFEU, all Union citizens residing in a Member State of which 
they are not nationals are entitled to vote and to stand as candidates in European Parliament 
and municipal elections in their Member State of residence, under the same conditions as that 
state’s nationals.  

63 Directive 2014/50/EU on minimum requirements for enhancing worker mobility between Member States by 
improving the acquisition and preservation of supplementary pension rights, OJ L 128, 30.4.2014, pp. 1–7. 
64 COM(2014) 6 final. 
65  Regulation  (EU)  2016/589  on  a  European  network  of  employment  services  (EURES),  workers'  access  to 
mobility  services  and  the  further  integration  of  labour  markets,  and  amending  Regulations  (EU)  No  492/2011 
and (EU) No 1296/2013, OJ L 107, 22.4.2016, pp. 1-28. 
66 Directive 2014/67/EU concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provisions of services, OJ L 
159, 28.5.2014, pp. 11–31. 
67 COM(2016) 128 final. 
68 COM (2014) 221 final. 
69  Decision  2016/344/EU  on  establishing  a  European  Platform  to  enhance  cooperation  in  tackling  undeclared 
work, OJ L 65, 11.3.2016, pp. 12–20. 

11 

 
 
                                                            
from 

the  European  Parliament  on 

The Commission replied to 32 complaints, 71 letters/individual queries, 58 questions and 13 
petitions 
to 
‘disenfranchisement’ and to the electoral rights of disabled persons. ‘Disenfranchisement’ in 
this context results from some Member States depriving their citizens of the right to vote in 
national  elections  once  they  have  resided  abroad,  including  in  another  Member  State,  for  a 
given  period.  As  a  consequence,  these  citizens  cannot  participate  in  any  national  elections, 
whether in their home country or their Member State of residence. 

issues,  primarily 

relating 

these 

Case-law developments  

6.2. 
In Delvigne70 the Court was asked to examine whether it was contrary to European law for a 
French citizen who had been convicted of a serious crime to be permanently deprived of his 
right  to  vote  in  European  elections.  The  judgment  built  on  previous  case  law,  in  particular 
Eman  and  Sevinge,71  which  established  that  it  is  for  Member  States  to  determine  the 
franchise,  but  must  respect  EU law, including its general principles, in doing  so. The Court 
clarified  that  national  rules  regulating  the  conduct  of  European  elections  must  comply  with 
the Charter of Fundamental Rights, including its Article 39(2), which guarantees EU citizens’ 
right  to  vote  in  European  elections.  It  ruled  that  in  the  case  in  question  the  withholding  of 
civic rights was proportionate, considering the seriousness of the person’s crime and the fact 
that  French  law  allows  citizens  to  apply  for  reinstatement  of  their  voting  rights,  and  thus 
permitted. 

6.3. 

Developments in the field of voting rights and action taken by the Commission 

In  the  reporting  period,  there  were  important  developments  as  regards  the  right  to  vote  and 
stand as a candidate in municipal and European Parliament elections.  

6.3.1  Promoting  the  ‘lead  candidates’  system  for  the  Commission  Presidency  and 
addressing the consequences of disenfranchisement 

On 12 March 2013 the Commission issued a Recommendation on enhancing the democratic 
and efficient conduct of the European Parliament  elections,72 against  the background of the 
Lisbon  Treaty,  which  strengthened  the  Parliament’s  role  in  relation  to  the  Commission.73  It 
called  on  European  political  parties  to  nominate  candidates  for  the  position  of  Commission 
President. 

Two  months  before  the  2014  European  Parliament  elections,  the  Commission  issued  a 
preliminary  report74  on 
its 
recommendation that European and national political parties identify, ahead of the elections, 
their  candidate  for  the  function  of  Commission  President  and  outline  the  candidate’s 
programme, and noting that six European political parties had acted on the Recommendation.  

its  Recommendation,  reviewing 

implementation  of 

the 

In  parallel,  the  Commission  continued  its  work  with  Member  State  experts  in  its  group  of 
experts  on  electoral  rights  to  ensure  the  smooth  conduct  of  the  2014  European  Parliament 

70 Case C-650/13 Delvigne. 
71 Case C-300/04 Eman and Sevinge. 
72  Recommendation  2013/142/EU  on  enhancing  the  democratic  and  efficient  conduct  of  the  elections  to  the 
European Parliament, OJ L 79, 21.3.2013, pp. 29–32. 
73 Article 17(7) TEU provides for the Parliament to elect the Commission President on the basis of a proposal by 
the European Council, which must take into account the results of the European elections. 
74 COM(2014) 196 final. 

12 

 
 
 
                                                            
elections,  in  particular  by  exchanging  data  and  developing  IT  tools  to  prevent  the  double 
voting of EU citizens in these elections. 
The  Report  on  the  2014  European  Parliament  elections75  highlighted  that  the  direct  link 
between the results of the elections and the choice of Commission President helped enhance 
the democratic legitimacy of the new Commission. 
On 11 November 2015 the Parliament proposed a legislative initiative76 to integrate the ‘lead 
candidates’ (Spitzenkandidaten) system into EU electoral law. 

In January 2014 the Commission adopted a Recommendation on addressing the consequences 
of disenfranchisement of Union citizens exercising their rights to free movement.77  

6.3.2  Issues addressed on the application of the right to vote and stand as candidate  

To ensure that non-national EU citizens can found or become members of political parties in 
the host Member State, the Commission continued its infringement proceedings against seven 
Member  States  which  did  not  allow  this.  In  three  cases,  proceedings  were  closed  after  the 
Member  States  provided  satisfactory  clarifications  on  the  existing  legal  framework78  or 
adopted new legislation79. Proceedings are ongoing against four Member States80. 

7. 

RIGHT  TO  PROTECTION  BY  DIPLOMATIC  OR  CONSULAR  AUTHORITIES 
(ARTICLES 20(2)(C) AND 23 TFEU) 

7.1. 

Introduction 

Under Articles 20(2)(c) and 23 TFEU, EU citizens have the right to, in a territory of a non-EU 
country where their Member State of origin does not have representation, the protection of the 
diplomatic and consular authorities of any other Member State on the same conditions as that 
state’s  nationals.  EU  citizens  are  less  aware  of  this  right  than  of  other  Union  citizenship 
rights.81 

In  the  reporting  period,  the  Commission  replied  to  four  complaints,  ten  letters/individual 
queries and three questions from the European Parliament on this issue. These related to the 
issuance  of  emergency  travel  documents  to  return  home  or  the  lack  of  or  discriminatory 
consular protection. 

7.2. 

Developments in the field of consular protection 

In  2015  the  Council  adopted  a  Directive  to  facilitate  consular  protection  for  unrepresented 
EU  citizens  abroad82  which  establishes  clear  and  legally  binding  rules  on  cooperation  and 
coordination  between  Member  States’  consular  authorities  to  ensure  that  unrepresented  EU 

75 COM(2015) 206 final.  
76  European  Parliament  Resolution  of  11  November  2015  on  the  reform  of  the  electoral  law  of  the  European 
Union (P8_TA(2015)0395 – 2015/2035(INL)). 
77 The Commission is following developments in this field. Debate in some Member States is ongoing.  
78 Greece. 
79 Spain and Slovakia.  
80 Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. 
81 Flash Eurobarometer 430 on Union citizenship. 
82 Directive (EU) 2015/637 of 20 April 2015 on the coordination and cooperation measures to facilitate consular 
protection  for  unrepresented  citizens  of  the  Union  in  third  countries  and  repealing  Decision  95/553/EC,  OJ  L 
106, 24.4.2015, pp. 1–13. 

13 

 
 
 
                                                            
citizens in third countries can benefit from non-discriminatory consular protection from other 
Member States. Member States have until 1 May 2018 to transpose the Directive. 

In  2015  the  Commission  set  up  an  expert  group  on  consular  protection  to  discuss  the 
implementation  of  Article  23  TFEU  and  of  the  Directive  and  exchange  best  practices  with 
Member States' experts. 
Several bilateral agreements83 were negotiated between the EU and third countries containing 
consular consent clauses to give full effect to the right of unrepresented EU citizens to non-
discriminatory consular protection. 

8. 

RIGHT  TO  PETITION  THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT  AND  TO  ADDRESS  THE 
EUROPEAN OMBUDSMAN (ARTICLES 20(2)(D) AND 24(2), (3) AND (4) TFEU) 

8.1. 

Introduction 

Articles  20(2)(d)  and  24(2),  (3)  and  (4)  TFEU  refer  to  other  rights  entitling  EU  citizens  to 
address  the  EU  institutions,  including  the  right  to  petition  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
right to address the European Ombudsman. Every EU citizen is entitled to write to any of the 
institutions, bodies, offices or agencies in one of the EU's official languages84 and receive an 
answer in the same language.85  

8.2. 

Right to petition the European Parliament 

Under Article 24(2) TFEU, EU citizens have the right to petition the European Parliament, in 
any  Treaty  language,  on  Union  matters  that  affect  them  and  to  obtain  a  reply  in  the  same 
language. In the first half of 2016, the EP Committee on Petitions received  779 petitions. In 
2015, the EP Committee on Petitions received  1400 petitions, down from 2714 in 2014 and 
2891  in  2013.  The  most  common  issues  attracting  petitions  were  in  the  field  of  justice  and 
fundamental  rights,  including  Union  citizenship  and  free  movement,  followed  by  issues 
relating to the environment and the internal market.  
A  ‘petitions  web  portal’86  has  been  available  since  2014  to  enable  the  user-friendly  online 
submission  of  petitions.  The  portal  also  allows  citizens  to  show  online  support  for  open 
petitions declared admissible. This online process has reduced the number of petitions by half 
by introducing filter questions to pre-screen petitions for admissibility. 

8.3. 

Right to address the European Ombudsman 

Under  Article  24(3)  TFEU,  EU  citizens  have  a  right  to  address  the  European  Ombudsman, 
which  deals  with  citizens’  complaints  about  the  EU  institutions,  bodies  and  agencies. 
Problems  range  from  contractual  disputes  to  violations  of  fundamental  rights,  lack  of 
transparency in decision-making and refusal of access to documents. 

In the reporting period, the Ombudsman’s office registered 6 506 complaints and opened 953 
cases.  In  each  of  the  three  years,  the  majority  of  complaints  concerned  an  alleged  lack  of 
transparency. Compliance with the Ombudsman’s suggestions rose from 80% in 2013 to 90% 
in  2014.  The  Ombudsman’s  office  helped  over  63300  citizens  in  the  three-year  period,  by 

83 Inter alia with Afghanistan, Australia, Canada, Cuba and New Zealand.  
84 See Article 55(1) TEU. 
85 This provision is implemented all Union institutions, bodies, offices or agencies, as relevant to their work.  
86 https://petiport.secure.europarl.europa.eu/petitions/en/main 

14 

 
 
                                                            
opening inquiries, answering requests for information or giving advice in its interactive online 
guide. 

This  core  complaint-handling  work  was  supplemented  in  2013–2014  by  strategic  own-
initiative  inquiries,  aimed  at  benefitting  as  many  citizens  as  possible  by  examining  issues 
which  appear  to  be  systemic,  rather  than  one-off.  Inquiries  looked  into  how  the  European 
Citizens’ Initiative functions (2013), transparency in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment 
Partnership negotiations (2014) and transparency in trilogues (2015) etc. 

9. 

EUROPEAN CITIZENS’ INITIATIVE (ARTICLE 24 TFEU; ARTICLE 11(4) TEU) 

 

Under  Article  11(4)  Treaty  on  European  Union  (TEU),  implemented  by  Regulation 
211/2011/EU, a million or more citizens from at least seven Member States can come together 
to invite the Commission, in its areas of competence, to submit any appropriate proposal on 
matters they consider a Union act is needed to implement the Treaties.  
Since Regulation 211/2011 entered into force, 36 initiatives87 have been launched on a variety 
of  issues  and  an  estimated  six  million  statements  of  support  have  been  collected  by  the 
organisers. Three initiatives have been successful in reaching the million signature threshold: 
the  ‘Right2Water’  initiative88  calls  for  legislation  upholding  human  beings’  right  to 
water and sanitation, and promoting the provision of water and sanitation as essential 
public services for all. In a March 2014 Communication,89 the Commission committed 
itself to taking a series of measures in response to the organisers’ requests;  
the ‘One of us’ initiative90 calls for the EU to end the financing of research involving 
the  destruction  of  human  embryos.  On  28  May  2014,  the  Commission  adopted  a 
Communication91 explaining that it did not intend to submit a legislative proposal, on 
the grounds that the existing EU legal framework was considered adequate; and 
the ‘Stop vivisection’ initiative92 calls for legislation to abolish testing on animals. On 
3 June 2015, the Commission adopted a Communication93 in which it committed itself 
to taking various steps towards phasing out animal testing.  

 

 

The  Commission  carried  out  a  review  of  the  application  of  the  Regulation  and  on 
31 March 2015  adopted  a  report94  which  concluded  that  the  ECI  is  fully  operational.  It 
acknowledges that there is scope to improve the tool so as to make it more user-friendly and 
accessible to citizens. The Commission is committed to continue monitoring and discussing a 
range of ECI issues in close cooperation and coordination with the various stakeholders and 
institutions and to improve the instrument.  

87 ECI register; http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/welcome. 
88  Water  and  sanitation  are  a  human  right!  Water  is  a  public  good,  not  a  commodity!  (ECI  register);  
http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/initiatives/successful/details/2012/000003 
89 COM(2014) 177 final. 
90 One of us (ECI register);  http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-
initiative/public/initiatives/finalised/details/2012/000005/it. 
91 COM(2014) 355 final;  
92 Stop vivisection (ECI register);  http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-
initiative/public/initiatives/successful/details/2012/000007 
93 COM(2015) 3773 final 
94 COM(2015) 145 final. 

15