COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON EU SUMMERTIME ARRANGEMENTS REPORT OF RESULTS Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council discontinuing seasonal changes of time and repealing Directive 2000/84/EC
Date: 2018-09-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, harmonisation of standards, single market, summertime

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 12.9.2018  SWD(2018) 406 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON EU SUMMERTIME ARRANGEMENTS        REPORT OF RESULTS Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council  discontinuing seasonal changes of time and repealing Directive 2000/84/EC {COM(2018) 639 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 2 

1.1 

Background information on the subject of the consultation .................................................... 2 

1.2  Methodological considerations ................................................................................................ 2 

2.  Overview of the respondents ........................................................................................................... 3 

3.  Outcome of the replies to the consultation questions ...................................................................... 4 

3.1 

3.2 

3.3 

3.4 

3.5 

Question 1: Overall experience with the bi-annual time switch ............................................. 5 

Question 2: Preference for keeping or abolishing the bi-annual time switch .......................... 6 

Question 3: Reason for being in favour or against the time switch ......................................... 7 

Question 4: Importance attached to own choice being implemented ...................................... 8 

Question 5: Preferred option after abolishing time switch ...................................................... 8 

4.  Analysis of the replies from public authorities ................................................................................ 9 

5.  Analysis of stakeholder position papers and other input ............................................................... 10 

5.1 

5.2 

Stakeholder position papers ................................................................................................... 10 

Other input ............................................................................................................................. 10 

6.  Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 11 

1 

 
 
 
1. Introduction 

Following  a  number  of  requests  from  citizens,  from  the  European  Parliament,  and  from 
certain  EU  Member  States,  work  has  been  undertaken  to  investigate  the  functioning  of  the 
current EU summertime arrangements and whether or not they should be changed. 

In  this  context,  the  Commission  held  an  online  public  consultation  to  gather  the  views  of 
European  citizens,  stakeholders  and  Member  States  on  the  current  EU  summertime 
arrangements and on any potential change to those arrangements. The consultation opened on 
the Commission’s ‘Have Your Say’ portal1 on 4 July 2018 and ended on 16 August 2018 with 
by  then  around  4.6  million  valid  replies.  This  report  summarises  the  main  outcomes  and 
findings from the public consultation.  

1.1  Background information on the subject of the consultation 

EU summer-time arrangements imply that clocks are changed twice per year in all Member 
States  in  order  to  cater  for  the  changing  patterns  of  daylight  across  seasons.  Clocks  are 
advanced by one hour in the morning of the last Sunday of March and set back by one hour in 
the morning of the last Sunday of October to return to standard time.  

For  historic  reasons,  Member  States  chose  to  introduce  summertime  arrangements.  Such 
arrangements were first adopted during the first and second World Wars to conserve energy. 
Many  European  countries  later  abandoned  the  measure.  Modern  summertime  arrangements 
stem  from  the  time  of  the  oil  crisis  in  the  1970s  when  Member  States  reintroduced  time 
switches.  

EU legislation on summertime arrangements was first introduced in 1980 with the objective to 
unify  existing  national  summertime  practices  and  schedules  that  were  diverging,  thereby 
ensuring a harmonised approach to the time switch within the single market. 

In parallel to, and independent from the EU summertime arrangements, the territories of the 
Member  States  on  the  European  continent  are  grouped  into  three  different  time  zones  or 
standard  times.  The  decision  on  the  standard  time  is  as  such  not  affected  by  the  EU 
summertime rules (or any change thereof). 

It should also be noted that the availability of daylight varies according to EU Member States' 
geographical location. Northern EU Member States have a relatively large seasonal change in 
available daylight in the course of the year, characterised by dark winters with little daylight 
and bright summers with short nights. For the southernmost EU Member States the day and 
night distribution of daylight is less varied during the year. 

1.2  Methodological considerations 

Public  consultation  is  a  tool  which  provides  transparency  in  the  policy-making  process.  It 
informs  the  broader  public  and  stakeholders  about  a  certain  policy  issue  and  allows  for  the 
collection  of  views  and  evidence.  In  contrast  to  surveys,  public  consultations  are  not 
statistically representative. Web-based public consultations also have a self-selection bias of 

1 https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations/2018-summertime-arrangements_en  

2 

 
                                                            
the respondents towards the views of those who choose to respond to the consultation against 
those who do not. These elements need to be kept in mind when interpreting the results.    

Taking account of these caveats, the consultation on EU summertime arrangements was very 
successful  in  terms  of  public  interest  and  number  of  replies.  With  around  4.6  million 
respondents,  of  which  over  99%  were  citizens,  it  generated the largest amount  of  responses 
ever received in any Commission consultation. The public consultation was announced with a 
press release and dedicated interviews, and received media attention in many Member States. 
The consultation was also actively promoted by the different Commission representations in 
the Member States  and on social  media. Responses came from all  Member States, although 
response  rates  varied  across  countries,  with  the  highest  response  rates  coming  from  three 
countries (see chapter 2). It should be noted that the largest amount of responses came from 
Germany (70% of all replies), which has a statistical influence on the average results. 

Given  the  unprecedented  flow  of  replies,  the  consultation  server  was  at  times  unstable. 
However, users who did not manage to submit their contribution online because of technical 
difficulties were able to get in touch with the Commission via e-mail (address provided on the 
consultation  page).  The  Commission  has  taken  account  of  replies  to  the  questionnaire  sent 
through other means (e.g. e-mail, post). 

As regards the analysis and treatment of data, this report considers all valid responses to the 
public  consultation,  i.e.  after  elimination  of  duplicates  from  the  initial  dataset.  Duplicates 
were defined as more than one reply with the same email address. The Commission also used 
analytical  tools  to  identify  any  campaigns,  whereby  the  exact  same  response  is  copied  and 
introduced by a large number of respondents from specific interest groups, which could not be 
found in this case. 

In  order  to  ensure  a  correct  categorisation  of  respondents,  the  information  given  by 
businesses,  organisations,  public  authorities  and  Member  States  on  their  names,  number  of 
employees  and  email  address  was  verified  first  automatically  and  then  manually  to  detect 
erroneously  categorised  replies.  These  were  then  re-categorised  (mostly  from  the  ‘business’ 
and ‘public authorities’ categories to the ‘citizens’ category). 

An external contractor assisted the Commission in its analysis, in particular in verifying the 
categorisation  of  respondents  and  reviewing  and  assessing  the  replies  with  the  help  of  data 
analysing tools.   

In parallel to the publication of this report, the Commission is also publishing all individual 
replies on its web-site in an anonymised way2. 

2. Overview of the respondents 

Respondents  to  the  consultation3  were  asked  to  indicate  whether  they  replied  on  behalf  of: 
“themselves/citizens”,  “stakeholders,  businesses  and  consumer  organisations”  or  ”Member 
State  or  public  authorities”.  4.5  million  respondents  (99.8  %)  replied  in  their  individual 

2 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/2018-summertime-arrangements/public-
consultation_en 
3 There were 4.7 million replies. After cleaning of duplicates the total number of valid replies is 4.552.330.  

3 

 
                                                            
capacity, i.e. as citizens. 8 938 replies (0.2 %) came from stakeholders or businesses. It should 
be  noted  that  the  latter  were  not  asked  to  specify  their  field  of  activity  or  whether  they 
represent  private  companies  or  non-profit  organisations.  45  contributions  also  came  from 
Member States or public authorities.  

In absolute figures, 70 % of the replies (3.1 million) came from Germany, followed by France 
(8.6 %; 393 000) and Austria (6 %; 259 000). Other countries whose replies represent more 
than 1 % of the total are Poland, Spain, Czech Republic, Belgium, Finland and Sweden.   

Comparing  the  number  of  respondents  per  Member  State  with  the  size  of  the  population  it 
shows  that  the  highest  response  rates  came  from  Germany  (almost  4%  of  population), 
followed by Austria (close to 3%) and Luxembourg (close to 2%). In the rest of the Member 
States, less than 1% of the population replied (see figure 1). 

Figure 1 : Respondents (all) by country of residence 

Respondents as percentage of population 

4,00%

3,50%

3,00%

2,50%

2,00%

1,50%

1,00%

0,50%

0,00%

d
n
a
n
i
F

l

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

s
u
r
p
y
C

i

a
n
e
v
o
l
S

a
i
k
a
v
o
l
S

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

e
c
n
a
r
F

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
h
c
e
z
C

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

a
i
t
a
o
r
C

n
e
d
e
w
S

a
i
v
t
a
L

e
c
e
e
r
G

d
n
a
o
P

l

i

a
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

a
t
l
a
M

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

i

n
a
p
S

a
i
r
a
g
u
B

l

y
l
a
t
I

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

3. Outcome of the replies to the consultation questions  

This section refers to global results, covering respondents from all categories. It then focuses 
in on the input received from citizens and stakeholders. Public authorities’ input is explained 
separately in section 4. 

The  questionnaire  included  five  closed  questions  where  respondents  were  asked  to  indicate 
their opinion: 

1.  Overall experience with the bi-annual time switch; 
2.  Preference for keeping or abolishing the time switch; 
3.  Reason for the preferred choice under 24; 
4.  Importance for their choice to be retained and implemented; 

4  Under  question  3  respondents  could  choose  from  a  pre-defined  list  of  possible  reasons  or  add  free  text  to 
explain their answer. 

4 

 
 
                                                            
 
 
5.  Preference in case of abolishment: permanent summertime or permanent 

standard time. 

3.1  Question 1: Overall experience with the bi-annual time switch 
The  majority  of  all  respondents  (76%)  stated  that  they  have  a  negative  experience  with  the 
switching from wintertime to summertime (and vice-versa).  

With  regards  to  citizens,  respondents  from  most  Member  States  have  a negative  experience 
with the current arrangements  – with the exception of respondents from Malta, Cyprus, and 
Greece. Stakeholders and business respondents also reported a generally negative experience 
with the switching overall5.   

Among  all  citizen’s  replies,  3  481  000  (76  %)  said  they  have  a  very  negative  or  negative 
experience with the time switch, compared to 850 000 citizens (19 %) whose experience was 
positive or very positive. 224 000 (5 %) had no opinion on this question. Finnish citizens had 
the  highest  number  of  negative  responses  (93%),  followed  by  Polish  (91%)  and  Lithuanian 
citizens  (89%).  Citizens  participating  from  Greece  and  Cyprus  have  on  average  a  positive 
experience (58% and 55% respectively). In Malta, 49% of citizen’s replying have a positive 
experience, 45% of citizen’s replying have a negative experience and 6% had no opinion. 

Figure 2: Shares of answers to question 1 from citizens, by country  

5 From Malta, only two stakeholders responded; they were divided on this question. 

5 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%FinlandPolandLithuaniaSpainHungaryCroatiaSwedenLatviaBulgariaSloveniaPortugalIrelandBelgiumEstoniaGermanyDenmarkCzech RepublicFranceEU AverageNetherlandsUnited KingdomRomaniaSlovakiaLuxembourgAustriaItalyMaltaCyprusGreece% Total Negative% Total Positive% No opinion 
 
                                                            
Figure 3: Shares of answers to question 1 from businesses and stakeholders, by country 

3.2  Question 2: Preference for keeping or abolishing the bi-annual time switch 
The majority of all respondents (84%) are in favour of abolishing the biannual time switch.  

In  total,  3  800  000  citizen’s  replies  (84  %)  are  in  favour  of  abolishing  the  switch  between 
standard time and summertime. 741 191 citizens (16 %) are in favour of keeping the current 
system. Only in Greece and Cyprus, a small majority of citizens prefers keeping the current 
system (56 % and 53 % respectively). Conversely, more than 90 % of citizen’s replies from 
Finland (95 %), Poland (95 %), Spain (93 %), Lithuania (91 %), and Hungary (90 %) are in 
favour of abolishing the current arrangement.  

Figure 4: Shares of answers to question 2 from citizens, by country  

Similarly, for stakeholders and businesses, a majority of respondents support an abolishment 
of the clock change6.  

6 From Malta, only two stakeholders responded; they were divided on this question. 

6 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%IrelandEstoniaBulgariaGreeceSlovakiaItalyPortugalFinlandHungaryFranceSpainPolandGermanyUnited KingdomAustriaEU averageCroatiaSloveniaCzech RepublicLuxembourgBelgiumLithuaniaCyprusSwedenNetherlandsRomaniaLatviaDenmarkMalta% Total Negative% Total Positive% No opinion0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Poland Finland Spain Lithuania Hungary Croatia Sweden Ireland Slovenia Estonia Latvia Portugal Germany Bulgaria Belgium France Czech RepublicUnited Kingdom Denmark EU average Slovakia Luxembourg Netherlands Romania Austria Italy Malta Cyprus GreeceAbolishing the switchingKeeping the switching 
 
 
                                                            
Figure 5: Shares of answers to question 2 from businesses and stakeholders, by country  

3.3  Question 3: Reason for being in favour or against the time switch 

Respondents  were  asked  to  indicate  a  reason  for  their  position  in  favour  or  against  the 
biannual time switch. Respondents could choose from a pre-defined list of possible reasons as 
well as "other". 

The main reason highlighted by all respondents that were in favour of abolishing the current 
arrangements  is  human  health  (43%),  followed  by  lack  of  energy  saving  (20%),  while  for 
those  in  favour  of  keeping  the  current  arrangements  the  main  reason  highlighted  is  leisure 
activities in the evening (42%). 

Figure 6: Answers by all respondents to question 3 having chosen the option to "abolish 
the current system" in question 2 

7 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Ireland Slovakia Portugal Bulgaria Finland Greece Estonia Italy Spain France Cyprus Slovenia Germany Lithuania Hungary Austria Sweden Czech Republic EU Average Poland Belgium Croatia United Kingdom Luxembourg Netherlands Latvia Denmark Romania MaltaAbolishing the switchingKeeping the switching 
 
 
 
Figure 7: Answers by all respondents to question 3 having chosen the option to "keep the 
current system" in question 2 

3.4  Question 4: Importance attached to own choice being implemented 

Respondents  had  to  rate  the  importance  they  attach  to  their  choice  for  such  arrangements 
becoming implemented on a scale from 0 (not important) to 10 (very important). As regards 
citizens' and stakeholders' replies, those who are in favour of keeping the current summertime 
arrangement  and  those  who  want  to  abolish  it,  more  than  90  %  of  the  respondents  rate  the 
importance of their choice with at least the value 7. This finding does not vary significantly 
between Member States. 

3.5  Question 5: Preferred option after abolishing time switch 

The  question  was  asked  that,  if  the  biannual  time  switch  was  to  be  abolished,  would 
respondents  favour  permanent  summertime  or  permanent  standard  (winter)  time.  Answers 
show  that  the  overall  preferred  option  is  permanent  summertime  as  opposed  to  permanent 
wintertime. 2 529 000 of all respondents (56 %) would prefer permanent summertime and 1 
648 000 of respondents (36 %) would be in favour of permanent standard (winter) time, if the 
bi-annual time switch were to be abolished. 377 000 respondents (8 %) have no opinion on 
this matter.  

56%  of citizens  who answered this  question favour the  option of “permanent summertime”, 
while only 32% prefer “permanent wintertime”. The highest share of respondents in favour of 
“permanent summertime” is in Portugal (79%), Cyprus (73%) and Poland (72%). The highest 
share  of  respondents  in  favour  of  “permanent  wintertime”  is  in  Finland  (48%),  Denmark 
(46%)  and  the  Netherlands  (45%).  An  average  of  11%  across  all  Member  States  citizen 
respondents has expressed no opinion regarding the matter. 

8 

 
 
Figure 6: Share of citizen respondents to question 5, by country 

In general, responses from businesses and stakeholder groups show a clear preference for the 
permanent summertime, which confirms the citizens' preference and the general outcome of 
the  survey.  The  EU  average  presents  a  percentage  of  58%  of  respondents  in  the  businesses 
and stakeholder group that is in favour of a permanent summertime option, while 34% are in 
favour of a permanent wintertime option. 

Figure 7: Share of stakeholders/businesses respondents to question 5, by country 

4. Analysis of the replies from public authorities 

After  cleaning  up  the  data,  47  contributions  were  retained  from  public  authorities.  These 
contributions  vary  from  city  councils,  regional  authorities,  a  Member  of  the  European 
Parliament  and  some  national  ministries.  In  terms  of  overall  share  of  total  replies,  this 
respondent  category  only  represents  0.001%.  The  contributions  provided  are  also  rather 

9 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%PortugalCyprusPolandIrelandGreeceMaltaLithuaniaAustriaLatviaHungaryEstoniaLuxembourgSwedenSpainEU averageSlovakiaItalyGermanySloveniaCroatiaUnited KingdomFranceBelgiumRomaniaBulgariaNetherlandsCzech RepublicDenmarkFinlandPermanent summertimePermanent wintertimeNo opinion0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%MaltaLatviaUnited KingdomCyprusLithuaniaSwedenSloveniaNetherlandsBelgiumEstoniaLuxembourgEU averageFranceAustriaDenmarkPolandSpainGermanyGreeceOtherCzech RepublicSlovakiaFinlandItalyIrelandCroatiaBulgariaHungaryPortugalRomaniaPermanent summertimePermanent wintertimeNo opinion 
 
 
heterogeneous. While many indicate the need for a harmonised system, some mention that the 
current system should be maintained, while others prefer the abolishment of the time switch – 
either  to  permanent  summertime  or  wintertime.  Respondents'  reasons  for  keeping  or 
abolishing  the  current  arrangements  also  do  not  seem  to  be  firmly  established.  No  firm 
conclusions can, therefore, be drawn on the basis of replies to the public consultation for this 
specific category.  

It should be noted that, in parallel to the consultation, the Commission also received a number 
of letters from different ministries from Member States indicating their preferences.  

5. Analysis of stakeholder position papers and other input  
5.1 Stakeholder position papers 

As  part  of  the  consultation,  respondents  were  invited  to  send  in  any  additional  evidence  or 
material  illustrating  possible  impacts  of  the  current  EU  summertime  arrangements  and  a 
possible change thereof.  

Stakeholders from the aviation sector stressed the importance of keeping a harmonised time 
switching system across the EU. They also pointed out that any change to the current system 
would  have  an  impact  on  airlines  schedules  and  slot  planning  and  that  sufficient  lead-time 
would therefore be needed in order to allow making the necessary adjustments. 

The Road Safety Authority of Ireland7 shared an existing report on the road safety impact that 
was made in the context of a legal proposal that was considered in the Republic of Ireland in 
2012. The proposal was to launch an experiment and change the applicable time-zone of the 
Republic of Ireland to CET or GMT+1. The report concludes that it is not possible to come to 
final  conclusions  as  with  the  change  of  daylight  over  the  year  and  different  time 
arrangements, one choice would lead to brighter mornings and the other to brighter evenings, 
consequently to less traffic accidents in either morning or evening conditions. But overall, one 
might end up with a similar number of accidents. 

5.2 Other input 

Apart  from  responses  received  as  part  of  the  public  consultation,  the  Commission  also 
received  1286  individual  e-mails8  or  letters  stating  opinions  on  the  issue  of  summertime 
arrangements.  Input  which  did  not  respond  to  the  consultation  questionnaire  does  not  form 
part of the above analysis, but was still examined by the Commission. 

The overwhelming majority came from citizens, most of which (1088) expressed their support 
for abolishing the current time switch.  

In  addition, two campaigns were identified.  The first campaign was launched via email  and 
reached  the  Commission  in  the  functional  mailbox  for  the  summertime  consultation.  This 

7 Dr  Kiran Sarma  and Dr  Rachel  Carey, The potential impact of  the implementation  of the  Brighter 
Evenings  Bill  on  road  safety  in  the  Republic  of  Ireland:  a  report  for  the  Road  Safety  Authority  of 
Ireland, November 2015  
8 Excluding campaigns 

10 

 
                                                            
campaign  was  organised  by  www.cyberacteurs.org  and  expressed  the  preference  for  a 
permanent standard time. A total of 1503 emails were received. 

A  second  campaign  was  organised  by  ACHED  (Association  Contre  l’Heure  d’Été  Double) 
and  was  sent  by  means  of  a  filled  in  template  by  post.  A  total  of  17  contributions  were 
received expressing the opinion to stop the seasonal time change and for a permanent standard 
time. 

6. Conclusion 

4.6  million  replies  to  the  public  consultation  on  the  summertime  arrangement  in  the  EU, 
coming  almost  exclusively  from  individual  persons,  are  an  impressive  turnout.  It  shows  the 
high  level  of  interest  and  involvement  of  Union  citizens  from  the  entire  continent  in  this 
cross-border issue. However, this public consultation is not a representative survey, nor does 
it  constitute  a  citizens’  vote.  Its  outcome  has  to  be  considered  in  the  context  of  the  wider 
policy debate about the future of EU summertime arrangements. 

The  overwhelming  majority  of  respondents  express  their  dissatisfaction  with  the  current 
arrangements  at  EU  level  whereby  Member  States  switch  together  from  standard  time  to 
summertime  in  March  and  back  to  standard  time  in  October  every  year.  84  %  of  all 
respondents  want  this  time  switch  to  be  abolished.  Yet,  there  are  divergences  between 
Member States, with a small majority of respondents from Greece and Cyprus favouring the 
current arrangement, while respondents from Finland, Poland, Spain and Lithuania are almost 
unanimously (over 90%) in favour of abolishing the time switch. 

Replies  are  more  heterogeneous  to  the  question  of  what  should  replace  the  current 
summertime arrangement if it were to be abolished. Although a clear majority of respondents 
would prefer “permanent summertime” in this case, there is also a more significant minority 
(36 %) in favour of “permanent standard time”.  

Most  frequently,  respondents  who  are  in  favour  of  abolishing  the  time  switch  give  health 
considerations as their main argument (43 %). Respondents who are in favour of keeping the 
current arrangement most frequently refer to their evening leisure activities (42 %).  

11