Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – EU Citizenship Report 2020
Date: 2020-12-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: fundamental rights

www.technopolis-group.com 

December 2020 

Results of the Public Consultation on EU Citizenship 
Rights 2020 

Final report 

Disclaimer:  This  document  should  be  regarded  solely  as  a  summary  of  the 
contributions  made  by  stakeholders  to  the  public  consultation  on  EU  Citizenship 
Rights.  It  cannot  in  any  circumstances  be  regarded  as  the  official  position  of  the 
Commission or its services. 

Results of the Public Consultation on EU Citizenship Rights 2020 

i 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table of Contents 

1  Introduction ____________________________________________________________________ 1 

2  Profile of respondents ____________________________________________________________ 2 

3  Right to move freely within the EU  _________________________________________________ 10 

4  The right to reside in another Member State__________________________________________ 14 

5  Right to vote and stand as a candidate ______________________________________________ 23 

6  Responses on the right to consular protection ________________________________________ 40 

7  Responses on simplifying mobility and life in Europe ___________________________________ 41 

8  Responses on exercising EU citizenship rights  _______________________________________ 47 

9  Impact of the Covid-19 pandemic __________________________________________________ 54 

10 Conclusions ___________________________________________________________________ 59 

  List of tables and figures ________________________________________________ 60 

Results of the Public Consultation on EU Citizenship Rights 2020 

ii 

 
 
 
 
1  Introduction 

EU  citizenship  is  a  significant  achievement  of  the  European  project.  It  does  not  replace  national 
citizenship  but  complements  it.  Nationals of  27  EU  Member  States are  European citizens.  EU 
citizens enjoy, for  instance, free  movement  in  the EU,  consular  protection  when  travelling  abroad, as 
well  as  political  and democratic  rights,  such  as  the  right  to  participate  in elections  to  the  European 
Parliament.   

The Commission reports on the application of the EU citizenship provisions every 3 years  and proposes 
new priorities for the next 3 years. The Commission held a public consultation on EU citizenship rights 
between  July  and  October  2020,  which  together  with the  Eurobarometer  on  EU  Citizenship  and 
Democracy as well as other dedicated consultations, informed the 2020 Citizenship Report1.   

Open  public  consultations  are  not,  by  nature,  statistically  representative  of  the  population  (unlike, for 
example, public opinion polls). Therefore, their purpose is not to find answers that could be generalised, 
but  rather  to  gain  in-depth  insights  that  can  shed  new  light  on  a  range  of  issues.  In  order  for  the 
consultation to provide this in-depth evidence, it contained a number of open and closed questions. In 
addition to the responses to the survey, 23 position papers were submitted. The majority of the papers 
came from citizens’ rights advocacy organisations2.  

This  report  provides  a  summary  of  the  consultation’s  outcomes  and  some  additional  insights.  It  is 
structured following the questions posed in the survey. In order to indicate the sources and differences 
between analysis of the closed questions and contributions by EU citizens, UK citizens and the position 
papers, the report shows these differences through coloured boxes:  

Opinions based on EU citizens are marked in light green. 

UK citizens’ views are marked in pink.   

Informative  views  from  the  position  papers  are  coloured  in  yellow.  The  organisations  providing  the 
information are mentioned as well.  

1 The public consultation received a lot of interest from UK citizens. UK citizens are no longer EU citizens since the UK’s 
withdrawal from the EU at the end of January 2020, although they still can exercise several EU rights (such as travelling and 
working in the EU) in the current transition period. Where this report uses the term “EU citizen” or “EU citizens”, this therefore 
does not include UK citizens, and their responses are not included in the analysis. However, where useful, views from UK 
citizens are included. 
2 There were also written contributions and 1650 emails from UK citizens. 

1 

 
 
 
 
                                                
 
2  Profile of respondents 

The public consultation received 343 responses through the EUSurvey tool. 258 responses came from 
citizens  of  26  EU  Member  States  and  52  came  from  UK  citizens.  No  responses  were  submitted  by 
citizens of Malta. 56% of respondents were male (155), and 41% female (112). One respondent chose 
“other” and five did not provide this information.  

Almost 90% of the responses came from citizens, while about two dozen of the responses came from 
organisations  or  fell  in  the  “other”  category.  A  few  respondents,  despite  being  affiliated  to  an 
organisation, responded to the survey in their individual capacity. Five respondents also answered on 
behalf of public authorities. Not all respondents provided all demographic information3.  

The particular situation of Brexit is reflected in this survey report. 21 UK-born citizens responded having 
a nationality of an EU Member State. Irish is the most often mentioned second nationality of the UK-
born  European  citizens.  Many  of  the  UK-born  respondents  identify  themselves  as  “EU  citizens”.  For 
several of them, responding to the survey provided an opportunity to express their regret with respect 
to the loss of their EU citizenship rights.  

The  public  consultation  attracted  respondents  with  a  wide  profile.  For  62%  of  the  respondents,  the 
country  of  origin  (or  home  country),  the  country  of  residence  (or  host  country)  and  the  nationality 
(citizenship) were the same. For the 38% where these three factors were not identical, this is mainly due 
to the change of residence – a larger number of mobile citizens for example can be found in Belgium, 
or due to a change in nationality – for example ten UK-born citizens now have Irish citizenship. Figure 
1  provides  an  overview  of  the distribution of respondents  by  citizenship and  by  gender.  The  highest 
number of responses came from Portugal (32), followed by Ireland (31) and Spain (29).  

3 For example, some did not share information on their year of birth and/or their sector of employment. This is factored into 
the survey respondents’ profile descriptions, and the notes below each graph and table state the relevant number of 
responses (i.e. the base/number of observations). 

2 

 
 
                                                
 
Figure 1  Responses by citizenship (by country (totals) and gender (shares)   

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights. 
Note: Nr of observations =267, based on Q3. What is your nationality? 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
When it comes to the age of the respondents (Figure 2), about 90% were older than 25 years. Within 
this  group,  those aged between  40  and  54 represented  the  largest  sub-set.  The  smallest  group  was 
made up of those aged between 18 and 24 (22 responses, 9%). 

Figure 2 Age groups of respondents (totals and shares) 

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights. 
Note:  Nr of observations =256, based on Q39. What is your year of birth?  

When asked about their level of education, 115 (42%) reported a Master’s degree or equivalent, followed 
by  Bachelor’s  (20%),  and  doctoral  (17%)  levels.  Post-secondary  non-tertiary  and  short-cycle  tertiary 
education, which are typically vocational, were much less represented (8%).  

Figure 3  Education level of the respondents (absolute numbers) 

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights. 
Note:  Nr of observations =269, based on Q42. Which of the following best describes your latest educational 
level? 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  4  cross-references  the  education  level  with  gender. While  there  were in  total more male  than 
female respondents (56% and 41% respectively), in absolute and relative numbers, women were more 
represented in the Master’s level sub-set, while male respondents dominated the vocational education 
categories.  

Figure 4  Education level of the respondents, by gender   

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Nr of observations =267, based on Q42. Which of the following best describes your latest educational level? 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 5 shows the employment status by age group. 79% of the respondents were in employment, 16% 
were inactive and 5% were unemployed. A few respondents did not provide information.  

Figure 5  Employment status by age group 

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Nr of observations =226 

The employed respondents (79%) were also asked about their sector of employment. Almost half were 
employed in the public sector and around a third in the private sector. 17% of the respondents worked 
in the non-profit sector. The category “Other” employment attracted only a few respondents.  

Figure 6  Sector of employment  

2%

17%

35%

46%

Private sector (73)

Public sector (98)

Not-for-profit sector (35) Other (5)

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Nr of observations =211, based on Q43; In which sector do you work? 

6 

 
 
 
 
Level of knowledge about citizenship rights 

Roughly  67%  of  the  respondents  went  through  an  initial  (optional)  round  of  seven  questions,  which 
indicated their level of knowledge about the EU citizenship rights.  

There was no clear pattern in terms of shares of correct answers to the seven questions (Figure 7). The 
eldest group of respondents tended to answer correctly more often than the other age groups, but the 
difference is marginal.  

Figure 7  Level of knowledge about citizen rights by age group (share of correct answers per age group) 

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Nr of observations =183 

Information level of respondents  

The first question asked how well-informed respondents felt about what they can do when the EU citizen 
rights are not respected. While 12% felt “very well informed”, more than two thirds felt “somewhat well 
informed” or “rather well informed”. Around 20% of respondents felt “not at all well informed”. Analysing 
the responses to the open questions of the public consultation coming from the group of respondents 
feeling not at all well informed is a very important element and taken up later in section 7.  

7 

 
 
 
 
Figure 8 

 Level of information on rights as EU citizen  

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights. 
Note: Nr of observations =273, based on Q2. How well informed do you feel about what you can do when your 
rights as an EU citizen are not respected? 

Figure 9 breaks down the level of knowledge of/familiarity with the EU citizen rights by gender.   

Relatively speaking, more men than women felt well informed. They represented, for example, 55% of 
the respondents who felt very well informed, and 63% of the respondents who felt rather well informed.  

Figure 9  Level of information on rights as EU citizen, by gender  

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Nr of observations =273, based on Q2. How well informed do you feel about what you can do when your 
rights as an EU citizen are not respected? Scaled by level of information.  

Figure 10 breaks down the level of awareness of the EU citizen rights by age. The results showed that 
in particular respondents between 18–24 years old feel either very well or rather well informed (60%). 
In all other groups, almost a quarter of the respondents did not feel well informed at all. By and large, 
the level of awareness decreases over the different age groups reaching only 33% in the group of +55 

8 

 
 
 
 
year-olds. Checking for the educational level, respondents with a Master’s or Doctoral level or equivalent 
degree felt the most informed, while lower degrees such as post-secondary non-tertiary education and 
Bachelor’s or equivalent levels are more often found among the respondents expressing to be not at all 
well informed. 

Figure 10  Level of awareness of rights as EU citizen, by age group 

18-24 years (22)

23%

36%

27%

14%

25-39 years (76)

14%

27%

33%

24%

2%

40-54 years (97)

12%

32%

34%

21%

1%

>55 years (61)

5%

28%

44%

23%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Very well informed

Rather well informed

Somewhat well informed

Not at all well informed

Don’t know

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Nr of observations =256, based on Q2. How well informed do you feel about what you can do when your 
rights as an EU citizen are not respected?  

Key insights on … the respondents 

•   The consultation received 343 replies. 90% came from citizens, with 258 from citizens of 26 EU 
Member  States  and  52  from  UK  citizens.  10%  were  submitted  by  academia,  civil  society  and 
public authorities.  

•   56% of respondents were men (155), and 41% women (112). 

•   Two thirds of the respondents were between the age of 25 and 54.  

•   201  respondents  were  in  employment,  only  14  were  unemployed,  and  141  were  inactive  (for 
example students or pensioners). About half of the respondents worked in the public sector and 
17% worked in the not-for-profit sector. More than a third worked in the private sector. 

•   23  position  papers  were  shared  with  the  Commission  in  order  to  accompany  the  public 

consultation responses. 

•   Young respondents felt more well informed than older age groups. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3  Right to move freely within the EU 

The  rights  to  move  freely  and  to  reside  within  the  EU  territory  are  among  the  cornerstones  of  the 
European Union.  Everyone travelling to another Member State for work or vacation exercises the right 
to move freely within the EU. The following sections look at the relevant survey sections on travelling 
and residing within the EU. 

Other research has been conducted recently on the level of awareness of EU citizenship rights. On the 
right to move freely within the EU, the below provides a summary of the results: 

The results of a recent Eurobarometer survey (2020) on EU citizenship rights show that the right to 
move [within the EU] is the right most well-known and appreciated by the EU citizens. This was also 
confirmed by several surveys carried out by pan-European civil society organisations: “Out of all EU 
citizens’ rights, free movement is definitely the most used and the most cherished by EU citizens. In 
fact, the number of mobile EU citizens is constantly growing – between 2017 and in 2018, there was 
an  increase  of  around  600,000  mobile  citizens  residing  in  an  EU  country  other  than  their  own.” 
(European Citizen Action Service).  

The  right  to  move  and  reside  freely  within  the  EU  “is  the  most  visible  and  recognised  right  of  EU 
citizens.  It  really  expresses  that  the  European  Union  and  European  cooperation  is  something 
’tangible' and visible” (European House – Budapest), and as such, “demonstrates and promotes a 
better understanding of the value of European integration, as well as citizens’ participation in shaping 
the Union. The positive economic effects of intra-EU labour migration for the receiving countries have 
now been recognised by a majority of the citizens” (Europeans Throughout the World). 

When asked about their travelling within the EU in 2019 (outside the country of residence), four out of 
five  respondents  travelled  at  least  once  in  2019  within  the  EU.  The  broad  majority of  85%  travelled 
occasionally or quite regularly to other EU Member States while less than 15% of respondents did not 
travel outside their country of residence. Almost one in three respondents travelled once or twice (27%), 
or up to 5 times (31%), and only few up to 10 times (10%) (Figure 11). 

Figure 11  Number of travels by EU citizens outside their country of residence and within the EU in 2019 

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Nr of observations =271, based on Q4. As an EU citizen, you have the right to travel freely within the EU. In 
2019, how often did you travel to EU countries other than the one of which you are a national or the one in which 
you reside? Scaled shares 

10 

 
 
 
 
Figure 12 shows the share of respondents per Member State by frequency of travel. Respondents from 
11  countries  reported  travelling very frequently, i.e.  travelling  on  a  weekly  basis.  However,  given  the 
limited number of observations, there is no clear pattern that can be discerned. 

The share of citizens not travelling at all in 2019 was somewhat higher in Greece, Spain, or Portugal. In 
these countries, but also in Italy and the Netherlands, the share of respondents travelling not at all or 
only once or twice ranged from 43% in the Netherlands to 80% in Greece.   

Figure 12  Frequency of travelling in the EU in 2019, by country  

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Nr of observations =271, based on Q4. As an EU citizen, you have the right to travel freely within the EU. In 
2019, how often did you travel to EU countries other than the one of which you are a national or the one in which 
you reside? 

11 

 
 
 
Respondents were asked to select the main reasons for travelling to an EU Member State (other than 
the  one  of  their  residency  and/or  their  nationality)  from  a  list  of  options.  Respondents  were  able  to 
indicate multiple options. Among those who selected only one option, “holidays” was the predominant 
purpose of travelling followed by “work-related” reasons. 

This finding is repeated on the general level, where “holidays” was the most frequently chosen reason 
(65%) for travelling to another EU country for a short period of time. The next most frequently indicated 
reason  was  “visiting  family  and  friends”,  followed  very  closely  by  “work-related”.  In  total,  42%  of  all 
respondents indicated both these reasons.  

“To go shopping” is often associated with the geographic location of citizens in cross-border regions. 
Overall, this reason was less frequently chosen. Individually taken, 13% mentioned it as a reason. If one 
looks  at  the  country  where  the  respondents  are  located,  then  half  of  the  respondents  travelling  for 
shopping are living in Belgium, Portugal and Slovakia.  

Figure 13 provides a scaled picture of the choices. The number of respondents who chose each option 
is given in brackets behind each category. 

Figure 13  Travelling within the EU, reason for travelling (multiple answers possible) 

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Nr of observations =240, based on Q4.1. For what purpose? Scaled shares   

Respondents were further asked if they had faced discrimination on the basis of their nationality when 
travelling  in  other  EU  countries.  The  vast  majority  of  respondents  (70%)  reported  not  having  faced 
discrimination,  while  less  than  18%  claimed  they  had and  13%  did  not  know.  In terms  of  nationality, 
mainly  respondents  from  Ireland,  Portugal  and  France  reported  discrimination  on  the  basis  of  their 
nationality when travelling in other EU countries. 

12 

 
 
 
Respondents also had the opportunity to provide some additional information regarding their experience 
– 12 respondents provided comments. Among the examples given were language barriers (a reported 
unwillingness  of  authorities  to  communicate  in  English);  unfriendliness  at  border  checks;  priority 
handling of national citizens; different entrance fees for cultural sights.  

Figure 14  Share of citizens that felt discriminated against by an administration on grounds of nationality 

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Nr of observations =239, based on Q5. In the past when travelling, have you ever been discriminated 
against by an administration on ground of your nationality? That is, have you ever been treated differently from 
someone who held the nationality of the country you were in? 

There is a degree of complementarity between the position papers submitted by civil society and the 
results of this public consultation.  

In order to be effective, the right to move and reside freely within the EU should be accompanied by 
appropriate measures making sure that it is “enjoyed by all [citizens] on an equal basis with others by 
drawing  particular  attention  in this context  to  marginalised,  discriminated  and  excluded  groups”  (Civil 
Society Europe). For instance, as stressed by the organisation in a recent Position paper, “persons with 
disabilities  find  many  difficulties to  move  to  another  country  because  of  lack  of  mutual recognition  of 
disability across EU Member States causing people to lose their disability benefits or support services 
(e.g. personal assistance), as they will need to go through another disability assessment in the country 
they move to”. 

Key findings on … the right to move freely within the EU 
•  

In 2019, most respondents travelled for their holidays. Work-related reasons or visiting friends and 
family come on second and third place, respectively.  

•  

In a number of Member States, a large share of respondents did not leave their country in 2019. 
Given the small sample, no conclusions can be drawn as to why. 

•   43 respondents believe themselves to have been discriminated against when exercising their EU 
citizenship right to free movement due to their nationality. Discrimination was felt at border controls 
or through a pricing system that treated nationals differently from other EU citizens.  

13 

 
 
 
 
 
4  The right to reside in another Member State  

While the previous questions looked at short-term travel (i.e. lasting less than three months), EU citizens 
have the right to reside in another Member State. This may require different administrative procedures. 

Based on Eurostat data4, in 2019, 3.3% of the EU citizens aged 20–64 resided in an EU Member State 
other than that of their citizenship. This share has slightly increased since 2009 (2.4%).  

The results are very even: 50% of the respondents indicated they had resided in another EU country 
(135  respondents)  while  50%  had  not  lived  in  another  EU  country for longer than  three months  (136 
respondents).  

Figure 15 shows that the respondents who lived in another EU country for more than three months did 
so primarily for “work or business-related” reasons (78%) and for “education, training and volunteering” 
purposes (64%). Around one in three respondents lived out of his/her country of origin for family reasons 
(33%). It should be noted that respondents can have resided in another EU Member State more than 
once in their life and for different reasons. 

Figure 15  Reasons for residing beyond the 3-month period in another EU country 

Work or business (135)

78%

10%

12%

Education/training and volunteering (135)

64%

13%

23%

Family reasons (135)

33%

31%

36%

Other (135)

8%

34%

58%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Yes

No

no answer

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights. 
Note: Nr of observations = 135, based on Q6.1. What were the reasons for this? 

Civil  society  addressed  the 3-month  period  of  unconditional residence.  The  European  Citizen  Action 
Service, for example, stated that we “should not re-start every time an EU citizen leaves the territory of 
the Member State, with the effect that in the absence of an official system of registration, come-and-go 
residents struggle to establish residence-based rights”. (Source: European Citizen Action Service) 

When asked what kind of information citizens used regarding the administrative side prior to the move, 
more  than  50%  of  the  respondents  provided  an  answer 5.  Most  of  them  searched  for  work  related 
administrative information. This includes information on how to obtain residency and work permits, 

4 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/EU_citizens_living_in_another_Member_State_-
_statistical_overview 
5 Question 7: “Before moving, what kind of information did you seek regarding the administrative side of your 
move?” 

14 

 
 
 
                                                
 
how to register in the new municipality, and on social security benefits (mainly to access the healthcare 
system and pension schemes).  

They  were  also  searching  for information  on  practical  matters such  as  the  requirements  to  rent  an 
apartment or buy a house, the process to get a phone number, the documentation and procedures to 
open  a  bank  account,  or  how  to  register  a  car.  Citizens  moving for  educational  purposes  or  parents 
moving with children also searched for information regarding studying and employment schemes in the 
new country. 

Non-EU  nationals  reported  searching  for  information  on  a  number  of  topics,  such  as  access  to 
healthcare and tax schemes, pension entitlement, extending driving licence validity or the renewal of 
residency permits. 

The  next  question  explored  what  sources  of  information  tended  to  be  used  by  individuals  who  are 
moving from one country to another. Respondents were asked to indicate all relevant sources. 

Figure 16  Residing in other EU countries, sources of information before moving, by age group 

Personal contacts(91)

16%

19%

17%

19%

Online information or help desks provided by the
new host country(69)

16%

13%

14%

12%

Unofficial, commercial or private websites (51)

14%

13%

9%

6%

Advisors at universities or schools(51)

14%

12%

10%

5%

Your employer(46)

7%

6%

11%

11%

Online information or help desks provided by the
previous host country(31)

9%

4%

6%

8%

Social media groups(33)

9%

10%

5%

4%

Expatriate organisations or communities of your
compatriots(32)

5%

6%

5%

10%

Embassies or Consular offices(31)

7%

8%

4%

Online information or help desks/advice services or
networks provided by EU institutions(28)

5%

7%

6%

4%

Offline through brochures, flyers or books(19)

5%

5%

5%

I did not seek any information(15)

5%

Other(9)

5%

Chambers of commerce(4)

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

18-24 years

25-39 years

40-54 years

>55 years

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights. 
Note: Nr of observations =131, based on Q8. Before moving, which of the following sources of information did you 
use for your transition from one country to another?  

15 

 
 
 
In terms of relative importance of the various options, “information through personal contacts” was the 
most important source (93 responses). 6 This was echoed through all age groups, as shown in Figure 
19. 

Other sources of information mentioned by respondents were flyers and brochures from governmental 
agencies  (e.g.  on  employment).  Some  respondents  indicated  that  they  had visited the  new  place  of 
residence in advance and went to the local information helpdesks (where available), or consulted with 
private specialised relocation services.  

Respondents  who  resided  in  another  EU  Member  State  were  also  asked  to  rank  up  to  three  of  the 
sources they found most useful. The ranking of the sources consulted before the move (as in Figure 16 
above)  was  almost  identical  to  the  ranking  of  sources  consulted  after  the  move.  The  usefulness  of 
personal contacts was strongly confirmed – this source of information obtained the highest share with 
19% of all options.  

The  same  group  of  respondents  was  also  asked  whether  they  would  have  liked  to  have  had  more 
information prior to their move.7 Among the 30 answers given, about half stated “nothing”. The remaining 
ones  indicated  that  they  would  have  primarily  been  interested  in  sourcing  more  specific  information 
about the administrative formalities (e.g. registration/deregistration or the tax regime).  

Registration and in particular its impacts at a personal level seems to be a major problem for some of 
the  respondents.  They  indicated  that they  would  have  searched  for  more  precise  information  on  the 
rights and obligations of residency, ways to potentially circumvent formal registration in order to prevent 
unwanted effects. They pointed to difficulties in identifying the relevant information sources, difficulties 
in obtaining this information in English and an unwillingness of people in the administrations to deal with 
foreigners who do not speak the language of the host country. 

UK  nationals  in  addition  would  have  sought  more  information  regarding  health  insurance  and  tax 
schemes in their new Member State of work and residency. 

A position paper by civil rights associations also states that mobile citizens face persisting problems due 
to a lack of information when moving to another EU Member State. This is particularly the case when 
“applying for residence documents, accessing healthcare or job market, trying to be politically active, 
etc.” (European Citizen Action Service). 

Finally,  respondents  were  also  asked  whether  or  not  they  had  faced  discrimination  due  to  their 
nationality by any administration. The vast majority (60%) answered negatively but more than one fifth 
(21%) indicated they had experienced some sort of discrimination, while 19% did not know.  

6 The numbers in Figure 19 do not match entirely since some respondents did not reveal their age.  
7 Question 9. “After having moved, what information do you wish you had sought prior to moving?” 

16 

 
 
                                                
 
Figure 17  When residing elsewhere in the European Union for more than three months, were you ever 

discriminated against by an administration based on your nationality? 

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights. 
Note: Nr of observations =135, based on Q10. When residing elsewhere in the European Union for more than 
three months, were you ever discriminated against by an administration based on your nationality? 

When asked to elaborate, respondents shared experiences of discrimination linked to the behaviour 
of individuals or the administration’s staff, as well as experiences that resulted from existing rules and 
procedures.  

•   For  example,  some  students  reported  discriminatory  situations  when  renting  accommodation. 
While  occasionally  this  is  linked  to  the  behaviour  of  private  citizens  (e.g.  the  private  owners 
charging a higher price than to nationals), in other cases the discrimination seems to result from 
existing rules. A respondent noted that in France, for example, foreign residents need both a bank 
account and a registration certificate in order to rent accommodation.   

•   Some respondents reported cases of “indirect discrimination”. In countries which use digital ID 
cards  for  their  citizens,  foreign  residents  without  the  opportunity  to  obtain  a  digital  ID  face 
obstacles in accessing some services (a case from the Netherlands). 

•   Another example provided in the consultation noted the Austrian practice of Austria-born children 
of mobile EU citizens. They need to obtain a registration certificate for their baby in order to obtain 
some social benefits for the child. According to the respondent, obtaining the certificate is a very 
lengthy process, whereas Austrian parents are not required to obtain such a certificate.  

•   Some  respondents  reported  issues  in  accessing  banking  services,  due  to  corporate  policies 
(notably, difficulties in transferring money to an Italian bank for a Belgian citizen), or to open a 
bank account (in Slovakia). 

Respondents  were  asked  to  select  challenges  they  had  faced  once  they  had  moved  to  another  EU 
country  from  a  predefined  list  of  options.  Respondents  indicated  “lengthy  and  unclear  administrative 
procedures” (21%) in the new country and “a lack of sufficient or clear information on their rights” (17%) 
as  key  challenges.  “Difficulties  in  the  exchange  of  information  between  the  public  authorities  of  the 
previous and the new country of residence” was the third most often mentioned challenge with 13%. 

17 

 
 
 
 
Figure 18  Challenges faced after the move from residing in other EU countries 

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Nr of observations =105, based on Q11. After having moved to another EU country, did you encounter any 
of the following? Please choose all answers that apply. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Among the rather large share of respondents that have lived abroad for more than three months (50% 
of the responding EU citizens), 30% have not returned to their country of origin (Figure 19). This was 
particularly the case for respondents residing in Belgium and the United Kingdom. 

Figure 19  Experience with problems/issues proceeding from residing in another EU country 

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights. 
Note: Nr of observations =135, based on Q12. Have you ever faced problems when returning to your country 
because you had resided in another EU country (for instance, when transferring rights or claiming social 
services)? 

Regarding  the  right  to  move,  the  position  paper  of  the  European  House  Budapest  recalls  that 
“administrative procedures in the different Member States when citizens are moving from one Member 
State to  another  are  not  at  all  standardised  and  sometimes  difficult  to follow. A  new  phenomenon in 
some Member States is the return of its citizens from another Member State: our experience is that it 
could pose extreme difficulties especially regarding social security and healthcare systems”. (European 
House – Budapest) 

More  than  half  of  those  who  had  returned  to  their  home  country  reported  no  problems  (53%  of  all 
responses). A minority of 11% encountered some issues.  

Seven respondents provided more detailed information. They indicate difficulties in the recognition of 
accrued pension rights, getting a car through customs clearance, or extending car insurance from one 
country to the other. 

All respondents, regardless of whether they had lived in another EU country before or not, were asked 
to  assess  the  usefulness  of  a  list  of  support  measures  for  mobile  EU  citizens.  A  national  website 
explaining rights of mobile EU citizens in a national context and an EU-wide online identification system 
for eGovernment purposes were identified as potentially being the most helpful (65% of respondents) 
followed by an online service/platform for receiving and exchanging information (60%) (Table 1). 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 1  Potential support measures and their usefulness for moving to another EU country 

Support measures 

1. A welcome session organised at 
local or community level to help you 
understand the basics about living 
in the country you have moved to. 

2. Roundtables and/or workshops 
on specific tasks and skills to help 
you participate effectively, such as 
on enrolment in education, finding 
work, setting up a business, voting 
etc. 

3. Social events with locals or other 
mobile EU citizens to share 
experiences. 

4. An online service/platform for 
receiving and exchanging 
information. 

5. A national website explaining 
rights of mobile EU citizens in a 
national context. 

6. An EU-wide online identification 
system for eGovernment purposes 
where electronic identity cards can 
be used to authenticate yourself for 
administrative purposes. 

Very 
helpful 

Quite 
helpful 

Not 
very 
helpful 

Not 
helpful 
at all 

Don’t 
know 

Total 
res-
ponses 

37% 

42% 

12% 

6% 

3% 

262 

39% 

39% 

11% 

6% 

5% 

262 

35% 

42% 

12% 

5% 

6% 

262 

61% 

31% 

3% 

2% 

3% 

261 

65% 

22% 

5% 

2% 

7% 

260 

66% 

14% 

4% 

7% 

9% 

258 

7. Language courses. 

59% 

30% 

8. Other. 

14% 

2% 

5% 

1% 

2% 

2% 

5% 

80% 

263 

137 

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Based on Q13. If you were to move to another EU country, what would be helpful to settle in that country 

Table  2  below  compares  the  answers  to  the  same  question from the  respondents  who  have lived in 
another EU Member and those who have not. Although for a number of support measures, the difference 
does  not  seem  to  be  significant,  there  are  three  support  measures  where  the  data  shows  rather 
interesting comparison.  

For example, a welcome session was seen as more helpful by those who have not lived in another EU 
country in the past (82% of them believed this would be either very helpful or quite helpful, compared to 
76% of those who have lived in another EU country). Similarly, those without prior experience with living 
in another Member State saw roundtables and/or workshops on specific tasks and skills as more helpful 
than those who have lived in another EU country (83% vs. 73%). 

On the  other  hand,  social  events  with locals  or  other mobile  EU  citizens  were found more  helpful  by 
those who have already lived in another Member State (79% vs. 74%). 

20 

 
 
Table 2  Potential support measures and their usefulness for moving to another EU country (shares of 

respondents who answered either “Very helpful” or “Quite helpful”) 

Support measures 

Respondents who 
have lived in 
another EU country 
for at least three 
months in the past 

Respondents who 
have not lived in 
another EU country 
for at least three 
months in the past 

1. A welcome session organised at local or 
community level to help you understand the basics 
about living in the country you have moved to. 

2. Roundtables and/or workshops on specific tasks 
and skills to help you participate effectively, such as 
on enrolment in education, finding work, setting up 
a business, voting etc. 

3. Social events with locals or other mobile EU 
citizens to share experiences. 

4. An online service/platform for receiving and 
exchanging information. 

76% 

73% 

79% 

91% 

5. A national website explaining rights of mobile EU 
citizens in a national context. 

86% 

6. An EU-wide online identification system for 
eGovernment purposes where electronic identity 
cards can be used to authenticate yourself for 
administrative purposes. 

7. Language courses. 

8. Other. 

80% 

89% 

20% 

82% 

83% 

74% 

92% 

87% 

78% 

88% 

13% 

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Based on Q13. If you were to move to another EU country, what would be helpful to settle in that country 

Specifying what other items would be useful for settling in another EU country, ten respondents made 
suggestions such as “provide access to cultural events and libraries”, “to organise welcoming workshops 
about cultural misunderstandings in the new country”, or to create dedicated channels with competent 
administrators who can help on topics such as healthcare and social security schemes. 

According to one of the submitted position papers, misinterpretation of EU rules causes problems for 
citizens: “EU citizens and non-EU residents meet a lot of administrative hurdles and also face problems 
due  to  the  misinterpretation  of  EU  rules,  particularly  related  to  the  coordination  of  social  security 
systems.“ (Civil Society Europe). 

21 

 
 
 
 
Key findings on … the right to reside in another EU Member State 
•   Almost 50% of the respondents have lived or live in another EU country other than their country of 
nationality  for  longer  than  three  months  (135  respondents).  Mobile  EU  citizens  are  thus 
overrepresented in the sample, which helps understand their experiences better. 

•   Most  respondents  reside(d)  in  another  country  because  of  work,  followed  by  education/study 

reasons. 

•   Before moving to another EU country, personal contacts are the main source of information. Various 

online content and helpdesks are also frequently consulted.  

•   While  overall  respondents  felt  well  informed  prior  to their move,  they  encountered administrative 
problems when living abroad. In a number of cases, they wish they had been better informed about 
social benefits, health insurance, registration procedures and taxes prior to their move. 

•   28 respondents experienced some form of discrimination based on their nationality while residing in 
another  EU  Member  State. These  experiences  were  linked  to the  behaviour  of  individuals  or the 
administration’s  staff,  as  well  as  to  existing  rules  and  procedures.  Renting  property,  accessing 
services and opening bank accounts were among the examples. 

•   According to respondents, an EU-wide online identification system for eGovernment purposes and 
country level websites explaining rights of mobile EU citizens in a national context would be a helpful 
means to support mobile EU citizens who choose to exercise this EU citizenship right.   

22 

 
 
 
 
5  Right to vote and stand as a candidate  

EU citizens who live in another Member State than their state of nationality have the right to vote for and 
stand as a candidate in European Parliament elections in the country in which they reside on the same 
conditions as nationals of that country. They may also retain their right to vote or stand as a candidate 
in their country of nationality. They may, however, not vote in more than one Member State in the same 
election. Mobile EU citizens also have the right to vote for and stand as a candidate in local or municipal 
elections in the Member State in which they live, under the same conditions as nationals of that Member 
State.  

The first question asked whether or not the respondent had voted in the 2019 elections to the European 
Parliament (EP). In 2019, the overall turnout of the elections to the European Parliament was 50.66%. 
The small sample of the public consultation shows that voters are therefore overrepresented among the 
respondents  to  the  public  consultation.  Here,  the  overwhelming  majority  of  the  respondents  (85%) 
reported having voted in the last EP elections, while a minority did not do so (12%).  

Those who did not vote in the 2019 EP elections were asked about their reasons. One in four said they 
never voted in EP elections, while one in five indicated no specific interest in the 2019 elections. 18% 
mentioned administrative issues and another 37% indicated “other” as their reason (see Figure 20). 

Figure 20  Reasons for not voting in the 2019 European Parliament elections  

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Nr of observations = 33, based on Q14.4 [If Q14=2] What was the reason for this? 

Ten  respondents  gave  further  information  as  to  why  they  had  not  voted.  Among  the  mentioned 
hampering factors, were  

•   Work commitments which did not allow two respondents the time off to vote 

•   Not having the minimum age requirement to vote 

•   The move to a non-EU country (e.g. Switzerland) 

•   Feeling of not being informed enough by the authorities and the media 

•   Administrative issues: despite duly registration, not having been included in the electoral roll 

23 

 
 
 
 
Returning to the respondents who indicated to have voted, 68% resided in their country of nationality 
while 32% lived in another EU country at the time of voting. 

Among those who voted and lived abroad (one third of all respondents), almost half voted for electoral 
lists in the country of their nationality (Figure 21).  

Figure 21  Voting in 2019 European Parliament elections, breakdown of choice for national lists  

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Nr of observations = 81, based on Q14.2 Did you vote for… 

Those who chose to vote in their home country rather than in their host country did so primarily because 
they had a better understanding of the parties and political issues of their home country (a quarter of all 
responses fell on this reason). This was followed by a “stronger sense of belonging to their country of 
origin”. It is important to add that 13% of the respondents indicated that they had voted in their home 
country because they had actually lived in that country during the elections or they still lived there at the 
time of submitting the answer to the public consultation.   

24 

 
 
 
Figure 22  Reasons for voting in home country in the 2019 European Parliament elections, (absolute numbers) 

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Nr of observations =39, based on Q14.5 Why did you choose to vote in your country of nationality rather 
than in your country of residence? Please choose all answers that apply. 

For respondents who chose to vote in their country of residence, politics in that country mattered more 
to their life than politics in their home country (roughly 30% of all answers). They also knew the parties 
and issues better (18%) and another reason was the feeling of belonging to the host country (16%). 

Figure 23  Reasons for voting in the host country in the 2019 European Parliament elections (absolute numbers) 

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Nr of observations =34, based on Q14.6 Why did you choose to vote in your country of residence rather 
than in your country of nationality? Relative scale. 

25 

 
 
 
 
Among the “other” reasons for choosing to vote in the host country, one respondent provided testimony. 
They were based in the UK and, despite not being a national of the UK, they “wished to exercise the 
only (and limited) influence on Brexit by voting for the UK MEPs.”  

Of all respondents who voted in the 2019 election to the European Parliament, the vast majority voted 
in person (83%) while 15% voted remotely (Figure 24). 

Figure 24  Voting behaviour – In person or remotely 

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Nr of observations =229, based on Q 14.3 How did you exercise your vote? 

Preferences  vary  between  countries,  in  part  reflecting  the  national  context  when  it  comes  to  remote 
voting options and policies. 

26 

 
 
 
Figure 25  Voting behaviour – In person or remotely, breakdown by nationality 

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Nr of observations =229, based on Q 14.3 How did you exercise your vote? 

Overall,  around  80%  of  all  respondents  voted  in  person.  By  age  group,  there  are  however  some 
differences: while almost 90% in the age group of 40–54 years old voted in person, the youngest and 
the oldest age groups included larger shares of those voting remotely (23% and 18% respectively). 

27 

 
 
 
Figure 26  Voting behaviour – In person or remotely, breakdown by age group 

18-24 years (13)

25-39 years (63)

77%

81%

23%

17%

2%

40-54 years (90)

88%

11%

1%

>55 years (51)

78%

18%

4%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

I voted in person

I voted remotely (e.g. by mail, in a consulate or by proxy)

I do not remember

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Nr of observations =217, based on Q 14.3 How did you exercise your vote? 

 Respondents were asked what would motivate them to vote in 2024.  

Around 200 respondents answered they would certainly vote as voting in the next EP elections is “their 
democratic right and duty”, and that a high turnout “may strengthen democracy and legitimacy of the EU 
project”.  

While many responded in a positive tone to this question, there were also a number of comments or 
suggested  amendments  on  the  functioning  of  the  EU  institutions  and  the  course  that  European 
integration  should  take.  Several  argued  that  a  different  election  campaign  where  political  parties 
coordinate  across  borders  in  a  truly  pan-European  way  and  where  the  media  provide  a  better 
understanding  of  the  functions  of  the  EU  institutions  (instead  of  focusing  on  politics  in  the  national 
contest) would definitely lead to an increase in turnout. 

The participation in the EP elections might also increase should the EU institutions (Commission and 
Council) engage more in promoting democracy across the Union and strengthening the rule of law.  

On a more operational level, electronic voting was mentioned as a potential participation booster: some 
responses mentioned the time to travel or having to work on the day of the elections as factors which 
had hindered their ability to vote and that this could be overcome with electronic voting in the future. 

Inclusiveness was also raised as an issue: some polling stations are simply not accessible to wheelchair 
users and rectifying this would motivate and enable persons with a physical disability to vote. 

Respondents  were  asked  whether  they  would  have  welcomed  further  harmonisation  of  the  voting 
periods for the EP elections and there was no clear opinion given. Almost one in three suggested that 
this  would  be  a  good  idea  (28%),  and  more  than  one  in  five  were  against  it  (22%).  All  the  other 
respondents either did not know, did not answer, or answered “maybe”.  

28 

 
 
 
Figure 27   Views on the effect to bring voting periods close together  

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Nr of observations =268, based on Q16. In 2019, European citizens were called on to vote at the European 
Parliament elections from 23 May till 26 May, depending on the country. Do you think that bringing the voting 
periods of the European Parliament election closer together would be better? 

Almost 30 respondents also provided comments on bringing voting periods closer together. About one 
third  selected  “no,  it would  not  be  better”. The main  argument  provided  by this  group  concerned  the 
different voting traditions in the Member States that should be taken into account (“Different countries, 
different voting traditions. I respect that”). Another third of contributors chose “yes, it would be better”. 
Their main arguments concerned the feeling of belonging (“One single event would increase the feel of 
a single community”, “Having EU citizens voting at similar times across Member States could help foster 
a  true  transnational  debate  on  EU  issues  rather  than  parallel  campaigns  partly  framed  by  national 
politics”), and that it would also lead to less confusion and a better coordinated media coverage (“more 
uniform  universal  coverage  in  media  […]  there  would  be  less  confusion  on  voting  dates”)  and  less 
strategic  polling.  Among those  responding  “maybe”,  one  respondent  suggested  security  issues  as  a 
potential  problem  for  voting  in  different  periods  (“if  the  vote  would  have  to  be  cast  on  a  single  day, 
manipulations  from  outside  would  perhaps  be  less  likely”),  while  another  respondent  also  suggested 
that the elections should take place over a period longer than the usual four days, such as in the case 
of the US presidential elections where voting is possible months ahead of the election day, via postal 
voting. The latter is already an option in EU Member States that allow postal voting (e.g. Germany). 

Regarding  this  topic,  pan-European  civil  society  organisations,  such  as  Civil  Society  Europe,  are  “in 
favour  of  a  unique  date  for  the  European  Parliament  elections.  This  would  give  more  visibility  to 
European issues as well as to the results of the overall European elections, which would be available to 
all Europeans almost at the same time. Of course, it is also important that political parties declare their 
affiliations  to  the  European  political  groups  before  the  vote,  to  make  the  vote  more  informed  and 
transparent  and  have  access  to  the  sharing  of  seats  together  with  the  results  as  this  happens  with 
national elections.” (Civil Society Europe)  

The following question asked about voting behaviour in national and municipal elections. The majority 
of respondents voted in municipal and national elections in the EU Member State of which they were 
nationals (82% and 89% respectively) and a few even stood as candidates: 5% in local elections and 
5% in national elections. Compared with this, a significantly lower share of respondents (25%) reported 
having  voted  at  municipal  elections  in  an  EU  Member  State  of  which  they  were  not  nationals. 

29 

 
 
 
 
Table 3  Voting behaviour in municipal and national elections 

Statements 

Yes 

No 

Not 
applicable 

Nr of 
responses 

I have voted at municipal elections in an EU 
country of which I am not a national. 

25% 

64% 

11% 

I stood as a candidate at municipal elections 
in an EU country of which I am not a national. 

2% 

87% 

10% 

I have voted at municipal elections in the 
country of which I am a national. 

82% 

15% 

I stood as a candidate at municipal elections 
in the country of which I am a national. 

5% 

89% 

I have voted at national elections in the 
country of which I am a national. 

89% 

9% 

I stood as a candidate at national elections in 
the country of which I am a national. 

5% 

92% 

I participate in local decision-making bodies 
(such as the municipality or schools council). 

17% 

77% 

3% 

5% 

2% 

4% 

6% 

268 

263 

268 

264 

263 

263 

263 

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: based on Q17. Moving on to municipal and national elections, please, mark all sentences that apply 

In  exercising  their  rights  in  voting  in  European  or  local  elections,  the  vast  majority  (more  than  85%) 
declared not having faced any difficulties. Only one in five respondents reported to have had a problem 
(17% female and 12% of male respondents) when voting. Focusing on the distribution of respondents 
per age group, among those experiencing no difficulties, almost 40% were aged 40–54, while of those 
having experienced some difficulties, almost 40% were aged 25–39.  

Figure 28  Difficulties experienced when voting in municipal and national elections, by age group 

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Nr of observations =254, based on Q18. Have you ever experienced difficulties exercising your right to vote 
in European or local elections? 

30 

 
 
 
Looking closer at the country of nationality, it can be observed that several Greek nationals (80%) and 
half of Hungarian respondents experienced some difficulties when voting for local and the EU elections. 
The number of responses is too low to generalise though. 

Figure 29  Difficulties experienced when voting in municipal and national elections, by country of nationality 

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Nr of observations =269, based on Q18. Have you ever experienced difficulties exercising your right to vote 
in European or local elections? 

When asked to provide additional information on the difficulties in exercising their right to vote in the EP 
and  local  elections  while  residing  in  another  EU  country,  almost  30  respondents  provided  some 
additional  details.  Most  of  them  had  faced  delays  in  receiving  the  necessary  documents  by  mail  to 
register on the electoral rolls, or lacked the relevant information on the procedures to register on the 

31 

 
 
 
electoral rolls as non-nationals. Only a few others stated not having been aware of their right to vote to 
the EP and in local elections while residing in another Member State. In addition, some respondents did 
not appreciate long queuing times at the premises of the Embassies or Consulates in order to be able 
to vote for MEPs of their country of nationality, as well as difficulties in accessing the polling station for 
people with disabilities (i.e. with mobility impairments, or in wheelchairs). 

Pan-European  civil  society  organisations  report  several  problems  mobile  EU  citizens  face  when 
participating in EU and local elections. These include a lack of awareness of these rights, as well as 
long procedures to register in the electoral lists:  

•  

•  

•  

•  

•  

“Many people still do not know about this right, and an information campaign needs to be launched 
in time before the next Local/EU elections by the Commission local offices in cooperation with local 
authorities and associations”. (Civil Society Europe) 

“Other  reasons  behind  low  political  engagement  of  mobile  EU  citizens  include:  difficulties  in 
registration process, missed registration deadline, insufficient information on how to vote and the 
lack of knowledge of the local political system. (European Citizen Action Service) 

“The registration for local legislative elections is automatic for mobile EU citizens in only 13 of 27 
Member States. In 12 Member States registration is non-automatic but one-off, while two Member 
States require to register for each election”. (European Citizen Action Service) 

“In order to participate, mobile EU citizens have to request to be added to the electoral roll, often 
several months before the elections and before the official start of the electoral campaign. This issue 
has  been  frequently  reported  by  mobile  EU  citizens  as  one  of  the  key  barriers  to  their  political 
participation.  In  addition,  mobile  EU  citizens  face  challenges  such  as  inadequate  registration 
deadlines, inaccurate registries of voters and cumbersome registration”. (European Citizen Action 
Service) 

“In most of the Member States, public authorities provide electoral information only in the national 
language.  However,  several  local  authorities  have  been  identified  to  contact  mobile  EU  citizens 
using English or even citizens’ mother tongues. For instance, Regional Brussels Government sent 
letters to all mobile EU citizens, informing them of the local elections in October 2018 and explaining 
how to register. Seven out of 19 Brussels municipalities  sent similar letters in French, Dutch and 
German, while Sint-Gilles addressed EU citizens in their mother tongues, and Etterbeek translated 
the official letter to English”. (European Citizen Action Service) 

Around half of the total respondents provided additional information regarding difficulties citizens may 
encounter  when voting  in  another  EU  Member  State.8  The  predominant  group  of  answers  looked  at 
administrative  problems.  Approximately  50  respondents  claim  to  have  suffered  from  administrative 
burdens, which prevented them from duly registering to vote, or from administrative deficiencies, which 
did not provide the ballots on time. Others (approx. 20) also mention that language barriers seriously 
limited their capacity to complete the necessary administrative procedures.  

Limited knowledge of the residents about the host country’s political system and difficulties in becoming 
familiar  with  the  electoral  system  (in  terms  of  registration  rules,  required  documentation)  of  the  host 
country, as well as insufficient understanding of the local politics (in terms of the party system and their 
political  agendas)  in  the  country  of  which  they  were  not  nationals  were  also  flagged  as  potential 
problems. This is often linked to the limited information on the political agendas and on the modalities 
of voting in language(s) other than the one(s) of the host country. 

Finally, for few respondents, there were two additional types of difficulty: the first was related to practical 
aspects,  such  as  not  knowing  where  the  polling  station  was  located,  and  the  second  was  related  to 
significant travelling time to the assigned polling station and queuing at the polling station.  

32 

 
 
                                                
 
 
For non-EU nationals, the most common difficulty experienced when voting in another EU Member State 
was not understanding the voting system, not understanding the language very well and/or not being 
familiar  with  the  political  culture.  Issues  with  registration  and  administrative  procedures  were  also 
mentioned.  

Some  EU  citizens  residing  in  another  EU  Member  State  may  lose  their  right  to  vote  in  the  national 
elections of their home country, whilst, at the same time, not being granted the right to vote in the national 
elections in the new host country because, for example, they have not yet fulfilled the necessary criteria. 
In these cases, EU citizens who exercise their EU citizenship right to reside in another EU country are 
disenfranchised and disadvantaged politically. 

The public consultation, therefore, created a hypothetical scenario of EU citizens who lived in another 
EU country. Respondents were asked whether in this scenario, the citizens should have the right to vote 
in national elections in either their country of residence or their country of nationality, provided they meet 
certain conditions. 

The responses  showed an almost equal split between allowing such a citizen to choose between the 
two countries or for being allowed to vote in both the country of nationality and of residence (respectively 
39% and 37%).  

Figure 30  Opinions on voting rights in national elections for foreign EU citizens   

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Nr of observations =265, based on Q20. Let’s take the same situation again where a citizen of the EU lives 
in an EU country other than their country of origin (i.e. the country of which they are a national). Providing certain 
conditions, do you think that for national elections this citizen should have the right to vote (various options)? 

If  we  take  the  most  mobile  EU  citizens,  there  is  a  similar  distribution  of  opinion  –  40%  express  a 
preference for the option to vote in either country while 39% opt for the voting in both countries. This 
group broken down by gender suggested that 54% female respondents preferred the option to vote in 
both  country  of  origin  and  of  residence  while  54%  of  the  highly  mobile  male  respondents  preferred 
having to choose between the two countries. There is no clear pattern between the various age groups.  

33 

 
 
 
Figure 31  Opinions on voting rights in national elections for foreign EU citizens, by age group and the most 

mobile EU citizens   

Vote in either their country of residence
or their country of origin, depending on
the choice of the citizen (62)

13%

37%

31%

19%

Vote in both their country of residence
and their country of origin, depending
on the choice of the citizen (60)

7%

32%

37%

25%

Vote only in their country of residence
(17)

6%

18%

47%

29%

Vote only in their country of origin (14)

14%

36%

50%

Vote in none, neither their country of
residence nor their country of nationality
(1)

100%

0%

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

18-24 years

25-39 years

40-54 years

>55 years

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Nr of observations =154, based on Q20 and Q4. Let’s take the same situation again where a citizen of the 
EU lives in an EU country other than their country of origin (i.e. the country of which they are a national). 
Providing certain conditions, do you think that for national elections this citizen should have the right to vote 
(various options)? As an EU citizen, you have the right to travel freely within the EU. In 2019, how often did you 
travel to EU countries other than the one of which you are a national or the one in which you reside? 

More than 100 respondents commented on the conditions for granting EU citizens residing in another 
Member State the right to vote in national elections.  

Forty of these respondents had previously indicated that people should be able to “Vote in both their 
country of residence and their country of origin, depending on the choice of the citizen”. About half of 
them suggested that it would suffice to have a certain minimum number of years (ranging from one to 
ten) to decide if that particular resident could vote in both countries – of origin and of residency. Several 
added a condition: on top of being a long-term resident, the person should also have been paying taxes.  

The criterion of a certain number of years of residency was also the main reason given by the more than 
50 respondents  who had  selected “Vote in either their country of residence or their country of origin, 
depending  on  the  choice  of  the  citizen”. Some  argued  that  people  who  have left  their  home  country 
should not have the right to vote there anymore and should basically be denied such a right.  

Non-EU  nationals  present  the  same views  on  this  topic:  about  half  of the  contributors  supported the 
granting of the right to vote in national elections to citizens holding the nationality of another Member 
State  under the  condition  that  they  have  lived in  the  country for  a  set  number  of  years  (in  this  case, 
suggestions range from minimum of six months to maximum of five years).     

34 

 
 
 
The organisation Civil Society Europe suggested in its position paper that “Long term residents should 
also be allowed to take part in regional and national elections, as it is the case already in some Member 
States” and that “EU citizens residing in another [Member State] should also maintain the right to vote 
in their country of origin if they wish so regardless of their length of their residence abroad”. (Civil Society 
Europe)  

The  next  question  related  to  the  option  of  voting  in  elections  electronically.  When  asked  about  their 
concerns with online and other means of electronic voting, the main concerns expressed were “Potential 
fraud  and  manipulation  of  votes”  and  “Cyberattacks”  (in  relative  terms,  about  20%  each).  “Unequal 
access  for  people  without  access  to  the  internet”  and  “Misuse  of  personal  data”  are  also  relevant 
concerns  (17%  and  15%  respectively).  The  least  frequently  mentioned  concern  was  not  having  any 
physical evidence accompanying the vote.  

Figure 32  Opinions on concerns about electronic or online voting (multiple answers) 

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Nr of observations =268, (based on Q21. If you had the opportunity to vote by means of electronic or online 
tools, would you have specific concerns about any of the following?) 

Respondents were also asked to indicate the advantages of electronic and online tools for voting. “The 
convenience  of  voting  from  different  locations”  was  most  prominent  and  indicated  as  the  main 
advantage,  receiving  a  relative  share  of  23%  of  all  responses.  Another  important  reason  was  that 

35 

 
 
 
electronic voting would give “Easier access for people living abroad” and “people with disabilities” (about 
20% of all responses respectively).  

Figure 33 

Advantages when voting by means of electronic or online tools (multiple answers) 

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Nr of observations = 268, based on Q22. In your opinion, what are the main advantages of voting by means 
of electronic or online tools? 

Respondents  were  asked  whether  they  would  consider  the  risks  of  electronic  voting  to  outweigh  its 
benefits, or the other way around. 46% of the respondents considered that the benefits of online voting 
outweighed the risks while one third thought the opposite to be true. For 21% the risks and benefits were 
considered equal. Broken down by gender, we note that the main difference is that men tend to have a 
stronger single opinion – either in assessing risks or benefits, while relatively more women believed that 
risks and benefits are more or less the same. 

36 

 
 
 
 
Figure 34  Advantages and risks when voting by means of electronic or online tools  

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Nr of observations =262, based on Q23. In your view, when it comes to voting by means of electronic or 
online tools, would… 

An interesting pattern can be detected by age: while for all above 24 years old, the benefits outweighed 
the risks for electronic or online voting, the group of 18–24 year-olds thought that the risks outweighed 
the benefits. The majority of the respondents in the age group >55 years considered that the benefits of 
online voting outweigh the risks (57%).  

Figure 35  Advantages and risks when voting by means of electronic or online tools, by age group 

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Nr of observations =249, based on Q23. In your view, when it comes to voting by means of electronic or 
online tools, would… 

37 

 
 
 
 
The final question on voting related to postal voting. There was a range of views on the matter. 29% of 
the respondents fully supported postal voting and another 24% were very favourable toward it. Around 
28% of respondents were neutral and only 9% were completely against postal voting (Figure 36).  

Figure 36  Level of approval of postal voting 

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Nr of observations =268, based on Q24. On a scale of 1 to 5, […], how much do you approve of postal 
voting? 

The majority of the respondents who voted remotely also fully supported postal voting and another 21% 
were  very favourable. Among  the  respondents  voting in  person,  20% did  not  support  (a  lot  or  at  all) 
postal voting while 30% of them were neutral.  

Figure 37  Level of approval of postal voting vs voting behaviour (in person or remotely) 

Fully

A lot

25%

21%

25%

59%

Neither a lot nor a little

15%

30%

Not a lot

6%

10%

Not at all

10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

I voted remotely (e.g. by mail, in a consulate or by proxy) (34)

I voted in person (189)

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Nr of observations =223, based on Q24 vs Q14.3. On a scale of 1 to 5, […], how much do you approve of 
postal voting? How did you exercise your vote? 

38 

 
 
 
  
More than 30 respondents also indicated their reasons for opposing postal voting. The most common 
reason was the fear of fraud and manipulation and lack of trust in the correct functioning of the postal 
services.  This  cautious  attitude  can  be found  in  individual  responses  from  about  half  of the  Member 
States.  However,  relatively  more  respondents  from  Portugal  indicated  their  reservations  while  for 
example all responding German citizens fully supported postal voting – postal voting can be exercised 
at every level of election for German citizens 

Key insights … on the right to vote and stand as a candidate  

•   An  overwhelming majority  of  the  respondents voted in  the last  EP  elections  (more  than  80%). 
This does not represent the wider public, seeing how the overall turnout for the EP elections in 
2019 was 50.66%. 

•   Of  the respondents  who  had voted,  almost  70% lived in their  country  of  nationality  while  32% 

voted while residing in another EU Member State. 

•   Among those living in another EU Member State, 39 respondents voted for electoral lists in their 

home country and 34 voted for electoral lists in their host country. 

•   Reasons  for  voting  in  the  home  country  included  a  stronger  sense  of  belonging  and  a  better 
knowledge of the political system. Several respondents also stressed that the vote in their home 
country had a direct impact on their life.  

•   For those voting in the host country, politics in that country mattered more to their life than politics 
in their home country and they also knew the parties and issues better. Feeling of belonging to 
the host country was also mentioned. 

•   Of all respondents who had voted in the 2019 EP elections, a clear majority (190 respondents) 

voted in person while 34 voted remotely.  

•   Regarding allowing EU residents to vote in national elections in Member States whose nationality 
they did not hold, the respondents equally believed voters should be allowed to choose between 
the two countries or to vote in both the country of origin and of residence. For many the length of 
residency is a criterion to grant foreign nationals the right to vote in national elections. 

•   When asked about electronic voting, 46% of the respondents (120 respondents) considered the 

benefits to outweigh the risks, and one third thought the opposite. 

•  

“Potential fraud and manipulation of votes” as well as “Cyberattacks” were the main reasons for 
mistrust in electronic voting. 

•   While the convenience of voting from different locations and improved voting access for people 
living abroad and people with disabilities were mentioned as the main advantages of electronic 
voting. 

•   Regarding postal voting, more than half of the respondents supported it. 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
6  Responses on the right to consular protection  

As part of their EU citizenship rights, EU citizens are entitled to seek help from the embassy or consulate 
of any other EU Member State if they find themselves in a situation where they need assistance outside 
the EU, with no embassy or consulate from their own Member State effectively in position to help them. 
The COVID-19 crisis has demonstrated EU solidarity in a joint European efforts to protect EU citizens 
abroad, in particular during crises.   

The  first  question  of  this  section  asked  whether  respondents  had  travelled  to  a  country  where  their 
country of nationality did not have an Embassy or a Consulate. According to the responses, this was 
only the case for about 24% of the respondents, while for 54% this was not and another 21% did not 
know.   

Of  the  24%  of  respondents  who  travelled  to  third  countries  where  their  Member  State  was  not 
represented, only a few had made use of their right to consular protection. As reasons, they indicated 
“loss of travel documents” or “legal matters, including arrest”. Overall, respondents felt that this support 
could be further developed and promoted to reinforce the support.  

89%  of  all  respondents  thought  that  EU  Delegations  should  take  a  more  active  role  in  assisting 
unrepresented  EU  citizens,  5%  thought  that  this  role  should  be  left  to  the  Member  States  and  6% 
indicated that they did not know. When it comes to the type of support they envisaged, the evacuation 
and  repatriation  of EU  citizens,  the issuance  of  emergency  travel  documents,  and the  support  of  EU 
citizens who are victims of a crime or who have been arrested were supported equally by 30% of the 
respondents. 

Respondents  choosing  the  response  “Other”  from  the  abovementioned  list  suggested  that  EU 
Delegations might be given the task of supporting EU citizens facing health problems (e.g. in case of 
hospitalisation or death, particularly relevant in the current Covid-19 pandemic), or providing support in 
case of kidnapping and arrest in the third countries. 

Civil Society Europe suggests that it “would actually be more apt and inclined to support EU citizens 
that  cannot  benefit  from  the  support  of  their  own  embassy.  They  could  (i)  provide  support  in  the 
evacuation/repatriation  of  EU  citizens  to  the  EU  in  case  of  emergency  situations,  natural  or  man-
made disasters; (ii) issue emergency travel documents, when regular travel documents are stolen, 
lost, destroyed; (iii) provide support to EU citizens who are victims of a crime or arrested outside the 
EU; and (iv) support families in case of victims”. (Civil Society Europe) 

Key insights on … the right to consular protection 

•   The majority of respondents did not travel or did not know whether or not they travelled to a third 

country with no Embassy or Consulate of their home country. 

•   Experience with consular protection in third countries is very limited among respondents. 

•   Overall, respondents felt that this support should be further developed and promoted.  

•   Respondents thought that EU Delegations should take a more active role in providing support in 

third countries if necessary.  

•   Respondents  supported  the  three  suggested  measures  almost  equally:  “Support  in  the 
evacuation/repatriation of EU citizens”, “Issuing emergency travel documents”, and “Support of 
EU citizens who are victims of a crime or arrested”. 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
7  Responses on simplifying mobility and life in Europe 

The  public  consultation  also  explored  options  for  simplifying  mobility  and  life  in  Europe.  The  section 
touched upon international train travel, medical visits abroad and working abroad. 

International travelling by train 

In the first question, the respondents were asked if they had ever booked a train journey across more 
than two EU Member States. 51% of the respondents had not done so while 47% have done so. Broken 
down by gender, more than half of the female respondents  were experienced in booking train tickets 
across more than two Member States while the share for men was 11 percentage points lower.  

Figure 38  Experience with booking train travel for journeys across more than two Member States 

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Nr of observations =239, based on Q27. Have you ever booked train travel for a journey across more than 
two Member States? 

Those 47% (126 respondents) having made a booking then provided their view on the usefulness of the 
information available.  

Figure 39  Level of satisfaction with the availability of information, being adequate and easy to access for booking 

of train travel 

Yes, absolutely

48%

Yes, to an extent

24%

Neither inadequate or uneasy nor adequate and easy

10%

No, not really

15%

Absolutely not

2%

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Nr of observations =124, based on Q27.1: Was the information available to organise this journey adequate 
and easy to access? 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

41 

 
 
 
 
While for 72% the information was adequate and easy to access, or to an extent, for 17% this was not 
the case. 

Almost 50 respondents who have experience with booking train journeys across more than two Member 
States provided comments. Almost half did not have any specific suggestion to make, or they indicated 
that they had found it very simple. Several suggested to introduce dedicated cross-border travel apps 
and to create a single website common to the various railway companies. Others, instead, would focus 
on setting common rules ensuring the availability of trustworthy online payments and the translation of 
the  content  of  national  railway  companies  into  English  or  other  common  EU  languages.  The  listed 
suggestions  mostly  tended to  exist  already,  but  perhaps  not  across  all  Member States  or  not  all  EU 
citizens have the same access or were aware of these options.  

Non-EU  nationals  provided  a  similar  set  of  suggestions to  EU  citizens,  including  to  set  up  a  “single 
booking  platform,  with  consistency  of  pricing”  and  to ensure  that  national  railway  companies  provide 
booking information in multiple languages.  

Medical treatment 

Under Directive 2011/24/EU on patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare, EU citizens have the right to 
access medical services in any EU country. Citizens need to pay the bill in advance or directly but can 
claim a reimbursement through their health insurance afterwards.  

Since many people may need to see a doctor or visit a hospital while travelling abroad, the respondents 
were asked about this matter. About 53% had not visited a doctor or hospital abroad while 44% had. 
With 46%, relatively more women have used medical services abroad than men (42%).  

Figure 40  Experience with seeing a doctor or hospital in an EU country other than the one of insurance 

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Nr of observations = 266, based on Q28. Have you ever seen a doctor, or did you ever go to a hospital in 
an EU country other than the one in which you are insured? 

When asked whether respondents who had made use of this right ever experienced any difficulty when 
exercising it, almost 60% did not provide an answer. This suggests that awareness of this right might 
be low. Of those who answered, 31% had not made use of it. Difficulties were faced by roughly 14% of 
those who had used it, while about 54% did not face any problems.  

42 

 
 
 
Figure 41  Experience with difficulties and troubles when exercising the patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare 

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Nr of observations =118, based on Q28.1. IF Q28=1[…] Did you ever experience any difficulty or trouble 
when using this scheme? 

About 20 respondents provided information on the main issues they experienced. Different treatment 
due  to  nationality  was  not  widely  mentioned;  more  frequently,  difficulties  experienced  related  to 
reimbursement by the insurance company.  

Figure 42  Main issues when making use of the right of cross-border healthcare  

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Nr of observations =17, based on Q28.2. IF Q28.What was the main issue? 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
Experiences from living in one and working in another EU country 

In the next question, citizens were asked whether they had ever lived in one Member State and worked 
in another. This was not the case for the vast majority (81%), but 18% of respondents had done so.  For 
those 18%, questions then looked at their tax situation. 

27% said that working in one Member State while living in another resulted in two Member States taxing 
their  salary,  while  this  was  not  the  case  for  65%.  When  asked  whether  the  Member  State  where 
respondents were residents exempted them from taxes to avoid double taxation, one in three reported 
that this was the case for them. However, 39% of the respondents replied that they did not know whether 
that was the case for them. One in four of this small group of respondents hired a tax consultant. 

Figure 43  Additional tax-related questions 

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Nr of observations = 49, based on Q29. Have you ever worked in one country and lived in another country 
in the European Union? (If answer to Q29 is ‘Yes’) 

The  next  two  questions  asked  about  the  administrative  burden  for fulfilling the  tax  obligations  in  the 
country of residence and in the country of work. The following Figure 44 combines the responses on the 
experience with fulfilling tax obligations by country of residence and by country of work. Overall, most of 
the respondents found it more burdensome, but the experience with the country of work was seen more 
often as easy and less often as cumbersome than in the country of residence.  

44 

 
 
 
Figure 44  Experience with administrative burdens to fulfil tax obligations in country of residence and country of 

work 

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Nr of observations =49, based on Q29.2 On a scale of 1 to 5, [..], how would you describe the administrative 
burden to fulfil your tax obligations in your country of residence? and Nr of observations =41, based on Q29.3 On 
a scale of 1 to 5, […], how would you describe the administrative burden to fulfil your tax obligations in your 
country of work? 

The majority of the respondents who found the exercise cumbersome – either in the country in which 
they  work  or  in  the  country  in  which  they  reside –  and who  provided  examples  of  the  administrative 
burden in fulfilling tax obligations found them to be unnecessary complex and – for the self-employed 
person – not clear. The language of the declaration was also considered to be difficult to deal with. A 
solution to deal with this problem appears to be to hire a tax advisor – this being the position of the only 
respondent who found the whole exercise “very easy”. 

The views collected by non-EU (British) nationals on the topic also confirmed that hiring a tax specialist 
was  commonly  seen  as  needed  to  navigate  the  cumbersome  administrative  procedures  and 
understanding the rule for paying taxes in the country of work or of residence when living and working 
abroad.  

The  consultation  continued  with  reminding respondents  about  the  EU  Citizenship  rights  they  already 
benefit from and asked them to suggest which other right(s) they would add to the list.9 

Out of the several suggestions provided, 17 of the EU citizens would like to have the right to vote and 
stand in national and regional elections (including referenda) after having lived and worked permanently 
in another Member State. Complementary to this, a few contributors specified that they would welcome 
the introduction of the right to stand for national and regional elections after having resided for a certain 
period of time in the country of work. Some others prompted other additional rights: the right to equal 

9 Question 30: “This concludes all sections on your EU citizenship rights. Before we take a quick look at how they 
can be claimed, we would like to know: Would you like any additional EU citizenship rights?” 

45 

 
 
 
                                                
 
pay (between men and women); the right to have personal privacy guaranteed (particularly in response 
to misuse of personal data shared on online platforms); the right to access healthcare in all EU Member 
States (particularly in case of health emergency); the right to have an acquired civil status in one of the 
Member States automatically recognised in all the others (particularly relevant for same-sex couples); 
and the right to a minimum income ensuring fulfilment of basic needs.  

Many of the UK nationals responding to the consultation were calling for assurances that UK nationals 
residing permanently in an EU Member State could keep their existing rights. 

Key insights on … simplifying mobility and life in Europe 

•   137  respondents  have  no  experiences  with  booking  train  journeys  across  more  than  two  EU 

Member States. Women tend to have more experience in this than men. 

•   The majority  (90  respondents) found  the  booking  process  easy  and  the information  adequate, 

while 21 expressed difficulties. 

•   EU citizens have the right to access medical services in any EU country and to be reimbursed 
for care abroad afterwards by their insurance. The experience with cross-border medical services 
reimbursement is limited, many respondents have not used it – even though they have consulted 
a medical service abroad. 

•   49  respondents  have  lived in  one Member  State  and  worked  in  another.  For  a  quarter  of this 
group,  this  resulted  in  two  Member  States  taxing  their  salaries,  while  20  respondents  were 
exempt from taxes on their salary in their country of residence. 

•   When  asked  whether  additional  EU  citizenship  rights  were  needed,  the  most  frequently 
mentioned idea concerned democratic rights, such as giving mobile EU citizens the right to vote 
in national and regional elections in their country of residence. 

46 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
8  Responses on exercising EU citizenship rights 

In order to exercise rights, citizens need to know of their existence. That is why respondents were asked 
if  they  felt  that  enough  was  being  done  to  inform  EU  citizens  about  their  rights.  Only  4%  of  the 
respondents  completely  agreed  while  another  33%  opted  for  “maybe”  and  “yes  probably”.  A 
considerable share of 62% thought that not enough was being done (answer items: “absolutely not” and 
“probably not’’).  

Figure 45  Opinions on whether enough is being done to inform EU citizens on their EU citizenship rights 

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Nr of observations =269, based on Q31. In order to exercise rights, you need to know of their existence. Do 
you think that enough is being done to inform EU citizens on their EU citizenship rights? 

The following Figure 46 investigates those 62% in greater detail. By gender, we only find a slightly higher 
share of male respondents (54%). Regarding the age group, we can observe an increase of agreement 
with the increase of age. In other words, while among 18–24 year-olds only 9% agree that not enough 
is being done, this share increases to 30% and 39% respectively for older age groups. In the group of 
+55, the agreement then decreases again (22%).  

47 

 
 
 
Figure 46   Share of respondents by age group who think that not enough is being done to inform EU citizens 

about their citizenship rights.  

9%

22%

30%

39%

18-24 years

25-39 years

40-54 years

>55 years

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Nr of observations =160, based on Q31. In order to exercise rights, you need to know of their existence. Do 
you think that enough is being done to inform EU citizens on their EU citizenship rights?  

Exactly  159  respondents  commented  on  what  else  could  be  done to  better inform  EU citizens  about 
their rights. The majority asked for more information and awareness raising campaigns, particularly via 
television  ads,  dedicated  communication  programmes  and  social  media.  Several  other  respondents 
suggested the launch of dedicated media content. Some suggestions indicated that existing information 
channels were not widely known, for example someone suggested broadcasting (live)stream sessions 
of the European Parliament, and that the creation of a dedicated news channel (such as the existing 
Euronews) could help. Communication on specific national channels would also be welcomed, such as 
on national TV (or radio). 

In  terms  of  the  age  divide,  we  notice  that  respondents  over  65  tend  to  stress  the  importance  of 
communication campaigns on national media (e.g. newspapers) and ask for simplified versions of the 
EU  information  websites,  while  younger  respondents  (under  30  years  old)  ask  for  improved 
communication campaigns particularly on social media, as well as a new focus on teaching EU values 
and rights at schools to the younger generations. 

Around 20 respondents also stressed the importance of education and suggested that national and EU 
decision makers should invest in adapting school curricula to teach EU values and history (particularly 
in primary schools) and  support  schools  with the necessary educational material. Finally, to increase 
inclusion (particularly, but not only, in relation to people with disabilities), it was suggested to provide 
the current communication materials in plain language.   

Among  the  non-EU  nationals,  besides  including  relevant  content  on  the  EU  citizenship  rights  in 
educational  curricula,  some  proposed  leaflets  and  informative  booklets  (distributed  on  special 
occasions, such as issuing a new passport or ID document).  

In addition, a few respondents prompted the idea that regional and local administrations should play an 
active role in disseminating information on EU citizenship rights. 

Respondents  were  asked  to  indicate  which  websites  they  knew.  In  total,  14  different  websites  were 
mentioned, multiple choice was allowed. On average, 2.3 sources were ticked. Calculating the relative 
share of each website, the “Europa” website enjoyed the highest visibility (24%), followed by the “Your 
Europe” and “European Commission Representation websites”, with 14% and 13% respectively. Other 

48 

 
 
 
information  portals,  such  as  the  Europe  Direct  Contact  Centres  and the  Enterprise  Europe  Networks 
(EENs) seem unknown to most, scoring 5% or less (Figure 47). 

Figure 47   Use of information websites and assistance or problem-solving services for exercising EU citizenship 

rights (multiple options) 

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Nr of observations =273, based on Q32. The following information websites and assistance or problem-
solving services support you in the exercise of your EU citizenship rights. Please indicate the services you know 

Only a few respondents mentioned additional other sources, namely the websites of organisations, such 
as  “Toute  l'Europe”  and  “Fondation  Robert  Schuman”,  and  the  communication  channels  of  other 
organisations, such as the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA). 

Regarding  the  set-up  of  new  or  improved  information  platforms,  several  civil  society  organisations 
suggested that the EU should focus on “Providing better information, in youth friendly format, all in one 
place: At the moment, information about European citizenship rights at work is scattered across many 
websites, is presented in a way that is not adapted for youth, and is not focused on enabling citizens to 
resolve  problems  they  might  have.  A  central  website  with  information  on  the  complete  rights  young 
people  who  are  mobile  in  Europe  have  is  required,  designed  in  a  way  which  relates  to  the  kinds  of 
problems young people might experience, and enabling them to know who to contact or what to ask for 
to  resolve  their  problems”  (European  Alternatives).  This  position  echoes  what  several  young 
respondents replied to previous questions, namely the need to have a more centralised online presence 
of the EU services and more user-friendly platforms informing citizens of their rights and the services 
supporting their enforcement.   

More  specifically,  regarding  the  EURES  portal,  European  Alternatives  considered  that  “Any  young 
person who accepts a job offer through EURES or similar EU services should get targeted information 
on their rights and know who to contact if they experience problems. The information currently on the 

49 

 
 
 
EURES website concerning living and working in different countries is wholly inadequate”. (European 
Alternatives) 

We  cross-checked  if the feeling  of  being  informed  or uninformed  about  EU  citizenship  rights may  be 
linked to the knowledge of various information sources. Initially, 17% of the respondents indicated that 
they  did  not  feel  well  informed  at  all.  In  fact,  there  is  a  noticeable  difference  between  the  level  of 
awareness of EU Citizenship rights and the use of information websites. The relatively small group of 
respondents with a very high level of awareness knows on average 4.7 information websites while those 
with a very low level of awareness know on average 1.4 websites.  

Figure 48  Level of awareness of EU Citizenship rights and use of information websites 

4.7

2.9

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

1.4

1.7

Not at all well
informed (51)

Somewhat well
informed (86)

Rather well
informed (75)

Very well informed
(26)

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Nr of observations =239, based on Q32. The following information websites and assistance or problem-
solving services support you in the exercise of your EU citizenship rights. Please indicate the services you know 
and Q2 How well informed do you feel about what you can do when your rights as an EU citizen are not 
respected? 

About 90 respondents provided suggestions on how the European Commission could better promote 
services to support EU citizenship rights.10 The most frequently mentioned promotion means were social 
media  (24  respondents),  followed  by  TV  (11),  newspaper  articles  (3),  and  radio  content  (3).  The 
Commission should also consider communication campaigns on public transport rolled out in hubs, such 
as train stations and airports. In order to be more effective, more centralised communication efforts were 
deemed necessary by a handful of respondents. They considered the current communication campaigns 
to  be  too  scattered  on  several  channels  and  therefore  rather inefficient:  “There  seem  to  be  so  many 
portals, it all gets very confusing”. In order to be widely accessible, content should be made available in 
all relevant national languages.  

The  need  to  promote  EU  rights  to children –  and  therefore addressing  primary  education  at  national 
level  as  a means  –  was  mentioned  by  eight respondents.  An  existing  gap  at  national level  seems  to 
exist.  The  following  quote  summarises  several  responses  which  are  however  scattered  among  the 
responses to different questions: “The political and social discourse in Member States is always national. 
People don’t know they have EU rights. EU states should be more active in informing their citizens about 
their EU rights.” 

10 Question 33: “How could the European Commission promote these services more effectively?” 

50 

 
 
 
                                                
 
The  non-EU  nationals  also  pointed  at  the  variety  of  channels  for  providing  consistent  and  accurate 
information  to  the  citizens,  suggested  improving  the  use  of  social  media,  and  called  for  dedicated 
courses on EU history and values in schools.  

On  this  topic,  European  Alternatives  in its  position  paper  suggested to  create  a  single  site  to  inform 
citizens, and Civil Society Europe urges the EU to “further access to information, not only by gathering 
all services in a single portal, but also providing a unique identity and name and avoid duplication  of 
information sources”. (Civil Society Europe) 

A unique website providing relevant information on EU citizenship rights would be particularly useful in 
the  case  of  minorities,  such  as  people  with  disabilities,  as  “all  persons  with  disabilities  find  many 
difficulties  to  move  to  another  country  because  of  lack  of  mutual  recognition  of  disability  across  EU 
Member  States  causing  people  to  lose  their  disability  benefits  or  support  services  (e.g.  personal 
assistance), as they will need to go through another disability assessment in the country they move to”. 
(European Alternatives)  

Moreover, Civil Society Europe suggested that information “should be available at schools, work and 
work-related agencies, in healthcare, travel agencies, and through associations that provide services to 
citizens, or where education, recreation and sports activities are done, etc. in order to reach out to a 
maximum of people where they are”. (Civil Society Europe) 

Asked if a dedicated authority at national level that complemented existing services would be helpful, 
more than three quarters of the respondents supported this suggestion (76%), while less than 7% did 
not find it useful.   

Figure 49   Would a national supporting authority be helpful in exercising citizenship rights?  

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Nr of observations =266, based on Q34. To complement the services listed before, would you find it helpful 
if you could contact a dedicated authority at national level to support you in your exercise of your European Union 
citizenship rights? 

Those  fourteen  respondents  who  had  answered  “probably  not”  and  “absolutely  not”  to  the  above 
question pointed to the additional bureaucracy and costs, as  well as to a perceived division of labour 
between national and EU-level. Another respondent believed that the creation of a national authority at 
national level would not necessarily improve the situation, as “The lack of tools isn't the problem. Many 

51 

 
 
 
people will probably just accept their situation/wrong treatment because they are not aware that there 
are other option existing options besides legal proceeding”. 

Regarding  the  creation  of  another  organisation  providing  information  at  national  level,  Civil  Society 
Europe in its position paper stressed the importance of counting on organisations at national level which 
already  exist  to  support  citizens  in  enforcing  their  rights;  “Also  national  offices  should  take  more 
responsibility and be adequately staffed and trained to support citizens with the necessary information. 
A dedicated authority at national level to support in the exercise of citizenship would be useful although 
there should be the possibility to also access the authority in its own country of origin”. (Civil Society 
Europe) 

When asked about potential limitations to exercising citizenship rights, respondents were able to choose 
multiple answers from a given range. Individually, “Lack of information at national level” was mentioned 
most  often  (22%), followed  closely  by  “Language  barriers”  and “Administrative  barriers”  (19%  each), 
“Lack of information at EU level” and “Social inequalities” (16% each). Together with the results of the 
previous  question,  this  could  suggest  that more  information  available to  citizens  at  the  national level 
would be helpful in bridging information gaps.   

Figure 50  Perception of potential reasons for limited access to EU citizenship rights 

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Nr of observations =273, based on Q35. In your opinion, what could limit citizens’ access to their European 
citizenship rights? 

52 

 
 
 
Asked  to  specify  which  other  factors  could  limit  citizens’  access  to  their  EU  citizenship  rights,11 
respondents  provided  nine  reasons.  The  most  frequently  mentioned  were:  the  lack  of  access  to  the 
internet, which may hamper some citizens in obtaining the relevant information; the dedicated websites 
providing highly streamlined information which citizens find hard to navigate through so to find the advice 
they  need  for  their  specific  situation;  the  lack  of  civic  education  in  schools  in  many  Member  States 
(quote:  “Failure  to  educate  people  about  their  EU  citizenship  rights  which  can  be  observed  in  many 
Member States”).  

The answers provided by non-EU nationals (mostly British) pointed to Brexit as the main factor limiting 
their access to EU citizenship rights. 

Key insights on … exercising of EU citizenship rights 
•   167  respondents  thought  that  not  enough  is  being  done  to  inform  citizens  about  their  EU 

citizenship rights. 

•   Most  respondents  expect  additional  efforts  to  better  inform  EU  citizens,  particularly  through 
awareness raising campaigns via television, dedicated communication programmes, and social 
media. However respondents suggest that more can be done to streamline and raise awareness 
of already existing communication services. 

•   Some information websites, such as “Europa”, are well-known and used while others are less so. 
Respondents  and  civil  society  alike  indicated  that  there  are  too  many  individual  websites  to 
navigate, and that consolidation could be useful. 

•   Respondents  who  felt  well  informed  about  their  EU  citizenship  rights  at  the  beginning  of  the 

survey, later also reported knowing more information websites.  

•   More than three quarters of the respondents support the creation of an authority at national level 
to improve the communication about EU citizenship rights, although concerns about the cost and 
bureaucratic effort were also raised.  

•   The lack of information at national level is the most often mentioned barrier (208 respondents) 
among  the  main  limitations  to  exercising  citizenship  rights,  followed  shortly  by  linguistic  and 
administrative  barriers  (181  and  180  respondents  respectively).  More  information  available  to 
citizens at the national level would be helpful in bridging information gaps. 

11 Question 35: “In your opinion, what could limit citizens’ access to their European citizenship rights? Please 
select all answers that, in your opinion, apply. You are also free to select no answer. (Please specify for the 
answer ‘Other’)” 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                
 
9  Impact of the Covid-19 pandemic  

The public consultation was open in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic (July–October 2020). It also 
included questions on the impact of the pandemic on EU citizenship rights.  

Respondents were asked if they were aware of any European efforts in a range of areas. Respondents 
seem  to  be  by  and  large  well  aware  of  the  repatriation  flights  Member  States  and  the  European 
Commission  organised  for  those  EU  citizens  who  were  in  the  third  countries  at  the  moment  of  the 
COVID-19  outbreak:  more  than  60%  declared  being  aware  of  them  (more  specifically,  31%  were 
“absolutely aware” and 32% were “rather aware”).  

Table 4  Level of awareness of EU and national efforts in coping with the Covid-19 pandemic outbreak 

Efforts in coping with the Covid-19 
pandemic outbreak 

1. Organising and coordinating repatriation 
flights to safely bring back EU citizens from 
third countries. 

2. Promoting and coordinating the lifting of 
free movement restrictions to open our 
internal border again. 

3. Promoting factual content from health 
organisations online and fighting against 
disinformation on the COVID-19 pandemic. 

l

y
l
e
t
u
o
s
b
A

e
r
a
w
a

r
e
h
t
a
R

e
r
a
w
a

e
r
a
w
a
n
u

r
e
h
t
a
R

l

y
l
e
t
u
o
s
b
A

e
r
a
w
a
n
u

s
e
s
n
o
p
s
e
r

f
o
r
N

t
'
n
o
D

w
o
n
k

31% 

32% 

18% 

14% 

5% 

266 

32% 

37% 

17% 

12% 

2% 

265 

25% 

34% 

26% 

12% 

2% 

265 

4. Other. 

13% 

9% 

3% 

10% 

65% 

134 

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Based on Q36. National and European institutions alike are tackling the COVID-19 pandemic. Are you 
aware of any European efforts in the following areas? 

When asked which “other” European efforts respondents were aware of:   

•   Ten respondents listed financial support schemes to Member States and economic actors, such as 
the NextGenerationEU, SURE, and the temporary framework for state aid to support the economy. 

•   Eight respondents mentioned that the EU had helped coordinate the purchase of medical materials 

and finance vaccine trails.  

Respondents also made suggestions of what more could be done: 

•   Four  respondents  suggested  that  the  EU  could  develop  a  common  set  of  rules  in  terms  of  data 
protection (notably for the tracing apps several Member States are developing), so as to increase 
data sharing and transparency.  

Around a quarter of the respondents have resided in or travelled to another Member State during the 
outbreak while almost three quarters were in the country of origin at the beginning of the crisis. 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 51  Share of persons residing in a host country or travelling at the moment of the Covid-19 pandemic 

outbreak 

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Nr of observations =265; based on Q37. During the COVID-19 pandemic, did you reside in a Member State 
other than the country of your nationality or were you surprised by the COVID-19 pandemic while travelling to 
another EU country? 

Broken down by gender (Figure 52), relatively more men (77%) than women (62%) were residing in their 
home country during the outbreak. 

Figure 52  Share of persons residing in a Member State other than their home country or travelling at the moment 

of the Covid-19 pandemic outbreak, breakdown by gender  

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Nr of observations = 262, based on Q37. During the COVID-19 pandemic, did you reside in a Member State 
other than the country of your nationality or were you surprised by the COVID-19 pandemic while travelling to 
another EU country? 

The majority of respondents who faced the pandemic while travelling or residing abroad were in the age 
group of 40–54 (52%), followed by the group of 25–39 year-olds (30%).  

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 53  Share of persons residing in a Member State other than their home country or travelling at the moment 

of the Covid-19 pandemic outbreak, breakdown by age group 

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Nr of observations = 252, based on Q37. During the COVID-19 pandemic, did you reside in a Member State 
other than the country of your nationality or were you surprised by the COVID-19 pandemic while travelling to 
another EU country? 

The position paper of European Alternatives remembered the challenges faced by young Europeans 
when  moving  abroad,  which were  worsened  by  the  Covid-19  crisis:  “If  access  to rights  amongst  this 
group has been worsening for some time [i.e. right to move], in 2020 with the Covid-19 pandemic and 
lockdowns, it is clear to us on the basis of our surveys conducted in 6 countries that this situation is now 
significantly worse” (European Alternatives). 

Based on the experience of respondents at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, those responding 
that they had been either travelling or residing abroad were asked if they had experienced any difficulties 
in  accessing  information  and/or  support  provided  by  the  Member  State  they  were  visiting/residing  in 
during the outbreak. The majority (well above 60%) had no difficulties in accessing information on the 
steps to be taken or on the border situation in a language they could understand. Also, the majority of 
those travelling or residing abroad had no need for repatriation efforts (66% indicated this option as “Not 
applicable”),  neither  did  they  need  new  documents  from  their  country  of  nationality  (52%  “Not 
applicable”) nor from the country of residency (56% “Not applicable”).   

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 5  Experienced difficulties in accessing services during the Covid-19 pandemic outbreak while residing or 

travelling in another EU Member State 

Type of difficulty 

1. Necessary information about the pandemic and 
the steps that should be taken in a language you 
understand. 

2. Necessary information about the border situation 
in your country of residence or the country you 
were travelling through in a language you 
understand. 

3. Repatriation efforts to help get you back home 
safely. 

4. Necessary documents from your country of 
nationality (such as renewed ID documents). 

5. Necessary documents for your country of 
residence (such as residence documents or visas 
for family members from outside the EU). 

d
e
r
e
t
n
u
o
c
n
e

s
e
i
t
l
u
c
i
f
f
i
d

,
s
e
Y

d
e
r
e
t
n
u
o
c
n
e

s
e
i
t
l
u
c
i
f
f
i
d

o
N

e
l
b
a
c
i
l

p
p
a

t
o
N

w
o
n
k

t
’
n
o
D

s
e
s
n
o
p
s
e
r

f
o
r
N

19% 

70% 

10% 

1% 

73 

29% 

64% 

5% 

1% 

73 

12% 

16% 

66% 

5% 

73 

16% 

26% 

52% 

5% 

73 

15% 

22% 

56% 

7% 

73 

6. Specific healthcare support. 

18% 

32% 

48% 

3% 

7. Other specific support, such as childcare for key 
workers. 

6% 

15% 

72% 

7% 

73 

72 

8. Other. 

14% 

9% 

58% 

19% 

43 

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Based on Q37.1: In relation to the measures taken nationally to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, did 
you experience difficulties in accessing any of the following while in another EU Member State? 

In terms of “other” difficulties in accessing information or support facilities during the pandemic outbreak, 
respondents mainly reported a lack of information – or information given on a very short notice – on the 
border restrictions between Member States, which hampered the exercise of free movement. 

Most of the respondents were rather positive about the level of information they had received from public 
national and EU institutions, as well as by the media, following the pandemic outbreak. More specifically, 
the majority felt well informed about the situation (70%), could find the information they needed (67%) 
and were provided with information which was considered reliable and consistent (50%). Some criticism 
on how information on the pandemic was communicated was raised: the EU institutions were not able 
to provide useful information for almost 28% of respondents (against 37% who thought that the EU had 
provided  useful  information  via  its  institutional  channels),  while  the  media  did  not  guarantee  useful 
information for 47% of respondents (against 34% according to which they did). A further prompt on what 
type of media was meant could have rendered these opinions more accurate, because disinformation 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
was  spreading relatively quickly through social media while the print media have received much less 
criticism on the COVID-19 communication.12 

Table 6  Levels of agreement and disagreement with statements about the information received about the 

Covid-19 pandemic 

Statements 

1. I feel informed about the 
situation and the impact on me 
and my family. 

2. I could find all the information I 
needed. 

3. The EU institutions provided 
helpful information. 

4. The information I’ve received 
has been reliable and consistent. 

5. Media provide reliable 
information about the Covid-19 
pandemic. 

y
l
g
n
o
r
t
S

e
e
r
g
a

t
a
h
w
e
m
o
S

e
e
r
g
a

r
o
n
e
e
r
g
a
s
i
d

r
e
h
t
i
e
N

e
e
r
g
a

t
a
h
w
e
m
o
S

e
e
r
g
a
s
i
d

w
o
n
k
t
o
n
o
D

y
l
g
n
o
r
t
S

e
e
r
g
a
s
i
d

s
e
s
n
o
p
s
e
r

f
o
r
N

33% 

37% 

10% 

9% 

9% 

2% 

263 

27% 

40% 

10% 

11% 

9% 

2% 

263 

10% 

27% 

24% 

16% 

12% 

11% 

262 

14% 

36% 

16% 

18% 

12% 

3% 

261 

7% 

27% 

18% 

25% 

22% 

1% 

261 

Source: EU Survey, Public consultation 2020 Citizenship Rights.  
Note: Based on Q38. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the information 
you’ve received about the Covid-19 pandemic?) 

European Citizen Action Service summarised in its position paper the situation: “Mobile EU citizens have 
experienced unprecedented obstacles as a result of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. To address the 
outbreak,  many  Member  States  introduced  partial  or  almost  complete  closure  of  their  external  and 
internal borders, restricting movements of those entering the country as well as movements out of the 
country. As a result, many mobile EU citizens were unable to return home. They had no choice but to 
stay in the host Member State, separated from their close ones. Their basic right to a family life was put 
at risk. ECAS is currently conducting research on the impact of the pandemic on mobile EU citizens. 
While it is too early to provide the conclusions, the initial findings show that the majority of respondents 
were not able to regulate their residence status during the lockdowns and experienced mental health 
problems as a result of Covid-19”. (European Citizen Action Service) 

12 See for example Pennycook, G. (et al.): Fighting COVID-19 Misinformation on Social Media: Experimental 
Evidence for a Scalable Accuracy-Nudge Intervention. Psychological Science 2020, Vol. 31(7) 770–780; Cinelli, 
M. (et al.): The COVID-19 Social Media Infodemic, OA pre-print available from https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.05004 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                
 
 
 
 
General comments 
The  last  open  comment  in  the  consultation  allowed  respondents  to  provide  additional  information  or 
comments on the survey. 52 respondents thanked the EC for the public consultation and the detailed 
questionnaire and 13 provided specific difficulties with regard to some questions. A contributor with dual 
citizenship  suggested  that  the  survey  should  provide  respondents  the  opportunity  “to  indicate  joint 
nationality  at  the  beginning  as  this  affects  your  rights”.  Another  suggested  “adding  questions  about 
discrimination – not only the public authorities can discriminate against EU citizens from other Member 
States, but also, for example, businesses during the recruitment procedures”. 

More  than  30  non-EU  citizens  (mostly  UK  nationals)  provided  feedback  on  the  questionnaire:  while 
several  appreciated the  opportunity to  take  part  in  this  consultation, the majority  of them  stated their 
frustration with the results of the Brexit referendum and the deprivation of their EU citizenship rights.  

The  ECIT  Foundation  used  the  opportunity  to  call  for  strengthened  and  somehow  reformed  EU 
Citizenship Rights via a number of means, including setting up “a system to supply data and statistics 
on turnout and registration of mobile EU citizens in order to design more efficient policy solutions, (…) 
inform  EU  Citizens  Individually  in  their  own  language”  and  creating  a  dedicated  Help  Desk.  (ECIT 
Foundation and Voters Without Borders)  

Key insights on … impact of the Covid-19 pandemic 
•   168 respondents were aware of the repatriation flights that the Member States and the European 
Commission organised for those EU citizens who were in the third countries at the moment of the 
COVID-19 outbreak. 

•   The vast majority of the respondents were in the country of their nationality at the moment of the 

outbreak, while around a quarter were residing or travelling in another Member State. 

•   Of those 73 respondents travelling or residing abroad during the outbreak, 51 had no difficulties 
in  accessing  information  about  the  steps  to  be  taken  and  47  had  no  difficulties  in  accessing 
information about the border situation in a language they could understand. 

•   A  solid  majority  of  the  respondents  felt  well  informed  about  the  situation  and  its  impact  on  a 
personal  and family  level (70%,  184 respondents)  and  could find the  information they  needed 
(67%, 176 respondents) on the pandemic through the public national and EU institutions, or the 
media. 

10 Conclusions  

EU  citizenship,  a  unique  legal  status,  is  one  of  the  most  significant  achievements  of  the  European 
project. The practical enjoyment of rights across borders, such as the right to vote, study, work or live in 
other EU Member States, affects the daily life of all Europeans. The protection and promotion of these 
rights  is  key  to  the  Commission’s work.  The  COVID-19  pandemic  has  demonstrated  even  more  the 
importance of EU citizenship rights.   

Although the results are not generalizable, this public consultation has provided the Commission with 
valuable  insights in its  efforts to  bring tangible benefits to  EU citizens  in terms  of  effectively  enjoying 
their EU citizenship rights.   

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  List of tables and figures 

Tables 

Table 1 

Potential support measures and their usefulness for moving to another EU country ____________  20 

Table 2 

Potential support measures and their usefulness for moving to another EU country (shares of 
respondents who answered either “Very helpful” or “Quite helpful”)_________________________  21 

Table 3 

Voting behaviour in municipal and national elections ____________________________________  30 

Table 4 

Level of awareness of EU and national efforts in coping with the Covid-19 pandemic outbreak ___  54 

Table 5 

Table 6 

Experienced difficulties in accessing services during the Covid-19 pandemic outbreak while 
residing or travelling in another EU Member State ______________________________________  57 

Levels of agreement and disagreement with statements about the information received about the 
Covid-19 pandemic  _____________________________________________________________  58 

Figures 

Figure 1 

Responses by citizenship (by country (totals) and gender (shares) __________________________  3 

Figure 2 

Age groups of respondents (totals and shares) _________________________________________  4 

Figure 3 

Education level of the respondents (absolute numbers)___________________________________  4 

Figure 4 

Education level of the respondents, by gender  _________________________________________  5 

Figure 5 

Employment status by age group ____________________________________________________  6 

Figure 6 

Sector of employment  ____________________________________________________________  6 

Figure 7 

Level of knowledge about citizen rights by age group (share of correct answers per age group)  ___  7 

Figure 8 

 Level of information on rights as EU citizen  ___________________________________________  8 

Figure 9 

Level of information on rights as EU citizen, by gender ___________________________________  8 

Figure 10  Level of awareness of rights as EU citizen, by age group  _________________________________  9 

Figure 11  Number of travels by EU citizens outside their country of residence and within the EU in 2019  ___  10 

Figure 12  Frequency of travelling in the EU in 2019, by country  ___________________________________  11 

Figure 13  Travelling within the EU, reason for travelling (multiple answers possible)  ___________________  12 

Figure 14  Share of citizens that felt discriminated against by an administration on grounds of nationality ____  13 

Figure 15  Reasons for residing beyond the 3-month period in another EU country _____________________  14 

Figure 16  Residing in other EU countries, sources of information before moving, by age group ___________  15 

Figure 17  When residing elsewhere in the European Union for more than three months, were you ever 

discriminated against by an administration based on your nationality?  ______________________  17 

Figure 18  Challenges faced after the move from residing in other EU countries _______________________  18 

Figure 19  Experience with problems/issues proceeding from residing in another EU country _____________  19 

Figure 20  Reasons for not voting in the 2019 European Parliament elections _________________________  23 

Figure 21  Voting in 2019 European Parliament elections, breakdown of choice for national lists  __________  24 

60 

 
 
 
Figure 22  Reasons for voting in home country in the 2019 European Parliament elections, (absolute 

numbers)  _____________________________________________________________________  25 

Figure 23  Reasons for voting in the host country in the 2019 European Parliament elections (absolute 

numbers)  _____________________________________________________________________  25 

Figure 24  Voting behaviour – In person or remotely _____________________________________________  26 

Figure 25  Voting behaviour – In person or remotely, breakdown by nationality  _________________________  27 

Figure 26  Voting behaviour – In person or remotely, breakdown by age group ________________________  28 

Figure 27 

 Views on the effect to bring voting periods close together  _______________________________  29 

Figure 28  Difficulties experienced when voting in municipal and national elections, by age group  _________  30 

Figure 29  Difficulties experienced when voting in municipal and national elections, by country of nationality _  31 

Figure 30  Opinions on voting rights in national elections for foreign EU citizens _______________________  33 

Figure 31  Opinions on voting rights in national elections for foreign EU citizens, by age group and the most 

mobile EU citizens ______________________________________________________________  34 

Figure 32  Opinions on concerns about electronic or online voting (multiple answers) ___________________  35 

Figure 33  Advantages when voting by means of electronic or online tools (multiple answers)  ____________  36 

Figure 34  Advantages and risks when voting by means of electronic or online tools ____________________  37 

Figure 35  Advantages and risks when voting by means of electronic or online tools, by age group  ________  37 

Figure 36  Level of approval of postal voting ___________________________________________________  38 

Figure 37  Level of approval of postal voting vs voting behaviour (in person or remotely)  ________________  38 

Figure 38  Experience with booking train travel for journeys across more than two Member States _________  41 

Figure 39  Level of satisfaction with the availability of information, being adequate and easy to access for 

booking of train travel ____________________________________________________________  41 

Figure 40  Experience with seeing a doctor or hospital in an EU country other than the one of insurance ____  42 

Figure 41  Experience with difficulties and troubles when exercising the patients’ rights in cross-border 

healthcare  ____________________________________________________________________  43 

Figure 42  Main issues when making use of the right of cross-border healthcare _______________________  43 

Figure 43  Additional tax-related questions ____________________________________________________  44 

Figure 44  Experience with administrative burdens to fulfil tax obligations in country of residence and country 

of work _______________________________________________________________________  45 

Figure 45  Opinions on whether enough is being done to inform EU citizens on their EU citizenship rights ___  47 

Figure 46    Share of respondents by age group who think that not enough is being done to inform EU 

citizens about their citizenship rights. ________________________________________________  48 

Figure 47 

 Use of information websites and assistance or problem-solving services for exercising EU 
citizenship rights (multiple options)__________________________________________________  49 

Figure 48  Level of awareness of EU Citizenship rights and use of information websites _________________  50 

Figure 49 

 Would a national supporting authority be helpful in exercising citizenship rights?______________  51 

Figure 50  Perception of potential reasons for limited access to EU citizenship rights  ___________________  52 

Figure 51  Share of persons residing in a host country or travelling at the moment of the Covid-19 pandemic 

outbreak ______________________________________________________________________  55 

Figure 52  Share of persons residing in a Member State other than their home country or travelling at the 

moment of the Covid-19 pandemic outbreak, breakdown by gender ________________________  55 

Figure 53  Share of persons residing in a Member State other than their home country or travelling at the 

moment of the Covid-19 pandemic outbreak, breakdown by age group  _____________________  56 

61