COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Accompanying the document Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE laying down detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections by Union citizens residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals (recast) Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE laying down detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to vote and stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament for Union citizens residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals (recast)
Date: 2021-11-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU national, European Parliament, European election, European electoral system, residence, right to stand for election, right to vote

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 25.11.2021  SWD(2021) 357 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE     laying down detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections by Union citizens residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals (recast)         Proposal for a   COUNCIL DIRECTIVE         laying down detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to vote and stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament for Union citizens residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals (recast) {COM(2021) 732 final} - {COM(2021) 733 final} - {SEC(2021) 576 final} - {SWD(2021) 358 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................................................... 3 

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 4 

1. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION .................................................................................................................... 7 

1.1 Context and scope ................................................................................................. 7 
1.2 Description of the identified problems ................................................................ 10 
1.3.1 Information-related barriers.............................................................................. 11 
1.3.2  Negative  effects  of  registration  to  vote  in  the  Member  State  of 

residence .......................................................................................................... 14 
1.3.3 Remaining administrative barriers ................................................................... 16 
1.3.4 Multiple voting in European elections ............................................................. 17 
1.3.5 Lack of data to support policy interventions .................................................... 19 
1.3.6 Equal possibilities to exercise electoral rights ................................................. 20 
1.3.7 Obsolete provisions .......................................................................................... 21 
1.4 How will the problems evolve? ........................................................................... 21 

2.  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? ........................................................................................................ 22 

2.1 Legal basis ........................................................................................................... 22 
2.2 Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action ................................................................... 23 
2.3 Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action .............................................................. 24 

3.  OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? ............................................................................... 24 

3.1 General objectives ............................................................................................... 24 
3.2 Specific objectives ............................................................................................... 24 

4. WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? .......................................................................... 26 

4.1 What is the baseline from which options are assessed? ...................................... 26 
4.2 Disregarded policy options .................................................................................. 27 
4.3 Description of the policy options ........................................................................ 27 

5. WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS? ................................................................. 31 

5.1 The baseline scenario .......................................................................................... 31 
5.2 Assessment of policy options .............................................................................. 31 
5.2.1 Social Impacts ............................................................................................................... 31 

5.2.2 Economic impacts ......................................................................................................... 31 

5.2.3 Fundamental rights impacts ......................................................................................... 36 

5.2.4 Subsidiarity ................................................................................................................... 37 

6. HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE? ................................................................................................. 38 

6.1 Effectiveness ....................................................................................................... 38 
6.2 Efficiency ............................................................................................................ 39 

EN 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
6.3 Coherence ............................................................................................................ 41 
6.4  Subsidiarity and Proportionality ...................................................................... 42 

7. PREFERRED OPTION ............................................................................................................................ 45 

7.1 Indicative Impact of the Preferred Option on Member States ............................. 46 
7.2 REFIT Cost Savings – Preferred Option ............................................................. 50 

8. HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? ....................................... 50 

8.1 Plan for future monitoring and evaluation .......................................................... 50 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 55 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ....................................................................................... 60 

2.1 The stakeholder engagement strategy ................................................................. 60 
2.2 Open public consultation (OPC) – 19 April 2021 -12 July 2021 ........................ 60 
2.3  Feedback  from  Member  States:  ECN  &  Expert  Group  on  electoral 

matters ............................................................................................................. 70 
2.4 Specific consultation conducted by the external contractor ................................ 72 

ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW? .......................................................................................... 74 

3.1 Practical implications of the initiative ................................................................. 74 
3.2 Summary of costs and benefits ............................................................................ 74 

ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS USED IN PREPARING THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT ........... 77 

4.1 Methodology used to collect data ........................................................................ 77 
4.2. The qualitative analysis of the legal framework................................................. 82 
4.3 Methodology used to compare the policy options ............................................... 85 

ANNEX  5:  RELEVANT  PROVISIONS  OF  THE  DIRECTIVES  GOVERNING  ELECTORAL 

RIGHTS OF MOBILE EU CITIZENS ............................................................................................... 88 

ANNEX 6: OVERVIEW OF MEMBER STATES’ MEASURES CONCERNING ELECTORAL 

RIGHTS OF MOBILE EU CITIZENS ............................................................................................... 89 

Table 1 Information measures across Member States ............................................... 89 
Table 2 Registration modalities across Member States ............................................. 92 
Table  3  Summary  of  penalties  for  multiple  voting  in  some  EU  Member 

States ................................................................................................................ 93 

Table 4 : Municipal election positions for which mobile EU citizens cannot 

stand as candidate ............................................................................................ 94 
Table 5. Personal Identification numbers in Member States ..................................... 95 
Table 6. Information needed by Member States to identify their citizens ................ 96 
Table 7. Estimated cost of developing and mailing out targeted information 

to mobile EU citizens ...................................................................................... 97 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

Mobile EU citizens 

Citizens of the EU who live or reside in an EU Member State other than their country of 
nationality. 

Electoral roll 

Official register of all voters entitled to vote in a given constituency drawn up and 
maintained by concerned Member State. 

Automatic registration  Automatic inscription on the electoral roll linked to the registration of residence in 

another Member State, as opposed to active registration which implies that the citizen 
requests registration on the electoral roll. 

Remote voting 

Multiple voting 

Member State of 
residence 

Arrangements that allow voters to exercise their right to vote by alternative means to 
casting their ballot in person at their respective polling station; postal, proxy, voting at 
special polling stations or diplomatic missions abroad and e-voting. 

The act of voting in more than one EU Member State in the same election to the 
European Parliament, which is prohibited by EU law, and can also be a criminal or 
administrative offence in national law. 

Member State in which a mobile EU citizen resides but of which he is non-national 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
INTRODUCTION 

Democracy is one of the values on which the Union is founded, as stated in Article 2 of 
the Treaty on European Union (TEU). The functioning of the European Union is based 
on  representative  democracy  (Article  10(1)  TEU)  and  participatory  democracy  (Article 
10(3) TEU). Every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the 
Union and decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen. A 
New  Push  for  European  Democracy  is  a  priority  of  the  Commission  as  announced  by 
President von der Leyen in the Political guidelines of the Commission 2019-20241. 

EU citizens consider free movement to be a major achievement of European integration 
and they are becoming increasingly mobile by exercising their right to live, work or study 
in another Member State2. According to Eurostat data, on 1 January 2020 there were 13.5 
million  EU citizens who enjoy their right  to  reside in  another EU country  (“mobile EU 
citizens”)3. Among them, about 12 million are of voting age, accounting for 3.25% of the 
entire voting population in the EU4. 

Citizenship of the Union entails specific democratic rights. Mobile EU citizens have the 
right  to  vote  and  stand  as  a  candidates  in  municipal  elections  and  elections  to  the 
European Parliament (hereafter, ‘European elections’) in the country in which they reside 
(Article 20(2)(b) and Article 22 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 
(TFEU)).  These  rights  are  also  enshrined  in  Articles  39  and  40  of  the  EU  Charter  of 
Fundamental  Rights.  They  support  the  right  to  free  movement  by  empowering  mobile 
EU citizens to participate democratically in their Member State of residence. 

Two  Directives  provide  detailed  arrangements  for  the  exercise  of  these  rights  in 
European  and  municipal  elections:  respectively  Council  Directive  93/109/EC  of  6 
December  1993  lays  down  the  arrangements  for  the  exercise  of  the  right  to  vote  and 
stand as a candidate for mobile EU citizens in European elections (hereafter, ‘Directive 
93/109/EC’)5  and  Council  Directive  94/80/EC  of  19  December  1994,  for  municipal 
elections (hereafter, ‘Directive 94/80/EC’)6.  

Given the similarities between the two Directives in terms of both the main beneficiaries 
(mobile  EU  citizens)  and  the  rights  granted  and  associated  requirements  for  Member 
States,  the  possibilities  to  improve  them  and  their  functioning  is  assessed  in  one 
document.  

1  political-guidelines-next-commission_en_0.pdf (europa.eu). 
2    An  overwhelming  majority  of  EU  citizens  (84%)  think  that  free  movement  of  EU  citizens  within  the  EU  brings 
overall benefits to the economy of their country, Flash Eurobarometer 485. 
3  The largest absolute numbers of mobile EU citizens are found in larger countries, including Germany, France, Spain 
and  Italy.  The  largest  shares  of  the  total  population  of  mobile  EU  citizens  are  found  in  smaller  countries  including 
Luxembourg, Cyprus, Ireland, Belgium and Austria. See Eurostat Statistics Explained article on Migration and migrant 
population statistics. 
4  Study of the Academic Network on EU citizenship Rights, “Political participation of Mobile EU Citizens-Insights 
from pilot studies on Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland and Poland”, July 2021 
5 Council Directive 93/109/EC of 6 December 1993 laying down detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to 
vote and stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament for citizens  of the Union residing in a Member 
State  of  which  they  are  not  nationals  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A31993L0109,  as 
amended in in 2013. 
6 Council Directive 94/80/EC of 19 December 1994 laying down detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to 
vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections by citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which 
they are not nationals https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A31994L0080. 

4 

 
 
                                                           
As the measures at the core of this revision would need to be implemented into Member 
State  electoral  laws  in  time  for  the  2024  European  elections7,  a  derogation  to  the 
“evaluate  first”  principle  has  been  applied  taking  into  account  the  existence  of  recent 
reports  issued  by  the  Commission.  Evidence  clearly  shows  the  need  for  the  Directive 
93/109/EC8 and Directive 94/80/EC9 to be updated, and this is considered sufficient for 
the  evaluation  step.  Finally,  the  external  study  prepared  in  support  of  this  impact 
assessment also includes elements of evaluation of the existing legal framework10. 

The  legal  framework  governing  the  exercise  of  EU  electoral  rights  to  municipal  and 
European elections by mobile EU citizens is based on the principle of non-discrimination 
between nationals and mobile EU citizens. Directives 93/109/EC and 94/80/EC leave it 
largely up to the Member States to establish the conditions under which the right to vote 
can  be  exercised  through  their  national  laws,  provided  that  the  principle  of  non-
discrimination  is  respected.  This  specific  legal  situation  involving  the  interaction  of 
limited  EU  and  extensive  national  rules  lead  to  a  rather  loose  coordination  of  electoral 
practices affecting mobile EU citizens, and the ways through which mobile EU citizens 
can exercise their electoral rights vary considerably in practice. For more information on 
the qualitative analysis of the legal framework, see Annex 4. 

While the two Directives provide the legal framework for the electoral rights of mobile 
EU  citizens,  there  are  other  measures  at  EU  level  which  also  touch  upon  the  electoral 
rights  of  mobile  EU  citizens11.  For  example,  in  2015,  the  Parliament  used  its  right  of 
initiative to present a proposal to reform the 1976 Electoral Act12. The proposal that was 

7 The Venice Commission guidelines imply not to change electoral law less than one year before elections. 
8  For  Directive  93/109/EC  evaluative  material  include:  Report  on  the  2019  elections  to  the  European  Parliament 
(COM(2020)  252  final);  Report  on  the  2014  European  Parliament  elections  (COM(2015)206  final);  Report  on  the 
implementation of the Commission's recommendations of 12 March 2013 on enhancing the democratic and efficient 
conduct  of  the  elections  to  the  European  Parliament  (COM/2014/0196  final);Report  under  Article  25  TFEU  On 
progress  towards  effective  EU  Citizenship  2011-2013  (COM(2013)  270  final);  Commission  Recommendation  of  12 
March  2013  on  enhancing  the  democratic  and  efficient  conduct  of  the  elections  to  the  European  Parliament 
(2013/142/EU); [proposal for] Council Directive 2013/1/EU of 20 December 2012 amending Directive 93/109/EC as 
regards certain detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to stand as a candidate in elections to the European 
Parliament for citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals (OJ L 26, 26.1.2013, p. 
27–29); Directives 93/109/EC is also regularly discussed in its implementation group, the Expert Group on Electoral 
Matters. Further relevant issues are discussed in the European Cooperation Network on elections. Relevant data can be 
found also in the Flash Eurobarometer 485 on EU Citizenship and Democracy and in the public consultation for the EU 
Citizenship Report 2020. This data is supported by data from past Eurobarometers, in particular Special Eurobarometer 
477 on Democracy, and Flash Eurobarometers 430 and 431 on EU citizenship and Electoral rights respectively. 
9 Report on the application of Directive 94/80/EC on the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections 
(COM/2018/044  final);  EU  Citizenship  Report  2017  (COM(2017)  30  final);  Report  on  the  application  of  Directive 
94/80/EC on the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections by citizens of the Union residing in a 
Member  State  of  which  they  are  not  nationals (COM(2012) 99  final).  The  Directive has  also  been  amended on  four 
occasions  (Council  Directive  96/30/EC  of  13  May  1996,  Council  Directive  2006/106/EC  of  20  November  2006, 
Commission Implementing Decision of 19 July 2012, Council Directive 2013/19/EU of 13 May 2013) to implement 
changes necessary following an act of accession to the Union. 
10 Section 2 of the underlying study. 
11 These measures have other implications (not specific to mobile EU citizens) which are not summarised here. 
12  Act  concerning  the  election  of  the  members  of  the  European  Parliament  by  direct  universal  suffrage,  annexed  to 
Council  Decision  76/787/ECSC,  EEC,  Euratom  of  20  September  1976  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A01976X1008%2801%29-20020923. 

5 

 
 
                                                           
adopted13 included a provision on criminalisation of multiple voting and an obligation for 
Member States to designate a contact authority responsible for exchanging data on voters 
and  candidates  in  Member  States.  It  also  includes  a  reference14  to  the  transmission  of 
personal  data to  enable  Member States  to  de-register those of their citizens who are no 
longer resident in their Member State of nationality, and who do not intend to vote in the 
European  elections  there,  with  the  purpose  of  preventing  multiple  voting,  no  later  than 
six weeks before the electoral period15. The process of national approval required for this 
act to enter into application has not been completed yet16. 
The Commission expressed in the EU Citizenship Report 202017 its intention to propose 
the update of the  Directives  on  electoral rights  of mobile EU citizens  in  municipal and 
European elections, to facilitate the provision of information to citizens and improve the 
exchange  of  relevant  information  among  Member  States,  including  preventing  multiple 
voting.  The  Commission  also  announced  it  would  explore  the  possibility  of  creating  a 
dedicated  shared  resource  to  support  EU  citizens  in  exercising  their  electoral  rights,  as 
well  as  providing  additional  avenues  for  them  to  report  hurdles  and  incidents  affecting 
their  political  participation,  with  the  aim  to  make  this  resource  available  to  both  EU 
citizens (including mobile EU citizens) and relevant authorities by autumn 2023. 

The  Commission  Work  Programme  for  2021  announced  a  legislative  initiative  to 
improve the electoral rights of mobile EU citizens. This specifically envisaged a revision 
of  the  Directive  93/109/EC  and  of  the  Directive  94/80/EC  in  order  to  address  existing 
shortcomings in the current framework. 

This initiative addresses the observed difficulties in the exercise of electoral rights by EU 
mobile citizens by updating, clarifying and strengthening the rules in order to ensure that 
they  support  the  broad  and  inclusive  participation  of  mobile  EU  citizens  as  well  as  the 
integrity of elections. 

This  Impact  Assessment  is  based  among  others  on  the  findings  of  external  studies 
prepared  in  support  of  this  impact  assessment18,  relevant  studies19  of  the  Academic 

13  Council  Decision  (EU,  Euratom)  2018/994  of  13  July  2018  amending  the  Act  concerning  the  election  of  the 
members  of  the  European  Parliament  by  direct  universal  suffrage  (hereafter,  “Council  Decision  2018/994  on  the 
revision of the EU Electoral Law”), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dec/2018/994/oj.  
14 Idem, Article 9b(2). 
15  As provided in Article 10 of the in the Act concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by 
direct  universal  suffrage,  European  elections  shall  be  held  on  the  date  fixed  by  each  Member  State,  while  for  all 
Member States this date shall fall within the same period starting on a Thursday morning and ending on the following 
Sunday. 
16 A draft report on the reform of the European electoral law was submitted in the AFCO Committee of the European 
Parliament  on  1  July  2021  (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/AFCO-PR-693622_EN.pdf).  It  requests 
among  others  the  introduction  of  common  minimum  standards  to  ensure  approximation  towards  a  unified  European 
electoral  law,  provision  of  postal  voting  for  European  elections,  and  the  establishment  of  a  European  Electoral 
Authority. Furthermore, the proposal calls for the establishment and finalisation of the electoral roll in each Member 
State no later than fourteen weeks before the Election day, which shall be fixed on 9 May. The adoption of AFCO’s 
report has been postponed to 2022 in view of the Conference on the Future of Europe. 
17 COM/2020/730 final, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0730 . 
18 In particular a Study conducted in 2021 to support the preparation of an impact assessment on a potential EU policy 
initiative to support broad and inclusive participation of mobile EU citizens in European Parliament elections and in 
municipal elections in Europe(‘underlying study”) https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/study-preparation-impact-assessment-
electoral-directives  and 
its  Annexes  https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/annexes-study-preparation-impact-assessment-
electoral-directives  

6 

 
 
                                                           
Network  on  EU  citizenship  Rights,  and  an  open  public  consultation20  of  citizens,  non-
governmental  organizations  and  local  and  regional  authorities.  In  addition,  the  impact 
assessment  takes  into  account  the  feedback  received  from  dedicated  stakeholder 
consultations,  including  of  mobile  EU  citizens21  and  of  the  European  Cooperation 
Network on Elections  (hereafter ‘ECNE’)22  and the expert  group on  electoral  matters23, 
and  other  sources  such  as  the  conclusions  of  the  relevant  projects  funded  under  the 
Rights, Equality and Citizenship24 and Europe for Citizens25 programme, as well as direct 
feedback from EU citizens received by the Commission and the European Parliament. 

1.  PROBLEM DEFINITION 

1.1 Context and scope 

A specific  group of  EU  citizens  is  concerned by  this  initiative,  that is EU citizens  who 
have  exercised  their  free  movement  rights  to  settle  in  another  EU  Member  State.  On  1 
January 2020, there were 13.5 million of EU citizens living in a Member State other than 
that of their nationality26. Every  year some 1.3 million EU citizens move to reside to a 
Member  State  of  which  they  are  non-nationals  (EU27  data).  The  overall  numbers  of 
mobile EU citizens grow on annual basis. In 2020, 3% of EU population were mobile EU 
citizens.27  The  population  covered  by  the  Directives  governing  the  electoral  rights  of 
mobile EU citizens represents a sizeable minority of EU citizens28.  

Mobile EU citizens are a highly diversified subset of EU citizens, with many individual 
characteristics that can influence voting behaviors, including familiarity with politics in 
the  country  of  residence.  Beyond  the  problems  identified  below,  their  democratic 
participation can be determined by a range of subjective and individual reasons, as well 
as by socio-demographic factors29.  

Overall, data confirms  that  mobile EU citizens are substantially less likely to  vote than 
their counter-parts who live in their home countries. According to different surveys and 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12684-Inclusive-EU-Parliament-elections-

19 “Political participation of Mobile EU Citizens-Insights from pilot studies on Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, 
Greece, Hungary, Ireland and Poland”. 
20 
supporting-EU-citizens-right-to-vote-and-stand-as-candidates-in-another-EU-country/public-consultation_en.  
An analysis of the open public consultation is provided in Annex 2.  
21 In order to support the underlying study, a targeted online survey of mobile EU citizens was carried out to evaluate 
the  experiences  of  mobile  EU  citizens  in  participating  politicallyin  their  Member  State  of  residence,  as  well  as  the 
variety of factors that influence their participation. . 
22 https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/terms-reference-european-cooperation-network-elections_en.  
23 More details on the ECNE and the expert group meetings are available in Annex 2. 
24 https://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/programmes-2014-2020/rec/index_en.htm . 
25https://ec.europa.eu/info/departments/justice-and-consumers/justice-and-consumers-funding-tenders/funding-
programmes/previous-programmes-2014-2020/europe-citizens-efc_en . 
26 See Eurostat statistics explained article Migration and migrant population statistics.  
27 Eurostat database migr_pop1ctz 
28 Following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, the number of mobile EU citizens reduced from 17 million to over 13 
million.  3.68  million  of  EU  citizens  resided  in  UK,  while  850  000  UK  citizens  resided  in  a  Member  State  of  the 
European Union. 
29Recchi et al., “MOVEACT Project - Final Report.” “All Citizens Now”: Intra-Eu Mobility And Political Participation 
Of British, Germans, Poles And Romanians In Western And Southern Europe. 

7 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
methods,  between  53%  and  74%  of  mobile  EU  respondents  are  estimated  to  not  have 
voted in 2019 European Parliament elections30.  

Around  one  third  of  mobile  Europeans  (34%)  have  been  residing  in  their  country  of 
residence  for  five  years  or  fewer.  50%  of  mobile  EU  citizens,  on  the  other  hand,  have 
been residing in their country of residence for 10 years or longer.  

Length of stay in the country of residence is relevant to both: 

-  The likelihood to vote; and 
-  Voting behavior. 

In  2019  elections  to  the  European  Parliament,  mobile  EU  citizens  who  lived  in  the 
country of residence for more than 10 years were substantially more likely to have voted 
(see figure below).   

Figure  2  Share  of  respondents  in  the  survey  of  mobile  EU  citizens  post-2019 
elections who voted according to length of residence (%)  

Source: Kantar (2019) Post-election study among expatriates: European Elections 2019 

A similar pattern can be seen regarding voting in the municipal elections in the country 
of residence. Furthermore, when it comes to elections to the European Parliament, there 
is also a clear link between length of stay in the country of residence and likelihood to 
vote for the list of country of residence. The longer the respondents live in the country of 
residence the more likely they are to vote for the list of that country.  

Figure 3 Share of respondents in the survey of mobile Europeans post-2019 elections 
who voted for the lists of  the country of residence according to length of residence 
(%) 

30  53%  Survey  conducted  for  the  underlying  study,  74%  Eurobarometer  Survey  91.5  of  the  European 

Parliament 

8 

 
 
 
                                                           
Source: Kantar (2019) Post-election study among expatriates: European Elections 2019 

These patterns are indicative of the role information has on turnout and of its impact on 
participation,  as  long-term  residents  benefit  from  higher  information  levels  on  the 
Member States’ election procedures and political life31. 

Competent  authorities  in  the  Member  States  are  also  affected  as  they  deal  with  the 
administration of mobile EU citizens as (potential) voters and are in the frontline to reply 
their questions. When mobile EU citizens are registered and indicate the intention to vote 
in  European  elections  in  their  country  of  residence,  Directive  93/109/EC  supports  a 
process whereby this intention is communicated to the Member State of origin, and the 
citizen in question should be removed from the register for that European election only. 
Citizens  can  be  misidentified,  or  removed  from  the  register  for  more  elections.  Some 
examples are given in the table below. 

Examples of complaints related to registration for 2019 European elections 

A Slovakian national was rejected when getting the certificate of eligible voter for European elections in 
Poland, with the reasoning of not being Polish national 

A Dutch citizen, residing in Spain reported that when attempting to register for the European elections, the 
Spanish authorities told him that he could not do so, leading the citizen to ask whether he could vote via 
the Netherlands. 

A complaint raises alleged maladministration by the electoral authorities in the Netherlands with respect 
to the registration of an Irish citizen. 

Examples of complaints related to registration for municipal elections.  

A Portuguese citizen informed the relevant authorities about his intention to vote in the municipal elections 
in Spain. However, they refused to include the citizen on the list, claiming that only Spanish citizens are 
allowed to vote. 

An Italian citizen moved his residence to Cracow, Poland and applied to vote in municipal elections at the 

31 Section 3.1 of the underlying study. 

9 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
competent local authorities, however was refused the right to vote 

Source: analysis of citizen enquiries – Annex I to the Underlying Study 

1.2 Description of the identified problems 

While  lower  participation  of  mobile  European  citizens  is  a  result  of  multiple  complex 
factors  as  illustrated  in  the  previous  section,  the  administrative  obstacles  around 
registration contribute to this tendency, as do information gaps in understanding the host 
Member State voting systems and structures.  

Several problems have been identified. Some problems are common to both Directives, 
whereas some are specific to municipal elections or to European elections. 

Common issues for both Directives 

Both  Directives  on  the  voting  rights  of  mobile  EU  citizens  impose  obligations  on 
Member States to inform mobile EU citizens in good time and in an appropriate manner 
of  the  conditions  and  detailed  arrangements  for  the  exercise  of  the  right  to  vote  and  to 
stand  as  a  candidate  in  municipal  and  European  elections  in  that  State.32  However, 
obligations  to  notify  mobile  EU  citizens  of  their  electoral  rights  remain  vague,  and 
linguistic barriers make it more difficult for mobile EU citizens to obtain information. 

Further, in the case of both municipal and European elections, the effects of registration 
on  an  electoral  roll  are  not  always  clear  to  mobile  EU  citizens.  In  some  Member 
States, voters register for all elections, and registering to vote in elections in the Member 
State of residence can result in deregistration for all other elections in the Member State 
of origin. This is in part due to Member States de-registering their citizens if they have 
been informed that these citizens intend to vote elsewhere. 

Finally,  the  process  of  registration  for  electoral  participation  can  represent  a  specific 
burden for mobile EU citizens both in municipal elections and European elections.  

Specific issues 

Specifically  in  the  context  of  European  elections,  Directive  93/109/EC  sets  out  the 
mechanism  for  Member  States  to  exchange  information  on  registered  voters  to  help 
ensure that citizens do not vote more than once in European elections33. The exchange of 
information  between  national  authorities  on  mobile  EU  citizens  has  been  reported  by 
competent authorities as being hindered by variation in the scope of the data exchanged 
and deadlines for data collection34. This makes it difficult to identify mobile citizens in 
their countries of origin on the basis of the information collected and transmitted by their 
countries of residence.  

Specifically for municipal elections, Directive 94/80/EC contains an Annex with a list of 
‘basic  local  government  units’  for  each  Member  State. This Annex  requires  a  revision, 
both due to changes in several Member States, as well as in light of the withdrawal of the 
United Kingdom from the European Union. The following Figure provides an overview 

32 Article 12 of Directive 93/109/EC and Article 11 of Directive 94/80/EC. 
33 Article 13 of Directive 93/109. 
34  See  for  example  minutes  of  the  meeting  of  the  European  cooperation  network  on  elections  from  January  2021:  
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/minutes_28-29_january_2021.pdf . 

10 

 
 
 
                                                           
of  the  problems  identified,  presented  in  relation  with  their  main  drivers  and 
consequences. 

1.3.1 Information-related barriers 

In order for mobile EU citizens to exercise their right to vote or stand for election, they 
essentially need to know to be entitled to this right in their Member State of residence, to 
know  about  their  registration  status,  how  to  register  to  vote  and  duration  of  the 
registration or to stand for election, the date of the election and how and where to vote. 
Other basic information should include how to find out more about the elections such as 
who is standing, how the elections work, how the votes are counted and how the result is 
calculated.  What  the  relevant  rules  are,  and  especially  the  implications  of  compulsory 
voting,  multiple  voting  and  any  other  important  rules,  such  as  limits  to  which  roles  a 
mobile EU citizen can have if elected, is also necessary information. At the same time, 

11 

A. Vague and open obligation for Member States to inform mobile EU citizens of the conditions and arrangement for the exercise of their right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections and elections of the European Parliament B. EU level: not enough information, variety of sources and conflicting sources of information between EU level and national levelC. The information exchange system in force under the Directive to combat multiple voting lead some Member States  registration systems to deregister citizens from home country electoral registers D. Registration formalities are percieved as burdensome by citizens E. Directives allow for additional documentation which is burdensome in some casesF.Variations in the scope of the data exchanged and deadlines for data collection between Member StatesG. Challenges for matching individual data that stem from the use of non-Latin alphabets or use of special characters H. Lack of awareness and understanding of the fact that multiple voting is prohibited among mobile EU citizensI. Data on mobile EU citizens collected by Member States is not enough, not disaggregated, or not reported.K. Directive 94/80/EC allows Member States to restrict candidacy to some executive positions in municipal elections1. Information-related barriers: lack of information on how to register, how to vote, dates of the elections ; lack of consistent sources of information, linguistic barriers2. Negative consequences of registration to vote in the host Member State3. Administrative barriers4. Multiple voting in European elections 5. Lack of comparable data to support policy interventions 6.  Equal possibilities to exercise electoral rights are not fully achieved  Mobile EU citizens do not have sufficient information to support the exercise of their electoral rights The risk of deregistration from other elections in home country discourage mobile EU citizens from using their electoral rights Risk for the integrity of European elections Insufficient data to support effective policy making and to raise visibility on the issues faced by mobile EU citizens among researchers and interested stakeholders Underrepresentation of mobile EU citizens, lower participation patterns, and less motivation to engage in their local communities 
 
 
the use of languages is crucial as they are a major conduit to making national electoral 
rules more understandable and accessible to mobile EU citizens. 

Whilst Directives 93/109/EC and 94/80/EC impose an obligation on the Member States 
to inform mobile EU citizens voters and candidates “in good time and in an appropriate 
manner  of  the  conditions  and  arrangement  for  the  exercise  their  right  to  vote  and  to 
stand as candidate”, they do not go into this level of detail.  

As a result, mobile EU citizens do not have sufficient information to support the exercise 
of  their  electoral  rights35.  Two  specific  aspects  of  the  identified  problems  have  to  be 
considered. The first aspect concerns the share of EU citizens not aware of their voting 
rights  as  mobile  EU  citizens:  only  58%  of  EU  citizens  identify  correctly  the  electoral 
rights  that  a  citizen  of  the  EU  has  in  relation  to  voting  or  standing  as  a  candidate  in 
European Parliament, national Parliament regional and municipal elections.36 

The  second  aspect  concerns  mobile  EU  citizens  who  are  aware  of  their  rights  but  who 
face  information  barriers  on  how  to  exercise  their  rights:  38%  of  respondents  to  the 
survey conducted to support the underlying study who had to register actively state they 
encountered  as  challenge  the  fact  that  information  was  only  available  to  them  in  the 
language of their country of residence37. More importantly, 61% of respondents who are 
not  registered  said  that  they  are  not  aware  of  the  process  for  registering  to  vote  in  the 
municipal elections in the city or town where they currently live. When asked about the 
reasons  for  not  being  registered  to  vote  in  municipal  elections  in  their  country  of 
residence,  26%  of  mobile  EU  citizens  stated  this  was  because  they  lacked  information 
about the registration process and 12% cited lack of information about local political life. 
These  figures  show  that  lack  of  information  about  registration  process  and  municipal 
elections more generally is a barrier to participation38.  

As  the  provisions  in  the  Directives  are  currently  open  and  vague,  most  Member  States 
rely on passive information provision, meaning that they post information on exercising 
electoral  rights  on  dedicated  websites.  According  to  the  review  of  Member  States’ 
practices, only 8 Member States systematically send targeted mail-outs (letter or email) 
to  mobile  EU  citizens39.  Another  6  Member  States40  also  provide  targeted  information, 
but there are some variations to this at local/ regional level. 

In  the  2018  report  on  measures  related  to  participation  of  mobile  EU  citizens  in 
municipal  elections41  only  10  Member  States  reported  taking  actions  to  promote 
participation of mobile EU citizens in political life. The interviews at Member State level 

35  See  the  table  with  the  overview  of  communication  practices  by  the  Member  States  in  Annex  6.  In  the  OPC, 
stakeholders complaint that the information provided was unclear or in a language the citizens did not understand. For 
more details on the information gathered in the OPC, see Annex 2. 
36 Eurobarometer 485, 2020 
37  In  this  regard,  while  the  knowledge  of  the  language  of  the  Member  State  of  residence  ensures  better 
integration in the social and political life of the country, it should not a be precondition for exercising 
the fundamental right to vote as EU citizen. 

38 Annex II. of underlying study 
39 Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, , Finland, Lithuania, Sweden, Slovakia and Slovenia 
40 Spain, The Netherlands, Austria, Hungary, Portugal, Latvia 
41 European Commission (2018) Report on the application of Directive 94/80/EC on the right to vote and to stand as a 
candidate in municipal elections, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52018DC0044. 

12 

 
 
                                                           
do  not  suggest  that  countries  are  planning  to  take  new  or  additional  measures  to  better 
inform mobile EU citizens in the status quo situation42.         

While  difficult  to  measure,  also  due  to  the  lack  of  data  on  political  participation  of 
mobile  EU  citizens,  some  research  has  been  able  to  establish  a  clear  link  between 
information  campaigns  and  turnout  of  mobile  EU  citizens43.  One  such  example  is  the 
Campaign  Operation  Vote,  launched  in  2013  in  Portugal  targeting  mobile  EU  citizens, 
following which the registration rate for the 2013 municipal elections grew 55% among 
the community of Romanian nationals44. 

Information  barriers  are  also  apparent  from  the  analysis  of  inquiries  and  complaints 
received by European institutions45: 

-  78%  of  the  entries  analysed  were  inquiries  rather  than  complaints,  i.e.  citizens 
were  asking  for  information  rather  than  complaining  about  what  happened  to 
them related to registration or voting; 

-  Many people reached out to EU institutions simply asking whether they can vote 
when  they  are  a  resident  in  another  EU  Member  State,  suggesting  they  did  not 
find this information easily without actively inquiring. The citizen enquiry unit of 
the European Parliament confirmed in an interview they also receive many such 
requests and that these are often from people in older age groups who are less at 
ease  with  searching  online  or  from  students  who  are  abroad  on  an  exchange 
programme;   

While the fact that mobile EU citizens reach out to EU institutions to have  information 
on  the  rights  stemming  from  EU  law  is  a  positive  aspect,  the  primary  responsibility  to 
inform the electorate in their territory lies with the Member States. This includes mobile 
EU citizens. 

In parallel, the Commission actively provides information services to EU citizens about 
electoral  rights  and  electoral  procedures  (via  the  YourEurope  portal46  and  through 
dedicated  outreach  communication  actions  related 
to  European  elections).  The 
information provided through YourEurope portal is rather general and does not cover, for 
the  moment,  information  about  how  to  register,  by  when  to  register  and  how  to  vote 
specifically  for  each  Member  State.  From  December  2020,  the  Single  Digital  Gateway 
Regulation47  requires  Member  States  to  explain  online  how  to  carry  out  certain 

the  Vote  Europa 

42 Section 3.5 of the underlying Study. 
39  Sharif,  H.,  Huddleston,  T.,  “Reaching  Europe’s  Diverse  Voters:  Evaluation  of 
Campaign” https://www.migpolgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/VoteEuropa-Evaluation.pdf.  
40  Report  on  Political  Participation  of  Mobile  EU  Citizens:  Portugal,  RSCAS/GLOBALCIT-PP 
2019/3, https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/60986/RSCAS_GLOBALCIT_PP_2019_03.pdf?sequence=3&is
Allowed=y; 
https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/60986/RSCAS_GLOBALCIT_PP_2019_03.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed
=y.  
45 A total number of 1120 entries were analysed overall, covering the period of 2019-spring 2021. Of these, 538 were 
submitted  to  Your  Europe  (European  Commission),  520  to  the  European  Parliament  citizen  enquiry  unit,  15  were 
submitted to Solvit and 47 were dealt with the Directorate General in charge of consumers and justice of the European 
Commission.  
46 https://europa.eu/youreurope/. 
47 Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 October 2018 establishing a single 
digital  gateway  to  provide  access  to  information,  to  procedures  and  to  assistance  and  problem-solving  services  and 

13 

 
 
                                                           
 
administrative  procedures  through  the  YourEurope  portal48.  Those  procedures  include 
participating in municipal elections and European elections. 

For the 2019  European  elections,  the Parliament and the Commission  coordinated their 
communication efforts towards EU citizens with a view to increase their participation in 
European elections49.  

These  different  sources  of  information  are  however  not  sufficiently  adapted  to  the 
specific needs of mobile EU citizens. Some authorities tend to invest limited efforts into 
information  dissemination,  or  provide  information  that  is  rather  technical,  lengthy  and 
confusing,  even  for  trained  readers50.  It  was  noted  also  in  the  interviews  conducted  to 
support  the  underlying  study51  that  the  existence  of  too  many  differing  sources  of 
information can even present a problem as the information presented can be mismatched, 
making it difficult to establish the correct source. 

To ensure inclusive electoral participation, options should take into account accessibility 
requirements for the information provided to persons with disabilities and to older people 
using as a source of inspiration the general comments of the United Nations Committee 
on  the  Rights  of  Persons  with  Disabilities  regarding  Article  21  of  the  United  Nations 
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 

1.3.2 Negative effects of registration to vote in the Member State of residence  

Establishing the electoral roll is an essential part of organising elections. Member States 
have various approaches to this52. The management of electoral rolls in the Member 
States has an impact on the exercise of electoral rights by mobile EU citizens. 

The  main  issue  is  linked  to  the  process  established  among  the  Member  States  under 
Directive  93/109/EC  to  combat  multiple  voting  in  European  elections,  which  will  be 
explained  in  detail  in  section  1.3.4.  One  aim  of  this  exchange  of  is  to  enable  Member 
States to de-register those of their mobile EU citizens who are no longer resident in their 
Member  State  of  origin    and  do  not  intend  to  vote  in  the  European  elections  there. 
However, because electoral rolls do not necessarily distinguish the type of election, nor 
do they always support specific de-registration, citizens could find themselves removed 

(Text  with  EEA 

(EU)  No  1024/2012 

relevance)  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

amending  Regulation 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2018.295.01.0001.01.ENG. 
48 Annex I to the Single Digital Gateaway Regulation. 
49  European  Commission  (2019)  Report  on 
the  2019  European  elections,  p.3  SWD(2020)  113  final, 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/com_2020_252_en_0.pdfFor 
to 
mobilise the top ten expat groups to relay the  messages among their members  and contacts and a specific campaign  
was launched with the European Parliament on social media to target mobile EU citizens specifically . Additionally, 
the  updated  European  Parliament  website  www.european-elections.eu  was  available  with  information  about 
possibilities to vote in host country. 
50  Network  of  Academics  on  EU  citizenship  rights:  Political  Participation  of  Mobile  EU  Citizens  (2021  update) 
https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/7719/discover?query=%22report+on+political+participation+of+mobile+EU+citize
ns%22&submit=. 
51 Annex II to the underlying study. 

instance,  specific  efforts  were  made 

52 Some  maintain a common roll for all elections which can then be administrated locally or centrally. Some have a 
separate roll for different elections and citizens must be registered separately for the different types. Another difference 
is whether rolls are compiled directly from the register of residents in an area, or require specific registration by the 
citizen  to  be  included.  Finally,  some  Member  States  require  the  roll  to  be  prepared  afresh  for  each  election,  while 
others reuse their rolls and only register changes which are notified to the authorities. 

14 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
from the electoral roll for all elections, including those for which they intended to vote in 
the  Member  State  of  origin53.  The  risk  of  deregistration  and  the  administrative 
complexity  which  can  result  from  this  issue  discourage  mobile  EU  citizens  from  using 
their electoral rights. 

Figure 1: Share of mobile EU citizens who cite de-registration as reason for not voting, as 
challenge encountered when voting or reason for not being registered to vote in municipal 
elections  

Source: Annex II to the Underlying Study, survey of mobile EU citizens  

Data  on  de-registration  practices  is  scarce,  but  deregistration  is  happening  indeed. 
According to the survey of mobile EU citizens, 6% of respondents who are registered to 
vote  in  their  Member  State  of  residence  for  European  elections  stated  that  they 
encountered the challenge that they were deregistered for all elections in their country of 
nationality. A similar proportion (7%) of those who did not vote in 2019 elections stated 
that this was because they were deregistered from the electoral roll of their home country 
and not registered in their host country.  

Data  on  the  scale  of  deregistration’  problems  deriving  from  registration  to  vote  in 
municipal  elections  in  the  Member  State  of  residence  is  not  available.  However,  the 
phenomenon of de-registration as such has an impact on municipal elections too. In fact, 
17%  of  mobile  EU  citizens  said  they  have  not  registered  to  vote  in  the  municipal 
elections of their Member State of residence because of fear of being deregistered in their 
home country.  

53 In the joint meeting of the ECNE and the expert group on electoral matters on 28 January 2021, representatives of a 
Member State stressed that some mobile EU citizens residing in their country had complained about the fact that on 
election day they were not able to vote because they had falsely been flagged as voting in their Member State of origin. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
These data shows that mobile EU citizens are concerned about keeping their registration 
status in their country of nationality and thus being able to continue voting.  

The  implications  of  deregistration  are  closely  linked  to  those  related  to  preventing 
multiple voting. They are serious especially in terms of the de facto loss of voting rights 
for citizens54. Tackling multiple voting without addressing de-registration could  lead to 
more citizens losing voting rights. 

1.3.3 Remaining administrative barriers  

The  Directives  establish  that  mobile  EU  citizens  who  wish  to  be  registered  in  the 
electoral roll have to produce the same documents as nationals, but allow Member States 
to ask for a number of additional documents, including a formal declaration stating their 
nationality  and  their  address  in  the  Member  State  of  residence55.  The  overview  of 
registration  modalities  across  EU  Member  States  is  presented  in Annex  6.  Registration 
rates  of  mobile  EU  citizens  in  countries  that  have  active  registration  vary  greatly  with 
highest registration rate being in Spain, at 26%. Registration rates of mobile EU citizens 
can reach levels as low as 2% in Czechia, as well as Bulgaria, Poland and Greece. This is 
in sharp contrast to Member States with automatic registration, where registration is at or 
close to 100% of the eligible population of mobile EU voters56. The low registration rates 
found  in  Member  States  that  have  active  registration  in  place  for  mobile  EU  citizens 
suggest  that their capacity  to  participate in  the  form of voting  to  municipal  elections is 
partly hindered by these administrative steps.  

On the other hand, automatic registration does not guarantee high participation, as can be 
seen  in  countries  like  Romania,  where  although  they  have  automatic  registration  they 
also  have  the  lowest  participation  rate57.  Nonetheless,  turnout  is  generally  higher  in 
countries with automatic registration. 

Based  on  the  interviews  and  desk  research  conducted  in  the  context  of  the  study 
supporting  this  impact  assessment,  regarding  measures  at  Member  State  level,  data 
collected have not revealed any disproportionate effect on mobile EU citizens compared 
to  nationals  in  relation  to  the  documentation  for  registration.  However,  Article  9  of 
Directive  93/109/EC  requires  EU  mobile  citizens  to  present  an  additional  document 
which is a signed formal declaration stating their willingness to vote in the Member State 
of  residence  only  together  with  the  EU  voter’s  nationality,  address  in  the  country  of 
residence, locality in the home Member State. It may also be required to state that (s)he 
has  not  been  deprived  of  the  right  to  vote  in  the  home  Member  State.  For  candidates, 
Article 10 of Directive 93/109/EC requires the formal declaration to state, in addition to 
the nationality, date and place of birth, and last address in the home Member State and in 
the  Member  State  of  residence;  that  (s)he  is  not  standing  as  a  candidate  for  European 

54 Which is not done lightly – there is extensive ECtHR case law on limiting disenfranchisement even as a 

criminal sanction. 

55 Article 9 of Directive 93/109/EC and Article 9 of Directive 94/80/EC. 
56 Hutcheson, Derek S., and Luana Russo. "Turnout and Registration of Mobile European Union Citizens in European 
Parliament and Municipal Elections." (2019). 
57  Reinsalu,  Kristina,  and  Christian  Stiefmueller.  "Empowering  European  Mobile  Youth:  Case  Studies  from  Austria 
and Estonia." Advances in the Human Side of Service Engineering: Proceedings of the AHFE 2020 Virtual Conference 
on The Human Side of Service Engineering, July 16-20, 2020, USA. Vol. 1208. Springer Nature, 2020. 

16 

 
 
 
                                                           
elections in any other Member State and has not been deprived of the right to stand as a 
candidate in the home Member State. 

However,  this  requirement  to  make  a  formal  declaration  may  constitute  an  additional 
administrative barrier, which is likely to prevent mobile EU citizens from exercising their 
rights.  The  modalities  of  this  clause  are  not  fully  defined  and  Member  States  may 
interpret  the term  “formal  declaration” differently. As stated above, Article 9 and 10 of 
Directive 93/109/EC requires specific content of the declaration but the modality ranges 
from a statement in a stand-alone document to a sentence to be checked and included in a 
document  linked  to  other  acts  such  as  the  registration  for  residence  or  tax  declaration.  
There are instances where this provision has been used to require mobile EU citizens to 
make  a  notarized  declaration  on  honour58,  which  makes  the  process  of  registration 
substantially more burdensome for mobile EU citizens.  

In some Member States, for candidates, documentary evidence is needed from the home 
country  that  the  person  has  retained  his/her  right  to  stand  as  candidate  (Czechia,  the 
Netherlands, Poland, Romania).  

Furthermore, this administrative burden can be one-off (where registration is carried out 
once  and  its  validity  is  not  time  bound)  or  recurrent  when  registration  is  required  for 
every election (Croatia, France, Greece and Malta).  

In order to support inclusive and equal electoral participation, the practical conditions to 
register as a voter or as a candidate and the voting arrangements should also consider the 
specific needs of vulnerable Union citizens, including citizens with a disability and older 
citizens. 

1.3.4 Multiple voting in European elections 

Article 4(1) of Directive 93/109/EC prohibits voting in more than one Member State in 
the same European elections59. Instances of multiple voting by mobile EU citizens60 exist 
and data being exchanged between Member States do not prevent it completely. 

In  addition,  14%  of  surveyed  mobile  EU  citizens  believe  that  voting  more  than  once 
(both in home and host country) is lawful (see Figure 2). This points to a relatively high 
share of respondents who are not aware of the fact that multiple voting is prohibited.   

Figure 2 

58 Eg Croatia. 
59 See also Article 9 of the Act concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal 
suffrage, annexed to Council Decision 76/787/ECSC, EEC, Euratom of 20 September 1976  
60 Multiple vote by dual citizens is not covered by the scope of this Impact Assessment. Addressing this would imply 
establishing a register of all EU citizens. This option has been considered disproportionate. 

17 

 
 
                                                           
Figure 2 (above) - Thinking about people like you who are residents of another EU country 
than  their  country  of  nationality,  please  indicate  which  statement  you  think  is  true 
regarding European elections (n=2383) 

Source: Annex II to the Underlying Study, survey of mobile EU citizens  
The  exchange  of  information61  to  prevent  multiple  voting  relates  in  particular  to  the 
following: 

-  Member  States  of  residence  need  to  transmit  to  the  home  Member  State  the 
information  received  in  the  formal  declarations62  provided  by  registered  mobile 
EU  citizens  when  entering  those  EU  citizens  in  the  electoral  roll  or  if  they  are 
standing as candidates of the Member State of residence. This needs to  be done 
sufficiently in advance of the election day; 

- 

the Member State of origin needs to take appropriate measures to ensure that its 
nationals  do  not  vote  more  than  once  or  stand  as  candidates  in  more  than  one 
Member State (Article 13 Directive 93/109/EC). This usually means that Member 
States should deregister mobile EU citizens from the electoral roll of their country 
of nationality when they registered to vote in the country of residence. It may also 
refer  to  other  dissuasive  measures  against  multiple  voting,  such  as  a  formal 
declaration  stating  that  the  person  producing  it  voted  only  once  at  the  same 
election. 

To  support  Member  States  in  their  effort  to  prevent  multiple  voting,  the  Commission 
developed a solution to allow Member States to exchange data securely (hereafter called, 
“the  crypto  tool”)63.  This  solution  was  developed  in  2013,  and  first  used  in  the  2014 
European  elections.  The  development  and  implementation  of  a  process  to  achieve  the 
exchange efficiently was coordinated  with  Member States’ experts  in  the framework of 
the expert group on electoral matters64. A formalisation of the crypto tool is needed.  

Prior to the last European elections, i.e. between February and May 2019, Member States 
exchanged  data  on  around  1.3  million  voters  and  114  parliamentary  candidates.  This 
exchange resulted in the identification of over 213 000 multiple registration of citizens65, 
which means  that citizens who were found to  be on electoral  rolls  of both  the  Member 
State of residence and of origin were deregistered from the electoral roll of the Member 
State of origin. 

61 Article 13 of Directive 93/109/EC. 
62 As set out in Article 9(2) of Directive 93/109/EC, the formal declaration should state the nationality and address in 
the  Member  State  of  residence;  where  applicable,  the  locality  or  constituency  in  his  home  Member  State  on  the 
electoral  roll  of  which his name  was  last  entered,  and  that  the  right  to  vote  will  be  exercise  in  the  Member  State  of 
.residence only. 
63  See  https://ec.europa.eu/isa2/solutions/european-parliament-crypto-tool_en  The  current  version  of  the  crypto  tool 
allows Member States to upload encrypted data about voters registered in their country into a secure portal where the 
Member States of origin can download it and compare the data on registered voters with their own electoral register. 
Every country creates a file for each Member State from where there are mobile EU citizens who registered there to 
vote. In turn, when the encrypted files are uploaded, every country downloads the files about voters originating from 
their  country  who  are  registered  in  another  country  to  match  them  to  its  own  electoral  roll  and  take  the  necessary 
measures to remove them from the home country electoral roll. 
64https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-register/screen/expert-
groups/consult?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=617  
65 Report on the 2019 elections to the European Parliament, see footnote 7. 

18 

 
 
                                                           
While  there  is  little  data  to  measure  the  phenomenon  of  multiple  voting,  feedback 
received  by  the  Commission  from  Member  States’  authorities  show  that  challenges 
remain  in  matching  the  data  received  from  the  Member  State  of  residence  and  the 
deadlines for data collection66. This  results in  situations where  Member States are only 
able to  match a  limited share of record with  their national  electoral  roll datasets  due to 
issues with the type of data exchanged. The identification rate (i.e. the share of records 
received from  Member  State of residence  that were successfully matched to  citizens of 
the country of origin) was only 31%67.  

Feedback  from  Member  States  collected  during  joint  meetings  of  the  ECNE  and  the 
expert  group  on  electoral  matters  shows  that  the  exchange  of  information  between 
national authorities on mobile EU citizens was hindered by variation in the scope of the 
data exchanged and deadlines for data collection68. Each Member State collects the same 
data  from  mobile  EU  citizens  as  it  would  from  its  own  citizens,  with  the  exception 
usually of also  recording the mobile citizen’s nationality. Different  Member States rely 
on  different  data  to  identify  citizens,  besides  their  name  and  date  of  birth  –  some 
requiring national ID numbers, others requiring the last address or municipality of birth. 
Due  to  these  differences,  some  Member  States  are  only  able  to  act  on  very  limited 
amounts of the data exchanged, while others are more successful.  

Finally, there are challenges for matching individual data that stem from the use of non-
Latin alphabets  or use of special characters69. These challenges are however not  due to 
the crypto tool as such as this tool can handle all alphabets and characters. The issue is 
that host Member States, and in particular the local authorities, are typically not equipped 
with the keyboards to enter the data using these special characters or non-Latin alphabet.  

Additionally, this data must be exchanged swiftly and securely. Although protocols are in 
place for this, they could be strengthened and legal certainty enhanced with a clear legal 
framework governing its use including concerning security requirements.  

Lastly, the scale of the problem of multiple voting in European elections and the related 
deregistration might appear small compared to other problems. The absence of detailed 
evidence does not mean this practice is not taking place. And even if it is not, there is a 
precautionary principle that comes into play in terms of the potential for it to happen as 
its implications are far-reaching both in terms of electoral integrity and reputational risk. 
If  integrity  of  an  election  is  at  risk  in  one  Member  State,  it  would  discredit  the  EU 
institutions as a whole. Furthermore, public trust in the EU is a key aspect, especially in 
relation  to  the  electoral  process.  The  citizens  demand  the  EU  to  have  unimpeachable 
standards  by  supporting  the  transparency,  inclusiveness  and  integrity  of  electoral 
practices. 

1.3.5 Lack of data to support policy interventions 

Comparable data to support policy interventions are not sufficient. This includes data on  
the registration,  identification on electoral rolls, and  turnout of mobile EU citizens for 

66 Idem. 
67 Idem. 
68 In particular, the joint meeting of 28 January 2021. Further details on these joint meetings is available in Annex 2.  
69 This was highlighted in the joint meeting of the ECNE and the expert group on electoral matters of 28 January 2021.  

19 

 
 
                                                           
European  and  municipal  elections,  as  well  as  the  number  of  mobile  EU  citizens  who  
stand as candidates and  who are elected in European and municipal elections.  

When it comes to participation of mobile EU citizens in municipal elections, data mostly 
looks at registration rates. Data on participation/turnout is not disaggregated according to 
residency  status  by  competent  authorities  in  Member  States.  Data  on  candidacy  is 
available in less than half of EU Member States70.  

Where  data  is  reported,  it  is  not  necessarily  on  the  basis  of  all  mobile  EU  citizens 
residing in the country but  on the basis of those who are registered. This means that in 
Member  States  with  automatic  registration  the  share  of  those  registered  is  very  high 
(close  to  100%)  but  turnout  is  much  lower.  Conversely,  in  other  countries  with  active 
registration, the shared of those registered is low, but then turnout for those registered is 
high  as these are people who actively took  measures to  register and  are  hence keen on 
exercising their right. 

Availability of data on participation of mobile EU citizens in European elections is even 
more  patchy.  As  with  municipal  elections,  the  majority  of  Member  States  do  not 
differentiate between the turnout of nationals and that of mobile EU citizens.  

1.3.6 Equal possibilities to exercise electoral rights 

Mobile EU citizens exercising their elections rights in their Member State of residence do 
not always enjoy their rights under the same conditions as nationals of that State. Indeed, 
the  current  legal  provisions  allow  Member  States  to  restrict  candidacy  for  mobile  EU 
citizens  to  some  positions  in  municipal  elections.  Article  5  of  Directive  94/80/EC 
specifically provides for the right of Member States to restrict the office of elected head, 
deputy or member of the governing college of the executive of a basic local government 
unit to their own nationals only. 

Several  Member  States  have  been  using  this  provision,  thus  restricting  the  possibilities 
for  mobile  EU  citizens  to  stand  as  candidates  for  executive  functions  at  local  level71. 
Mobile  EU  citizens  are  therefore  not  able  to  stand  as  candidates  for  all  functions  in 
municipal elections in all Member States, which can lead to their underrepresentation in 
local  governments,  and  contribute  to  their  lower  participation  patterns  and  less 
motivation to engage at the local level.  

Addressing  the  limitations  of  candidacy  for  mobile  EU  citizens  to  some  positions  that 
some Member States impose in municipal elections would support the principle of non-
discrimination  on  the  basis  of  nationality.  However,  such  measure  would  need  to  take 
into  account  the  public  opinion  and  in  general  terms  their  acceptability.  As  shown  in 
Flash  Eurobarometer  43172,  the  opinion  is  evenly  divided.  Almost  half  of  respondents 
(47%) agree that citizens from other Member States should be able to stand as candidates 
for  certain  executive  offices,  presently  open  only  to  nationals.  A  similar  proportion 
(48%) do not agree that they should be able to do so. 

70 According to data collected for the 2019 Commission’s report on municipal elections, as much as 20 Member States 
indicated that such data is not collected or is difficult to obtain. 
71  A  table  of  municipal  election  positions  for  which  mobile  EU  citizens  cannot  stand  as  candidates  across  Member 
States is available in Annex 6. 
72 https://data.europa.eu/data/datasets/s2078_431_eng?locale=en . 

20 

 
 
                                                           
In  addition,  remote  voting  solutions  can  help  facilitate  the  act  of  voting  for  those  EU 
citizens living abroad, which also concerns EU mobile citizens. In that sense, and taking 
into  account  the  principle  of  non-discrimination,  mobile  EU  citizens  should  have  the 
same  access  to  remote  voting  solutions  as  the  nationals  of  the  Member  State  in  which 
they reside. 

1.3.7 Obsolete provisions  

The  legal  framework  on  voting  rights  of  mobile  citizens  contains  obsolete  provisions. 
Directive  94/80/EC  contains  an  Annex  with  a  list  of  basic  local  government  units  for 
each Member State. These are the administrative entities to which this Directive applies 
and which, in accordance with the laws of each Member State, contain bodies elected by 
direct universal suffrage and are empowered to administer, at the basic level of political 
and administrative organization, certain local affairs on their own responsibility. 

This  Annex  makes  explicit  reference  to  the  United  Kingdom  and  its  basic  local 
government units73, which will need to be deleted in light of the withdrawal of the United 
Kingdom from the European Union.  
Additionally, in preparation of the report on the application of Directive 94/80/EC74, the 
Commission  was  informed  by  Denmark,  Hungary,  Ireland,  the  Netherlands  that 
amendments to the list of basic local government units are needed75.  

The  current  Directive  foresees  the  presentation  of  a  legal  proposal  to  amend  its  non-
essential  elements.  This  does  not  allow  to  make  best  use  of  the  possibilities  that  exist 
since the Lisbon Treaty to amend non-essential elements of a Directive. Since the entry 
into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the Commission may be empowered under Article 290 
TFEU to adopt delegated acts that amend non-essential elements of legislative acts. Such 
delegations  allow  technical  updates  to  be  made  more  quickly  and  efficiently.  The 
revision  of  the  Directive  provides  an  opportunity  to  make  use  of  this  possibility  by 
making provision for such empowerments. 

1.4 How will the problems evolve? 

The number of EU citizens residing in a Member State other than that of their nationality 
is  steadily  increasing.  As  mentioned  above,  in  2019  there  were  over  13  million  mobile 
EU citizens, with approximately 1.3 million EU citizens who move to reside to another 
EU Member State every year and the numbers continue to grow. In Member States with 
less inclusive national practices regarding registration and information provision, mobile 
EU citizens are likely to continue facing burden related to searching for information or 
the  fact  that  excessive  documentation  is  requested  of  them.  There  is  no  indication  that 

73 Counties in England; counties, county boroughs and communities in Wales; regions and Islands in Scotland; districts 
in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland; London boroughs; parishes in England; the City of London in relation to 
ward elections for common councilmen. 
74Report on the application of Directive 94/80/EC on the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections 
COM(2018) 44 final; 
https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-register/detail?ref=COM(2018)44&lang=en:  
75 Specifically, the Local Government Reform  Act of 2014 states that Ireland is divided into local government areas 
known  as  (a)  counties,  (b)  cities,  and  (c)  cities  and  counties.  Each  “county”  and  “city  and  county”  has  municipal 
districts. In the case of Hungary, according to the provisions of Act CLXXXIX of 2011, the basic local government 
unit of „járásszékhely város” should be added.75 For the Netherlands, “deelgemeente” must be removed.  

21 

 
 
                                                           
suggests  that  Member  States  are  narrowing  this  gap.  This  would  continue  negatively 
affecting participation especially in those Member States with practices that demonstrate 
low  inclusivity.  The  differences  among  Member  States  concerning  possibilities  to 
exercise one’s electoral rights as a mobile EU citizen are going to continue existing. As 
above there is no evidence that this gap would be narrowing down spontaneously. 

Furthermore,  the  trend  of  the  digitalization  of  political  participation  is  gaining  traction, 
and  was  additionally  accelerated  by  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  With  regard  to  the 
phenomenon  of  multiple  voting  in  the  European  elections,  the  fact  that  mobile  EU 
citizens can choose to vote for host country or home country party lists implies that they 
have multiple channels through which they can vote. This could be further exacerbated if 
Member  States  increasingly  make  remote  voting  in  European  elections  easier  through 
measures  such  as  electronic  voting  or  voting  via  proxies.  If  these  modalities  become 
more common, which in itself would be a positive development that would contribute to 
boost mobile EU citizens’ voting participation, the risk of multiple voting could grow. 

Developments are ongoing at EU level to strengthen the availability, use and acceptance 
of highly secure electronic IDs cross border in the EU76. However, widespread use in the 
electoral context cannot be anticipated in the near future and therefore the difficulties to 
identify mobile EU citizens who are registered in multiple countries and prevent multiple 
could continue affecting European elections. If the trend of intra-EU mobility continues 
to  grow,  this  problem  is  likely  to  get  bigger  as  the  volume  of  data  exchanged  will 
increase. 

Should  the  exchange  of  data  between  Member  States  become  more  efficient  and 
therefore  identify  more  cases  of  multiple  registration,  the  problem  of  deregistration  is 
likely to get worse. Higher numbers of mobile EU citizens will be matched to their home 
country electoral rolls and therefore deregistered, unless there is a mechanism to ensure 
that deregistration only affects the election for which the data is being exchanged. 

It is expected that all Member States will have approved Council Decision 2018/994 on 
the  revision  of  the  EU  Electoral  law  in  accordance  with  their  respective  constitutional 
requirements  and  that  this  Decision  will  enter  into  force  before  the  2024  European 
elections.  To  date  (July  2021),  five  Member  States  have  not  yet  approved  Council 
Decision  2018/994  on  the  revision  of  the  EU  electoral  law  (Croatia,  Cyprus,  Estonia, 
Germany and Spain). Regarding the binding measures, they should have a positive effect 
in  addressing the problem  of  multiple voting by  providing further harmonisation  of the 
exchange  of  data77,  by  legally  imposing  the  establishment  a  contact  authority  for  data 
exchange  on  voters  and  candidates  and  by  providing  that  Member  Sates  shall  take 
measures necessary to ensure that multiple voting is subject to sanctions78.  

a 

for 

framework 

establishing 

76 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 as 
regards 
https://digital-
a 
strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/trusted-and-secure-european-e-id-regulation  and  Commission  Recommendation  on  a 
common Union Toolbox for a coordinated approach towards a European Digital Identity Framework (C(2021) 3968 
final) https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/trusted-and-secure-european-e-id-recommendation . 
77 Article 9b of Council Decision 2018/994  on the revision of the EU electoral law  provides that the transmission of 
data  concerning  Union  citizens  who,  in  a  Member  State  of  which  they  are  not  nationals,  have  been  entered  on  the 
electoral roll or are standing as candidates shall start no later than six weeks before the first day of the electoral period. 
78 Council Decision 2018/994 on the revision of the EU electoral law , Article 9.2. 

European 

Identity, 

Digital 

22 

 
 
                                                           
2.  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? 

2.1 Legal basis 

Any legislative intervention at the EU level must relate the competences of the Union 
legislator to the objectives and scope that the proposal will follow.  

Article 20 TFEU establishes Union citizenship. Articles 20(2)(b) and 22 TFEU,  as well 
as Articles 39 and 40 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, provide that citizens of 
the  Union  have  the  right  to  vote  and  stand  as  candidates  in  European  elections  and  in 
municipal  elections  in  their  Member  State  of  residence,  under  the  same  conditions  as 
national  of  that  State.  Article  22  TFEU  provides  that  the  exercise  of  this  right  shall  be 
subject  to  detailed  arrangements  adopted  by  the  Council,  acting  unanimously  in 
accordance  with  a  special  legislative  procedure  and  after  consulting  the  European 
Parliament. 

Directives  93/109/EC  and 94/80/EC, the revision of which is  the subject of this impact 
assessment,  provide  detailed  arrangements  for  the  exercise  of  these  rights  in  European 
and  municipal  elections,  respectively,  based  on  the  electoral  rights  for  municipal 
elections provided in Article 20(2)(b) and 22(1) TFEU, and in Article 20(2)(b) and 22(2) 
TFEU for European elections. They establish minimum standards and procedures for the 
right of mobile EU citizens to vote and stand as candidates.   

2.2 Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action 

The principle of subsidiarity (Article 5(3) TEU) requires that the Union shall act only and 
insofar as  the objectives of the proposed actions cannot  be sufficiently achieved by the 
Member States, either at central or at regional and local level, but an rather, by reasons of 
the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level. 

The  electoral  rights  of  mobile  EU  citizens  to  European  and  municipal  elections  are 
enshrined  in  the  TFEU  as  part  of  their  rights  as  citizens  of  the  Union.  The  legal 
framework for the exercise of electoral rights by mobile citizens involves the interaction 
of  EU  and  national  rules.  The  EU  acted  to  implement  the  Treaty  principle  establishing 
electoral rights of mobile EU citizens in particular through the two Directives 93/109/EC 
and 94/80/EC which are considered in this impact assessment.   

The Commission has closely monitored the implementation of the Directives. However, 
experience shows that, without EU action, it would be difficult to address the identified 
problems. Reports on the implementation of the directives as well as further consultations 
(especially  in  the  framework  of  ECNE  and  the  expert  group  on  electoral  matters 
meetings)  showed  that  further  action  at  EU  level  was  needed.  Without  timely  and 
effective  EU  action,  the  identified  problems  and  their  causes  would  continue  to  hinder 
the  exercise  by  mobile  EU  citizens  of their  electoral  rights  This  could  be  prevented  by 
reinforcing existing rights governed by  Directives 93/109/EC and 94/80/EC. 

As  for  the  issue  of  multiple  voting  in  European  elections,  the  exchange  of  information 
required by Directive 93/109/EC is by definition a cross border issue. This means that it 
cannot be addressed by Member States acting individually, since cross-border matters are 
beyond  the  reach  of  individual  Member  States.  National  action  cannot  be  expected  to 
reach beyond national borders. Providing for common EU standards on the exchange of 
information about the relevant voters and candidates to prevent multiple voting can only 
be done at EU level.  

23 

 
 
Finally, revisions to Directives to update obsolete provisions and align with the common 
rules established by Council Decision 2018/994 on the revision of the EU Electoral law 
can only be done at EU level. 

2.3 Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action 

The  current  situation  affects  the  effective  exercise  of  electoral  rights  of  mobile  EU 
citizens and by extension the ability for EU citizens to fully enjoy their free movement 
rights as well as puts at risk the integrity of the electoral process for European elections. 
The added value of  EU  action lies in  improving  and refining  the framework  governing 
the exercise of mobile EU citizens of their electoral  rights  granted  by the Treaties, and 
better addressing multiple voting in the context of the European elections by enhancing 
the current exchange of information system. 

The content and the form of the EU action must not go beyond what is necessary to meet 
the objectives of the Treaty. Respect of the principle of proportionality is about ensuring 
that the policy approach and its intensity match  the identified problems  and objectives. 
Proportionate EU action should ensure that  mobile EU citizens  can effectively exercise 
their democratic rights. For this to be achieved, there is a need to clarify the existing EU 
framework governing the electoral rights of mobile EU citizens of their electoral rights. 
Additionally,  proportionate  action  at  EU  level  would  enhance  the  integrity  of  the 
European elections by reducing opportunities for multiple voting.  

3.  OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? 

3.1 General objectives 

The general objectives are to: 

  Support electoral participation of mobile EU citizens in municipal and European 

elections; 

  Reinforce  electoral  rights  of  mobile  EU  citizens  by  closing  regulatory  gaps 

hindering the participation in municipal and European elections;  

  Preserve the legitimacy  of European elections by  reducing  instances  of  multiple 

voting. 

3.2 Specific objectives 

To  successfully  achieve  the  general  objectives  by  intervening  on  the  drivers  of  the 
problems  identified  as  illustrated  in  Figure  3,  specific  objectives  were  identified.  The 
specific  objectives  of  the  initiative  are  to  increase  mobile  EU  citizens’  awareness  of 
their rights and understanding of procedures and practices to register and to participate 
in  municipal  and  European  elections;  reduce  the  possibilities  of  multiple  voting  by 
mobile  EU  citizens  for  European  elections  and  to  limit  de-registration  practices  of 
Member States only to those elections in which there is a risk of multiple voting. 

Another  goal  is  to  simplify  daily  life  for  mobile  EU  citizens  and  local  authorities,  by 
reducing  administrative  barriers  for  citizens  and  their  family  members  related  to 
registration  and  formalities  to  vote  and  to  stand  as  candidates  in  municipal  as  well  as 
European elections 

Finally, this initiative aims at  improving the collection of data for European elections 
and  municipal  elections  and  to  ensure  that  mobile  EU  citizens  have  the  same 

24 

 
 
 
possibilities to stand for candidates in municipal elections. Information on indicators and 
targets for each specific objectives are in section 8.  

25 

 
 
 
 
Figure 3. Intervention Logic: from problem drivers to policy options  

26 

 
 
 
4. WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? 

4.1 What is the baseline from which options are assessed? 

Under the baseline scenario, the existing problems would remain.  

The exchanges of best practice among relevant Member States’ authorities in the ECNE and 
the  expert  group  on  electoral  matters  would  continue  to  be  supported  by  the  Commission.  
Efforts  would  focus  on  improving  awareness  of  mobile  EU  citizens  and  access  to  their 
electoral rights as well as on good practice on the use of the crypto tool. 

Further, the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values programme 2021-2027 and in particular its 
strand  on  Citizens’  engagement,  would  reinforce  the  financing  of  projects  to  address  the 
needs  of  mobile  EU  citizens  and  to  support  their  democratic  participation.  An  EU  wide 
communication campaign would be organized for the European Parliament elections building 
particularly  on  the  experiences  of  the  2019  European  elections.  Among  others,  occasional 
targeted  awareness  raising  campaigns  would be  organized, especially  prior to  the European 
elections. The added value of funding such projects (in particular awareness raising) has been 
demonstrated, promoting the rights  deriving from EU  citizenship and the  development  of a 
stronger EU citizenship79.  
When  it  comes  to  information  related  barriers,  Regulation  (EU)  2018/172480  established  a 
single  digital  gateway.  The  ‘Your  Europe  Portal’  is  the  front  end  of  the  single  digital 
gateway.  The  portal  exists  to  explain  to  EU  citizens  and  businesspeople  their  rights  and 
obligations under EU law. Regarding electoral rights, there is a section on the ‘Citizens’ side 
of  the  portal  about  electoral  rights  of  mobile  EU  citizens81.  Regulation  (EU)  2018/1724 
requires Member States to explain online how to carry out certain administrative procedures 
by December 2020 (Annex  I to  the Regulation).  Those procedures includes participating in 
municipal elections and elections to the European Parliament for EU mobile citizens.  Every 
Member  State  should  have  a  webpage  or  website  explaining  to  non-EU  nationals,  in  a 
language understood by the majority of cross-border users, how to vote in their Member State 
of  residence  in  those  types  of  elections.  By  2023,  Member  States  will  have  to  make  it 
possible to actually carry out some procedures online (Annex II to the Regulation). For the 
moment, electoral procedures are not part of this last category.  

With  regard  to  the  prevention  of  multiple  voting,  the  exchange  of  data  on  voters  and 
candidates  will  continue  with  the  use  of  the  Commission  crypto  tool.  Its  maintenance  and 
development  is  foresee  by  DG  CNECT’s  DIGITAL  programme.  Although  protocols  are  in 
place  for  its  use  this,  legal  certainty  would  not  be  enhanced  if    a  clear  legal  framework 
governing its use including concerning security requirements is not provided. 

Instead, the necessary changes to Directive 94/80/EC as described under section 2.3.7 would 
not  be  introduced.  No  use  would  be  made  of  the  procedure  to  ensure  rapid  update  of  non-
essential elements of both Directives. 

79  See  the  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
committed  and  the  Committee  of  Regions  on  the  interim  evaluation  of  the  implementation  of  the  Rights,  Equality  and 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
2014-2020, 
programme 
Citizenship 
content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52018DC0508.  
80  Annex  I  of  Regulation  (EU)  2018/1724  includes  electoral  rights  in  municipal  and  European  elections  (https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2018.295.01.0001.01.ENG).  

(2018) 

COM 

final 

508 

81 https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/residence/elections-abroad/index_en.htm  

 
 
                                                           
4.2 Disregarded policy options  

The removal  of the derogation  available under both  Directives82, whereby  a Member State, 
where the proportion of mobile EU citizens of voting age exceeds 20% of the total electorate, 
can  require both  voters  and candidates to have a minimum  period of  residence, will not  be 
addressed by the policy options83. Similarly, no policy intervention is being considered on the 
exchange of information among Member States on the deprivation of citizens’ right to vote 
and  stand  as  candidate  if,  through  an  individual  decision,  they  have  been  deprived  of  their 
right  under  the  law  of  their  home  Member  State.  As  there  were  no  issues  identified  in  the 
implementation of this provision, this would be unnecessary.  

On the other hand, several policy options were disregarded on the basis of proportionality and 
efficiency  considerations.  For  example,  the  establishment  of  an  EU  Electoral  Database, 
including  passive  and  active  electorates  in  all  Member  States  would  have  efficiently 
addressed multiple voting and deregistration problems, including of dual nationals. However, 
such a measure, despite being very effective, appears disproportionate in term of costs for the 
EU  and  Member  States  and  potential 
impact  on  fundamental  rights  as  well  as 
disproportionate  to  the  scale  and  nature  of  the  problems.    Under  another  option  addressing 
dual  voting, which was  discarded  as excessive,  home Member States would  have obligated 
dual citizens to disclose their other citizenships. 

4.3 Description of the policy options 

Beyond  the  baseline  scenario,  the  three  general  objectives  are  each  addressed  by  two 
packages  of  options,  which  are  presented  below.  The  policy  packages  present  a  range  of 
potential measures considered to improve the exercise of electoral rights, and to support a fair 
electoral process by addressing the issue of multiple voting. 

Specifically,  these  policy  packages  range  from  soft,  non-legislative  measures  in  support  of 
awareness raising and enhanced administrative cooperation, to setting common standards of 
procedures  related  to  registration  of  mobile  EU  citizens  and  the  exchange  of  data  in 
prevention of multiple voting. The measures are grouped in two policy packages according to 
their connection and interdependence from one another.  

Measures in Option 1 constitutes mainly targeted additional legislative amendments. The aim 
would  be  to  address  the  objectives  by  reinforcing  and  clarifying  existing  provisions  of  the 
Directives  governing  electoral  rights  of  mobile  EU  citizens  in  municipal  and  European 
elections.  Measures  in  Option  2  provide  for  more  extensive  legislative  intervention.  While 
respecting the non-discrimination principle at the basis of the  Directives,  the second policy 
option  would  aim  to  put  in  place  an  extensive  reform  of  the  Directives  by  setting  legal 
requirements relating to the time-limits for registration and imposing in some cases automatic 
registration  for  municipal  elections,  by  providing  a  self-standing  resource  for  support  of 

82 Article 12(1) of Directive 94/80/EC and Article 14(1) of Directive 93/109/EC. 
83 This derogation is used only by Luxembourg and was found to be proportionate in the Commission’s report on the 2019 
European elections and the report on the application of Directive 94/80/EC on the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in 
municipal elections. 

28 

 
 
                                                           
 
mobile  EU  citizens  and  by  removing  the  provisions  allowing  different  treatment  of  mobile 
EU citizens. 

To reduce instances of  multiple voting in European elections by supporting data matching, 
policy  option  1  would  bring  the  period  in  which  the  exchange  of  data  between  Member 
States would have to start, in line with Council Decision 2018/994 on the revision of the EU 
electoral law. Additionally, policy option 1 foreseen common requirements to be established 
to guarantee that information on mobile EU citizens registering to vote or stand for election is 
exchanged  comprehensively  and  in  a  more  consistent  manner,  while  complying  with  the 
GDPR’s data minimisation principle. A data set would be specified in Directive 93/109/EC 
to support the exchange of information between national authorities about mobile EU citizens 
registering to vote or stand for European elections, which would result in a faster and easier 
identification  of  mobile  EU  citizens.  This  data  set  would  include:  name,  place  and  date  of 
birth,  and  identification  number  from  the  country  of  nationality  or  alternatively  passport 
number or ID card number. An increased and faster recognition of the citizens coupled with 
further  harmonisation  of  the  starting  point  for  the  exchange  of  those  data  would  result  in 
more data being matched. 

Alternatively, measure in Option 2 would entail a full harmonisation of the procedure with a 
harmonised and fixed data set and common EU deadlines for registration and notification of 

29 

Definition of the period in which the exchange of data will start introduction of requirement to limit de-registration practices from the electoral rolls support the access to offices in the local administration by mobile EU citizens and introduce a requirement of reporting on restrictions Clarification of the requirement  for Member States to inform mobile EU citizens of their right to vote at municipal and European elections Specification of a common data set to be collected and exchanged by Member States.  Municipal elections Introduction of regular monitoring and reporting of implementation by Member States. Commission would work together with the national statistical institutes to collect, harmonise and publish turn-out data for municipal and European electionsEuropean electionsintroduction of standardized templates for registration available in all languages in the form of an Annex to the Directives.  a shared resource, rationalising current services would be createdEstablishment of a harmonised registration process for registration and notification of such registrations across the EU including harmonisation of deadlines for registration removal of the possibility to restrict certain mandates to nationals of the Member State of residence. Municipal elections European elections Additional common resources and procedures to support the transmission of data to the Commission and the European Parliament related to the participation of mobile EU citizens in the European elections.  Establishment of a new self-standing resource  to support mobile EU citizens 
 
 
such registration for European elections across the EU. Specifically, two deadlines would be 
set: one for the close of the electoral roll and the start of the data exchange (6 weeks prior to 
the elections), and one to clear data between Member States (4 weeks prior to the elections). 

Only one measure is foreseen for the issue of deregistration and it is part of Option 1. The 
main  reason  is  that  measures  foreseen  in  Option  2  to  address  multiple  voting  would  in 
principle also extinguish the problem of deregistration. Instead, measures in option 1 would 
increase  this  phenomenon.  Therefore,  Option  1  envisages  the  prohibition  of  de-registration 
practices at the initiative of the authorities.  

On the issue of information related-barriers, multiple options intervening at different levels 
are possible. In policy option 1, at Member States level, a requirement would be introduced 
for  Member  States  to  inform  mobile  EU  citizens  of  their  right  to  vote  in  municipal  and 
European elections, in a plain language at the moment of registering in a new Member State 
and  regularly  thereafter,  particularly  before  elections.  This  information  would  need  to  be 
provided at least in the language of the Member State of residence and in another language 
largely used in the EU. Prior to municipal and European elections, mobile EU citizens should 
receive  in  an  individualised  manner  detailed  information  about  their  registration  status, 
registration procedure and voting modalities. For municipal elections, information should be 
provided  on  the  possibility  to  continue  to  vote  in  other  elections  in  the  Member  State  of 
origin,  while  for  European  elections,  information  should  be  provided  on  prohibition  of 
multiple voting and its consequences.   

At EU level, policy option 1 envisages a streamlined shared resource to be established at 
Commission level to support EU citizens in exercising their electoral rights, in particular with 
dedicated  staff  replying  questions  from  citizens  and  public  authorities  during  the  period 
where mobile EU citizens can register for European elections. Building  on existing support 
offered  by  the  Commission  and  the  European  Parliament  in  particular,  it  would  rationalise 
existing  support  services  for  mobile  EU  citizens  and  national  authorities  (addressing 
contradictions  and  duplications  in  information  sources  such  as  the  Europe  Direct  Contact 
Center),  answer  their  questions  on  European  elections  in  all  languages  of  the  European 
Union,  support  citizens  in  finding  solutions  to  relevant  issues  and  provide  targeted 
information  for  mobile  EU  citizens,  The  Directives  would  be  amended  to  reflect  the  links 
with the Single Digital gateway/Your Europe Portal.  

Measures  in  policy  option  2  in  relation  to  information-related  barriers  should  take  in 
consideration the harmonised process of registration and notification provided in this option. 
Therefore, information  provided  by Member States  will focus  more on other aspects  of the 
electoral procedure such as the date of the election in the case of municipal elections and how 
and where to vote. On the other hand, communication at EU level will be more important as 
the  information  on  the  key  prerequisites  to  the  effective  exercise  of  electoral  rights  will  be 
uniform due to harmonised procedures. This option therefore would provide for a new self-
standing  resource  for  support  of  mobile  EU  citizens  specifically  dedicated  to  electoral 
rights. 

To address  the  specific administrative barriers  whereby Member States of residence may 
require mobile EU citizens to provide a formal declaration that they will exercise the right to 
vote in that Member State only, option 1 proposes the use of standardised templates. As the 
modalities of this clause are not defined and Member States may interpret the term “formal 
declaration”  differently  (e.g.,  a  notarized  declaration  on  honour  in  Croatia),  a  standardized 
format  of  the  declaration  available  in  all  languages  would  be  introduced  in  the  form  of  an 

30 

 
 
Annex  to  the  Directive.  This  standardized  templates  could  be  subject  to  the  possibility  of 
subsequent adaptations via delegated acts. Such an approach would also allow to update the 
Annex  which  lists  basic  local  government  units.  Alternatively,  Option  2  envisages  that  the 
legislative proposal would also establish an obligation for Member States to apply automatic 
registration in municipal elections. This would mean that once mobile EU citizens register in 
their Member State of residence, they would be automatically registered in the electoral rolls 
for  voting  in  municipal  elections.  This  would  alleviate  the  burden  to  have  to  register  for 
municipal elections in a separate administrative act84. 

On data collection, policy option 1 envisages to amend the Directives to insert provisions for 
a regular monitoring and reporting of their implementation by Member States. For Directive 
93/109/EC,  the  report  should  be  conducted  after  every  European  elections.  For  Directive 
94/80/EC,  the  report  should  be  conducted  every  five  years  from  the  entry  into  force  of  the 
amendments.  The  Commission  building  on  the  work  of  Eurostat  would  work  together  with 
the national statistical institutes to collect, harmonise and publish turn-out data for municipal 
and  European  elections,  to  support  policy  development  at  the  EU  and  national  levels.  The 
above-mentioned  standardised  templates  would  allow  to  collect  more  data  than  those 
available today, which could help further policy interventions. In Policy option 2, collection 
of data should be facilitated by the harmonisation  of the process  of registration and voting.  
Therefore,  it  could  be  foreseen  that  additional  common  resources  and  procedures  would  be 
allocated  including  for  instance  to  support  the  transmission  to  the  Commission  and  the 
European Parliament of the national results related to the participation of mobile EU citizens 
in the European elections that would be available in all Member States. 

As  the  current  regulatory  framework  allows  limiting  candidacy  of  mobile  EU  citizens  for 
some positions in municipal elections, policy option 2 envisages that the legislative proposal 
removes  the  possibility  to  restrict  certain  mandates  to  nationals  of  the  Member  State  of 
residence. Alternatively, policy option 1 envisages an obligation on Member States to report 
on  those  restrictions.  This  may  lead  to  a  national  debate  and  encourage  Member  States  to 
change  these  rules.  The  Commission  would  also  use  soft-law  measures  building  on  the 
discussions  in  the  expert  group  on  electoral  matters  and  ECNE.  The  purpose  would  be  to 
support  a  non-discriminatory  access  to  such  positions.  Such  soft-law  measures  could  also 
encourage  Member  States  to  consider  voluntarily  extending  the  right  to  vote  in  municipal 
elections  for  mobile  EU  citizens  to  other  intermediary  levels  of  governance,  such  as  city 
regions. 

Finally, as part of option 1, an explicit obligation would be introduced to ensure that where 
remote voting is allowed for nationals in European or municipal elections, this should also be 
allowed  for  mobile  EU  citizens  residing  in  that  country,  under  the  same  conditions  as 
nationals. 

84  Automatic  registration  was  considered  by  a  majority  respondents  to  the  OPC  to be  an effective  measure  to 

increase participation in municipal elections For further details, see Annex 2. 

31 

 
 
                                                           
5. WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS?  

5.1 The baseline scenario 

The impact of the baseline scenario is assessed in section 2.4. In broad terms, in the absence 
of  EU  action  to  address  gaps  of  Directives  93/109/EC  and  94/80/EC,  multiple  voting  by 
mobile EU citizens will continue to put at risk the integrity of the European elections. Mobile 
EU  citizens  will  continue  to  face  administrative  burden  and  lack  of  clarity  on  electoral 
participation. As a consequence of unclear information, a significant proportion of mobile EU 
citizens  will  remain  unaware  of  their  voting  rights  derived  from  their  EU  citizenship  or  be 
discouraged to vote. Relatively fewer mobile EU citizens will use their EU rights to vote in 
the Member State they live in, and the number of mobile EU citizens standing as candidates 
will decrease, compared to an overall growing number of mobile EU citizens. 

The  requirements  in  the  Directives  as  they  stand  now  are  generally  not  specific  enough  to 
lend themselves to enforcement action. Correspondence with Member States and discussion 
in forums like the ECNE cannot sufficiently address the identified problems. 

5.2 Assessment of policy options 

The  policy  options  are  evaluated  against  social,  economic  and  fundamental  rights  impacts. 
No environmental impacts were detected.  

5.2.1 Social Impacts 

The  two  options  considered  would  have  an  overall  positive  effect  on  the  democratic 
participation of mobile EU citizens.  

The standardised templates and minimum data set in policy option 1 would lead to increased, 
more  secured  and  interoperable  communication  channels  among  Member  States  to  prevent 
multiple voting and provide more tools to citizens to exercise their electoral rights. 

Measures to require Member States to inform mobile EU citizens in Option 1 could possibly 
increase the probability of voting among mobile EU citizens. 

Additionally,  the  reinforced  shared  resource  at  EU  level  in  policy  option  1  and  the  new 
resource in option 2 would lead to higher awareness of electoral processes in the country of 
residence,  which  could  result  in  having  more  candidates  who  are  mobile  EU  citizens  (who 
could,  by  extension,  mobilise  the  communities  of  mobile  EU  citizens  to  participate  in 
elections).  

Policy Option 

Impact 

Increase Citizens’ awareness and understanding 

Increase probability of voting/ voter participation 

Prevent multiple voting and minimise deregistration 

1 

2 

●●● 

●● 

●● 

●●● 

●●● 

●●● 

5.2.2 Economic impacts 

The  impact  assessment  focuses  on  the  potential  impacts  on  mobile  EU  citizens  and  public 
administration,  both  at  the  national  and  EU  levels.  All  options  are  expected  to  only  have 
indirect  wider  economic  impacts  insofar  as  they  support  free  movement.  Simplifying 
registration  requirements  and  enhancing  information  provision  and  awareness  raising  on 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
voting can reinforce the integration of mobile EU citizens in the host Member State, which 
can only have positive economic effects.  Whether SMEs are affected to  the same  extent as 
larger companies by facilitated freedom of movement cannot be assessed conclusively. 

Mobile  EU  citizens  enjoy  direct  regulatory  benefits  from  all  options  presented  above: 
simplification  of  registration  procedures  would  lead  to  a  reduction  of  costs  for  mobile  EU 
citizens  due  to  lowering  the  time  needed  to  register  and  reducing  the  documents  that  they 
need  to  provide.  They  will  also  benefit  from  simplified  access  to  clearer  information  on 
national procedures and requirements, particularly information. 

A  detailed  assessment  of  the  costs  involved  –  in  terms  of  monetary  cost,  human  resources, 
and organisational effort – requires a level of data that is not currently available to this impact 
assessment.  The  below  cost  assessments  therefore  rely  on  a  number  of  assumptions  to 
provide a first indication of the range of costs that may be required. As the exact design and 
implementation  of  the  measures  will  vary,  the  assessment  (1)  seeks  to  take  into  account 
institutional  and  structural  differences  between  Member  States  and  (2)  seeks  to  present  a 
range  of  costs,  depending  on  how  extensive  the  ultimate  formulation  of  a  measure  is.  All 
costs  are  presented  as  possible  excess  cost  to  the  current  expenditure  –  e.g.  if  a  measure 
envisions four additional annual meetings of an election network, this is to be understood as 
four meetings in additions to those already occurring currently. 

Many  of  the  implementation  costs  either  entail  human  resource  costs  at  the  EU  level 
(European  Commission,  EU  agencies)  and  the  Member  State  level  (competent  authorities, 
practitioners).  Costs  associated  with  administrative  burden  have  been  estimated  using  the 
Commission’s Standard Cost Model (SCM), outlined in the EU Better Regulation Guidelines. 
To calculate these costs, a standard estimate of the daily labour cost has been applied for all 
activities. As figures are not available individually for all Member States, an EU average is 
applied. This  approach uses the latest  available data and methods detailed in  the EU Better 
Regulation  Guidelines.  This  leads  to  an  estimated  daily  labour  cost  of  EUR  534  for  EU 
personnel,  and  EUR  294  for  staff  in  Member  States,  including  25%  overhead  costs.  These 
labour costs are used in all calculations in this section unless otherwise indicated. 

5.2.2.1.  Estimates  of  administrative  costs  for  obligations  addressed  to  public 

authorities 

The simplification of registration procedures proposed in option 1 and 2 will initially result in 
higher costs for public authorities in Member States due to an increase in human resources to 
accommodate  enhanced  cooperation,  but  these  costs  will  be  partly  offset  by  expected 
efficiencies  for  administrations.  Some  Member  States  have  little  information  on  voting 
available  in  non-national  language(s),  and/or  do  limited  outreach  to  mobile  EU  voters. 
Implementing  a  requirement  for  communication  measures  or  information  provision  will  be 
more  costly  where  the  Member  State  has  limited  existing  structures  and  experience  in  that 
regard but the investment may yield long-term benefits by fostering enhanced integration and 
thereby acting as an economic driver. 

Regarding  the  improvement  of  information  provision  at  EU  level,  the  expansion  of  an 
existing service as outlined in option 1 would be most effective, building on Regulation (EU) 
2018/1724 that established a single digital gateway.  

Furthermore,  in  the  context  of  optimizing  the  system  for  exchange  of  personal  data  in 
prevention of multiple voting as suggested in option 1 and 2, resources would be needed for 

33 

 
 
 
information exchange and system maintenance at national level, with a possible reduction in 
costs (at least in the medium-long term) due to improved cooperation and coordination with 
other  Member  States  and  the  increased  efficiency.  Harmonisation  of  the  data  sets  to  be 
exchanged  between  Member  States  would  be  expected  to  significantly  assist  in  the 
identification of voters who are present on multiple electoral rolls. The costs required would 
vary depending on the data already collected by Member States; where this would require a 
significant  effort,  the  return-value  in  terms  of  aiding  the  data  exchange  process  appear 
proportional.  For  instance,  in  cases  where  the  electoral  register  is  linked  to  the  population 
register  (as  is  e.g.  the  case  for  Sweden,  Finland  and  Estonia),  adjusting  the  information  in 
datasets may not require a lot of effort as only one central register is used. Where registers are 
more  decentralised,  e.g.  collated  individually  in  municipalities  (e.g.  in  Germany),  a  larger 
effort is  required to ensure that all individual actors collect  and transmit the correct data.  It 
should  also  be  noted  that  after  a  successful  harmonisation  of  data,  cost  savings  may  be 
possible in Member States that currently have to carry out a lot of manual data matching as a 
result of receiving incorrect or inconclusive data (e.g. Romania). 

As  outlined  in  policy  option  2,  setting  deadlines  for  submission  of  data  between  Member 
States would be an important improvement in data exchange. However, the question of which 
deadline to set with does not have a straightforward answer, and may – depending on where it 
is placed in relation to national existing deadlines – incur either no extra costs, or significant 
costs. As it in many cases would require important legal changes in the Member States and an 
adaptation of electoral practices, costs would also be incurred in terms of time and effort in 
preparing  legislation  and  adapting  the  procedures.  Significant  economic  costs  for  Member 
States would arise if penalties or liability arises where there is non-compliance with specific 
legal obligations imposed in option 2.  

Estimates of administrative costs for obligations addressed to Member States’ public authorities 

of 

Type 
obligation 
Obligations 
related 
to 
further  reducing 
technical 
the 
possibilities 
of 
multiple voting 

Option 1: Reinforce measures 

Option 2: Reform the existing framework 

set 

exchanged 
Data 
To define a common data set, the information 
from electoral and population registers needs 
to be collected and linked. The costs involved 
for Member States will vary significantly and 
depend  on  their  current  data  operation.  In 
general, Member States with central electoral 
registers linked to the population register (e.g. 
SE,  FI,  EE)  will  face  lower  costs  than 
Member  States  using  decentralised  registers 
(e.g. DE). 

Harmonisation of registration process 

The  exact  costs  will  vary  between  Member  States  and 
depend on the baseline situation, namely the distance to 
the  new  common  deadline  and  whether  legislative 
reform would be necessary. This may entail significant 
costs  for  Member  States  as  deadlines  currently  vary 
widely. 

Increase  mobile 
EU 
citizens’ 
awareness  and 
understanding of 
procedures  and 

Introduce  specific  information  requirements 
for MS to inform mobile EU citizens prior to 
elections 

Member  States  will  carry  varying  costs 
depending  on  their  baseline  situation,  e.g. 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
already  have  direct  mailouts  and  information 
available  and  the  number  of  mobile  EU 
citizens they host. Overall, the possible costs 
for  Member  States  across  the  EU-27  are 
estimated at around EUR 2.7 million with the 
highest  costs  in  the  significant  countries  of 
residence for mobile EU citizens, i.e. DE, ES, 
FR, IT.85 

Standardised  templates  for  the  mandatory 
declaration available in all languages  

The  preparation,  translation  of  forms  would 
take  place  at  EU  level.  Therefore  no  costs is 
foreseen for Member States 

to 
practices 
register  and  to 
participate 
in 
municipal 
elections 
European 
elections 

and 

 Reduce 
administrative 
barriers 
faced 
by  mobile  EU 
when 
citizens 
registering 
to 
vote  and  stand 
as  candidates  in 
municipal 
and 
European 
elections 

Automatic registration to municipal elections 
This  would  entail  one-off  and  recurrent  costs  for 
Member  States  that  may  vary  depending  on  whether 
voting registers and population register. 

Estimates of administrative costs for obligations addressed to EU public authorities 

Option 1: Reinforce measures 

Option 2: Reform the existing framework 

Streamlined  shared  resource.  The  running 
costs  of  this  resource,  assuming  it  would  be 
integrated in an existing structure such as the 
EDCC,  would  be  between  EUR  39,300 
(baseline)  and  EUR  78,500 
(assuming 
doubling of volume of enquiries). 

New  resource  specifically  for  electoral  rights  with 
support services 

Setting up a new resource will entail significant costs. 
It  is  feasible  that  they  would  exceed  the  costs  for  the 
helpdesk related to the EP elections 2019 (as part of the 
European  Citizens’ initiative)  of  around  EUR 500,000 
over four years. 

of 

Type 
obligation 
Increase  mobile 
citizens’ 
EU 
awareness  and 
understanding of 
procedures  and 
practices 
to 
register  and  to 
participate 
in 
municipal 
elections 
European 
elections 

and 

the 
of 
for 

and 

Improve 
collection 
data 
European 
elections 
municipal 
elections 

ECNE  meets  to  discuss  how  to  best  collect 
and share data 

is 
The  costs  for  one  network  meeting 
estimated at around EUR 9,000, the total cost 
will depend on the number of meetings. Other 
costs are assumed to be minor. 

 Collaboration  between  DG  JUST,  Eurostat 
and  national  statistical  institutes  to  collet, 
harmonise and publish turnout data 

The  additional  costs  in  each  Member  State 
would vary.  The costs for additional network 
meetings  would  range  between  EUR  19,080 
(two  additional  annual  meetings)  and  EUR 
38,160 (four additional annual meetings). 

85 For more information on these costs, see Annex 6 

35 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
5.2.2.2. Estimates of benefits for obligations addressed to public authorities 

Estimates of benefits for obligations addressed to Member States’ public authorities 

Type of benefit 

Option 1: Reinforce measures 

Option 2: Reform the existing framework 

Direct benefits 

Efficiencies in administration: 
Time 

Efficiencies in administration:  
Cost-reduction 

in 

Standardised  templates  available  in  all 
languages  Exchange  of  data,  long-term 
efficiencies 
to 
exchange 
cooperation and coordination 
Common  starting  period  of  the  exchange 
and  data  set  collected  and  exchanged: 
Higher  accuracy  and  success  rate 
in 
identification of double voters 

due 

Harmonisation of process for registration 

Higher  accuracy  and  success 
identification of double voters 

rate 

in 

Automatic registration to municipal elections 

No  additional  registration  procedure/forms 
required 

Exchange  of  data,  long-term  efficiencies 
to  cooperation  and 
in  exchange  due 
coordination 
Promotion of exchange of good practices between Member States 
Reduced cost of having to develop own projects 

Exchange  of  data,  long-term  efficiencies  in 
and 
to 
exchange 
coordination 

cooperation 

due 

 Increased cohesion 

Improved 
quality of data 

data 

base/ 

Indirect benefits 

Better  integration  of  mobile  EU  citizens 
(in general)  
Simplifying  registration  requirements  and 
enhancing 
information  provision  and 
awareness raising on voting 
Increased availability and accuracy of data 
for policy intervention  

Better  integration  of  mobile  EU  citizens  (in 
general)  
Simplifying  registration  requirements  and 
enhancing 
and 
awareness raising on voting 
Increased  availability  and  accuracy  of  data 
for policy intervention  

information 

provision 

Estimates of benefits for obligations addressed to EU public authorities 

Type of benefit 

Option 1: Reinforce measures 

Option 2: Reform the existing framework 

Integrity of elections 

Multiple voting is prohibited and reduced technical possibilities and better information of 
mobile EU citizens of multiple voting will lead to fewer occurrences. 

Direct benefits 

Increased cohesion 

Promotion  of  exchange  of  good  practices 
between Member States 

Promotion  of  exchange  of  good  practices 
between Member States 

Indirect benefits 

Better  integration  of  mobile  EU  citizens 
(in general)  
Simplifying  registration  requirements  and 
enhancing 
information  provision  and 
awareness raising on voting 

Better  integration  of  mobile  EU  citizens  (in 
general)  
Simplifying  registration  requirements  and 
enhancing 
and 
awareness raising on voting 

information 

provision 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Improved 
quality of data 

data 

base/ 

Improve 
European 
elections 

the  collection  of  data 

for 
and  municipal 

elections 

Improve the collection of data  for European 
elections and municipal elections 

5.2.3 Fundamental rights impacts 

All the policy options beside the status quo lead to an improvement in the promotion of the 
rights to vote and to stand as a candidate, which are enshrined in  Articles 39 and 40 of the 
Charter of Fundamental Rights respectively. Furthermore, the widespread implementation of 
procedures such as automated enrolment and permanent enrolment can reduce the burden on 
mobile EU citizens and therefore further facilitate the exercise of such rights. 

The  proposed  revisions  in  policy  options  1  and  2  would  promote  the  principle  of  good 
administration,  enshrined  in  Article  41  of  the  Charter,  due  to  improved  clarity  and 
simplification  of  procedures,  facilitated  exchange  of  information  and  easier  interactions 
between citizens and authorities. 

The processing, including collection, access and use of personal data falls under Article 8 of 
the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights on the right to data. Interference with this fundamental 
right  must  be  based  on  law,  respect  the  essence  of  this  right  as  well  as  be  necessary, 
proportionate and genuinely meet the objective of general interest recognised by the Union. 

The personal  data would be collected for  a specified purpose of preventing multiple voting 
and  not  further  processed  in  a  manner  that  is  incompatible  with  this  purpose.  Only  the 
minimum  amount  of personal  data necessary to  achieve the intended purpose of preventing 
multiple voting would  be exchanged and these data would be kept in a form which permits 
identification  of  data  subjects  only  as  long  as  necessary.  Also  other  principles  and 
requirements of the relevant EU data protection acquis86 would be complied with, including 
ensuring the security of the personal data being exchanged in prevention of multiple voting. 

Removing the differences in treatment of mobile EU citizens when exercising their electoral 
rights  as  compared  to  nationals  of  the  Member  States  of  residence  would  be  rooted  in  the 
prohibition  of any discrimination on grounds  of nationality  as enshrined  in  Article 21(2) of 
the Charter.  

Additionally,  Article  26  of  the  EU  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  states  that  the  Union 
recognises  and  respects  the  right  of  persons  with  disabilities  to  benefit  from  measures 
designed to ensure their independence, social and occupational integration and participation 
in the life of the community. This also include mobile EU citizens with disabilities. 

However, measures under Option 2 on automatic registration would appear disproportionate 
as  it  would  mean  that  mobile  EU  citizens  would  be  deprived  of  the  discretion  to  choose 
whether  they  wish  to  be  registered  as  a  voter  in  a  host  Member  State.  In  addition,  it  could 
expose  them  to  sanctions  in  Member  States  where  there  is  a  legal  obligation  for  registered 
voters to participate in elections while not being fully aware of it. 

Policy option 

1 

2 

86 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural 
persons  with  regard  to  the  processing  of  personal  data  and  on  the  free  movement  of  such  data,  and  repealing  Directive 
95/46/EC (“GDPR”). 

37 

 
 
 
                                                           
Impact 

Promotion of electoral rights  
Good administration  
Equal treatment  
Data protection  

5.2.4 Subsidiarity  

●●● 
●● 
●●● 
●●● 

●●● 
●●● 
●● 
●●● 

As mentioned in section 1, action by Member States could not solve the problems identified 
for  reasons  ranging  from  a  voluntary  approach,  spill-over  effect  or  nature  of  the  problems. 
One of the key elements of the right to vote and stand as candidates of mobile EU citizens is 
that  it  is  connected  with  the  exercise  of  free  movement  and  by  its  nature  involves  multiple 
Member States. It is also one of the elements that form the European citizenship which in its 
turn  is  bound  up  with  European  democracy  that  European  institutions  must  nurture  and 
protect. EU action is therefore needed to eliminate the obstacles faced by mobile EU citizens 
and  to  support  their  participation  in  municipal  elections  and  elections  to  the  European 
Parliament. One other issue to be taken into account is the dynamics of the intra-EU mobility 
of  Union  citizens  and  the  effect  it  has  on  the  enjoymentEU  citizenship  and  the  electoral 
rights.. Separate interventions of host Member States addressing the participation of mobile 
EU citizens in elections, albeit best practices in the field, are not sufficient to respond to the 
challenges  which  the  understanding  of  European  citizenship  and  European  democracy  is 
confronted with.  

Mobile  EU  citizens  should  expect  similar  treatment  of  the  exercise  of  their  electoral  rights 
from all Member States. While such a treatment cannot be fully harmonised because it would 
either  infringe  on  exclusive  competencies  of  member  states  or  the  action  of  EU  would  not 
achieve  better  results  than  that  of  the  Member  States,  a  group  of  uniform  core  elements, 
essential for the effectiveness of electoral rights can be envisaged. 

One  of  the  main  elements  of  policy  option  1is  access  to  electoral  information  as  a  key 
component of the electoral rights which stem from the European citizenship and thus are not 
a part of the electoral formalities within the purview of the Member States. Lack of adequate 
information affects in different degrees mobile EU citizens and public administrations as well 
as their interactions throughout the EU. The flow of electoral information between mobile EU 
citizens, Member States and EU institutions has to be addressed comprehensively at EU level  
and  a  Member  States  level  in  order  to  tackle  simultaneously  all  the  problems  mobile  EU 
citizens are confronted with in the exercise of their electoral rights, conflating proportionality 
considerations with subsidiarity. 

Another  argument  in  the  same  direction  is  that  Regulation  2018/1724  already  sets  quality 
lines for the provision of information on participating in elections to the European Parliament 
and  in  municipal  elections  by  Member  States  on  their  national  webpages.  As  the  policy 
options  envisage  extending  correspondingly  the  standards  set  out  in  Regulation  (EU) 
2018/1724  to  the  direct  and  individual  provision  of  official  electoral  information  to  mobile 
EU citizens by the Member States, it does not affect their electoral competencies. Under the 
same group of fundamental elements underpinning the exercise of electoral rights, electoral 
rolls,  which  contain  information  on  the  eligible  voters,  act  as  an  integrity  safeguard, 
preventing individuals from voting more than once. Each voter can only be registered once, 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
multiple  registrations  of  the  same  voter  for  the  same  election  being  incompatible  with  the 
“one person, one vote” rule. In the case of elections to the European Parliament, the electoral 
territories of the Member States form in fact a single constituency, which means that electoral 
equality can be ensured only if the aforementioned rule applies.  Due to the fact that overall 
electoral equality in elections to the European Parliament can only be tackled at the level of 
the  contested  constituency,  both  policy  options  which  address  multiple  voting  and  de-
registration of mobile EU citizens comply with the subsidiarity principle.  

Both policy options address the issue of the information provided by mobile EU citizens to 
host  Member  States  for  registration  purposes.  As  the  registration  is  followed  by  a  cross-
border  exchange  of  information,  establishing  templates  and  data  sets  for  this  exchange  is 
within the remit and better addressed by the European Union. However, imposing  automatic 
registration  of  mobile  EU  citizens  under  Option  2  will  have  a  significant  impact  on  the 
electoral  procedures  of  Member  States  that  use  active  registration.  At  the  same  time,  de-
registration  of  mobile  EU  citizens  from  their  home  Member  States  is  an  issue  better 
addressed  at  EU  level  due  to  its  cross-border  component  and  general  implications  on  the 
effectiveness of the rights which make up the European citizenship. 

6. HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE? 

Based  on  the  assessment  of  the  likely  various  impacts  (economic,  social,  security  and 
fundamental  rights  impacts)  and  their  distribution  across  stakeholders  (citizens,  businesses 
and  public  authorities)  under  previous  section,  this  section  compares  the  different  options 
with regard to their effectiveness, efficiency and coherence with other (EU) policies. 

6.1 Effectiveness 

Proposed  scoring:  ●  Minor  contribution  towards  objectives;  ●●  Major  contribution,  but 
without fully achieving objectives; ●●● Achieving objectives. 

Objective 1: Increase mobile EU citizens’ awareness and understanding of  procedures 
and practices to register and to participate in municipal and European elections. 

Option  1  provides  for  both  active  obligations  in  the  field  of  information  provision  and  for 
direct  support  offered  to  the  citizens  at  their  request.  The  first  measure  would  ensure  that 
mobile  EU  citizens  are  proactively  targeted  with  the  same  information  that  is  shared  with 
national citizens and in more than just one language. The second measure at EU level would 
rationalise existing support services for mobile EU citizens and national authorities. (Score: 
●●●).  Option  2  would  create  a  new  resource  which  could  be  helpful  in  channelling  the 
communication resources from EU and Member States level specifically  on electoral rights. 
However,  it  would  risk  to  duplicate  the  efforts  of  Member  States  and  EU,  increase 
proliferation of sites and services and making it even harder for people to  figure out  where 
they can get help (Score: ●●).  

Objective 2: Limit de-registration practices of Member States only to those elections in 
which there is a risk of multiple voting. 

In  Option  1,  a  legal  provision  is  proposed  which  would  limit  deregistration  of  mobile  EU 
citizens  only  where  necessary,  as  a  result  of  EU  election  data  exchanges  to  ensure  its  non-
occurrence and put procedures in place accordingly. (Score ●●●) 

Objective 3: Reduce the administrative barriers faced by mobile EU citizens when 
registering to vote and to stand as candidates in municipal as well as European elections 

39 

 
 
Option  1  contains  measures  that  seek  to  simplify  the  administrative  steps  by  providing  for 
the  use  of  a  standardised  form  available  in  all  languages.  (Score  ●●)  Finally,  Option  2 
includes  a  measure  that  would  require  automatic  registration  for  municipal  elections,  in 
addition  to  the  standardised  form.  For  the  reasons  discussed  above,  by  removing  active 
registration,  this  should  contribute  to  increased  reducing  barriers  and  the  effort  required  to 
vote. (Score ●●●) 

Objective 4: Reduce the possibilities of multiple voting by mobile EU citizens for 
European elections. 

Option 1 includes measures to reduce multiple voting providing a distinct improvement on 
the current situation, as it increases the chances that the information exchanged is sufficient 
to correctly identify voters in home Member State electoral rolls. Imposing an obligation for 
Member States to inform EU citizens about prohibition of multiple voting in a personalised 
manner  might  have  beneficial  effects.  (Score  ●●)  Option  2  goes  further  in  minimising  the 
technical possibilities of multiple voting and seek to address the most significant issues faced 
by Member States in preventing it (Score ●●●)  

Objective 5: Improve the collection of data for European elections and municipal 
elections 

Option  1  envisages  that  based  on  the  standardised  templates  of  the  formal  declarations 
required  to  register  as  a  voter  and  as  a  candidate,  data  collection  in  Member  States  would 
improve.  More  granular  information  will  be  available  both  for  elections  to  the  European 
Parliament  and  municipal  elections  (Score  ●●).  In  Option  2  the  harmonised  processes  and 
fixed  data  to  be  collected  by  Member  States  would  ensure  not  only  that  more  data  are 
available  but  that  they  are  available  at  the  same  time.  This  would  not  have  an  important 
impact  on  the  transparency  of  the  elections  to  the  European  Parliament  or  in  supporting 
policy intervention as Member States usually provide access to electoral information either at 
the date it becomes available or within a reasonable timeline. (Score ●●) 

Objective 6: Ensure that mobile EU citizens have the same possibilities to stand for 
candidates in municipal elections 

Measures in Option 1, would not be expected to effectively address the equal opportunities 
of mobile EU citizens to stand as candidates. This would mean that political change is down 
to political will and offers little impetus for Member States to change the status quo. (Score 
●) Option 2’s legal requirement entails the clearest non-discrimination measure, and directly 
addresses  the  issue.  While  such  restrictions  are  not  in  place  in  most  Member  States,  it 
represents a major improvement in cases where restrictions are in place. A smaller additional 
effect  on  turnout  may  be  found  in  the  measure  to  remove  the  possibility  to  restrict  certain 
mandates to home nationals. While it is uncertain to what extent this will lead to more mobile 
EU  citizens  standing  for  election,  a  more  diverse  pool  of  candidates  could  have  a  minor 
positive effect on voter participation, with mobile EU citizens feeling more represented in the 
election (Score ●●●). 

6.2 Efficiency 

Proposed scoring: ● Considerable additional costs or effort, non-proportionate to the benefits 
and with difficult implementation; ●● Neutral or small increase in costs, proportionate to the 
additional benefits; ●●● Any increases in costs are outweighed by the benefits. 

40 

 
 
Option  1  is  successful  in  achieving  the  objectives,  and  where  costs  are  implied,  they  are 
proportional  to  or  outweighed  by  the  expected  benefits  of  the  measures.  Establishing  a 
common dataset would be a significant measure to address the information mismatches that 
occur in the ongoing data exchange. The costs and effort for Member States will depend on 
what  information  they  currently  collect,  and  how  it  is  processed.  However,  as  newly-
registered  mobile  EU  voters  already  have  to  supply  certain  information  items,  it  does  not 
seem unreasonable to provide additional pieces of information. This measure may also carry 
cost-saving effects for Member States as recipients of the information, if they can spend less 
time  on  manually  matching  incomplete  or  inconclusive  information.  Together  with  the 
measures discussed in the paragraph above, these measures collectively make good progress 
towards the objective of preventing multiple voting. 

The  costs  and  effort  of  the  final  measures  in  Option  1  largely  depend  on  their  scope  and 
design. The measure which foreseen to streamline existing resources does not appear to carry 
significant costs; on the Member State end, no additional effort would be expected. For the 
two  measures  intending  to  support  awareness  of  electoral  rights,  the  associated  effort  will 
depend  on  the  current  baseline  in  Member  States  (as  shown  in  Table  1  in  Annex  1). 
Clarifying the requirement to inform mobile EU citizens of the effects of registration on their 
home Member State electoral rights would not be expected to increase efforts, as this could 
be  communicated  (and  generally  is)  in  connection  with  the  registration  form,  and  would 
contribute to the objective of ensuring that mobile EU citizens are aware of their rights and 
responsibilities.  

Finally, the obligation to inform citizens in a personalised and individual manner will lead to 
the most differentiated costs and effort between Member States. First, it would depend on the 
extent to which Member States already have some form of direct communication in place to 
inform  EU  citizens  (see  Table  1  of  Annex  1);  In  Member  States  that  do  not  have  such 
communication  in  place,  the  cost  would  depend  significantly  on  how  their  population 
registers  are  organised,  namely  information  on  the  nationality  and  current  address. 
Furthermore, this information needs to be communicated between the register-holder and the 
authority  for  communicating  election  information.  In  Member  States  with  several  different 
registers, the implementation may therefore require more cost and effort.  

Another  aspect  of  added  cost  of  more  individual  communication  measures  are  translation 
costs,  where  Member  States  generally  do  not  provide  electoral  information  in  English. 
However, translation costs – which would not be expected to be significant – are motivated 
by the necessity to provide information that can be understood by mobile EU citizens, at least 
in  English  but  possibly  also  in  other  significant  languages  of  the  EU  community  in  that 
Member State. Even with the additional effort required by some Member States, an improved 
flow  of  information  to  mobile  EU  citizens  may  increase  interest  in  and  awareness  of 
elections, and ensure that they are able to use their electoral rights fully. With this in mind, 
the  cost  in  some  Member  States  appears  motivated  by  the  progress  towards  the  objective. 
(Score: ●●●) 

Option  2  generally  makes  significant  progress  towards  the  objectives  through  greater 
harmonisation  of  Member  State  procedures,  but  in  some  cases  carry  costs  which  do  not 
appear proportional in relation to the progress towards the objectives compared to Option 1. 
The  variation  in  expected  costs  remains  the  same:  automatic  registration  for  municipal 
elections  could  be  a  relatively  easy  policy  to  implement  in  Member  States  where  local  or 
national population registers have clear information on nationality, length of stay and address. 

41 

 
 
In  Member  States  with  many  disparate  registers,  or  where  registration  upon  arrival  is  not 
required87,  implementation  will  be  more  difficult,  and  require  more  resources.  With  some 
allowance  for  variation  in  national  circumstances88,  the  implementation  of  automatic 
registration can contribute to increased interest in and engagement with elections, while also 
ensuring that non-national voters do not face undue barriers to the exercise of their electoral 
rights. 

Ultimately,  the  most  significant  –  and  possibly  prohibitive  –  costs  come  in  relation  to 
measures aiming to prevent multiple voting. Harmonising deadlines for electoral registration 
would go a long way towards addressing one of the most common issues of the current data 
exchange system, where information  often  reaches Member States at  a stage when it is  too 
late to act on it. However, implementing this change would be a significant project in some 
Member States,  given how registration deadlines for EP elections vary  between a  few days 
before  election  day,  to  up  to  6  months  in  advance.  It  is  not  possible  to  estimate  the  effort 
required  to  change  these  deadlines  for  administrations  due  to  the  significantly  differing 
institutional frameworks of the Member States, but it is reasonable to expect that the time of 
preparing and agreeing to a proposal towards a common deadline would command significant 
time and work at both EU-level and Member State level. In Member States where deadlines 
are defined in law, significant effort may be required to prepare and carry out a change in the 
law, again with the possibility of political opposition.  It is likely that the biggest  effort and 
cost will be required for those Member States whose current deadlines diverge the most from 
the proposed harmonised deadline; these Member State would likely also be the least positive 
toward the proposal. 

Harmonising data requirements may also require significant resources, although less so than 
harmonising  deadlines.  The  cost  and  effort  of  harmonising  data  requirements  will  in  other 
words depend on the information currently collected and exchanged between Member States, 
and on the harmonised requirements. If some form of personal ID is required to be linked to 
the electoral register, then Member States which do not currently have this in place may face 
significant costs in developing one.  

Establishing a common European information resource would have limited costs for Member 
States as this  information is  already  available to them, and only needs to be communicated 
onward to the EU institutions. (Score: ●) 

6.3 Coherence  

Proposed scoring: ● Lacks coherence with legislation; ●● Broadly coherent with legislation, 

but some gaps; ●●● Coherent with legislation.  

The proposed measures under the different options need to be analysed in relation to relevant 
EU measures. 

The  reform  the  Electoral  Act  of  the  European  Union  was  adopted  by  the  Council  Decision 
(EU,  Euratom)  2018/994  on  the  revision  of  the  EU  electoral  law.  However,  it  is  not  yet  in 

87 Ireland and France. 
88  E.g.  if  all  resident  mobile  EU  citizens  cannot  be  registered,  it  might  be  possible,  subject  to  respect  of  data  protection 
requirements, to link voter registration to those who have registered for taxes or social security. Although this would likely 
be costly, it could offer a way around for Member State not having the required population registers in place. 

42 

 
 
                                                           
application as still it has not been ratified by three Member States. The amendments proposed 
aimed  at  solving  some  of  the  deficiencies  identified,  promoting  harmonisation  of  certain 
aspects of electoral rules such as the proportional representation and deadlines for submission 
of  candidacies.  It  encourages  Member  States  to  provide  for  possibilities  of  advance  voting 
such as postal voting, and electronic and internet voting, in European elections and requires 
Member  States  to  adopt  measures  to  ensure  that  multiple  voting  is  subject  to  effective, 
proportionate and dissuasive penalties. 

In  parallel,  the  Commission  Communication  2020/790/EU  of  3  December  2020  on  the 
European  democracy  action  plan  announced  the  Commission  intention  to  protect  electoral 
processes and propose a new operational EU mechanism to strengthen cooperation between 
Member States and regulatory authorities89.   

All measures proposed under the three options, aim at achieving similar objectives to those 
inspiring Council Decision 2018/994 on the revision of the EU electoral law and Commission 
Communication 2020/790/EU(Score ●●●). 

When it comes to information provision related activities, Option 1 would be the preferable 
options  as  it  will  ensure  coherence  with  other  instruments  such  as  the  EU  Single  Digital 
Gateway Regulation by reinforcing them (Score ●●●). Option 2 will be less coherent on this 
aspect because it would conflict with the EU Single Digital Gateway Regulation main goal to 
have an EU-wide entry  point for citizens and businesses to access information and services 
(Score ●).   

6.4 

Subsidiarity and Proportionality  

Option  1 proposes  to  amend existing provisions in order to  clarify Member States’ specific 
obligations to inform mobile EU citizens in plain language, in multiple languages and in an 
individualised manner prior to local and EP elections on their registration status, registration 
procedure,  voting  modalities.  The  evidence  identified  shows  that  this  measure  would  not 
require excessive effort from Member States and therefore it is considered proportional to the 
achievement of the objective sought.  (Score ●●●). 

Option  1  also  proposes  to  define  a  starting  date  for  the  period  of  exchange  of  data,  a 
mandatory data set to be exchanged between Member States by introducing standardised 
templates. This type of measure would facilitate the exchange of information on mobile EU 
citizens between Member States which has been identified as one of the best instrument for 
limiting  the  possibilities  of  multiple  voting.  Option  1  ensure  convergence  of  one  of  the 
administrative  aspects  necessary  for  the  exchange  of  data  that  has  a  reduced  impact  on 
Member  States  compared  to  measures  proposed  in  Option  2.  Option  1  is  preferable  with 
regard  to  proportionality  as  it  ensure  more  compatibility  with  the  legal  and  constitutional 
traditions  of Member States.  Further convergence on other aspects  such as  the deadlines of 
electoral  periods  would  have  a  greater  impact  on  the  legal  traditions  of  Member  States 
electoral laws. Depending on the level at which legislation is positioned in the national legal 
framework  (constitutional  level,  primary  law,  secondary  law),  it  might  be  very  difficult  to 
change  it.  By  virtue  of  the  principle  of  non-discrimination,  it  will  create  a  disproportionate 
impact  with  electoral  rules  applying  to  nationals.  Proportionality  might  also  be  an  issue  as 

89 COM(2020) 790 final – 3.12.2020. 

43 

 
 
                                                           
implementation costs would be significant in those Member States which do not collect the 
data  set  required  for  which  an  interim  period  might  be  foreseen.  However,  taking  into 
consideration  the  serious  implications  deriving  from  multiple  voting,  this  measure  is 
considered proportionate as the data set has been designed by taking into consideration data 
already  collected  by  a  great  number  of  Member  States.  In  addition,  it  may  also  bring  cost-
saving effects to Member States as recipients of the information, as they would need to spend 
less time to manually match incomplete or inconclusive information. (Score ●●●).  

As  mentioned  above,  Option  2,  as  an  alternative,  envisages  a  legal  obligation  on  Member 
States to establish automatic registration for municipal elections. As explained in section 1, 
there are limited and specific problems arising from administrative procedures. The measure 
would be not be proportional for most Member States compare to the result to be achieved 
which  can  be  better  solved  by  other  means.  It  would  create  a  disproportionate  effects  on 
nationals  in  the  case  of  Member  States  which  use  active  registration  for  their  citizens.  It 
would  also  mean  that  mobile  EU  citizens  could  be  exposed  them  to  sanctions  in  Member 
States where there is a legal obligation for registered voters to participate in elections while 
not  being  fully  aware  of  it.  Also  political  will  is  required  for  successful  adoption  of  the 
measure, and it is possible that electoral sentiment in some Member States leads to opposition 
against automatic registration90. Political will and electoral sentiment may also complicate the 
measure that removes obstacles against non-nationals standing for certain political mandates; 
in  itself  this  does  not  imply  additional  costs,  but  in  terms  of  time,  it  is  possible  that  some 
Member States may find it more difficult to implement the measure than others91. (Score ●) 

Option 2 instead, proposes to align Member States’ registration deadlines for the mobile EU 
citizens  to  enter  in  the  electoral  roll,  which  would  remove  a  significant  obstacle  faced  by 
Member States in the exchange of information on mobile EU citizens. As well within Option 
2,  a  legal  provision  is  proposed  to  harmonise  and  streamline  the  data  requirements  to  be 
exchanged between Member States while respecting the principle of data  minimization and 
accuracy.  As  mentioned  under  Option  1  this  type  of  measure  facilitates  the  exchange  of 
information  on  mobile  EU  citizens  between  Member  States  and  the  limitation  of  the 
possibilities of multiple voting. The difference with option 2 is that the new provision would 
aim  at  fully  harmonising  the  implementation  of  the  data  to  be  exchanged  in  all  Member 
States.  It  would  require  modifying  the  electoral  law  that  defines  the  deadlines  within  the 
whole  procedure.  Therefore,  proportionality  might  be  an  issue  and  measures  will  be  more 
intrusive and less acceptable by Member States. However, this measure could enable Member 
States to have sufficient time to match incomplete or inconclusive information. (Score ●●). 

Option  1  proposes  the  development  of  a  new  legal  provision  to  forbid  de-registration  of 
mobile EU citizens from other elections in their Member States of origin as a result of data 
exchanges for European elections. This measure aim to prevent a consequence from current 
legislation, as data show that deregistration of mobile EU citizens as a result of information 
exchanged between Member States may prevent them from exercising their right to vote. It is 
considered  proportionate  because  it  also  aims  at  preventing  the  effects  of  the  above 

90 E.g. if there is a broad agreement that voters should show engagement by opting in, or in some cases if there are objections 
to non-nationals influencing politics in the first place. 
91  In  a  2015  Eurobarometer  poll,  48%  of  respondents  said  that  non-national  EU  citizens  should  not  be  able  to  stand  as 
candidates for certain executive offices that currently are only open only to nationals; European Commission (2016)  ‘Flash 
Eurobarometer 431: Electoral Rights’, p. 9. 

44 

 
 
                                                           
mentioned  provisions  to  be  introduced  to  prevent  multiple  voting,  which  will  significantly 
increase the scale of the phenomenon of deregistration. (Score ●●●). 

Option  1  proposes  the  adoption  of  soft-law  measures  encouraging  Member  States  to  take 
measure promoting participation of mobile EU citizens in intermediary levels of government. 
The  measures  ensure  proportionality  as  they  leave  to  Member  States  the  political  will  to 
decide if removing such restrictions or not.(Score ●●) In Option 2, it is proposed to remove 
the  possibility  to  restrict  certain  mandates  to  home  country  nationals.  It  would  achieve  the 
objective of equality of mobile EU citizens but subsidiarity and proportionality in some cases 
might  be  an  issue  which  doesn’t  take  into  consideration  the  specific  situation  of  Member 
States. (Score ● ). 

Option  2  proposes  to  establish  a  single  new  resource  for  citizen  enquires  about  electoral 
rights  and  a  new  Member  States’  obligation  to  provide  information  to  mobile  European 
citizens  about  their  electoral  rights.  The  new  resource  is  an  EU  level  activity  and  should 
therefore  be  adopted  at  EU  level.  The  measures  under  option  2  fulfil  the  principle  of 
proportionality  (Score  ●●).  However,  Option  1  would  obtain  a  better  score  as  there  are 
already  existing services that provide help  to  citizens that could  be improved  implying less 
costs (Score ●●●). 

Table I: Effectiveness towards specific objectives  

Effectiveness  Objective 1: Increase mobile EU citizens’ 

awareness and understanding of procedures 
and practices to register and to participate in 
municipal and European elections. 

Option 1 

Option 2 

●●● 

●● 

Objective  2:  Limit  de-registration  practices 
of  Member  States  only  to  those  elections  in 
which there is a risk of multiple voting. 

●●● 

Not 
applicable 

Objective 3: Reduce the administrative 
barriers faced by mobile EU citizens when 
registering to vote and to stand as candidates 
in municipal as well as European elections 

Objective 4: Reduce the possibilities of 
multiple voting by mobile EU citizens for 
European elections. 

Objective 5: Improve the collection of data 
for European elections and municipal 
elections 

Objective 6: Ensure that mobile EU citizens 
have the same possibilities to stand for 
candidates in municipal elections 

●● 

●●● 

●● 

●●● 

●● 

●● 

● 

●●● 

Table II: Comparisons of policy options  

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Effectiveness  

Efficiency 

Coherence 

Subsidiarity and Proportionality 

7. PREFERRED OPTION 

Option 1 

Option 2 

●● 

●●● 

●●● 

●● 

●●● 

● 

●● 

● 

It is suggested to propose a targeted revision of the existing legislative framework contained 
in Directives 93/109/EC and 94/80/EC, as outlined in policy option 1 complemented by non-
legislative measures.  

Such  an  approach  would  maximise  the  effect  of  consolidating  the  relevant  Directives 
governing  electoral  rights  of  mobile  EU  citizens,  and  ensure  a  comprehensive  approach  to 
tackle  the  identified  problems  and  achieve  maximum  impact  for  the  exercise  of  electoral 
rights of mobile EU citizens, while respecting national competence in electoral matters.  

Introducing  the  possibility  of  delegated  acts  to  modify  the  non-essential  elements  of  the 
Directives  would  provide  for  a  more  dynamic  governance  structure  in  line  with  the 
possibilities  offered  by  the  Lisbon  Treaty.  This  would  contribute  to  maintaining  legislation 
updated and its efficient implementation. 

Objective 

Preferred option 

Further 
possibilities of multiple voting.  

reduce 

the 

technical 

  Definition of data set to be collected and exchanged  
  Starting period of exchange of data is established  
 

Introduction  of  specific 
for 
Member  States  to  inform  mobile  EU  citizens  on  the 
prohibition of multiple voting and its consequences 

requirement 

information 

Increase  mobile  EU 
citizens’ 
awareness  and  understanding  of 
procedures  and  practices  to  register 
and  to  participate  in  municipal  and 
European elections. 

 

information 

Introduction  of  specific 
for 
Member  States  to  inform  mobile  EU  citizens  in  plain 
language and in an individualised manner prior to municipal 
and  European  elections  about  their  registration  status, 
registration procedure and voting modalities 

requirement 

  Require  Member  States  to  provide  timely  information  to 
mobile EU citizens about their electoral rights and regularly  
after their registration as voters or candidates. 

  At EU level – via a streamlined shared resource increase the 
in 

information  provision 
to  mobile  EU 
communication efforts on European elections  

citizens 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Reduce  the  administrative  barriers 
faced  by  mobile  EU  citizens  when 
registering  to  vote  and  to  stand  as 
candidates  in  municipal  as  well  as 
European elections. 

Limit  de-registration  practices  of 
Member  States  only 
those 
elections  in  which  there  is  a  risk  of 
multiple voting.  

to 

Ensure  that  mobile  EU  citizens  have 
the  same  possibilities  to  vote  and 
stand  for  candidates  as  non-mobile 
citizens 

Improve  the  collection  of  data  for 
European  elections  and  municipal 
elections 

 

Introduce standardised templates for registration available in 
all  languages  (Article  9  and  10  for  European  elections  – 
Article 8 and 9(2) for municipal elections) 

  Prohibit deregistration of  mobile  EU citizens from national 
other  elections  as  a  result  of  exchange  of  data  to  prevent 
multiple voting in European elections 

  Support  equal  access  to  executive  functions  for  municipal 

 

 

 

elections 
Introduce  a  requirement  to  report  on  the  application  of 
provisions regarding restrictions on executive functions  
Introduce explicit reference to equality of voting option  

Insert provisions  for a regular  monitoring and reporting of 
implementation by Member States. 

  Work  with  the  national  statistical  institutes  and  election 
management bodies to collect, harmonise and publish more 
granular  data  on  participation,  in  municipal  and  European 
elections  

  Remove  the  obsolete  provisions  as  specified  in  section 

 

2.3.7 
enhanced  legal  certainty  with  a  clear  legal  framework 
governing  use  of  the  crypto  tool  including  concerning 
security  requirements.  The  Commission  will  be  given 
implementing  act  powers  to  define  responsabilities  and 
obligations for its operation.  

7.1 Indicative Impact of the Preferred Option on Member States  

Member States will be differently affected by the preferred policy option depending on their 
baseline situation and what measures are already in place. Impacts on the Member States of 
the different measures under the preferred option is difficult to estimate with precision, due to 
many variables which will be explained below.  

Impact of measures related to information-related barriers 

Broadly,  measures  related  to  information-related  barriers  would  entail  an  extension  of 
existing  information  efforts,  and  costs  would  come  in  the  preparation  and  dissemination  of 
materials  relating  to  mobile  EU  citizens’  electoral  rights  in  the  Member  State,  information 
which is generally already available through booklets or online92.  

Some  measures  on  informing  mobile  EU  citizens  in  an  individualised  and  direct  manner 
about  voting  registration,  modes  of  voting,  and  the  functioning  of  their  respective  electoral 
systems is already in place in some form in 14  Member States.93. Therefore no major cost or 

92 Also required to be on Your Europe Portal from December 2020 

93 Table 1 in Annex 1  

47 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
impact is foreseen in these Member States. As one would expect, the highest costs are found 
in significant countries of residence for mobile EU citizens, i.e. Germany, Spain, France and 
Italy. The exact costs will however depend on the exact time taken to prepare materials for 
circulation, and whether savings may be had through e.g. electronic distribution of materials 
(e.g.  in  Estonia  and  Finland  it  is  possible  to  choose  to  receive  electoral  communications 
electronically) or lower-cost postage94. 

In addition, communication such as proactive mail-outs to newly-arrived mobile EU citizens 
is not possible in cases where the Member State of residence does not mandate new arrivals 
to  register  their  residence  (France,  Ireland).  Without  this  data,  it  is  not  possible  to  identify 
new arrivals. However, where this is the case, national authorities should be appointed with 
responsibility  for  taking  the  necessary  measures  to  ensure  that  mobile  EU  citizens  are 
informed in a timely manner of the conditions and detailed rules for registration. To decrease 
some  of  the  cost  in  implementing  this  measure,  it  could  be  expected  that  information  on 
voting  and  candidate  registration  is  sent  to  mobile  EU  citizens  using  electronic  means  of 
communication on the basis of the contact information provided at their registration.  

In  addition,  a  requirement  to  inform  mobile  EU  citizens  in  a  more  targeted  manner  would 
likely have most impact in Member States like Bulgaria, Greece, Cyprus, where information 
is generally available only in the national language.  

Measures  to  ensure  information  to  mobile  EU  citizens  can  be  complemented  with 
requirements  of  measures  to  improve  information  on  registration  and  deregistration. 
Information  to  mobile  EU  citizens  on  the  effect  of  their  registration  on  their  status  in  the 
electoral  roll,  and  on  the  need  to  deregister  when  leaving  the  Member  State  of  residence, 
would not  entail much extra work for authorities.  In many  cases, this information  is  shared 
already  when  registering,  either  verbally  or  as  part  of  standard  text  on  registration  forms. 
Member States that regularly update the electoral roll (e.g. Spain updates it monthly, every 2 
years and every 5 years) may furthermore contact mobile EU citizens for confirmation of the 
information, in case changes have occurred since registration.  

Impact of measures related to multiple voting  

Measures to prevent double voting by defining the starting period for the data exchange 
and  a  mandatory  dataset  to  be  collected  and  exchanged  will  have  different  impacts 
depending on the Member State’s starting point. This data set would include: name, place and 
date  of  birth,  and  identification  number  from  the  country  of  nationality  or  alternatively 
passport number or ID card number.  

A mandatory dataset to be exchanged do not seem to entail much extra work and for Member 
States where incomplete or incorrect  data is  a recurring problem,  especially Member States 
requiring extensive biographic information or the inclusion of diacritic characters for correct 
identification, this could entail a significant cost-saving and efficiency-increasing measure.  

As a standard, registration as a voter requires ID (sometimes in the form of national ID cards 
of  the  country  of  residence),  and  in  a  few  cases  proof  of  residence  (Denmark,  France). 

94 Indicative costs for all Member States are shown in Table 7 in Annex 6  

48 

 
 
 
                                                           
Member States also require mobile EU citizens to sign a form or provide a statement to the 
effect that they (i) will only vote in the Member State of residence, where they are registering 
to  vote,  and  (ii)  that  they  retain  their  right  to  vote  in  their  Member  State  of  nationality. 
Member State authorities can also generally demand further information or documentation if 
they have reason to doubt the truthfulness of the submitted information. 

Further  verification  of  documents  is  only  required  in  two  cases:  in  Croatia  a  notarised 
statement of personal details and retained electoral rights in the Member State of nationality 
is required, and in Ireland registration documents must be witnessed and signed by a notary 
public, solicitor, or police officer (Gardaí)95. Some additional Member States (e.g. Italy and 
Spain) may request documentation which supports voting rights in the home Member State, 
but generally only if there is doubt over the veracity of submitted information.  

The  proposed  data  set  contain  elements  which  are  already  collected  in  the  majority  of 
Member State96. A key issue in this regard is whether there is a unique personal ID number 
available97  –  if  there  is,  this  is  generally  all  that  is  needed  for  identification  (conversely, 
identification  is  not  possible  at  all  if  the  wrong  ID  number  is  provided).  As  the  data  set 
foresee that the ID number is included in electoral rolls, costs and effort depend on whether 
the  Member  State  has  an  ID  that  can  be  used  –  whether  through  labour  registration,  social 
security, tax account, or other registers98 – or whether other ID documents would be used.  

Any new solution must also be applied retroactively to people already in the register, this will 
further increase the potential cost. 

Impact of measures related to administrative barriers  

Measures  to  introduce  standardised  templates  that  the  voter  only  casts  their  vote  in  the 
Member  State  of  residence  would  not  be  expected  to  have  a  significant  associated  cost  for 
Member  States,  as  similar  assurances  are  already  gathered  in  the  process  of  registration. 
However,  implementation  costs  may  arise  depending  on  what  occasion  these  templates  are 
introduced  for.  If  they  are  to  be  submitted  in  connection  with  registration,  this  would  not 
generally  have  an  effect  on  costs  or  procedures  as  similar  information  is  already  collected. 
However, if it is to be collected at the point of voting, it would add a significant amount of 
effort in Member States where processing of new voters is not done in polling stations99; this 
would not only require training of staff to check for valid ID documents and other supporting 

95 In the Irish case, an ongoing process of modernizing the  electoral process means that this requirement  may 
change in the future; cf. Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage (2021) ‘General Scheme 
of 
at: 
2020’, 
<https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/34cf6-general-scheme-of-the-electoral-reform-bill-2020/>.  

Electoral  Reform  Bill 

published 

available 

January 

2021, 

the 

8 

96 Table 6 in Annex 6 

97 Overview of personal ID numbers in Member States are shown in Table 5 in Annex 5  

98 It should be noted that where these systems have not generally interacted with electoral registers, significant 

additional costs may accrue in linking the two systems. 

99  As  an  example,  it  is  possible  for  mobile  EU  citizens  in  Romania  to  register  as  a  voter  if  they  can  provide 
information  which  supports  their  biographical  details,  residence  status  in  Romania,  and  retained  electoral 
rights in their home Member State. 

49 

 
 
                                                           
information, but would also add a lot of documents to process in the aftermath of the election. 
Furthermore,  many  Member  States  noted  that  the  list  of  voters  circulated  to  polling  station 
staff does not contain information on nationality, and thus would require additional changes 
to processing and procedures.  

Impact of measures related to deregistration practices 

Prohibiting  deregistration  of  mobile  EU  citizens  from  the  electoral  roll  following  data 
exchanges  in  connection  with  the  election  to  the  European  Parliament  to  prevent  double 
voting or when carrying out regular updates would require different resources depending on 
the Member States’ population and electoral registers and how they interact.  

Member  States  already  seek  to  avoid  deregistration  from  other  electoral  lists  based  on  data 
exchanges relating  to  the European Parliament,  and the  extent to  which  they  are successful 
depends on their available data and processes. Some Member States  (e.g. Hungary) already 
apply a policy of no deregistration of their nationals and would always enable national mobile 
EU  citizens  to  vote  in  their  home  country  (based  on  the  declaration  that  they  only  vote  in 
their  home  country)  regardless  if  they  are  deregistered  in  their  country  of  residence  or  not. 
Other Member States with centralised population registers which in turn provide information 
to their electoral registers (as is the case in e.g. Estonia, Finland and Sweden) are effective in 
preventing deregistration that would affect mobile EU citizens exercise their electoral right, 
as  data  only  needs  to  be  ‘flagged’  once.  Some  federalised  Member  States  with  centralised 
population registers based on information from the local ones, establish a system of regular 
updates (e.g. monthly updates in Spain) and contact their electoral registers for confirmation 
or information. In Member States with no centralised registers or where the problem is more 
common due to lack of data collection100, it will presumably require more effort in terms of 
improving the accuracy of data collection or improving the communication between different 
registers.  

Impact of measures to ensure that mobile EU citizens have the same possibilities to vote 
and stand for candidates as non-mobile citizens 

Soft-law  measures  to  support  the  increased  participation  of  mobile  EU  citizens  to 
intermediary  levels  of  government  face  the  barrier  of  being  non-compulsory.  Removing 
restrictions  on  which  political  mandates  mobile  EU  citizens  can  be  elected  to  would  not 
necessarily  be technically  difficult,  but  would  require legal changes  and  political  decisions. 
Such a reform process may be lengthy and could also face national opposition. In Austria and 
Germany, where provisions vary between different federal states, the reform process may be 
lengthier still. Implementation costs would otherwise likely be minor, if the political will is 
there. However, the Directives will be updated to ensure that Member States report on those 
restrictions. This would not comport major efforts by Member States. 
Impact  of  measures  to  improve  the  collection  of  data  for  European  elections  and 
municipal elections 

The collection of data for European elections and municipal elections will benefit from the 
use of common templates of the formal declarations which mobile EU citizens will have to 

100  Note  that  it  was  not  possible  in  baseline  Member  State  research  or  follow-up  interviews  to  establish  how 
common the problem of mistaken deregistratios is, as Member States do not collect data on this issue.  

50 

 
 
                                                           
produce when registering as voters and candidates. The aggregation of the data provided by 
mobile  EU  citizens  will  require  the  implementation  of  specific  procedures  and  additional 
personnel in the case of Member States which have decentralized registration procedures (e.g. 
in  Germany).  In  the  case  of  Member  States  which  use  centralized  registers  and  have 
implemented  centralized  procedures  to  aggregate  results,  no  additional  efforts  will  be 
required. 

7.2 REFIT Cost Savings – Preferred Option 

As  mentioned  above,  the  preferred  option  would  entail  some  costs  for  Member  States’  and 
EU administrations for enhanced cooperation, but it is also expected to facilitate efficiencies 
for  authorities  due  to  harmonised  processes.  Moreover,  some  Member  States  already  have 
systems  close  to  the  obligations  envisaged  in  the  preferred  option  and  would  thus  not  face 
significant additional costs. 

The preferred option would simplify the process of registering to vote and stand as candidates 
in municipal and European elections for millions of mobile EU citizens. It would also reduce 
their costs compared to the baseline. 

Description 

Amount 

Comments 

Reduced costs for mobile EU 
citizens to register to vote and 
stand as candidates in municipal 
and European elections 

Savings from reduced 
administrative burdens 

Less time needed to register and 
reduced number of documents 
necessary to be provided. 

Simplified access to clear 
information on national 
procedures and requirements. 

Simplified registration procedure 
will result in efficiencies for 
administrations. 

Recipient: Mobile EU citizens 

Recipient Host Member States’ 
administrations 

8. HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? 

8.1 Plan for future monitoring and evaluation 

Implementation will be monitored in terms of the measures adopted at the EU and Member 
State  level  to  implement  the  legislative  and  non-legislative  measures  deriving  from  the 
preferred option, based on the amended provisions that will create a monitoring and reporting 
cycle.  Member  States  shall  adopt  and  publish  the  measures  necessary  to  comply  with 
Directive 93/109/EC by 31 May 2023. Within 6 months after each election to the European 
Parliament, Member States shall send a report to the Commission on the  application of this 
Directive. Within  one  year after each election to  the European Parliament, the Commission 
shall submit a report to the European Parliament  and the Council on the application of this 
Directive. The Commission may propose any amendments that are deemed necessary. 

Member  States  shall  bring  into  force  the  laws,  regulations  and  administrative  provisions 
necessary to comply with the amendments made to Directive 94/80/EC within two years of 
its entry into force. Within three years of the entry into force of the Directive and every two 
years thereafter, the Member States shall report to the Commission on the application of the 

51 

 
 
 
Directive. The report shall contain relevant  statistical  data on the participation  in  municipal 
elections  of voters and  candidates and  a summary  of measures taken in  that  regard. Within 
five  years of the entry into  force of  Directive 94/80/EC  and every five  years thereafter, the 
Commission  shall  submit  a  report  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the 
application of this Council Directive. 

Statistical  data  should  include  the  number  of  mobile  EU  citizens  registered  as  voters  and 
candidates,  the  number  of  mobile  EU  citizens  who  exercised  their  right  to  vote  and  the 
number  of  elected  mobile  EU  citizens.  Additional  statistical  data  such  as  the  number  of 
mobile  EU  citizens  who  are  members  of  a  political  party,  would  also  be  envisaged.  The 
statistical data will be structured and categorized uniformly and used to assess the impact of 
the changes to the above mentioned directives on the participation of mobile EU citizens in 
the electoral processes of their host Member State.  

The  Commission  will  also  conduct  an  evaluation  of  the  performance  of  both  Directives,  in 
order to consolidate the information that will be collected from the implementation reports of 
the Member States and the Commission and from the meetings of the European cooperation 
network on elections and other relevant sources. After the entry into force of the new rules, 
the evaluation of both Directives is envisaged to take place within two years from the last two 
elections to the European Parliament.  

For the evaluation of the success of this initiative, the below table can provide an overview of 
the indicators and targets envisaged.  

Specific 
objective 

Indicator  Definitio

n 

of 
Unit 
measurem
ent 

Data 
source 

Basel
ine 

Target 

31%  

62% 

Frequenc
y 
of 
measurem
ent 

After 
every 
European 
Election  

Data  shared 
by  Member 
States. 

Number  of 
mobile  EU 
citizens 
whose data 
is 
being 
exchanged 

Reduce 
the 
possibiliti
of 
es 
multiple 
voting 

Identificati
on  rate  of 
mobile EU 
citizens 
during  the 
exchange 
of 
informatio
n 

Increase 
mobile EU 
citizens’ 
awareness 
and 
understand
of 
ing 

awareness 
of 
prohibition 
of multiple 
voting 
among 
mobile EU 

the  share 
of 
records 
received 
from 
country 
of 
residence 
that  were 
successfu
lly 
matched 
to 
citizens 
of 
country 
of origin 

the 

of 

prohibiti
on 
multiple 
voting  is 
known 
by 

Number  of 
responses 
from 
mobile  EU 
citizens 

Eurobarom
eter, 
targeted 
surveys 
among 
mobile  EU 
citizens, 

After 
every 
European 
Election 
and  every 
5  years  for 
municipal 

Exam
ple:  

14%-
16% 
they 
are 

Example: 
Decrease 
10%  

to 

52 

 
 
 
citizens 

citizens 

procedures 
and 
practices 
to  register 
to 
and 
participate 
in 
municipal 
and 
European 
elections 

of 

awareness 
of the right 
to  vote  in 
the 
Member 
State 
residence 
for  mobile 
EU 
citizens 
and related 
registratio
n 
procedures  

the  right 
to vote in 
the 
Member 
State  of 
residence 
for 
mobile 
EU 
citizens 
and 
related 
registrati
on 
procedur
es 
known 
by 
mobile 
EU 
citizens 

are 

number  of 
citizens 
making 
of 
use 
informatio
n 
provision 
services  at 

Access to 
EDCC 
and  Your 
Europe 
Advice 
and  Your 
Europe 

Data  shared 
by  Member 
State, 
feedback 
from  other 
key 
stakeholder
s  such  as 
citizens 
groups, 
expats 
associations 
and  direct 
feedback 
from 
citizens 
including 
complaints 
and queries 

Data  shared 
by  Member 
States. 

targeted 
surveys 
among 
mobile  EU 
citizens, 
feedback 
from  other 
key 
stakeholder
s  such  as 
citizens 
groups, 
expats 
associations 
and  direct 
feedback 
from 
citizens 
including 
complaints 
and queries 

EDCC  and 
Your 
Europe 
Advice 
statistics  

Your 
Europe 

elections 

After 
every 
European 
Election 
and  every 
5  years  for 
municipal 
elections 

not 
aware 
of  the 
prohi
bition 
Kanta
r 
(2021
) 
surve
y  of 
mobil
e  EU 
citize
ns 

71% 
for 
Europ
ean 
electi
ons 
and 
56% 
muni
cipal 
electi
ons, 
(FL 
EB 
485) 

to 
for 

Increase 
75% 
European 
elections  and 
for 
60% 
municipal 
elections  

After 
every 
European 
Election 
and  every 
5  years  for 
municipal 

Europ
ean 
Electi
ons: 
betwe
en 
1/9/20
18 and 
30/6/2

of 
for 

Increase 
30% 
European 
in 
Elections 
correspondin
g period  

For  EP  and 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
EU level  

Portal 

elections 

Portal 
statistics  in 
number  of 
accesses  to 
municipal 
elections 
and 
elections 
pages 

EP 

municipal 
elections: 
increase 
to 
access 
in 
pages 
Your  Europe 
Portal.  

019: 
414 
(Your 
Europ
e 
Advic
e) 

Betwe
en 
Januar
y  and 
April 
2019, 
374 
(EDC
C)  

Number  of 
responses 
received 
from 
mobile  EU 
citizens 

number  of 
requests 
received 
from 
mobile EU 
citizens 
who  faced 
administra
tive  issues 
to 
participate 
in 
elections 
in 
Member 
State 
residence 

their 

of 

number  of 
citizens 
mentionin
g 
deregistrat
ion 
practices 

Number  of 
responses 
received 
from 
mobile  EU 
citizens 

Reduce 
the 
administra
tive 
barriers 
faced 
by 
mobile  EU 
citizens 
when 
registering 
to vote and 
to  stand  as 
candidates 
in 
municipal 
as  well  as 
European 
elections 

Limit  de-
registratio
n 
practices 
of 
Member 
States 
only 
those 
elections 
in  which 
there  is  a 

to 

EDCC  and 
Your 
Europe 
advice 
statistics, 
Data  shared 
by  Member 
States. 
feedback 
from  other 
key 
stakeholder
s  such  as 
citizens 
groups, 
expats 
associations 

Complaints 
and 
enquiries 
received  by 
DG JUST 

EDCC  and 
Your 
Europe 
advice 
statistics, 
Data  shared 
by  Member 
States. 
targeted 
surveys 
among 
mobile  EU 

After 
every 
European 
Election 
and  every 
5  years  for 
municipal 
elections 

Decrease  of 
the  number 
of mobile EU 
citizens  who 
mention 
administrativ
e issues  

After 
every 
European 
Election 
and  every 
5  years  for 
municipal 
elections 

Decrease  of 
the  number 
of mobile EU 
citizens  who 
de-
invoke 
registration 
as a reason to 
not 
participate  in 
elections 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
of 

risk 
multiple 
voting 

the 

Ensure 
that 
mobile  EU 
citizens 
have 
same 
possibilitie
s  to  vote 
and  stand 
for 
candidates 
non-
as 
mobile 
citizens 

Changes 
in the legal 
framework 
of 
Member 
States 

Number of 
mobile EU 
citizens 
using 
alternative 
voting 
means 

Number of 
debates 
Number of  
legislative 
initiatives   

Changes 
in the legal 
framework 
of 
Member 
States 

Equal 
access  to 
any  type 
of special 
voting 
arrangem
ent  or  to 
e-voting. 

Ratio 
of 
mobile  EU 
to 
voters 
national 
voters  per 
each 
type 
of  voting 
arrangeme
nt 

Type  and 
number  of 
eligible 
executive 
positions 
within 
local 
authorities  

Mobile 
EU 
citizens 
can  stand 
as 
candidate
s  for  all 
eligible 
positions 
contested 
in 
municipa
l 
elections 

citizens, 
feedback 
from 
key 
stakeholder
s  such  as 
citizens 
groups, 
expats 
associations 

Data  shared 
by  Member 
States. 

- 

After 
every 
European 
Election 
and  every 
5  years  for 
municipal 
elections 

Increase the 
number of 
mobile EU 
citizens 
using 
alternative 
voting means 

Information 
shared 
by 
Member 
States. 

  Every  5 
years 
for 
municipal 
elections 

12 
MS 
restri
ct 
positi
ons to 
mobil
e EU 
citize
ns 

6 MS 
organise at 
least one 
debate on the 
topic at 
national level  

3 MS 
envisage 
legislative 
changes  

If 
measures 
are 
implement
ed  more 
data  will 
be 
available  

Improve 
the 
collection 
of 
data 
for 
European 
elections 
and 
municipal 
elections 

Data  shared 
by  Member 
States. 

After 
every 
European 
Election 
and  every 
5  years  for 
municipal 
elections 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

1.  Lead DG, Decide Planning/CWP references 

This Staff Working Document was prepared by the Directorate General of Charge of Justice 
and Consumers. 

The Decide Planning reference of the initiatives are PLAN/2020/8646 and PLAN/2020/8645. 
One common impact assessment has been prepared.  

2.  Organisation and timing 

The Impact Assessment was prepared by DG JUST as the lead Directorate General. 

The  Inter-Service  Steering  Group  (ISSG)  on  EU  citizenship  was  associated  and  consulted 
several  times  in  the  process,  i.e.  on  13  January,  16  April  and  27  August  2021,  under  the 
coordination  of  the  Secretariat-General.  It  included  the  following  services:  COMM,  EAC, 
GROW, JUST, JRC, RTD, SJ, TAXUD, SANTE, MOVE, HOME, ESTAT, ECFIN, REGIO, 
SG.  A  written  consultation  of  the  ISSG  on  the  draft  impact  assessment  was  conducted 
between 2-16 August. 

The  last  meeting  of  the  ISSG,  chaired  by  the  Secretariat-General  of  the  European 
Commission was held on 27 August 2021. 

Minutes of the last ISSG– 27 August 2021 

Participants:  SG:  Julien  MOUSNIER  (Chair)  JUST:  Marie-Helene  BOULANGER,  Srd 
KISEVIC,  Silvia  LOPEZ,  Luise    QUARITSCH,  Deborah  RICCETTI,  Lina  SCHNEIDER; 
JRC: Michele D’ADDETTA; ESTAT: Javier ALCANTARA ORTEGA; MOVE Ruth LOPIAN; 
EMPL Iva ZAMARIAN 

-  SG  recalled  that  electoral  rights  of  mobile  citizens  will  be  an  important  component  of  a  
“democracy  package”,  to  be  adopted  in  November  (with  Political  Ads  and  the  revision  of  
rules on European Political Parties) and announced this will be the last ISSG meeting on the 
draft Impact Assessment (IA) before it is submitted to the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) 
on 1st September. 

-  SG  thanked  all  DGs,  DG  JUST  in  the  first  place,  for  all  the  hard  work  and  the  useful 
discussions  over the last months and asked the participants for  possible final  comments  on 
the  draft  or  comments  for  the  records.  Comments  received  during  Summer  time  have  been 
implemented. 

-  DG  JUST  explained  the  current  improvements  and  refinements  brought  to  the  draft,  in 
particular to reflect comments already received in writing, and notably: 

56 

 
 
 
  Clarifications  that  it  will  not  be  possible  to  envisage  the  use  of  e-ID  to  prevent 

multiple voting in the immediate future; 

  Changes will be made with regards to delegated acts, after discussion with LS; 
  LS is still verifying the legal basis for Option 3 (which is not a preferred option) 

and the text will be adapted accordingly if necessary; 

  Work continues with the contractor with a view to improve the underlying study; 
  Work  also  continues  to  improve  the  economic  analysis  and  the  language 

consistency of the IA; 

  The proposals will strengthen sanctions relating to barriers to participation or to 

equal opportunities; 

  They will also adapt outdated provisions. 

- No other DG took the floor 

Operational conclusions 

-  Final  comments  by  DGs,  clearly  indicating  ownership,  should  be  send  with  a  deadline 
Friday 27/08 lunchtime.  

- IA to be sent to the RSB by 1st September, with a hearing planned on 29 September 

3. Consultation of the RSB 

An  upstream  meeting  took  place  on  8  March  2021  and  the  recommendations  of  the 
Regulatory Scrutiny Board were duly taken into account.  

The Regulatory Scrutiny Board discussed the draft impact assessment in the hearing that took 
place on 29 September 2021. 

The  Board  issued  a  positive  opinion  on  the  draft  impact  assessment.  The  Board’s 
recommendations have been took into account in the Impact Assessment, as the table below 
displays. 

Opinion of the Board 
The  report  should  present  more 
clearly  the  factors  influencing  the 
electoral  behaviour  of  mobile  EU 
citizens.  Accordingly, 
should 
identify  the  modest  scale  of  the 
problem  in  a  more  realistic  and 
balanced  way. 
relative 
importance of the problem should be 
better  assessed  and  presented,  to 
make clear who is primarily affected 
or not. 

The 

it 

Implementation 
The  impact  assessment  clarified  and  contextualized 
the  factors  influencing  electoral  behaviour  of  mobile 
EU  citizens,  such  as  length  of  stay  in  the  country  of 
residence  and  consequential  better  knowledge  of  the 
election process and political system. It is also paying 
tribute  to  more  individual  circumstances  that  may 
influence  citizens  voting  behaviour,  such  as  socio-
economic  status  and  language  knowledge.  While  the 
overall  problems  remained  the  same,  the  impact 
assessment now gives better indication of the scale of 
the  problems  by  pointing  out  the  specificity  of 
different  aspects  of  voting  obstacles  and  linking  it 

57 

 
 
the 

represent 

The presentation and the structure of 
the  policy  options  should  bring  out 
more  clearly  the  available  policy 
from  presenting 
choices.  Apart 
cumulative  options, 
report 
should  clarify  how  the  options  and 
real 
their  measures 
alternatives.  Measures 
are 
already  part  of  the  current  policy-
mix  should  be  integrated  in  the 
baseline scenario. 
The  respect  of  the  subsidiarity  and 
proportionality  principles  should  be 
better  reflected  in  the  assessment 
and 
options, 
including  by  highlighting  policy 
options  that  have  been  discarded  in 
this respect.  

comparison 

that 

of 

report 

should  assess  how 
The 
Member  States  will  be  affected 
differently 
proposed 
measures. It should better reflect the 
the 
likely 
initiative. 

limited 

impact 

the 

by 

of 

should 

The  monitoring  and  evaluation 
provisions  should  be  more  precise. 
the  specific 
The  description  of 
the 
outline 
objectives 
expected achievements.  
Future  evaluation  of  the  initiative 
and  its  timing  should  be  presented. 
should 
The  proposed 
permit success to be measured. 

indicators 

more accurately to the demographic affected.  
As a consequence to this comment, the policy options 
were  adapted  to  better  reflect  the  key  policy  choices 
and  disaggregated.  The  baseline  scenario  was 
extended to include the measures already in place. To 
present  the alternative policy choices better, and as a 
result  of  the  extension  of  the  baseline  scenario,  the 
number  of  policy  options  was  reduced  from  three  to 
two. 

The  impact  assessment  now  includes  policy  options 
that  were  disregarded  due  to  proportionality  and 
efficiency  considerations  at  an  earlier  stage  of  the 
process. Subsidiarity considerations were added to the 
assessment  of  policy  options,  outlining  the  necessity 
of  action  on  the  grounds  of  the  nature  of  the  matter 
involving multiple Member States. 
An  additional  section  in  the  comparison  chapter 
specifies 
and  proportionality 
considerations  for  each  policy  choice  in  the  two 
options,  leading  to  a  more  stringent  assessment  on 
these grounds.  

subsidiarity 

the 

A  section  on  the  indicative  impact  of  the  preferred 
option on Member States  was added, listing in  detail 
the impact of each measure envisaged in the preferred 
policy  option.  This  includes  taking  into  account  that 
some  Member  States  already  have  some  of  the 
envisaged  provisions  in  place,  limiting  the  impact  of 
the  preferred  policy  option  to  those  Member  States 
that most deviate from the foreseen adaptations.  
The impact assessment now explains in greater detail 
the  envisaged  monitoring  cycle  for  the  next  5  years 
after  its  entry  into  force,  including  monitoring  and 
data reporting requirements for Member States.  

Indication  of  the  timing  for  a  future  evaluation  was 
added.  An  table  detailing  the  indicators  and  targets 
envisaged to measure the success of the initiative was 
added,  listing  the  specific  objectives,  their  indicators 
and  definitions  as  well  as  the  unit  of  measurements, 
data  source,  frequency  of  measurement,  the  current 
baseline and the target aimed for.  

4. Evidence, sources and quality 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
The  impact  assessment  was  informed  by  multiple  sources  and  information  generated 
specifically for the impact assessment. Sources of information comprised 

  direct feedback from citizens in their contacts with the Commission; 
  expert  consultations  in  particular  in  the  framework  of  the  expert  group  on  electoral 
matters and ECNE (Annex 2 provides further details on the these consultations)101; 
  an open public consultation from 19 April 2021 to 12 July 2021102 (Annex 2 provides 

 
 

further details on the open public consultation); 
interviews with stakeholders including Member States as well as  
relevant  studies,  including  those  conducted  by  the  Network  of  academics  on  EU 
citizenship103, literature and EU publications in particular the Reports on European104 
and municipal elections105 issued by the Commission in the last 5 years.  

A study has been commissioned to feed into the Impact Assessment, containing generation of 
material such as data collection based on qualitative interviews. 

5. Implementation plan 

Implementation will be monitored in terms of the measures adopted at the EU and Member 
State  level  to  implement  the  legislative  and  non-legislative  measures  deriving  from  the 
preferred option. Based on the amended provisions that will create a monitoring and reporting 
cycle, the Commission  should  submit an implementation  report to  the European Parliament 
and the Council after every European Election for Directive 93/109/EC and of the and every 
five years after entry into force for Council Directive 94/80/EC 94. 

The  assessment  of  impacts  will  rely  on  an  essentially  qualitative  methodology  (e.g.  an 
analysis  of  feedback  from  national  authorities  and  other  key  stakeholders  such  as  citizens 
groups, including complaints) on the extent to which implementation of the preferred policy 
option achieves the desired impacts and contributes to the achievement of the general aims of 
EU intervention.  

As the improvement of the collection of data for European elections and municipal elections 
is an objective in itself envisaged by this initiative, it is expected that better quantitative data 
would be available in relation to (i) the registration, (ii) identification on electoral rolls, and 

101https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/eu-citizenship/electoral-rights/european-

cooperation-network-elections_en#meetings  

102 https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/ElectoralRightsMobileEUCitizens  
103 See, especially, Political Participation of Mobile EU Citizens, Network of academics on EU citizenship (EU-

CTZEN), September 2018, https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/eu-citzenglobalcittypebreport_en  

104 

The 

most 

recent 

one 

was 

announced 

in 

June 

2020, 

accessible 

via: 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/com_2020_252_en_0.pdf    

105  The  most  recent  one  was  announced  in  in  February  2018,  accessible  via  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52018DC0044  

59 

 
 
                                                           
(iii)  turnout  of  mobile  EU  citizens  for  European  and  municipal  elections,  as  well  as  the 
number  of  mobile  EU  citizens  who  (iv)  stand  as  candidates  and  (v)  who  are  elected  in 
European and municipal elections. Quantitative data on identification rate of multiple voting 
would also be available.  

Nevertheless,  it  will  be  important  to  adopt  a  realistic  approach  to  monitoring  the 
implementation of the preferred policy option and not to over-burden national authorities.  

Consultations  with  Member  States  will  be  needed  to  determine  the  most  appropriate 
frequency of data collection and reporting but an annual cycle could be suggested. The data 
collected at Member State level will then have to be analysed on the EU level. 

60 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 

2.1 The stakeholder engagement strategy 

The  Commission  has  conducted  wide  consultations  on  issues  related  to  electoral  rights  of 
mobile  EU  citizens  during  the  last  year  and  recently  in  the  course  of  2021  until  July.  The 
consultation  process  built  upon multiple  elements, which helped identify  the  key  issues  at  stake 
as well as the spectrum of pertinent options and their assessment.  

The stakeholder engagement strategy aimed at gathering the input of the following actors:  

  National authorities including through the European Cooperation Network 

on Elections and the expert group on electoral matters. Two dedicated sessions took 
place respectively on 28 January 2021 and on 10 June 2021  

  Civil society organisations advocating for fundamental and democratic rights (such 

as digital rights); 

  Other stakeholders and the general public including citizens themselves through 

the OPC of which a thorough data analysis has been conducted.  

An open public consultation (“OPC”) took place in the period 19 April 2021 to 12 July 2021 (twelve 
weeks) to support the revision of the Directives 93/109/EC and 94/80/EC. It provided information to 
develop the problem definition and policy options. 

Discussions on electoral matters in the Council (including in the GAG Working Party when discussing 
the reform of the EU electoral law) and in the European Parliament (including in the Committees in 
charge of Constitutional Affairs, Legal Affairs, Civil Liberties,  Justice and Home Affairs and Petitions) 
has  provided significant  input  to  this  process106.  Discussion  in  the  Working  Party  on  Fundamental 
Rights,  Citizens  Rights  and  Free  Movement  of  Persons  (FREMP)  and  the  relevant  Parliament 
committees in the context of the 2020 Citizenship Report and citizenship in general was also taken 
into account107. 

2.2 Open public consultation (OPC) – 19 April 2021 -12 July 2021 

An  OPC  was  carried out  in  the  period  19  April 2021 to 12  July  2021.  It was promoted through the 
Commission’s  website,  as  well  as  through  specific networks.  Outreach  to  the  wider  stakeholder 

106 See, for instance, study on Obstacles to participation in  elections and the exercise of  voting rights, inside 
the  E.U,  European  Parliament’s  Policy  Department  for  Citizens'  Rights  and  Constitutional  Affairs, 
September 
2020, 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/658593/IPOL_STU(2020)658593_EN.pdf . 

107 See, for instance, the Joint Hearing on Union Citizenship: Empowerment, Inclusion, Participation, with the 
participation  of  the  JURI,  LIBE,  AFCO  and  PETI  European  Parliament’s  Committees  and  the  European 
Commission,  on  29  October  2020,  https://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/joint-hearing-union-
citizenship-empowerm/product-details/20201023CHE07681 . 

61 

 
 
 
                                                           
community was organised by  communication  services  of  the  European  Commission  (notably  via 
social media).  

61  responses  were  received  with  39  responses  from  the  citizens,  10  from  the  civil  society 
organisations  and  8  from  national  authorities.  Participants  did  not  always  replied  to  all 
questions. Specific questions were tailored for specific groups with some common elements. 
Due to the numbers of participants and the self-selection of respondents,  the validity of the 
OPC is limited.  

A summary of some of the main findings can be found below.  

The  main  countries  respondents  originated  from  were  Germany,  France,  and  Italy,  with 
answers also from participants in Ireland, Portugal, Hungary, Poland, Croatia, Austria, Spain 
and singular input from the UK, Sweden, Romania, Belgium, Slovakia and Latvia. 

On  substance,  the  results  from  the  public  consultation  highlight  that  the  main  obstacles  for 
mobile  EU  citizens  in  availing  of  their  electoral  rights  were  principally  unclear  or  early 
registration deadlines and registration processes.  

The  automatic  notification  of  mobile  EU  citizens  of  their  voting  rights  in  municipal 
elections  once  they  are  registered  in  another  Member  State  is  the  most  supported  policy 
option  in  facilitating  and  increasing  the  participation  of  mobile  EU  citizens  in  municipal 
elections  (see  Figure  1).  Indeed,  53  respondents  either  found  this  policy  option  to  strongly 
increase participation or moderately increase participation. The option that is considered by 
the  largest  number  of  respondents  to  increase  participation  strongly  is  the  automated 
municipal election registration at the time of registration into the new residing state. This 
option  can  be  collected  43  “strongly  increase  participation”  while  the  first  on  automatic 
notification had gathered 35.  

NGOs and many citizens were very much in favour of  automatically notifying mobile EU 
citizens  once  they  register  in  their  new  country  of  residence,  of  their  right  to  vote  at 
European elections in either their country of residence or in their home country.  

Regarding  the  policy  measures  aimed  at  facilitating  and  increasing  participation  of  mobile 
EU citizens in European elections, the options that gathered the most support involved the 
automatic reception of targeted information on the registration requirements and deadlines 
by  mobiles  EU  citizens  ,  as  well  as  automatic  notification  of  EU  mobile  citizens  of  their 
right  to  vote  at  European  elections  either  in  their  country  of  residence  or  in  their  home 
country upon registration in the new country of residence.  

Figure  1:  One  of  the  policy  objectives  of  this  initiative  is  to  facilitate  and  increase  the 
participation of mobile EU citizens in local elections. In your opinion, how likely are the 
following measures to increase the participation of mobile EU citizens in local elections? 
Please place yourself on this scale where '1' indicates that you believe it will “strongly 
decrease  participation”,  '5'  indicates  that  you  believe  it  will  "strongly  increase 

62 

 
 
participation"  and  the  remaining  numbers  indicate  something  in  between  these  two 
positions. (n=60) 

 Source: Annex V to the underlying study - Open Public Consultation analysis 

63 

 
 
 
Challenges in municipal elections 

Feedback from civil society organisations and public authorities shows that the frequency of 
complaints are very diverse among respondents. Responses, as displayed in Figure 2, varied 
significantly.  For  instance,  the  complaint  that  the  information  provided  was  unclear  or  in  a 
language  the  citizens  did  not  understand  gathered  nine  answers.  Unclear  registration 
deadlines  and  registration  processes  have  been  mentioned  by  ten  respondents  as  very 
common  or  common  and  six  have  mentioned  it  is  either  rare  or  very  rare.  When  looking 
specifically  at  respondent  type  (NGO  or  national  authority)  national  authorities  tend  to 
believe there are significantly less complaints than NGOs do. 

Four NGOs, who have mentioned “other” as a common frequency, have given more detail on 
what kind of complaints have come up: 

 
 
 

lack of communication and outreach from municipal and national authorities; 
lack of access and flexibility for people with physical disabilities; 
inability to vote or stand in local elections of people with mental disabilities as they 
are deprived of their legal capacities; 

  mobile EU citizens with disabilities cannot exercise their right to vote in 14 Member 
States because of deprivation of legal capacity and other discriminatory legal barriers 
(in the other 13 Member States this is not the case). 

In  terms  of  candidacy  for  municipal  elections,  the  complaint  that  NGOs  and  national 
authorities  are  most  aware  of  is  the  lack  of  practical  information  on  how  to  stand  for 
candidate.  The  second  complaint  most  observed  involves  unclear  requirements  to  stand  for 
candidate. 

64 

 
 
Figure  2:  To  your  knowledge,  which  of  these  complaints  in  relation  to  voting  in  local 
elections are most frequent? Please place yourself on this scale where '1' indicates that 
you  believe  this  complaint  in  relation  to  voting  at  local  elections  was  “very  rare”,  '5' 
indicates  that  you  believe  this  complaint  was  "very  common"  and  the  remaining 
positions.
numbers 

something 

between 

indicate 

these 

two 

in 

65 

 
 
Challenges in European elections 

When  enquired  about  the  challenges  in  voting  for  European  Elections,  out  of  those 
mobile  EU  citizens  that  did  try  to  vote  for  a  home  country  list  of  candidates  in  the 
European  elections  while  residing  in  another  Member  State,  two  mentioned  unclear 
registration  deadlines.  One  respondent  gave  another  reason  and  mentioned  the 
requirement to drive back to their home country in order to vote. Note though that one of 
the persons who stated “no” also said in the comment box that they voted in their home 
country.  

31  out  of  32  respondents  representing  mobile  EU  citizens  stated  never  having  tried  or 
actually  stand  for  candidate  in  European  parliamentary  elections  while  residing  in 
another MS. One respondent, however, has tried and mentioned not being able to join or 
found a political party. 

As regards the  feedback  from  competent  authorities and civil  society organisations, the 
frequency of complaints received seems to vary a lot depending on the organisation type. 
Most NGOs reported that the complaints proposed by the questionnaire are very common 
and national authorities mostly report that these complaints are rare. Figure 3 shows that 
there is close to an even split in the approximation of complaint type frequency.  

EN 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
Figure  3:  To  your  knowledge,  which  of  these  complaints  in  relation  to  voting  in 
European parliamentary elections are most frequent? Please place yourself on this 
scale  where  '1'  indicates  that  you  believe  this  complaints  in  relation  to  voting  at 
European  parliamentary  elections  was  “very  rare”,  '5'  indicates  that  you  believe 
this complaint was "very common" and the remaining numbers indicate something 
in  between  these  two  positions.  If  you  have  not  received  complaints,  please,  select 

“Not applicable” (n=22) 

Source: Annex V to the underlying study - Open Public Consultation analysis 

Six different respondents complained about the lack on practical information on how to 
stand  for  candidate.  Five  respondents  were  aware  of  people  complaining  about  unclear 
requirements to stand for candidate. Six respondents mentioned not being aware of any 
of the proposed complaint types in the survey question. 

Most  respondents  (30  out  of  39)  consider  it  either  essential  (21)  or  of  high  priority  (9) 
that the EU  further  reduces  barriers for mobile  EU citizens  in  exercising their electoral 
rights. Six find this to be a medium priority and three consider this not to be a priority for 
the EU. 

Ten of the 22 organisations consider that EU action to further reduce barriers for mobile 
EU  citizens  in  exercising  their  electoral  rights  is  essential.  Four  and  five  organisations 
have  mentioned  this  to  be  a  high  and  medium  priority  respectively.  Only  one 
organisation stated that they do not find this to be a priority.  

Preventing double voting in European Parliament Elections 

Public  authorities  have  gathered  that  the  most  politically  and  practically  feasible 
measure  to  prevent  double  voting  in  European  elections  is  a  more  secure  and 
streamlined processes in exchanging data on electoral rolls. The second more politically 

67 

 
 
 
 
and  practically  feasible  measure  involves  reminding  mobile  EU  citizens  of  their 
obligation to de-register upon departure from their country of residence to avoid outdated 
data  being  exchanged.  The  least  feasible  measure  of  the  proposed  list  concerned 
requiring  mobile  EU  citizens  to  declare  whether  they  have  two  EU  citizenships  and  to 
sign  a  declaration  stating  that  they  will  only  vote  in  one  EU  Member  State,  specifying 
which one.  

Figure 4: Which of the above measures, do you think, is most likely to help prevent 
double-voting in European elections? Please rank your top 3 (n=45) 

Source: Annex V to the underlying study - Open Public Consultation analysis 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 5: And how politically and practically feasible do you find these measures to 
fight  double-voting  in European  parliamentary  elections?  Please  place  yourself  on 
this  scale  where  '1'  indicates  not  at  all  feasible,  '5'  indicates  very  feasible  and  the 
remaining numbers indicate something in between these two positions: 5. Requiring 
mobile EU citizens  to sign a declaration stating that they will  only  vote in one EU 
Member State, specifying which one. (n=12) 

Source: Annex V to the underlying study - Open Public Consultation analysis 

Additional feedback provided 

Several respondents provided additional feedback to the OPC. The most relevant for this 
impact  assessment  are  the  following.  One  respondent  suggested  to  be  able  to  vote  in 
other  elections  in  their  country  of  residence,  referring  among  others  to  vote  in  other 
elections  as  a  major  motivation  to  acquire  host  country  nationality.  Other  respondent 
indicated  that  the  ambition  of  allowing  people  to  choose  where  to  vote  (home  or  host 
country) is  a commendable one. One found the information  provided by  the country of 
residence  (Belgium)  excellent.  Another  said  that  information  provision  is  essential  for 
participation.  One  contribution  highlighted  the  need  for  campaigning  to  increase 
participation.  

Written contributions and papers: 

Stakeholders  had  also  the  possibility  to  provide  written  feedback  and  position  papers. 
The  following  stakeholders  have  submitted,  through  or  outside  the  OPC,  a  position  or 
policy paper, shared significant material, or held bilateral meetings with the Commission:  

69 

 
 
 
 
1.  International Working Group Delft (the Netherlands) 
2.  European Disability Forum  
3.  Global  Institute  for  Structure  relevance,  Anonymity  and  Decentralization 

(GISAD) i.G. (Germany) 

4.  Mental Health Europe  
5.  the3million (the United Kingdom) 
6.  Voters Without Borders  
7.  Ministry of Interior of Spain 
8.  European  Federation  of  National  Organisations  Working  with  the  Homeless 

(FEANTSA) 

9.  National Association of Local Communities (Denmark) 
10. Harghita County Council (Hungary) 
11. European Citizen Action Service (ECAS) 
12. Brexpats you matter (France) 

GISAD (a German Institute) welcomes the European Commission’s initiative which aims 
to simplify the voting process for mobile EU citizens. It emphasises the need to allow EU 
mobile citizens to vote digitally  and that the technical standards for elections should be 
the same in  all the EU countries (ensuring, at  the same time, the safe transmission and 
storage of voting data).  

Voters  without  borders  indicated  that  having  automatic  and  online  registration  in  all 
Member  States  would  greatly  encourage  the  participation  of  mobile  EU  citizens  and 
reduce the difficulties associated with administrative processes. They defend that mobile 
EU  citizens  should  have  the  choice  to  register,  as  they  wish,  either  in  their  country  of 
residence or origin for each type of election. They stressed that for the reform to be fully 
effective,  it  is  clear  that  both  hard  and  soft  law  measures  are  needed.  More  emphasis 
needs  to  be  placed  on  information  and  involvement  of  mobile  EU  citizens,  along  with 
cooperation between Member States. 

The  following  types  of  obstacles  and  barriers  to  voting  were  described  in  the 
contributions received: 

- 

Insufficient  information  provision  and  outreach  and  the  fact  that  when 
information is provided it is only in the language of the host country;  

-  Some Member States imposing additional residency requirements (examples cited 

were Czechia and Luxembourg); 

-  The fact that automatic registration is not yet a common practice in most Member 

States and a few Member States require repeated registration; 
-  Registration deadlines being too distant from the actual election; 
-  Disenfranchisement  as  a  result  of  exchange  of  information.  The  Portuguese 
authorities in particular noted that they are frequently faced with complaints that 
Portuguese  nationals  who  used  to  reside  and  vote  abroad  are  not  able  to  vote 

70 

 
 
when  they  return  to  their  home  country  as  they  are  marked  in  electoral  roll  as 
voting for another country (previous country of residence).  

The following obstacles were noted regarding candidacy: 

-  Eligibility restrictions if people want to stand as candidates (inability to stand for 

executive offices); 

-  Difficulties for mobile EU citizens to join political parties in their host country 

FEANTSA points out that homeless persons across the EU who are mobile EU citizens 
face  even  more  challenges  in  exercising  their  rights  than  homeless  persons  who  are 
residents in their home country. It emphasises the need for elections to be inclusive and 
hence ensure participation of these highly disadvantaged groups.  

Mental Health Europe submitted a report prepared together with the European Network 
of National Human Rights Institutions about citizenship rights of people with disabilities 
and under  guardianship.  This  report points out  the difficulties this  target  group have in 
exercising their electoral rights. 

The European Disability Forum (EDF) recommends accessibility to digital solutions (as 
well  as  tools,  information  communication,  identification  methods).  It  advocates  for  the 
same  accessibility  requirements  as  those  laid  down  in  the  2016  Web  Accessibility 
Directive108 for the methods used for European or municipal elections. Should a shared 
source  be  created,  this  should  also  fulfil  the  mentioned  accessibility  requirements  for 
persons with disabilities. 

2.3 Feedback from Member States: ECN & Expert Group on electoral matters  

For  the  purpose  of  this  impact  assessment,  two  joint  meetings  between  the  European 
cooperation network on elections (ECNE)109 and the Expert group on electoral matters110 
were hosted on 28 January 2021 and on 10 June 2021. To facilitate the discussion on the 

108 Directive (EU) 2016/2102 of the  European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2016 on the 
accessibility of the websites and mobile applications of public sector bodies (Text with EEA relevance 
); https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2016/2102/oj  

109 The ECNE was inaugurated in 2019 and brings together representatives of Member States’ authorities 
with competence in electoral matters, and allows for concrete  and practical exchanges on a range of 
topics  relevant  to  ensuring  free  and  fair  elections,  including  data  protection,  cyber-security, 
transparency and awareness raising 

110  The  Expert  group  on  electoral  matters  was  established  in  2005  and  its  mission  is  to  establish  close 
cooperation between the institutions of the Member States  and the Commission on issues relating to 
elections;  to  help  the  Commission  by  providing  information  and  advice  on  the  situation  of  electoral 
rights within the EU and its Member States; and to facilitate the exchange of information, experiences 
and good practices in this area  https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-register/screen/expert-
groups/consult?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=617 . 

71 

 
 
                                                           
revision  of  the  electoral  Directives,  the  a  discussion  paper  had  been  shared  with  the 
participants in advance of the joint meetings 

Some  of  the  issues  discussed  in  these  two  joint  meetings  had  already  been  raised  in 
previous ECNE meetings, such as the need for measures to support participation of EU 
citizens  in  European  elections  and  the  urgency  to  tackle  multiple  voting111.  During  the 
joint meeting hosted on 28 January 2021, there were discussions concerning the obstacles 
that mobile EU citizens face to participate in elections and to exercise their voting rights, 
and  concerning  the  issue  of  preventing  multiple  voting.  Problems  concerning  access  to 
information  about  the  voting  process  were  identified  (such  as  the  lack  of  information 
available  in  simple  language  on  how  to  vote,  when  and  where).  Representatives  from 
some  Member  States  pointed  out  that  voter  names  with  strange  characters  make  it 
difficult  to  exchange  information.  Other  Member  States  stressed  that  some  mobile  EU 
citizens  residing  in  their  countries  had  complained  about  the  fact  that  on  election  day 
they  were  not  able  to  vote  because  they  had  falsely  been  flagged  as  voting  in  their 
Member State of origin. Some Member States recognised the importance of establishing 
an  EU-level  campaign  to  raise  awareness  of  mobile  EU  citizens  about  their  electoral 
rights.  A  majority  of  Member  States  expressed  their  favourable  opinion  towards 
harmonising deadlines to vote and register for European elections.  

During the joint meeting hosted on 10 June 2021, the discussions mainly focused on the 
effective  communication  to  mobile  EU  citizens  about  their  electoral  rights,  the 
registration  procedure  and  the  prevention  of  multiple  voting.  The  majority  of  Member 
States  highlighted  that  mobile  EU  citizens  would  benefit  from  a  shared  resource 
combining all existing material and information on the Directives. Other Member States 
mentioned  the  necessity  to  rely  on  the  Regulation  on  the  EU  Single  Gateway112  to 
provide  access  to  information  on  such  matters.  Some  Member  States  indicated  that  it 
would  be  beneficial  to  harmonise  the  data  set  to  be  exchanged  under  Article  13  of 
Directive 93/109/EC and the timeframe for registration to European elections. 

The European Commission had received feedback from a number of Member States on 
the  basis  of  the  discussion  paper  shared  with  the  participants  in  advance  of  the  joint 
meetings  

111  See,  e.g.,  ECNE  meeting  of  7  June  2019  (https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/minutes-meeting-7-june-
2019_en),  ECNE  meeting  of  24  June  2020  (https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/minutes-meeting-24-
june_en)  and  ECNE  meeting  of  25  September  2020  (https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/minutes-meeting-
25-september_en) . 

112  Regulation  (EU)  2018/1724  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  2  October  2018 
establishing a single digital gateway to provide access to information, to procedures and to assistance 
and  problem-solving  services  and  amending  Regulation  (EU)  No  1024/2012  (Text  with  EEA 
relevance.) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32018R1724 . 

72 

 
 
                                                           
One Member State welcomed the provisions  aimed at  informing mobile  EU citizens of 
their  electoral  rights.  It  also  welcomed  proposals  to  better  combat  multiple  voting. 
However, it expressed its opposition against a harmonisation of registration deadlines for 
European elections. It also highlighted its concern that some policy options might exceed 
EU competence. 

Another  Member  State  highlighted  that  the  harmonisation  of  the  collection  of  personal 
data  for  enrolment  would  mean  that  some  Member  States  of  residence  would  collect 
more personal data than the Member State of origin actually needs to identify a person, 
which could potentially raised data protection concerns. It also pointed out that synergies 
with the eIDAS Regulation113 could benefit this initiative. 

Another  Member  State  indicated  that  a  variable  that  is  considered  essential  and  that 
currently does not appear among the registration data exchanged between Member States 
under Directive 93/109 is the date of registration in the electoral census for the Member 
State of origin and the date of registration of the declaration of intention to vote for the 
European elections in the Member State of residence. If a mobile EU citizen was listed in 
both,  he could  only vote where the most recent  registration appears.  It  also  highlighted 
that  the  main  current  problems  under  the  Directives  stem  from  the  lack  of  a  common 
identifier for EU citizens. 

2.4 Specific consultation conducted by the external contractor  

The external contractor commissioned to provide a study to support the preparation of the 
initiative. Supported by targeted questionnaires, the contactor has conducted an extensive 
range  of  individual  interviews  to  stakeholders  from  all  relevant  categories  (EU  level 
stakeholders, mobile EU citizens and Member States). 

For the Commission, beyond DG JUST, interviews took place with the Commission (DG 
EMPL,  DG  COMM  (EDIC),  DIGIT,  DG  GROW,  (Your  Europe  and  Singe  Digital 
Gateway and Solvit ) and JRC), the Citizen’s Enquiry Unit of the European Parliament, 
EU political parties (EPP, S&D, Greens), the Fundamental rights agency, the Committee 
of the Regions, European Mobile Youth (Annex III of the underlying study). 

The contractor also conducted a targeted online survey of mobile EU citizens (Annex II 
of the underlying study) with a total of 4356 respondents. The purpose was to reach the 
specific  group  of  mobile  EU  citizens  and  evaluate  their  experiences  in  participating 
politically, as well as the variety of factors that influence their participation.  

113  Regulation  (EU)  No 910/2014  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  23 July  2014  on 
electronic identification and trust services  for electronic transactions in the internal  market and repealing 
Directive 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2014.257.01.0073.01.ENG . 

1999/93/EC 

73 

 
 
                                                           
The  survey  wanted  to  assess  the  impacts  of  the policy  options,  aimed  at  increasing  the 
political  participation  of  mobile EU citizens. Secondly, the  goal  was to identify  certain 
characteristics of a target population for which one or the other measures work best. 

The results showed, that the policy measures most likely to result in the highest increase 
in  participation  were  automatic  registration  and  targeted  mail-outs  in  plain  and  simple 
language. It also showed a strong positive effect of a) access to information in news b) 
interest  in  politics  on  turnout.  The  survey  reveals  preference  for  a  diverse  pool  of 
candidates,  where  respondents  state  that  having  more  mobile  Europeans  stand  as 
candidates would have some effect, lower than for other measures tested.  

In preparation of the contractor study, there was an analysis of complaints and enquiries 
received  by  EC  and  EP  services  related  to  local  and  European  Parliament  elections 
(Annex  I  of  the  underlying  study).  The  contractor  conducted  interviews  with  EU-level 
stakeholders (Annex III to the study) and held an online community with experts (Annex 
IV to the study), whose analysed results fed into the elaboration of the study. 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW? 

3.1 Practical implications of the initiative 

The  following  table  presents  a  summary  description  of  the  categories  of  actors 
considered for the purpose of this impact assessment.  

Member States’ public authorities 

Required  to  exchange  harmonised  data  sets  to  reduce  the  technical  possibilities  of  multiple  voting.  Inform 
mobile EU citizens about the procedures and practices to register and to participate in municipal elections and 
European elections and promote the exchange of good practices with other Member States in annual meetings. 

EU public authorities 

Reduce the technical possibilities of multiple voting, by optimising the technical tool for the exchange of data. 
Conduct  a  targeted  campaign  to  inform  mobile  EU  citizens  that  multiple  voting  is  prohibited.  Increase  the 
prominence of information provision around EU elections. In addition, conduct a pan-European campaign to 
inform  mobile  EU  citizens  of  their  electoral  rights.  DG  Just  and  Eurostat  will  collaborate  with  national 
statistical institutes to collect, harmonise and publish turnout data for mobile citizens. 

Mobile EU citizens 

Mobile EU citizens will need less time to register for elections and provide fewer documents.  

3.2 Summary of costs and benefits 

I. Overview of Benefits (total for all provisions) – Preferred Option 

Description 

Amount 

Comments 

Direct benefits 

Reduced 
mobile EU citizens 

costs 

for 

Less time needed to register and reduced number 
of documents necessary to be provided. 
Simplified access to clear information on national 
procedures and requirements. 
No  burdensome  procedures 
deregistration from home Member States  

case  of 

in 

Applies  to  mobile  EU  citizens  seeking  to 
vote in the host Member State. 

Reduced  opportunities 
for multiple voting 

Multiple  voting 
reduced 
technical  possibilities  for  multiple  voting  will 
lead to fewer occurrences. 

is  prohibited  and 

Applies  to  mobile  EU  citizens  voting  in 
multiple Member States. 

Efficiencies 
administrations 

for 

Simplified  registration  procedure  will  result  in 
efficiencies for administrations. 

Host Member States’ administrations 

Integration  of  mobile 
EU  citizens 
in  host 
country 

The integration of mobile EU citizens in the host 
Member  State  can  have  positive  economic 
effects. 

Applies 
economy. 

to 

the  host  Member  State’s 

Indirect benefits 

75 

 
 
  
 
 
II. Overview of costs – Preferred option 

Citizens/Consumers  

Businesses 

Administrations 

One-off  Recurrent  One-off  Recurrent 

One-off 

Recurrent 

The  ongoing  costs  are  expected 
to  be  minimal  and  entail  the 
ongoing cooperation with DGIT. 

exact 
for 

The 
costs 
national 
administratio
ns  depend  on 
the 
interconnecti
on 
between 
the  electoral 
register of the 
country 
and 
the 
population 
register and if 
they 
collect 
the  data  set 
or 
already 
not. 

and 

Member States will carry varying 
costs depending on their baseline 
situation, e.g. already have direct 
mailouts 
information 
available.  The  possible  costs  for 
Member States across the EU-27 
are estimated at around EUR 2.7 
million  with  the  highest  costs  in 
the 
countries  of 
residence for mobile EU citizens, 
i.e. DE, ES, FR, IT. 

significant 

For  Member  States,  standardised 
forms  would 
or 
replace 
complement 
the  current  ones. 
The  preparation,  for  adapting  to 
the  new  templates  might  imply 
some costs.  

good 

The continuation of the exchange 
of 
between 
practices 
Member  States  would  entail  no 
additional  costs.  If  the  exchange 
is  to  intensify,  this  would  entail 
minor additional costs. Assuming 
one  or 
two  annual  meetings 
between  DG  Just  and  Member 
States  representatives,  the  costs 
would range between EUR 9,000 
and 18,000. 

76 

Direct 
costs 

Definition 
of 
common  data  set 
exchanged   

Indirect 
costs 

of 

Introduction 
information 
requirements 
for 
MS 
to 
inform 
EU 
mobile 
citizens  prior  to 
elections 

Direct 
costs 

Indirect 
costs 

Standardised 
templates  for  the 
mandatory  
available 
languages 

in  all 

Direct 
costs 

Indirect 
costs 

Promotion 
of 
exchange  of  good 
practices  between 
Member States   

Direct 
costs 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Indirect 
costs 

Direct 
costs 

Improve 
the 
collection  of  data 
European 
for 
and 
elections 
municipal 
elections 

Indirect 
costs 

entail 

The  collaboration  between  DG 
JUST,  Eurostat  and  national 
statistical 
to  collect, 
institutes 
harmonise  and  publish  turnout 
data  would 
varying 
additional  costs  in  each  Member 
State.  The  costs  for  additional 
network  meetings  would  range 
(two 
between  EUR  19,080 
additional  annual  meetings)  and 
EUR  38,160 
(four  additional 
annual meetings). 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS USED IN PREPARING THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

4.1 Methodology used to collect data 

The  evidence,  relevant  data  and  information  collected  to  support  the  Impact  Assessment  were 
mainly collected from the following sources: 

  Relevant  stakeholders  consultation  (including  an  OPC  and  other  sources  of  feedback, 

such as the ECNE meetings)114; and 

  Study by an external contractor, which included a survey of mobile EU citizens, targeted 

interviews at EU level, and a questionnaire addressed to Member States. 

The  data  used  in  the  Impact  Assessment  is  largely  based  on  the  external  study  supporting  the 
preparation  of  this  impact  assessment.  The  methodological  approach  used  by  the  external 
contractor builds upon a variety of research methods to ensure that all relevant data is gathered 
to perform an in-depth assessment of the selected policy options and their impacts: (1) primary 
data  collection  methods  (e.g.  interviews,  survey);  (2)  secondary  data  collection  methods  (e.g. 
desk research, legal review of EU standards, literature review etc.); (3) quantitative analysis (e.g. 
costs benefits analysis) and (4) qualitative analysis methods (e.g. content analysis). The policies 
and legislation are assessed transparently, based on factual evidence and considering the views 
of the stakeholders concerned.  

The  methodology  used  by  the  contractor  for  the  different  consultation  elements  is 
displayed below: 

Analytical element  Methodology followed 
of 
Analysis 
and 
complaints 
enquiries 
received 
by  EC  and  EP 
services  related  to 
local  and  European 
Parliament elections 
(I) 

A  total  number  of  1120  entries,  between  complaints  and  general 
enquiries have been received overall. Kantar Public was provided 
with the full anonymised text of the enquiries. 
The  complaints  and  enquiries  are  analysed  on  a  general  level, 
looking at the overall data, as well as with a focus on the share of 
complaints  submitted  by  mobile  citizens.  The  entries  received 
were analysed according to the level of elections concerned. There 
were  no  significant  differences  between  overall  submissions  and 
mobile citizens’ enquiries.   

online 
(II) 

Targeted 
survey 
Questionnaire 
“Survey evidence” 

in  2019  for 

the  European 
Recruitment  methodology  used 
Parliament  was  replicated,  where  large  numbers  of  mobile  EU 
citizens had to be reached. 
Online  advertising  on  social  media  was  used  as  the  recruitment 
channel  to  reach  as  many  mobile  EU  citizens  as  possible, 
advertising on various expatriate groups.  
The sampling methodology used a non-probabilistic approach, yet 
one that was considered feasible at a reasonable cost, allowing to 

114 For a detailed analysis of the collection and the results of the stakeholders consultation, please 
see Annex 2. 

78 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
draw conclusions on an otherwise niche population. 
Respondents  were  presented  pre-experiment  questions  within  the 
questionnaire, asking about the following points:  

-  Their registration status  
-  Electoral turnout history  
-  Their perception towards various 

types  of  elections 

(local, national, European parliament)  

Patterns of political participation and civic engagement  
Awareness of the required registration procedure  

-  Recall  of  potential  reminders  received,  their  attitude 
towards  such  potential  reminders  and  potential  self-
declared impact of such reminders.  

After answering the  questions of the pre-experiment  module, and 
being randomly allocated into one of the four groups, respondents 
were asked to evaluate on a scale from 0 to 10, 0 meaning “I will 
certainly  not  vote”  and  10  meaning  “I  will  most  certainly  vote”, 
how  likely they  are  to  vote  in  the  election  corresponding  to  the 
letter they received.  
By  comparing  the  answers  on the likelihood  to  vote  across all 
four groups, using a between-subject design, and by considering 
the  real-life  history  of  participation  and  likelihood  to  vote  in 
various types of elections from the information elicited in the pre-
experiment  questionnaire, we  were able  to  estimate  the  potential 
impact of each one of the procedures taken into consideration.  
Overall, three crucial factors were tested within this study, which 
were  political 
information,  and  political 
knowledge. These three factors are considered crucial for political 
participation, and rose by campaigning. 

interest,  political 

As  a  methodological  approach, 
the  contractor  used  an 
experimental  module  in  the  survey  to  assess  the  probability  of 
mobile European´s voting. To do this, the survey participants were 
randomly  allocated  to  two  experimental  groups,  one  focused  on 
the local elections and the other on the European Parliament ones. 
Within each group, the participants were asked to read a vignette 
describing a situation in  which, after living for two  years in their 
country  of  residence,  they  receive  a  letter  about  upcoming 
elections.  In  the  case  of  the  group  focused  on  the  local  elections 
the two letters captured these two scenarios: 
-  Automatic registration;  
-  Active registration  

In  the  case  of  the  European  Parliament  election,  respondents  are 
informed  that  they  have  to  register  to  vote,  in  either  a  formal, 
standard  language  or  in  a  more  user-friendly  but  also  emotional 
one  which  appeals  to  their  sense  of  civic  duty.  Thus,  the 
experiment consists in four treatments (i.e., versions of the letter), 

79 

 
 
 
 
each participant seeing only one of them.  

Thus,  to  properly  investigate  the  effect  of  exposure  to  the  four 
letters,  we  also  need  to  consider  as  many  as  possible  additional 
factors that play a  role in  shaping the real-life likelihood to  vote. 
For this, two regression models were carried out through which it 
attempted  to  explain  the  changes  in  the  likelihood  to  vote  by 
considering,  in  addition  to  the  exposure  to  the  four  letters, 
elements such as the participants’ length of stay in the country in 
which the interview took place, their age, their interest in politics 
and  frequency  of  exposure  to  local  news,  and  the  self-declared 
perceived level of integration in the community. 

Although  the  approach  might  have  had  the  scientific rigour and 
robustness  of  results  of  a  field  experiment,  they  survey  has  gone 
beyond only using self-report measures to evaluate the likelihood 
of  election  turnout,  in  this  way  avoiding  some  degree  of  social 
desirability.  

Interviews  with  EU 
level 
stakeholders 
(III): 
Interview 
Methodology 

A  total  number  of  11  EU  level  interviews  have  been  carried  out 
with  a  range  of  stakeholders.  The  stakeholders  interviewed  were 
previously  agreed  upon  with  DG  JUST.  The  interviews  fell  into 
three categories:  

1) Interviews with organisations that have understanding and data 
about the current nature and scope of problems.  

2)  Interviews  with  respondents  who  are  in  charge  of  the  current 
system  for  information  exchange  and  data  exchange  and  those  in 
charge  of  solutions  that  can  be  compared  to  those  that  are 
envisaged to be put in place as part of the policy options in order 
to collect data that will be needed for the estimation of costs and 
effects at EU level.   

3)  Other  EU  level  respondents  who  can  provide  relevant  insights 
about the effects of the policy options at EU level both in terms of 
costs  and  resources  as  well  as  in  terms  of  benefits  (increasing 
European citizenship).  

EU  level  stakeholders  that  were  interviewed  have  been  the 
following:  

DG EMPL – Eures; DG COMM – EDIC; EP – Citizen’s Enquiry 
Unit; JRC; FRA; Committee of the Regions; DIGIT; Group of the 
EPP; S&D Group; Group of the Greens; European Mobile Youth 

interviews  were 

to  gauge 
The 
respondents’  views  on  the  problems  set  out  in  the  impact 
assessment, as well as the policy options that have been put forth. 

semi-structured, 

seeking 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Online  community 
with experts (IV) 

Furthermore,  the  interviews  were  tailored  to  the  knowledge  that 
the respondent could provide within the context of their work.   
Interviews  have  been  analysed  individually,  by  qualitative 
content  analysis,  although  the  analysis  will  be  presented  on  a 
general  level  uniting  the  perspectives  of  respondents  where  there 
are shared views on a specific issue, and presenting divergent ones 
when applicable. This approach has been taken in order to present 
respondent  perspectives  in  an  anonymised  manner.  As  such, 
specific views are not tied to any one stakeholder. 
Towards  the  end  of  the  interviews  respondents  were  presented 
with some of the policy options being considered in addressing the 
barriers that were identified. Due to differing degrees of expertise 
with  regards  to  the  options  presented,  these  were  also  tailored  to 
each participant. To a great extent respondents were most prone to 
mention  policy  options  related  to  the  provision  of  information  to 
mobile  EU  citizens,  partly  due  to  holding  knowledge  on  such 
issues, but mainly because it was seen was one of the most crucial 
elements  to  tackle.  This  resulted  in  a  highlighted  information 
provison. 
A  total  number  of  five  experts  took  part  in  an  online  community 
that spanned over the period of one week and a half. The profile of 
respondents  and  the  organisations  and  persons  invited  was  a 
combination of:  

1)  Academics  who  worked  on  previous  research  projects  in  the 
area of electoral participation of mobile EU citizens;   
2)  NGOs  and  organisations  representing  mobile  EU  citizens;  and  
3)  Representatives  of  local  authorities  or  countries  that  have 
experience  with  good  practices  in  facilitating  participation  of 
mobile EU citizens.   

The  community  was  divided  into  five  activities  that  had  several 
tasks  within.  Each  activity  sought  to  gauge  experts’  opinions  on 
differing aspects of the impact assessment. These were:  

-  The problem analysis  
-  The policy options  
-  The targets and how to measure success  

Finally, the online community was divided into five days, one for 
each available task, and carried out fully in English. 

Policy Option Analysis  
A  set  of  different  activities  shown  to  respondents  had  to  do  with 
the policy options being weighed for proposal. These were firstly 
divided into two differing activities that together contained a total 
of  12  policy  options  respondents  could  comment  on.  Following, 
the  last  activity  asked  respondents  to  rank  the  policy  options 
depending  on  their  effectiveness  in  addressing  differing  aspects 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
related to the problem analysis. To begin with, the policy options 
shown were the following:  

- 

Influencing  Member  States  by  revealing  excessive 
requirements for registration through reporting;  

-  Establishing 

a  Recommendation  on 

automatic 

registration of mobile EU citizens;  

-  Establishing  an  exchange  of  good  practices  among 
Member  States  on  information  provision  to  mobile 
EU citizens;  

-  Creating 

targeted 

social  media 

campaigns 

to 

proactively inform mobile EU citizens;  

-  Strengthening the legal obligation for Member States to 

inform mobile EU citizens;  

-  Setting  up  a  multilingual  helpdesk  at  the  EU  level  to 
respond  to  queries  of  mobile  EU  citizens  about  their 
electoral rights;  
Influencing  Member  States  by  revealing  excessive 
requirements 
candidate 
standing 
for 
through reporting;  

as 

a 

- 

-  Modifying  the  existing  legal  provision  to  clearly  state 
that mobile EU citizens should be able to join political 
parties under the same requirements as nationals;  
-  Addressing  issues  related  to  the  exchange  of  data 
in  view  of  preventing 

between  Member  States 
double voting;  

-  Requiring that Member States do not deregister mobile 
EU  citizens  from  the  possibilities  to  vote  in  national 
elections  when  aiming  to  prevent  double  voting  in 
European Parliament elections;  

-  Encouraging Member States to open up voting in other 
to  mobile 

levels  of  government 

intermediary 
EU citizens;  

Public 

Open 
Consultation 
Analysis (V) 

-  Encouraging  Member  States  to  implement  additional 
remote voting options for mobile EU citizens voting in 
European Parliament elections.  

The conducted analysis resulted in a ranking of the policy options. 
The  consultation  consisted  of  three  questionnaires  depending  on 
the respondent profile. These were:  

1)  A  questionnaire  for  citizens  which  had  certain  questions 
that were directed specifically at mobile European citizens 
and others that were directed at all citizens;   

2)  A questionnaire for civil society organisations; and  
3)  A questionnaire for local, regional or national government 

organisations.   

The questionnaire for civil society organisations and governments 
had a number of questions that were identical. Where that was the 

82 

 
 
 
 
case, we analysed the responses together given the low number of 
respondents  to  this consultation. There were also a few questions 
that were common to all respondent groups and in this case again 
we analysed the responses together.   
A  longer  explanation  of  the  OPC  results  can  be  found  in  Annex 
2.2. 

4.2. The qualitative analysis of the legal framework 

Relevant provisions of the Directives are presented in Annex 5. As shown in the Figure 6 
below, the overarching objective of both Directives 93/109/EC and 94/80/EC is to make 
sure that citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals 
may  exercise  the  right  to  vote  and  to  stand  as  a  candidate  there  in  municipal  and 
European  elections  under  the  same  conditions  imposed  to  the  Member  State’s  own 
nationals in respect to the right to vote and to stand as candidates. The Directives do not 
affect  each  Member  State's  provisions  concerning  the  right  to  vote  or  to  stand  as  a 
candidate  either  of  its  nationals  who  reside  outside  its  territory  or  of  third  country 
nationals who reside in that State. The focus is therefore on non-discrimination based on 
nationality.  

Specific objectives of the current legal framework are:  

To ensure that the requirements for mobile European citizens to register to vote in 
- 
EP  and  local  elections  are  the  same  as  those  for  nationals  and  therefore  to  ensure  that 
mobile  European  citizens  are  not  discriminated  against  when  exercising  their  right  to 
vote and candidacy; 

- 
To  ensure  that  the  requirements  for  mobile  European  citizens  to  stand  as 
candidates  are  the  same  as  those  for  nationals  and  that  they  are  able  to  stand  as 
candidates for all offices in local elections and are not discriminated against;  

To ensure that mobile Europeans know and understand their electoral rights and 
- 
how to exercise them. Member States should provide information to all mobile European 
citizens residing in their country about the modalities and arrangements to exercise their 
rights in a timely manner, ahead of both local and EP elections.  

- 

To address possible double voting in EP elections  

Figure 6: Reconstructed intervention logic of the current legal framework 

83 

 
 
 
 
Source: Underlying Study, Section 2.1   

The Commission monitors the implementation of electoral rights engaging in dialogue115 
with Member States and taking infringement steps.   

The  level  of  transposition  of  both  Directives  in  all  Member  States  appears  generally 
satisfactory.  Almost  all  issues  on  the  Directive's  transposition  have  been  successfully 
resolved,  though  some  issues  of  incorrect  or  incomplete  transposition,  are  still  being 
discussed with specific Member States116.  

However where the wording of the existing electoral Directives is vague and imprecise, 
and their scope too narrow, the scope for Commission to take action is limited. Indeed, 
the  Directives  on  voting  rights  of  mobile  EU  citizens  focus  narrowly  on  the 
implementation of the Treaty rights and do not address wider issues which are regularly 

115 Following Commission’s monitoring and dialogue on the matter, several Member States amended their legislation 
to ensure that information is exchanged within the 5 days envisaged in Article 6(3) of Directive 93/109/EC.  
116 The Commission has initiated infringement procedures against several Member States due to the incompatibility of 
their national legislation with Article 20 (2)(b) and  22 TFEU.  In 2021, the Commission referred Poland and the 
Czech Republic to the Court of Justice of the European Union because the legislation in these two Member States 
restricts the right of founding and of becoming member in a political party to their nationals.  As a result of this 
restriction, mobile EU citizens residing in these countries cannot fully exercise their right to stand as candidates in 
local elections and in European elections under the same conditions as nationals of those States. 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
the subject  of complaints by  citizens regarding the national  administration of elections. 
The Commission has indeed received many complaints117 over the years from mobile EU 
citizens seeking to participate in municipal or European elections in their Member State 
of residence.   

In addition, the Commission’s report on the 2019 European elections118 noted that it was 
estimated that, in 2019, of the over 17 million mobile EU citizens in the EU, almost 14 
million  were  eligible  to  vote119.  However,  a  relatively  low  number  of  them  exercised 
their rights, and usually in their countries of origin. Ahead of the elections, citizens had 
indicated120 that they would prefer to exercise their EU rights and vote  for  lists in their 
country of residence. However, four times as many registered to vote for lists from their 
country of nationality, where that option was available, given that some Member States 
limit the right to vote of their nationals who reside outside their territories, even in other 
Member States121. In concrete terms, on the basis of the data received following the 2019 
European  elections,  around  5.5  million  citizens  registered  to  vote  for  the  lists  in  their 
country  of  origin  compared  to  1.3  million  who  registered  to  vote  in  the  country  of 
residence122.  

Registration of mobile EU citizens in order to exercise their electoral rights also depends 
on  the  procedure  for  registration  on  the  electoral  roll.  Most  Member  States  require 
citizens  to  register  in  their  place  of  residence,  and  many  of  those  add  the  registering 
citizen,  to  the  relevant  electoral  rolls  automatically.  Others  require  citizens  to  enrol  to 
vote separately, and some require multiple enrolments for different elections. Fewer than 
20%  of  mobile  EU  citizens  resident  in  Member  States  where  separate  registration  is 
required  to  exercise  electoral  rights  requested  such  registration.  Where  automatic 
registration applies, the figures of those who registered increases to more than 50%123. 

117 As noted in the Report under Article 25 TFEU on progress towards effective EU citizenship 2016-2020, 
the Commission replied in that period to 43 complaints, 57 letters/individual queries, 74 questions and 
21 petitions from the European Parliament on these issues, primarily relating to the loss of right to vote 
or  participate  in  a  referendum  (COM(2020)  731  final).  Additionally,  a  total  number  of  1120  entries 
were analysed in the context of the underlying Kantar study, covering the period of 2019-spring 2021. 
Of these, 538 were submitted to Your Europe, 520 to the European Parliament citizen enquiry unit, 15 
were submitted to Solvit and 47 were dealt with the Department in charge of Justice and Consumers of 
the European Commission. 

118 COM(2020) 252 final, https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/com_2020_252_en_0.pdf. 
119 Statistics including the UK. 
120 Special Eurobarometer 477, https://data.europa.eu/data/datasets/s2198_90_1_477_eng?locale=en.  
121  All  but  four  Member  States  (Czechia,  Ireland,  Malta  and  Slovakia)  provide  for  some  possibility  of 
voting on the lists of the country of origin from another Member State, either at an embassy/consulate, by 
post or on the internet. 
122 COM(2020) 252 final. 
123 See study of the Academic Network on EU citizenship Rights, July 2021, point 1.2. Vote registration 
for mobile EU citizens is automatic in 12 Member States. 15 Member States require active registration. 

85 

 
 
                                                           
 
Most Member States do not  collect  data on the effective turnout  of mobile EU citizens 
that registered to vote. Those that do, report that up to a half of the registered mobile EU 
citizens vote: Czechia (50%), Finland (50%) and Cyprus (30%). The number of mobile 
EU  citizens  standing  as  candidates  in  the  European  elections  shows  a  relatively 
consistent  trend:  compared  to  170  mobile  citizen  candidates  in  2014,  there  were  168 
candidates (in 18 Member States124) in 2019.  

The  Commission  has  been  engaging  with  Member  States  in  relevant  expert  groups 
bringing  together  Member  States’  authorities  with  competence  in  electoral-related 
matters.  The  development  and  implementation  of  a  process  to  achieve  the  exchange  of 
data  to  support  the  prevention  of  multiple  voting  in  the  European  elections  has  been 
coordinated  in  the  framework  of  the  expert  group  on  electoral  matters,  established  in 
2005125.  

Furthermore,  in  the  run  up  to  the  2019  European  elections,  the  Commission  supported 
Member  States  by  establishing  and  organising  meetings  of  the  European  cooperation 
network on elections with the aim to  exchange good practice on all aspects of ensuring 
free and fair elections. 

4.3 Methodology used to compare the policy options 

The  comparison  of  the  policy  options  was  performed  based  on  their  impacts.  The 
performance  of  each  presented  option  on  the  policy  objectives  has  been  compared 
systematically based on the criteria displayed in the table below. 

Criterion 

Key Questions 

Effectiveness  What  would  be  the  (quantitative  and 

qualitative) effects of each option? 

Which  policy  option  would  be  most 
effective  in  achieving  the  set  objectives 
of the current initiative? 

Indicators/Methods 
comparison 

for 

Comparison  of  expected 
effectiveness 
each 
policy  option  against  the 
evaluation baseline 

of 

Comparison  of  expected 
effectiveness  of  the  policy 
options against each other; 

14  out  of  15  Member  States  provide  for  one-off  registration  which  is  automatically  renewed  for 
subsequent elections, see same study point 2.1. 

124 Figures including the UK. Out of these candidates, five were elected (3 in France, 2 in the UK). 
125https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-register/screen/expert-groups/consult?lang=en&groupID=617  

86 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
Identification 
a 
preferred  option,  where 
possible. 

of 

Comparison  of  potential 
costs and benefits borne by 
each 
stakeholder  group 
under each policy option;  

a 
Identification 
preferred  option,  where 
possible. 

of 

Identification  of  overlaps 
and/or  synergies  between 
policy options and relevant 
initiatives; 

 Identification  of  contrasts 
and/or 
discrepancies 
between policy options and 
relevant initiatives; 

Identification 
a 
preferred  option,  where 
possible. 

of 

Identify  whether  or  not 
action  at  the  national  level 
is  sufficient  to  achieve  the 
objective  of  the  initiative 
in 
whether 
and 
consequence,  by  reason  of 
the  scale  or  effects  of  the 
proposed  measure,  Union 
action  would  have  an 
added  value  compared  to 
action  by 
the  Member 
States 

Efficiency  

Coherence 

What  would  be  the  incurred  costs  and 
benefits under each policy option? 

To  what  extent  will  the costs  associated 
with the intervention be proportionate to 
the benefits it is expected to generate? 

How  proportionate  will  be  the  costs  of 
the 
intervention  borne  by  different 
stakeholder  groups,  taking  into  account 
the distribution of associated benefits? 

Which  policy  option  would  be  most 
cost-effective? 

To  what  extent  is  each  policy  option 
coherent with other relevant initiatives?  

To  what  extent  is  each  policy  option 
coherent with wider EU policy?  

To  what  extent 
contributing 
framework  by 
fragmentation across Member States? 

is 
is  each  option 
to  establish  a  coherent 
legal 

reducing 

the 

Subsidiarity 

Can/have the objectives  of the proposed 
policy option be achieved sufficiently by 
Member States acting alone? 

To  what  extent  do  Member  States  have 
to  enact 
the  ability  or  possibility 
appropriate measures? 

Would national  action or the absence of 
EU  level  action  conflict  with  the  Treaty 
or  significantly  damage  the  interests  of 
other Member States? 

there 

Are 
aspects to the problem?  

transnational/cross-border 

there  be 

Will 
increased  costs  or 
problems  if  action  is  left  only  to  the 
Member States? 

Can/have the objectives  of the proposed 

87 

 
 
Ensuring  that  the  policy 
approach  and  its  intensity 
identified 
match 
problem/objective. 

the 

action  be(en)  better  achieved  at  Union 
level by reason of the scale or effects of 
that action? 

the  objectives  be  met  more 

Can 
efficiently at EU level? 

Proportionality  Does  the  initiative  go  beyond  what  is 
the 

necessary 
achieve 
to 
problem/objective satisfactorily? 

Is  the  initiative  limited  to  those  aspects 
that  Member  States  cannot  achieve 
satisfactorily  on  their  own,  and  where 
the Union can do better?   

Is  the  form  of  Union  as  simple  as 
possible,  and  coherent  with  satisfactory 
the  objective  and 
achievement  of 
effective enforcement? 

Does  the  initiative  create  unjustified 
financial  or  administrative  cost  for  the 
Union, national governments, regional or 
local  authorities,  economic  operators  or 
citizens?  Are  these  costs  commensurate 
with the objective to be achieved? 

Does  the  Union  action  leave  as  much 
scope  for  national  decision  as  possible 
the 
while 
objectives set? 

satisfactorily 

achieving 

Is  there  a  solid  justification  for  the 
regulation, 
choice  of 
(framework)directive, 
alternative 
regulatory methods? 

instrument 

- 
or 

While  respecting  Union  law,  are  special 
circumstances  applying 
individual 
Member States taken into account? 

in 

88 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX  5:  RELEVANT  PROVISIONS  OF  THE  DIRECTIVES  GOVERNING  ELECTORAL 

RIGHTS OF MOBILE EU CITIZENS 

The main provisions in Council Directive 93/109/EC for the exercise of the right to vote 
and stand as a candidate in European elections for citizens of the Union residing in a 
Member State of which they are not nationals are: 

  Mobile EU citizens have the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in European 
elections  in  the Member State of residence on the same  conditions  as  that  State 
imposes by law on its own nationals (Article 3); 

  They  may  vote  either  in  their  Member  State  of  residence  or  in  their  home 

Member State (Article 4); 

  They  are  precluded  from  standing  as  a  candidate  in  their  Member  State  of 
residence  if  so  deprived  through  an  individual  criminal  or  civil  law  decision 
(Article 6); 

  The  Member  State  of  residence  shall  take  the  necessary  measures  to  enable  the 
Union  citizen  who  wishes  to  be  entered  on  the  electoral  roll  to  be  entered 
sufficiently in advance of polling day (Article 9). 

  The Member State of residence shall inform the Union citizens in good time and 
in an appropriate manner of the conditions and detailed arrangements to exercise 
their electoral rights (Article 12). 

The main provisions in Council Directive 94/80/EC for the exercise of the right to vote 
and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections by citizens of the Union residing in a 
Member State of which they are not nationals are: 

  Mobile EU citizens have the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal 
elections  in  the Member State of residence on the same  conditions  as  that  State 
imposes by law on its own nationals (Article 3); 

  They  are  precluded  from  standing  as  a  candidate  in  their  Member  State  of 
residence  if  so  deprived  through  an  individual  criminal  or  civil  law  decision 
(Article 5); 

  Member States may provide that only their own nationals may hold the office of 
elected  head,  deputy  or  member  of  the  governing  college  of  the  executive  of  a 
basic local government unit (Article 5(3)); 

  The  Member  State  of  residence  shall  take  the  necessary  measures  to  enable  the 
Union  citizen  who  wishes  to  be  entered  on  the  electoral  roll  to  be  entered 
sufficiently in advance of polling day (Article 8); 

  The Member State of residence shall inform the Union citizens in good time and 
in an appropriate manner of the conditions and detailed arrangements to exercise 
their electoral rights (Article 11). 

89 

 
 
 
ANNEX  6:  OVERVIEW  OF  MEMBER  STATES’  MEASURES  CONCERNING  ELECTORAL 

RIGHTS OF MOBILE EU CITIZENS  

This  Annex  provides  tables  including  current  measures  enacted  by  Member  States  to 
implement  Directive  93/109/EC  and  Directive  94/80/EC.  The  information  used  to 
elaborate  them  is  derived  from  the  study  carried  out  by  the  contractor  to  support  this 
impact assessment and are not exhaustive. 

Table 1 Information measures across Member States 

MS 

Proactive 
mail-outs to 
mobile EU 
citizens on 
rights 

Local elections 
info 
proactively 
sent to EU 
citizens 

Helpdesk/hotline 
(if in English, 
"Yes"; if not, 
"Partial") 

BE  Yes 

Partial 

Partial 

BG  No 

No 

No 

CY  No 
CZ  Partial 

No 
No 

No 

DE 

DK 
EE  Yes 

EL 

ES 
FI  Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

90 

Information comments 

charge 

Municipality 
of 
in 
information;  local  variation  in  extent 
and form. 
Regulation 
in 
electoral  campaigns  ad  only  be 
provided in Bulgarian 

information 

that 

Municipalities 
not 
required,  to  proactively  contact  for 
EU. No special campaign. 

encouraged, 

Information  sent  70  days  (for  EU 
citizens)  and  10  days  (for  all  voters) 
based  on 
records  of  Population 
Register 

Voting 
practical 
information sent to all eligible voters 

cards 

with 

 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
FR  No 

No 

No 

HR 
HU  Yes 

Yes 

Partial 

IE  Yes 

Partial 

IT  No 

Partial 

No 

Questionnaire 
information  and  a 
campaigns 

refers 

to 

online 
few  ad  hoc 

National  Election  Office  can  be 
reached by email or phone 

local  campaigns  providing 
Some 
nationals. 
for  EU 
information 
However, much of this appears driven 
society 
by 
than 
rather 
government 
(although  government 
may be supporting the campaigns). 

civil 

Local  campaigns  by  NGOs  or  other 
institutions  may  provide  information, 
but  there  are  no  targeted,  national 
campaigns. 

LT 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Mainly  information  on  website  for 
local elections 

Partial 

Partial 

Yes 

Information  not  sent  directly 
to 
mobile  EU  citizens,  but  centrally 
raise 
campaigns 
coordinated 
awareness 

to 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL  Partial 

Partial 

Partial 

Information  is  provided  proactively 
when an election has been called, but 
the 
the  same  for 
is 
nationals  as  for  non-nationals.  No 
targeting of EU citizens. 

information 

91 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
PT  No 

No 

Yes 

RO  No 

No 

No 

SE  Yes 

Partial 

Yes 

is  provided 

through 
Information 
by 
Support 
multilingual staff in the largest cities. 

Offices 

staffed 

is  available 

Information 
in  30+ 
languages  from  the  Swedish  Election 
for 
Authority. 
municipalities  varies  more  widely. 
Voting  cards  with  relevant  practial 
information is sent out to all voters. 

Availability 

SI  Yes 

No 

No 

Local  election  information  circulated 
in 
languages  only 
(Slovenian, Hungarian and Italian). 

the  official 

SK 

Source: Questionnaires carried out for the underlying Kantar Study  

92 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2 Registration modalities across Member States 

MS  Automatic 
registration 
- Municipal 

Automatic 
registration 
- EU 

Voter 
registration 
permanent - 
Municipal 

Voter 
registration 
permanent 
- EU 

Electronic/ 
mail 
registration 
possible 

Voter 
registration 
without 
proof of 
electoral 
rights 

AT  Yes 

BE  No 

BG  No 

CY  No 

CZ  No 

DE  Yes 

DK  Yes 

EE  Yes 

EL  No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

ES  Partial 

Partial 

FI  Yes 

FR  No 

HR  No 

HU  Yes 

IE  Yes 

IT  No 

LT  Yes 

LU  No 

LV  Yes 

MT  No 

NL  Yes 

PL  No 

PT  No 

RO  Yes 

SE  Yes 

SI  Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Partial 

No 

Partial 

No 

Partial 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Partial 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Partial 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Partial 

Partial 

No 

Yes 

Partial 

Partial 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

93 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SK  Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

 Source: Questionnaires carried out for the underlying Study  

Table 3 Summary of penalties for multiple voting in some EU Member States 

AT 
BE 
BG 
CZ 
CY 
DE 
DK 
EE 
EL 
ES 

Fine of up to EUR 218 or imprisonment for up to 2 weeks. 
Imprisonment 8-15 days; fine of EUR 208-1 600. 
Probation and a fine of BGN 500-2 000 (ca. EUR 250-1 000). 
Fine of ca. EUR 390. 
Imprisonment of up to 6 months and/or a fine of up to CYP 450 (ca. EUR 720). 
Unspecified fine or imprisonment for up to 5 years. 
Unspecified fine. 
Fine of up to 300 fine units (ca. EUR 1 300) or unspecified detention 
Imprisonment of 3 months to 5 years; deprivation of any public office for 1 to 5 years. 
Imprisonment of 6 months-2 years, a fine of 6 months-2 years, and a special 
disqualification for employment or public office from one to three years 
Unspecified fine or imprisonment of up to 1 year. 
Imprisonment of 6 months-2 years and a fine of up to EUR 15 000. 
Fine of HRK 10 000-30 000 and/or imprisonment from 6 months to 5 years. 
Imprisonment of up to 3 years. 
Fine not exceeding EUR 3.174, or imprisonment of up to 2 years, or both. 
Imprisonment of 1-3 years and a fine of EUR 51-258. 
Fine of EUR 140-860. 
Fine of EUR 251-2 000, imprisonment 8-15 days. 
Unspecified punishment. 
Fine of up to MTL 1 000 (ca EUR 2 330). 
Fine of up to EUR 4 350 and imprisonment of up to 1 month. 
Unspecified fine 
Penalty payment up to 50 days, and imprisonment for up to 1 year. 
Imprisonment for 6 months-3 years, unspecified fine, restricted exercise of some rights 
Unspecified fine or prison for up to 6 months 
Unspecified fine or prison for up to 1 year 
Fine of EUR 33-100. 

FI 
FR 
HR 
HU 
IE 
IT 
LT 
LU 
LV 
MT 
NL 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SE 
SI 
SK 
Source:  Questionnaires  sent  to  Member  State  authorities  for  the  underlying  study  and  complemented  by 
Cicchi,  L.  (2021)  ‘Europeanising  the  elections  of  the  European  Parliament’,  study  for  the  EP  AFCO 
Committee, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, pp. 30-31. 

94 

 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
Table  4  :  Municipal  election  positions  for  which  mobile  EU  citizens  cannot 

stand as candidate126 

Member State 

Restricted position 

Austria 

Belgium 

Cyprus 

Mayor (except in the state of Lower Austria) 

Mayor 

Mayor 

Czech Republic 

Mayor, deputy mayor, and (in Prague only) city councillors 

Estonia 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Italy 

Mayor, member of the executive or secretary of local government 
units (rural municipalities or cities) 

Mayor 

Mayor (in Bavaria and Saxony) 

Mayor and head of regional executive (secretary general of region) 

Mayor and deputy mayor 

Netherlands 

Mayor and member of municipal executive (wethouder - alderman)  

Poland 

Slovenia 

Mayor 

Mayor 

126  Table  adapted  from  Ostling,  A.  ‘Fair  EU  Synthesis  Report:  Electoral  rights  for  mobile  EU  citizens  – 

Challenges and facilitators of implementation’, FAIR-EU Comparative Report 2019/8, p. 10. 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Table 5. Personal Identification numbers in Member States  

Member State 
AT 
BE 

BG 
CZ 
CY 
DE 
DK 
EE 
EL 
ES 

FI 
FR 
HR 
HU 
IE 
IT 
LT 
LU 
LV 
MT 
NL 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SE 
SI 
SK 

N/A 
№  d'identification  du  Registre  national  /  Identificatienummer  van  het 
Rijksregister 
ЕГН- Единен граждански номер (ЕГН) Edinen grazhdanski nomer 
Rodné číslo (RČ) 
N/A 
N/A 
Personnummer (Da. CPR, Det Centrale Personregister) 
Isikukood (IK) 
N/A 
Documento  Nacional  de  Identidad  (DNI)/Numero  de  identificación 
fiscal(NIF)/ld.№ 
Finnish: Henkilötunnus (HETU), Swedish: Personbeteckning 
N/A 
Osobni identifikacijski broj (OIB) 
N/A 
N/A 
Codice Fiscale  
Asmens kodas 
N/A 
Personas kods 
Identify card number 
Burgerservicenummer (BSN) 
Powszechny Elektroniczny System Ewidencji Ludności (PESEL) 
№ identificação civil 
Cod Numeric Personal (CNP) 
Personnummer 
Enotna matična številka občana (EMSO) 
Rodné číslo (RČ) 

96 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 6. Information needed by Member States to identify their citizens127  

Member State  

 Information required to ID nationals 

BE 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

ES 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

LT 

LU 

MT 

PL 

RO 

SE 

Belgian national number sufficient. 

Name, DOB, place of permanent residence  

Name, DOB, ID card number, previous municipality (not constituency) in DE 

At minimum date of birth and full name, but ideally also Danish ID number 

Name, DOB, personal ID number, address 

personal 

Name, 
address 
To  apply  for  voting:  The  application  form,  a  photocopy  of  the  passport  or  ID,  or, 
Registry.  
Consular 
certificate 
When voting: certificate of being registered in the census, passport or ID.  

nationality/registration 

number, 

DOB, 

the 

ID 

of 

in 

Name (all), sex, age, DOB and place of birth, date of registration abroad 

Personal ID number, names, current address, DOB, gender 

Name, date and place of birth, ideally national ID 

Name, date of birth and last Irish address. 

Name, surname, personal ID number 

Name, (incl. Maiden), date and place of birth, gender, place of residence, nationality 

Name, surname, DOB 

Name(s), father's name, DOB, nationality, passport number, address 

Name(s), personal ID number, ID number of passport or identity card 

Personal ID number 

127 Source: Questionnaires sent to Member State authorities for the underlying study 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Table 7. Estimated cost of developing and mailing out targeted information to 

mobile EU citizens128 

The following assumptions apply: 

‒  Member States which – based on the Member State baseline research – already have 
direct  mailouts  in  place  are  expected  to  have  minimal  costs,  if  any129.  The 
calculations  therefore  only  apply  to  Member  States  which  do  not  currently  have 
such measures in place. 

‒  As  Member  States  have  information  about  electoral  registration  of  mobile  EU 
citizens  available  on  their  websites  (and  in  all  but  a  few  cases,  in  multiple 
languages), only minor costs are expected to adapt these for mail-out. For Member 
States  with  no  direct,  targeted  mail-outs  in  place,  an  assumption  is  made  of  five 
days per Member State. For Member States with some level of mail-outs, e.g. with 
municipal variation in  the extent of information  provision  (marked ‘Partial’ in  the 
table below, see table 2 above), an assumption is made of three days. 

‒  As data is not available on the cost of governments delivering letters, the domestic 
public tariff for sending priority letters in EU Member States is used130. As Member 
State governments have access to economies of scale and are not necessarily subject 
to public tariffs, these prices are adjusted to 25% of the public tariff, to reflect lower 
costs.  As  the  data  on  postal  services  costs  is  from  2017,  they  are  adjusted  for 
inflation to estimated 2020 values131. 

‒  The  effort  to  send  letters  to  all  mobile  EU  citizens  is  estimated  by  combining  the 
estimated per-letter cost with the stock of mobile EU citizens aged 20 or older in the 
Member State132. 

Table  7  also  contains  an  estimate  on  the  cost  of  informing  mobile  EU  citizens  at  the 
point  of  residence  registration  of  their  electoral  rights,  in  addition  to  subsequent 
communications in relation to elections. While the time and cost required to prepare this 
routine  will  also  vary  across  Member  States,  sufficient  information  is  not  available  to 
determine  how  it  would  differ  between  the  Member  States.  As  the  information  is 
available to Member State authorities, and as mobile EU citizens in all but a few cases 

128 Source: underlying study  

129  Variation  within  Member  States  (e.g.  due  to  differing  rules  between  federal  Länder  in  Germany  and 
Austria) is not taken into consideration as state-level laws and regulations have not been mapped. 

130  Data  is  gathered  from  European  Commission,  2018,  ‘Performance  per  policy  area:  Postal  services’, 
Single Market Scoreboard, accessed 19 August 2021. Figures are not available for Croatia and Poland; 
EU-27 average is used here. 

131 Eurostat (2021a) ‘HICP (2015 = 100) - annual data (average index and rate of change) – Postal services’ 

[PRC_HICP_AIND], accessed 19 August 2021. 

132  This  is  based  on  Eurostat  (2021b)  ‘Population  on  1  January  by  age  group,  sex  and  citizenship’ 
[MIGR_POP1CTZ],  accessed  19  August  2021.  The  column  on  Mobile  EU  citizens  aged  20  or  older 
(2020), 1 000s uses the value for EU-28 citizens. 

98 

 
 
                                                           
have to register for residence upon or shortly after arrival in a new country of residence, 
the  costs  are  expected  to  be  relatively  low  –  an  assumption  is  made  of  five  days  per 
Member State.  

EU 
Mobile 
citizens 
aged 
20  or  older 
(2020), 1 000s 

621 

762 

14 

103 

223 

3 777 

195 

19 

160 

1 728 

83 

1 295 

18 

74 

389 

1 216 

8 

197 

6 

47 

518 

33 

167 

60 

272 

20 

Estimated  cost 
informing 
of 
at 
citizens 
of 
point 
registration 
 1 470 

 1 470 

 1 470 

 1 470 

 1 470 

 1 470 

 1 470 

 1 470 

 1 470 

 1 470 

 1 470 

 1 470 

 1 470 

 1 470 

 1 470 

 1 470 

 1 470 

 1 470 

 1 470 

 1 470 

 1 470 

 1 470 

 1 470 

 1 470 

 1 470 

 1 470 

Total 

 124 857 

 1 470 

 6 358 

 14 806 

 63 812 

 688 135 

 50 004 

 1 470 

 45 338 

 295 642 

 1 470 

 353 513 

 7 124 

 1 470 

 1 470 

 901 501 

 1 470 

 29 836 

 4 194 

 6 965 

 1 470 

 10 077 

 36 279 

 28 201 

 1 470 

 1 470 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

Estimated 
costs 
of 
developing and 
translating 
information 
 1 470 

Estimated  cost 
of 
individual 
communicatio
to 
n 
citizens 
 123 387 

EU 

Already 
practicing 
direct 
communication 

No (5 days) 

Yes 

No (5 days) 

No (5 days) 

Partial (3 days) 

Partial (3 days) 

Partial (3 days) 

Yes 

 1 470 

 1 470 

  882 

  882 

  882 

No (5 days) 

 1 470 

Partial (3 days) 

  882 

Yes 

No (5 days) 

No (5 days) 

Yes 

Yes 

 1 470 

 1 470 

 4 888 

 13 336 

 62 342 

 686 665 

 48 534 

 43 868 

 294 172 

 352 043 

 5 654 

No (5 days) 

 1 470 

 900 031 

Yes 

Partial (3 days) 

Partial (3 days) 

No 

Yes 

  882 

  882 

 1 470 

Partial (3 days) 

  882 

No (5 days) 

No (5 days) 

 1 470 

 1 470 

Yes 

Yes 

 28 366 

 2 724 

 5 495 

 8 607 

 34 809 

 26 731 

99