What changed

PR_INI_ImplReport

Follow-up to the European Parliament non-legislative resolution on the reform of the European Electoral Act – hurdles to ratification and implementation in the Member States

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT - SUMMARY OF FACTS AND FINDINGS

Rapporteur: Borja Giménez Larraz (EPP / ES)

1. Introduction

References: 2025/2028(INI) / A10-0252/2025 / P10_TA(2026)0006

On 15 January 2025, the rapporteur was entrusted with the task of preparing a report on the implementation of the Reform of the European Electoral law.

Date of adoption of the resolution: 20 January 2026

Since his appointment, the rapporteur has collected information on the topic by various means, including:

Competent Parliamentary Committee: Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO)

 study on ‘Europeanising the elections of the European Parliament’, by the Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, June 2021.

Brief analysis/ assessment of the resolution and requests made in it:

 A European Parliament Research Service document on the ‘Ratification status of the Council Decision (EU) 2018/994 modifying the 1976 European Electoral Act’, February 2025.

The European Parliament’s resolution tackles the ongoing efforts to reform its electoral procedure under Article 223 TFEU. It argues that a truly uniform procedure has not yet been achieved, which has led to uneven implementation and fragmentation, which would not correspond to the European Parliament’s stronger role since the Lisbon Treaty.

 On 19 and 20 May 2025, he took part in an official Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO) mission to Madrid, Spain. The AFCO delegation held several exchanges of views with civil servants at the Ministry of Interior, the Chair and Spokespersons of the Constitutional Committee of the Congress of Deputies (lower house) and the Chair and Spokespersons of the Joint Committee on the European Union – composed of Members of the Congress of Deputies and the Spanish Senate (upper house) – as well as with the major Legal Counsels of both Chambers and some prominent Spanish academics and experts on Constitutional and Electoral Law.

It also notes that while some common rules already exist (proportional representation, a maximum 5% threshold, and a ban on dual voting), elections to the European Parliament are still largely governed by national laws, campaigns remain mostly national, and European political parties are unable to sufficiently fulfil their mandates and ‘contribute to forming European political awareness and to expressing the will of citizens of the Union’, as required by Article 10(4) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU).

 On 2 June 2025, he took part in an official mission to Berlin, Germany, in order to exchange views with Members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and European Union affairs in the Bundestag and with civil servants and academics.

The European Parliament highlights transparency and reliable information as essential for raising European political awareness and achieving a high voter turnout. It calls for equal campaign opportunities for candidates and timely information for voters about who is standing in European elections.

The research conducted has led to the following considerations, which constitute the basis for the conclusions and recommendations made in the draft implementation report presented by the rapporteur.

The Resolution calls, inter alia, on Member States to harmonise deadlines for fielding candidate lists, and candidacy requirements, enhancing the visibility and role of European parties, making participation more inclusive - especially by guaranteeing postal voting and removing barriers for persons with disabilities. It also urges Member States to finalise the ratification of Council Decision 2018/994, implement all optional measures set out therein, and restart discussions on the Parliament’s 2022 reform proposal without delay.

2. Historical overview of European Parliament elections

Response to requests and overview of actions taken, or intended to be taken, by the Commission:

Since the 1960s, the European Parliament has repeatedly voiced its opinion on issues of electoral law and has put forward proposals in accordance with Article 138 of the EC Treaty (now Article 223 TFEU).

For elections to the European Parliament, certain common principles and procedures are set out in EU law, including the European Electoral Act and the rules implementing Article 22 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), enabling mobile EU citizens to exercise their right to vote and stand in the elections to the European Parliament in their EU Member State of residence.

The founding Treaties stated that Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) would initially be appointed by the national parliaments, but made provision for election by direct universal suffrage. This provision was implemented by the Council before the first direct elections of 1979 through the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the representatives of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage (1976 Electoral Act).

EU action in support of free, fair and inclusive elections offers important added value, including in the elections to the European Parliament. Since 2019, as part of a broader effort to promote and strengthen democracy, the EU has reinforced its support to Member States in this field. Initiatives such as those under the 2020 European Democracy Action Plan, the 2021 package of measures to reinforce democracy and protect the integrity of elections in the EU, and the 2023 Defence of Democracy package have provided new tools to reinforce the effectiveness of the rights related to European Parliament elections.

The first direct European Parliament elections held in 1979 were a watershed moment, and they profoundly changed Parliament’s institutional position, establishing a more democratic European Union.

The Commission plays no formal role in the Article 223 TFEU procedure. As mentioned in paragraph 11 of the Resolution, it has been following discussions between the Council and the European Parliament to reform the European Electoral Act and further harmonise electoral rules concerning the elections to the European Parliament.

In 1992, the Maastricht Treaty provided for the elections to be held in accordance with a uniform procedure and for the European Parliament to draw up a proposal to this effect, for unanimous adoption by the Council. However, since the Council was unable to agree on any of the proposals, the Treaty of Amsterdam introduced the possibility of adopting ‘common principles’. Council Decision 2002/772/EC, Euratom of 25 June and 23 September 2002 modified the 1976 Electoral Act accordingly, introducing the principle of proportional representation and a number of incompatibilities between national and European mandates.

The Commission shares the view of the importance of transparency of the electoral process and access to reliable information in securing a high voter turnout in the elections to the European Parliament (paragraph 12). It also supports the emphasis placed by the European Parliament on the need to facilitate access to voting in European elections and support inclusive participation of persons with disabilities (paragraph 13). The Commission also welcomes the call to Member States to enhance the visibility of electoral alliances in European elections (paragraph 14).

Over the years, the European Parliament has grown in size and influence, with each enlargement of the EU bringing more members and greater diversity. Parliament’s powers have also increased, particularly with the adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009, which expanded its legislative and budgetary roles.

Empowering EU citizens and ensuring broad and inclusive participation in elections to the European Parliament is also essential for the Commission, whose democratic legitimacy is based among others on being accountable to the European Parliament, under Article 17(8) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU).

However, notwithstanding the progress made to gradually expand Parliament’s powers, harmonising national traditions remains a complex matter and Member States have been reluctant to adopt uniform procedures for the elections to the European Parliament.

The Report on the 2024 elections to the European Parliament provides an overview of the Commission’s efforts to promote high voter turnout and participation of different groups, including its 2023 Recommendation on elections to Member States, European and national political parties, foundations, and campaign organisations, awareness raising among Member States, notably through the European Cooperation Network on Elections, support to EU-wide ‘get-out-to-vote’ campaigns and common EU channels for informing citizens where and how to register and vote. The Report also notes the steps taken by Member States to inform EU citizens about elections, support participation of persons with disabilities in elections, and enhance transparency regarding affiliations between national and European political parties.

On 11 November 2015, Parliament adopted a resolution on the reform of the electoral law of the European Union. The legislative initiative from the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO) proposed amendments to the 1976 Electoral Act with a view to making the European elections uniform and democratic and to increasing public participation in the election process. Parliament’s proposed amendments were partly accepted and incorporated into Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2018/994 of 13 July 2018, which is the last time the Electoral Act was amended.

Equally important, the Commission’s proposal for a recast of the Directive on the voting rights of mobile EU citizens in elections to the European Parliament has been adopted by the Council in June 2025. These rules aim to promote broad and inclusive participation of mobile EU citizens in elections, particularly by ensuring that they receive detailed information on how to exercise their electoral rights.

3. Council Decision 2018/994

At the same time, the Report on the 2024 elections to the European Parliament suggests that further improvements of the inclusiveness of electoral participation and citizens’ engagement are needed. Support for high turnout and inclusive participation in European democracy remains essential. There is also a need to further support efforts to enhance the European dimension of the elections. To achieve these goals, a wide range of actors, particularly Member States, have an important role to play under a whole-of-cycle approach.

Council Decision 2018/994 is composed of two Articles. The first article replaces several Articles of the 1976 Electoral Act (Articles 1, 3 and 9) and introduces several new ones (3a, 3b, 4a, 9a and 9b). The second article establishes that the decision will be subject to approval by the Member States, in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements and that the decision will enter into force on the first day after the last notification has been received.

It is important to note that Council Decision 2018/994 establishes several mandatory provisions while others are optional. In the first case, Member States are required to adopt such measures; in the latter, they are encouraged to do so.

(a) Mandatory measures

The mandatory measures for which Council Decision 2018/994 expresses an obligation (will implement), according to the order in which they appear in the Decision, are as follows:

i. Members of the European Parliament elected based on proportional representation, using the list system or the single transferable vote (STV), through free and secret elections based on direct universal suffrage.

This provision is completely unproblematic and uncontroversial, as all Member States use proportional representation, be it closed-list proportional representation or STV.

ii. Minimum 2 % threshold for constituencies comprising more than 35 seats (including nationwide, single constituencies) applies only to five Member States: Germany (96), France (81), Italy (76), Spain (61) and Poland (53).

Although Italy and Poland each have more than 35 total seats, they are not affected by this rule due to the structure of their electoral systems. Both countries use sub-national constituencies, meaning their seats are split across different regions. In Poland, there are 13 constituencies and each elects fewer than 35 seats. Similarly, Italy divides its seats among five constituencies, each with fewer than 35 seats. In addition to this, both countries have an explicit threshold (4 % and 5 %, respectively).

France has a nationwide, single constituency but its electoral system already provided for a threshold of 5 % before Council Decision 2018/994.

Spain and Germany, however, were not in line with this mandatory provision, as both countries elect more than 35 MEPs, have a single, nationwide constituency and have no threshold. Hence, both Spain and Germany need to amend their electoral law to comply with Council Decision 2018/994, which has not yet happened in either Member State.

iii. Deadline for submission of candidacies at least three weeks before the date for holding European elections.

All Member States were already compliant with this article. There is, however, a wide range of variation, from Slovakia’s three months and Germany’s 11 weeks to Cyprus, France and Greece, which are close to the established limit of three weeks.

iv. Implementation of necessary measures to prevent double voting.

Twenty four countries had such measures in place. Hungary, Latvia and Spain do not have specific measures on double voting but only some form of sanction for fraudulent behaviour in voting.

v. Designating a contact authority responsible for exchanging data on mobile voters or candidates with its counterparts in other Member States.

All Member States have a designated authority. In most cases, it is the interior ministry or another ministry; in some cases, it is a dedicated authority for electoral matters.

(b) Optional measures

The optional measures suggested by Council Decision 2018/994, are as follows:

i. Preferential list system.

This provision is unchanged from the 2002 Council Decision and therefore poses no questions. In any case, the article is uncontroversial not only because it is not compulsory, but also because most Member States already use preferential voting.

ii. A minimum threshold not exceeding 5 % of votes for the allocation of seats.

The 5 % figure poses no problems either because no Member State has an electoral threshold above 5 %.

iii. Ballot papers displaying the name or logo of the European Political Party (EuPP) with which the list or candidate is affiliated.

This provision has not been transposed in any national legislation and consequently the degree of Europeanisation of electoral ballots is still remarkably low. The mention of the EuPP remains discretionary and sometimes it depends more on the ballot design than on a concrete political choice.

iv. The possibility of advance, postal and electronic voting and measures to allow citizens residing countries outside the EU to vote in European elections.

The situation is far from homogenous: 23 countries provide for one or more possibilities for absentee voting, with Embassy voting being the most widespread option. Some countries allow citizens to choose from other different methods to cast a ballot, such as postal, proxy or even internet voting.

Only four countries (Czechia, Ireland, Malta, and Slovakia) do not allow absentee voting. In addition to these, some countries do allow embassy voting, but only for citizens residing within the EU and not in non-EU countries.

4. Ratification process

Council Decision 2018/994 will enter into force only after all the Member States have approved it in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements (Article 223 TFEU). At present, all Member States except Spain have approved it and, therefore, the ratification process is still ongoing and Council Decision 2018/994 has not yet entered into force.

Most of the Member States ratified the Decision by the end of 2019 and did not require parliamentary review or approval as no changes were necessary for national law to be made consistent with the Council Decision. Some Member States adopted consent for ratification bills in their national parliaments without controversy. There were a few exceptions, such as the act voted in Hungary, under which legislation was amended to introduce postal voting, making it possible for non-resident Hungarians to cast their votes in European elections.

For some countries, such as Cyprus and Germany, the ratification process was challenging and was only completed recently.

In Cyprus, the first attempt to approve Council Decision 2018/994 failed, as the President of the Republic referred the Electoral law back to the Cypriot parliament for reconsideration.

The law adopted by the Cypriot parliament on 1 February 2019 contained provisions that would automatically include more than 102 000 citizens on the electoral registry, many of whom would not normally vote as they might be living abroad, have incorrect addresses or even have died, creating significant obstacles to the smooth conduct of the elections and distorting the abstention levels.

The government initially presented the draft of this law, but during parliamentary discussions, an amendment was introduced extending automatic registration to all citizens with an identity card and a recorded address in the state archives. Before this amendment, the automatic right to vote was limited to residents in the areas controlled by the republic.

Finally, Cyprus ratified Council Decision 2018/994 on 20 October 2023 with Law 97I(I) 2023 resolving the issues that had emerged in the previous law of 2019.

In Germany, the requirement to introduce an electoral threshold has been a key procedural obstacle. In fact, the German Constitutional Court has repeatedly ruled the electoral threshold in elections to the European Parliament to be unconstitutional, in 2011 rejecting a 5 % threshold and in 2014 a 3 % threshold. In these two instances, the Court justified the rejection based on the principle of equal opportunities before the law and equal opportunity for all political parties. Any limitation of these rights requires a profound justification and the Court did not acknowledge that the lack of a threshold hinders the proper functioning or leads to an excessive fragmentation of the European Parliament.

The situation radically changed with Council Decision 2018/994 establishing a mandatory threshold of 2 %. The 2 % threshold being obligatory under EU law, it is no longer subject to an assessment based on the principle of equal opportunities before the law and equal opportunities for all political parties under German law. Consequently, on 15 June and 7 July 2023, the German legislator approved Council Decision 2018/994, introducing an electoral threshold for the European elections, by a two-thirds majority in both the Bundestag and the Bundesrat, thus reaching the parliamentary majorities required to amend the Constitution.

Die PARTEI, a German political party that had entered the European Parliament benefiting from the lack of a threshold, and Member Martin Sonneborn brought a constitutional complaint against the introduction of the minimum 2 % threshold. On 6 February 2024, the German Constitutional Court dismissed the procedures challenging the approval of the Council Decision with the motivation that Council Decision 2018/994 is not an ultra vires act overstepping the EU’s competences and it does not affect the fundamental principles of the German constitution. Moreover, the Court also acknowledged that the threshold is essential for maintaining the stability and proper functioning of the European Parliament.

While Germany has ratified Council Decision 2018/994, the German electoral law for the European Parliament election has not been amended because the Council Decision is not in force yet. As long as the 2 % threshold is not mandatory under European law, it cannot be introduced in German law.

In Spain, the crucial pending modification to the current Electoral Law also concerns the establishment of a minimum threshold for the allocation of seats. Since Spain has a single constituency, this requires Article 3 of Council Decision 2018/994 to be implemented to enforce a minimum threshold ranging from 2 to 5 % of the votes, thus, implying the modification of the Ley Orgánica del Régimen Electoral General (LOREG).

From a legal point of view, no major obstacles are foreseen concerning the ratification of Council Decision 2018/994 in Spain. However, the process is more delicate from a political perspective. Establishing an electoral threshold implies the possibility that a few smaller political parties (especially regional political parties) may be prevented from having MEPs elected. Therefore, adopting a formal electoral threshold may be particularly problematic for a political system as fragmented as Spain’s. Although the electoral threshold will benefit the major political parties, which could facilitate its parliamentary approval, it can be argued that the absence of a clear majority in the Spanish Cortes Generales, the potential impacts of the threshold for the junior coalition partners, as well as the relative political instability could present obstacles to an expeditious process.

The situation is complicated by the fact that the PSOE and EAJ-PNV, the largest Basque nationalist party, signed an agreement to form a government on 10 November 2023, explicitly mentioning that one of the conditions for EAJ-PNV to vote in favour of the investiture of Pedro Sánchez as president of the government is that the PSOE does not promote any modification to the Electoral Law (LOREG), and if necessary in extraordinary circumstances, it will only do so with prior agreement with the EAJ-PNV. In view of the European elections of June 2024, it is clear the extent to which democratic representation is distorted: the CEUS coalition, of which the EAJ-PNV was a member, won one seat with only 1.63 % of the votes cast in Spain. This result, which represents less than 0.078 % of the European electoral roll, would not have met the minimum threshold required by the 2018 reform. Therefore, it would not be entitled to that seat.

It should be noted that, while the modification of the LOREG can be carried out at the initiative of the Spanish Government or either Chamber of the Cortes Generales (Congress of Deputies or Senate), Council Decision 2018/994 can only be approved on the initiative of the Government (the proposal for the Spanish Parliament to approve the Council Decision must be enacted from the Consejo de Ministros).

5. European Parliament proposal for a new Electoral Act

Although Council Decision 2018/994 has not yet entered into force, the European Parliament has put forward a new legislative initiative that seeks to repeal the current European Electoral Act and adopt a new regulation governing European elections.

The Constitutional Affairs Committee (AFCO) appointed Domènec Ruiz Devesa (S&D, Spain) as rapporteur. The report was adopted on 28 March 2022 in AFCO and it was adopted by Plenary on 3 May 2022. During the current legislative term, Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D, Spain) has been appointed as the new rapporteur for this legislative file.

The proposal introduces several key changes, including the following:

 A minimum common age of 18 years to stand as a candidate in European elections and a minimum common voting age of 16 years, except in Member States where the constitutional order establishes a minimum voting age of 17 or 18 years.

 An obligation for Member States to ensure the right to vote in European elections to EU citizens living in a country outside the EU, those without a permanent residence, those living in closed residential settings, those experiencing homelessness or those serving a prison sentence.

 An obligation for Member States to ensure the accessibility of the relevant materials, voting facilities and polling stations, including for persons with disabilities.

 An obligation for Member States to provide for postal voting, including for EU citizens living abroad, and the possibility to allow advance physical voting, proxy voting, electronic and internet systems for voting.

 A fixed day for holding European elections across the whole of the EU (9 May, every five years).

 A common electoral campaign period starting eight weeks before the day of the elections and a common electoral reserve period commencing 48 hours before election day.

 The obligation for all political parties and other entities participating in European elections to observe ‘democratic procedures and transparency’ when electing their candidates and to ensure gender equality in their candidatures, either by using a zipper system or quotas.

 The creation of a Union-wide constituency, comprising the territory of all Member States, in which 28 Members of the European Parliament would be elected through transnational electoral lists.

 The creation of a European Electoral authority.

Parliament’s legislative initiative as conferred on it by Article 223 TFEU is blocked for various reasons and still needs to be approved unanimously by the Council, obtain Parliament’s consent (by a majority of its component members) and receive the approval of all the Member States by their respective constitutional requirements to enter into force.

6. Conclusions

In the light of the above considerations, the rapporteurs consider that this implementation report should emphasise, in particular, the following conclusions:

 Council Decision 2018/994 introduced few mandatory measures, of which only the establishment of the minimum threshold of 2 % was problematic for two Member States.

 While Germany has ratified Council Decision 2018/994, the 2 % threshold cannot be applied at the next European elections if the Council Decision is not in force.

 Council Decision 2018/994 can be considered as ‘minimal’ agreement, where many common criteria, aimed at reducing the fragmentation of voting procedures across the EU, are only optional.

 Most countries already had the mandatory measures in force, and they did not change their national legislation to introduce the optional measures. Therefore, Council Decision 2018/994 had a somewhat limited impact.

 Council Decision 2018/994, while not a perfect fit, would have contributed to greater uniformity in the 2024 EU elections.

 Council Decision 2018/994 is not in force yet as the ratification process is still ongoing in Spain, due to the political obstacles to introducing a minimum threshold.

MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION

on the reform of the European Electoral Act – hurdles to ratification and implementation in the Member States

(2025/2028(INI))

– having regard to the Treaties, and in particular Articles 9, 10, 14 and 17(7) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and Articles 22, 223(1) and 225 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

– having regard to the Act concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage (European Electoral Act), annexed to the Council decision of 20 September 1976 as amended,

– having regard to the Framework Agreement of 20 October 2010 on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission,

– having regard to its resolution of 11 November 2015 on the reform of the electoral law of the European Union,

– having regard to its position of 3 May 2022 on the proposal for a Council Regulation on the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage, repealing Council Decision (76/787/ECSC, EEC, Euratom) and the Act concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage annexed to that Decision (2020/2220(INL) — 2022/0902(APP)),

– having regard to 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, annexed to Council Decision 76/787/ECSC, EEC, Euratom of 20 September 1976,

– having regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities;

– having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure, as well as Article 1(1)(e) of, and Annex 3 to, the decision of the Conference of Presidents of 12 December 2002 on the procedure for granting authorisation to draw up own-initiative reports,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (A10-0252/2025),

A. whereas Article 223 TFEU gives Parliament the right to initiate the reform of its own electoral procedure, with the aim of drawing up a uniform procedure that applies throughout the EU or a procedure that is based on principles common to all Member States, and to give its consent thereto; whereas the EU institutions and the Member States are bound by the principle of mutual sincere cooperation as laid down in Article 4(3) TEU;

B. whereas a uniform electoral procedure would not only ensure greater equality and transparency in the electoral process but also foster the emergence of a European political and public sphere, thereby strengthening the legitimacy of the EU and its institutions;

C. whereas, in accordance with Article 223(1) TFEU, the entry into force of the amended European Electoral Act is subject to approval by all Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, with each Member State retaining full discretion over when to ratify it;

D. whereas the possibility of developing a uniform electoral procedure based on direct universal suffrage has been enshrined in the Treaties since 1957;

E. whereas the 1976 European Electoral Act outlined the objective of establishing such a uniform procedure, and explicitly mandated Parliament to take the necessary steps to that end; whereas the possibility to lay down ‘common principles’ instead of a harmonised procedure was introduced only at a later stage as a pragmatic response to the persistent difficulties in achieving unanimous agreement on a unified electoral procedure; whereas this shift in approach has led to a persistent, uneven implementation of electoral reforms, thereby undermining the original spirit of the Treaties and the 1976 European Electoral Act, and delaying the establishment of a European electoral framework;

F. whereas the reform of Parliament’s electoral procedure should aim to enhance the democratic dimension of European elections and the legitimacy of the EU’s decision-making process by ensuring equal participation for all EU citizens, thus aligning the electoral framework with Parliament’s role as co-legislator directly elected by EU citizens; whereas such reform should serve to reinforce the concept of EU citizenship, improve the functioning of Parliament and EU governance, and strengthen the principles of electoral equality, equal opportunities and inclusion; whereas it should enhance transparency, accessibility and youth engagement;

G. whereas a comprehensive agreement on a truly uniform electoral procedure has not yet been reached, and the current framework remains heavily fragmented; whereas gradual convergence has taken place in certain aspects, but current national rules continue to produce significant disparities in key areas across Member States, undermining electoral equality and weakening both the perception of a single, shared European election and citizens’ trust in the European democratic process;

H. whereas despite several reforms, European elections are still mostly governed by national laws, electoral campaigning remains to a large extent national, and European political parties are unable to sufficiently fulfil their constitutional mandates and ‘contribute to forming European political awareness and to expressing the will of citizens of the Union’, as required by Article 10(4) TEU; whereas the recast of the regulation on the statute and funding of European political parties and European political foundations has brought a level of clarity in that respect;

I. whereas an electoral threshold for the allocation of seats is the minimum percentage of votes that a political party or coalition is required to secure in order to gain a seat in the legislative assembly;

J. whereas Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2018/994 establishes a threshold of between 2 % and 5 % for Member States with constituencies of more than 35 seats; whereas electoral thresholds must strike a balance between governability and political plurality;

K. whereas the ratification process of the 2018 reform has experienced delays, with a few Member States not having completed the necessary ratification procedures in time ahead of the 2024 European elections;

L. whereas every EU citizen has an equal opportunity to participate in the democratic process to guarantee a more inclusive electoral process; whereas only a few Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) belong to national and ethnic minorities officially recognised as minorities in their respective Member States, in accordance with their respective constitutional or legal frameworks and relevant Council of Europe instruments; whereas the Venice Commission and Council for Democratic Elections report of 15 March 2005 on electoral rules and affirmative action for national minorities’ participation in decision-making process in European countries recommended a number of measures to ensure the fair representation of minorities;

M. whereas the reform of the electoral procedure on the basis of Article 223(1) TFEU must fully respect the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, and the scrutiny and ratification prerogatives of national parliaments;

Main conclusions

1. Recalls that the path towards the Europeanisation of national electoral rules concerning the elections to the European Parliament would benefit from further strengthening, namely regarding accessibility for disadvantaged groups, common deadlines for the finalisation of electoral lists, the prevention of double voting and the enhancement of the visibility and role of European political parties in electoral processes; recalls, however, that many existing provisions in the current European Electoral Act have been implemented in all Member States, namely a proportional representation system, a maximum electoral threshold of 5 % and a ban on MEPs holding a dual mandate in national parliaments and the European Parliament; considers, nevertheless, that the completion of a European ‘demos’ is far from done and that policy efforts must be intensified to make the EU less bureaucratic and more democratic;

2. Reiterates that European elections continue to be conducted largely under national legal and institutional frameworks, which were conceived in a markedly different phase of European integration; stresses that these rules no longer correspond to the enhanced role and legislative powers of the European Parliament, particularly since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon;

3. Recalls that Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2018/994 contains a number of provisions that Member States are either obliged or invited to implement; points out that optional measures have not been implemented by some Member States and that some mandatory measures have been implemented differently by some Member States, such as those concerning the prevention of double voting; notes that most provisions laid down in Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2018/994 remain optional; considers that the limited transposition of these non-binding provisions reveals a lack of political will to overcome national resistance and commit to a democratic process that better reflects the European dimension;

4. Recalls that the deadlines for finalising electoral lists ahead of European elections vary greatly among Member States, currently ranging from 21 days to 90 days, placing candidates and voters across the EU in an unequal position when it comes to the time available to campaign or to reflect on their voting choice;

5. Points out that the creation of a European public sphere and a political debate that goes beyond national borders, particularly in the context of European elections, is essential to strengthening EU democracy; underlines that European political parties are a key instrument in fostering such a debate; considers that all ballot papers must include the names of candidates and the logo of the European political party to which each national party is affiliated, and that the candidates should have proper visibility on online, television and radio campaign broadcasts, posters and other material used in European election campaigns; considers these measures to be a minimum requirement for informing voters about the European dimension of their vote and enabling European political parties to fulfil their role under Article 10(4) TEU; believes that these measures would render European elections more transparent, prevent any distortion of the right of voters to be informed about the existence of alliance agreements between political parties in European elections, and enable citizens to consciously cast their vote for a political party that belongs to their preferred political group in the European Parliament; deplores the fact that this is only an optional measure under Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2018/994 and has not yet been transposed into any national legislation to date;

6. Recalls the need to continue progressing in making the electoral process more inclusive to ensure that every citizen, regardless of their circumstances, has an equal opportunity to participate in the democratic process; points out that some Member States’ national rules do not allow voters with disabilities to change their assigned polling station to another that better accommodates their needs or to access electoral information in accessible formats; emphasises that any barriers to the right to vote and to stand as a candidate for persons with disabilities are incompatible with the obligations arising from the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and should be removed in order to guarantee accessibility for all throughout the electoral process;

7. Notes that postal voting and its complementary means are presented in Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2018/994 as an optional measure aimed at facilitating accessibility for persons with disabilities; underlines that, while this objective is essential, postal voting also plays a broader role in making electoral participation more flexible and inclusive; stresses that offering postal voting as a guaranteed option in all Member States would benefit not only persons with disabilities but also citizens who are unable to vote in person owing to extraordinary circumstances; considers that ensuring wider access to postal voting would enhance participation, especially among mobile EU citizens and younger voters, and contribute to increasing overall voter turnout;

8. Recalls that the situation of dual EU citizens has not yet been resolved, as it is still possible for a dual EU citizen to be automatically included on the electoral rolls of more than one Member State, with no available means of deregistering; notes that a dual EU citizen who is automatically registered on more than one electoral roll, but votes only in one Member State, as required, may nevertheless be considered not to have voted in the other Member State and could face a penalty as a result;

9. Welcomes Parliament’s initiative to introduce proxy voting arrangements for cases of maternity leave through an amendment to the European Electoral Act, as a balanced and practical solution to support MEPs while ensuring the continuity of representation;

10. Emphasises that Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2018/994 is not yet in force as the ratification process is still ongoing in one remaining Member State; notes that, while Germany has ratified Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2018/994, the German electoral law for the European elections has not been amended because as long as the 2 % threshold is not mandatory under EU law, it cannot be introduced in German law;

11. Notes the Commission’s role as facilitator in the institutional talks between Parliament and the Council on the new proposal to reform the European Electoral Act; considers it essential to engage in a constructive dialogue with the Council to evaluate Parliament’s 2022 proposal and make progress; underlines that the lack of progress is not due to technical or legal obstacles but to a lack of political will among Member States to engage with Parliament’s proposals; is convinced that this report should provide new impetus to start interinstitutional negotiations on the 2022 proposal without delay and urges upcoming Council presidencies to comply with their obligations under the principle of mutual and sincere cooperation;

Recommendations

12. Considers the transparency of the electoral process and access to reliable information to be essential factors in raising European political awareness and securing an election turnout that is high enough to constitute a mandate from the electorate; highlights that candidates should have the same opportunities to campaign and that citizens should be informed well in advance about the candidates standing in the European elections; stresses, therefore, the importance of harmonising the deadlines for the submission of electoral lists across the Member States, as requested by Parliament on several occasions;

13. Emphasises that it is essential to facilitate access to voting in European elections and to guarantee that all those entitled to vote are able to exercise this right through postal voting or other complementary means; calls on the Member States to ensure equal access to information and the electoral process for all citizens, including persons with disabilities, especially when public structures are not fully accessible; calls, furthermore, on the Member States to guarantee the right to vote and stand for election for persons with disabilities by establishing provisions that harmonise the accessibility of voting facilities, polling stations, electoral procedures and electoral materials for persons with disabilities, and that enable them to vote independently and in secret; notes that the responsibility for regulating accessibility remains entirely with the Member States and invites them to cooperate with organisations of persons with disabilities to assess and address the legal and practical barriers that prevent their participation in elections, both as voters and as candidates;

14. Calls on all Member States to implement all the optional measures included in Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2018/994 and, in particular, to enhance the visibility of electoral alliances in European elections, the affiliation of national political parties to European political parties, European associations of voters and other European electoral entities, through media campaigns, the distribution of uniform ballot papers that clearly indicate European alliances throughout each Member State, and indications on all other electoral materials; considers that national parties and associations of voters should indicate, where applicable, their affiliation to European political parties or other European electoral entities during the electoral campaign, including on ballot papers;

15. Calls on all Member States to take concrete steps to harmonise candidacy requirements in order to ensure fair and equal access to the electoral process for all political actors, in line with the principle of fair competition and democratic pluralism;

16. Underlines that the ratification of Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2018/994 by all Member States remains mandatory to allow it to enter into force; calls, therefore, on the remaining Member State to start the ratification procedure;

°

° °

17. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.

ANNEX: DECLARATION OF INPUT

The rapporteur declares under his exclusive responsibility that he did not include in his report input from interest representatives falling within the scope of the Interinstitutional Agreement on a mandatory transparency register, or from representatives of public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies, to be listed in this Annex pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure.

INFORMATION ON ADOPTION IN COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

Date adopted

3.12.2025

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:

17

7

3

Members present for the final vote

Gerolf Annemans, François-Xavier Bellamy, Gabriele Bischoff, Vasile Dîncu, Nikolas Farantouris, Daniel Freund, Emmanouil Kefalogiannis, Thijs Reuten, Bartłomiej Sienkiewicz, Sven Simon, Reinier Van Lanschot, Alexandre Varaut, Sabine Verheyen, Loránt Vincze, Charlie Weimers

Substitutes present for the final vote

Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis, Marc Angel, Helmut Brandstätter, Marieke Ehlers, Branko Grims, Ana Miguel Pedro, Gheorghe Piperea

Members under Rule 216(7) present for the final vote

Rachel Blom, Olivier Chastel, Tomasz Froelich, Nicolás Pascual de la Parte, Michal Wiezik

FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL BY THE COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

Key to symbols: