Sittings · Compare
What changed
DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
on the 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)0732 – C90021/2022C9-0021/2022 – 2021/0372(CNS))
(Special legislative procedure – consultation – recast)
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2021)0372),draft (09789/2024),
having regard to Article 22(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C9-0021/2022),
– having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2021)0732),
– having regard to Article 22(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C9-0021/2022),
– having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 28 November 2001 on a more structured use of the recasting technique for legal acts,
– having regard to the letter of [...]8 November 2022 from the Committee on Legal Affairs to the Committee on Constitutional Affairs in accordance with Rule 110(3)113(3) of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to Rules 110113 and 8284 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the position in the form of amendmentsopinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (A9-0000/2022),(A100000/2025),
A. whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the Commission proposal does not include any substantive amendments other than those identified as such in the proposal and whereas, as regards the codification of the unchanged provisions of the earlier acts together with those amendments, the proposal contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts, without any change in their substance;
1. Approves the Commission proposal as amended below;
1. Approves the Council draft as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission;
2. Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;
3. Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend the Commissiontext proposalapproved substantially;by Parliament;
4. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.
Amendment 1
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1 a (new)
Or. en
Justification
Necessary for the internal coherence of the text as it clarifies the importance of the ability to stand and vote in EU elections
Amendment 2
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1 b (new)
Or. en
Justification
Necessary for the internal coherence of the text as it clarifies the importance of the ability to stand and vote in EU elections.
Amendment 3
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1 c (new)
Or. en
Justification
Necessary for the internal coherence of the text as it clarifies the importance of the ability to stand and vote in EU election. Necessary for the coherence with European Parliament’s proposal for a new European Electoral Act.
Amendment 4
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1 d (new)
Or. en
Justification
Necessary for the internal coherence of the text as it clarifies the importance of the ability to stand and vote in EU election. Necessary for the coherence with European Parliament’s proposal for a new European Electoral Act.
Amendment 5
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1 e (new)
Or. en
Justification
Necessary for internal coherence and the provision of clarification on the importance of the ability to run and vote in EU election. Necessary for the coherence with European Parliament’s proposal for a new European Electoral Act.
Amendment 6
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1 f (new)
Or. en
Justification
Necessary for internal coherence and the provision of clarification on the importance of the ability to run and vote in EU election. Necessary for the coherence with European Parliament’s proposal for a new European Electoral Act.
Amendment 7
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Or. en
Justification
Necessary for clarity and coherence.
Amendment 8
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6 a (new)
Or. en
Justification
Necessary for internal coherence and the provision of clarification on the importance of the ability to run and vote in EU elections. Based on the aim and internal logic of the text to facilitate that a maximum participation by mobile EU citizens is ensured.
Amendment 9
Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
Or. en
Amendment 10
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
Or. en
Justification
Automatic registration is consistent with the current legal framework and is the best guarantee to increase the uptake of “mobile citizens” in the democratic life of the host country. The freedom to choose does not prevent automatic registration, which in itself does not exclude a right to opt out Based on the aim and internal logic of the text to facilitate that a maximum participation by mobile EU citizens is ensured. It forms a whole with AM 13.
Amendment 11
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
Or. en
Justification
The registration requirements for running on an electoral list in the host Member State should be the same for non-national EU citizens as it should be for nationals and only in justifiable cases should there be additional requirements such as formal declarations. Based on the aim and internal logic of the text to facilitate that a maximum participation by mobile EU citizens is ensured.
Amendment 12
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
Or. en
Justification
Automatic registration is consistent with the current legal framework and is the best guarantee to increase the uptake of “mobile citizens” in the democratic life of the host country. The freedom to choose does not prevent automatic registration, which in itself does not exclude a right to opt out. Based on the aim and internal logic of the text to facilitate that a maximum participation by mobile EU citizens is ensured. It is also linked to AM 13.
Amendment 13
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
Or. en
Amendment 14
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
Or. en
Amendment 15
Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
Or. en
Justification
Necessary for internal coherence and linked to AM 14. Additionally, this specific timeframe is needed for the article to be coherent with the logic of amendment in Art. 12. par. 1, where it is defined when the electoral polls should close.
Amendment 16
Proposal for a directive
Recital 20 a (new)
Or. en
Justification
Necessary for internal coherence and the provision of clarification on the importance of the ability to run and vote in EU elections. Based on the aim and internal logic of the text to facilitate that a maximum participation by mobile EU citizens is ensured. Part of proposals in AMs 8 and 13.
Amendment 17
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21
Or. en
Justification
This deletion is connected to the aim and internal logic of the Directive, which is to eliminate discrimination of mobile citizens as regards the exercise of their electoral rights.
Amendment 18
Proposal for a directive
Recital 22
Or. en
Justification
Necessary to comply with the principle of non-discrimination and ensure the democratic rights of EU citizens who have exercised their right to live, work or study in a Member State of which they are not nationals.
Amendment 19
Proposal for a directive
Recital 23
Or. en
Justification
As per Amendments 18 and 43, these changes are required in order to comply with the principle of non-discrimination and ensure the democratic rights of EU citizens who have exercised their right to vote, live, work or study in a Member State of which they are not nationals. The exemption rules foreseen in the Directive need to be adapted. Every Union citizens no matter where they live should have the right to vote even if there are many not-national EU citizens living in that Member State.
Amendment 20
Proposal for a directive
Recital 24
Or. en
Justification
Deletion is necessary for the clarity and coherence of the proposal and follows from the deletion of recitals 22 and 23.
Amendment 21
Proposal for a directive
Recital 26
Or. en
Amendment 22
Proposal for a directive
Recital 27
Or. en
Justification
A regular evaluation of the functioning of this Directive is necessary to adapt rules to the changing societal, demographic and democratic circumstances in which the Union finds itself. This is in line with the review proposed by the European Parliament in the European Electoral Law Act.
Amendment 23
Proposal for a directive
Recital 29
Or. en
Justification
In order to increase mobile citizens’ participation in EU elections, as many voting means as possible should be made available to them in order to increase voter turnout for the EU elections in line with the aim and internal logic of the text.
Amendment 24
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a
Or. en
Justification
Necessary for internal coherence and in accordance with the principle of non-discrimination. It is specifically linked to recital 29, which falls under the recast procedure and where it is stated that in European Parliament elections due regard should be had to the needs of citizens with a disability. It is inextricably linked, because it further defines how Member States should ensure there is due regard for the needs of citizens with a disability in European Parliament elections.
Amendment 25
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 5
Or. en
Justification
Necessary for internal coherence. This is linked to article 15, where Member States have to designate a help desk for collecting and providing statistical data. As such, for the internal coherence the word help desk should be used consistently throughout the text.
Amendment 26
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Or. en
Justification
Necessary for the internal coherence. The conditions governing registration and participation should be clarified in order to make sure that the treatment between national and non-national Union citizens is equal. Still, due to language and inhibitive administrative barriers existing between national and non-national Union citizens, one of the most effective ways to ensure equality is to provide for automatic registration for Union citizens, making participation as easy as possible.
Amendment 27
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Or. en
Justification
Necessary for the coherence between the different ongoing discussions on reforming the EU’s electoral system. Moreover, the specific timeframe of ‘sufficiently in advance’ is not clearly defined and leaves a lot of space to Member States to define it themselves, which can lead to people not being informed sufficiently in advance of the registration possibilities, especially considering possible language barriers. As foreseen in other legal texts refining the setup of our electoral rules, a common start to the European electoral campaign is needed, which can only be achieved if there is a common deadline for registration of voters and candidates. Additionally, this specific timeframe is needed for the article to be coherent with the logic of amendment in Art. 12. par. 1, where it is defined when the electoral polls should close.
Amendment 28
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 3 – point a
Or. en
Justification
Necessary for internal coherence and in accordance to the principle of non discrimination.
Amendment 29
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 3 – point c a (new)
Or. en
Justification
Necessary for internal coherence, in accordance with Article 12.
Amendment 30
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 4
Or. en
Amendment 31
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Or. en
Justification
There are currently 27 strongly differing registration requirements for a political party, candidates or associations of voters and for submitting a list of candidates for the national constituencies. These are often discriminatory and inhibit political innovation and competition. Aligning these is important to make European elections more democratic as candidates will have to go through more similar democratic scrutiny processes before becoming MEPs and writing laws for all Europeans. As this Directive also foresees rules for the right to stand in EU elections, it is important to align these rules for all Union citizens to make the EU elections more comparable and competitive
Amendment 32
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1
Or. en
Justification
Necessary for internal coherence. Linked to amendment 3, where automatic registration is mentioned.
Amendment 33
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 4
Or. en
Justification
Information on the EU elections for all Union citizens needs to be as accessible as possible. Mobile citizens have to have the right to request information that they understand to carry out the necessary registration steps, in case automatic registration is not chosen. Based on the aim and internal logic of the text to facilitate that a maximum participation by mobile EU citizens is ensured.
Amendment 34
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1
Or. en
Justification
Internal legislative coherence to ensure that campaigning can start at the same time across the Union.
Amendment 35
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – point d a (new)
Or. en
Justification
The rules provided for in this Directive shall be as inclusive as possible for all mobile citizens including marginalised or Union voters with disabilities.
Amendment 36
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Or. en
Justification
Previous experiences for the European elections (and also municipal elections) has shown that Civil Society organisations can play incredibly helpful role leading to a multiplication of spreading the information about mobile citizens’ rights in EU elections. This should be manifested in this text to promote the creation of CSOs to help the information provision on electoral rights of mobile EU citizens.
Amendment 37
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Or. en
Justification
The rules provided for in this Directive shall be as inclusive as possible for all mobile citizens including marginalised or Union voters with disabilities.
Amendment 38
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 4
Or. en
Justification
The rules provided for in this Directive shall be as inclusive as possible for all mobile citizens including marginalised or Union voters with disabilities.
Amendment 39
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Or. en
Justification
Necessary for internal coherence. This is inextricably linked to the earlier deadlines with regards to the electoral rolls in amendments on recital 20 and Art. 9, par. 1, as there needs to be time between the home Member State being informed and the closing of the electoral rolls. As such, information sharing needs to occur before the deadline of the closing of the electoral rolls.
Amendment 40
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1
Or. en
Amendment 41
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Or. en
Amendment 42
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1
Or. en
Justification
As per Amendments 18 and 19, these changes are required in order to comply with the principle of non-discrimination and ensure the democratic rights of EU citizens who have exercised their right to live, work or study in a Member State of which they are not nationals. The exemption rules foreseen in the Directive need to be adapted. Every Union citizens no matter where they live should have the right to vote even if there are many not-national EU citizens living in that Member State.
Amendment 43
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 2
Or. en
Justification
As per Amendments 18 and 19, these changes are required in order to comply with the principle of non-discrimination and ensure the democratic rights of EU citizens who have exercised their right to live, work or study in a Member State of which they are not nationals. The exemption rules foreseen in the Directive need to be adapted. Every Union citizens no matter where they live should have the right to vote even if there are many not-national EU citizens living in that Member State.
Amendment 44
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 3
Or. en
Justification
As per Amendments 18 and 19, these changes are required in order to comply with the principle of non-discrimination and ensure the democratic rights of EU citizens who have exercised their right to live, work or study in a Member State of which they are not nationals. The exemption rules foreseen in the Directive need to be adapted. Every Union citizens no matter where they live should have the right to vote even if there are many not-national EU citizens living in that Member State.
Amendment 45
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 a (new)
Or. en
Justification
Necessary to ensure coherence and to ensure that the principle of non-discrimination is upheld.
Amendment 46
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 1
Or. en
Justification
Necessary to ensure coherence in the text.
Amendment 47
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 1
Or. en
Justification
Necessary to ensure legislative coherence and to make sure that after each election an evaluation of the functioning of this Directive is carried out.
Amendment 48
Proposal for a directive
Annex I – paragraph 4 a (new)
Or. en
Amendment 49
Proposal for a directive
Annex II – paragraph 4
Or. en
Justification
Necessary to ensure coherence in the text.
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
Pursuant to Article 20(2)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Article 22(2) TFEU and Article 39 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU), EU citizens residing in an EU Member State other than their own are entitled to vote and stand as candidates in European and municipal elections, under the same conditions as nationals. Detailed provisions on the political rights granted under EU citizenship are set out in Council Directive 93/109/EC regarding the participation of non-national Union citizens in European Parliament elections in their country of residence.
There is an estimated 13.3 million non-national Union citizens of voting age (post-Brexit data), which equals, when aggregated, the voting population of a medium-sized Member State. Nevertheless, voter turnout among non-national Union citizens remains low compared to nationals, despite the fact that all Member States have successfully transposed directive 93/109/EC. Similarly, the percentage of candidates standing for European elections made up of non-nationals is extremely limited (slightly over 1 % in the 2019 elections).
Nearly 13.7 million EU citizens – of whom about 11million are of voting age – reside in a Member State other than that of their nationality. Detailed provisions on the political rights granted under EU citizenship are set out in Council Directive 93/109/EC regarding the participation of non-national Union citizens in European Parliament elections in their country of residence.
It thus becomes clear that despiteDespite the arrangements under Directive 93/109/EC, non-national Union citizens still face manycertain obstacles in exercising their electoral rights in elections to the European Parliament. In particular,These forconcern the exerciseaccessibility of the right to vote, major obstaclesinformation, appearthe toregistration beprocesses, the difficulties in accessingeffects correctof andderegistration timelyin informationthe onMember howState toof voteorigin and standthe asexchange candidate,of complicatedinformation voterbetween registrationMember processes,States andwith the effectaim of deregistration from elections in the Member Statepreventing ofmultiple origin.voting.
For the exercise of the right to stand as a candidate, non-national and national EU citizens still face a great variety of electoral cultures, resulting in a vast range of different electoral systems that often make it impossible to register a party, association of voters or other electoral entities and to stand for elections. This is mainly due to either impedingly high judicial or financial thresholds or disproportionate signature requirements, which make it impossible especially for new political ideas to be represented on ballot lists for both EU and municipal elections.
Your rapporteur thus welcomes the proposed revision of Directive 93/109/EC as provided in the Council draft of 16 September 2024. In his viewpoint, the amended proposal by the Council strikes the right balance between on the one hand mobile voters’ and candidates’ needs for timely information, equal treatment with nationals of Member States - including regarding possibilities of advance voting, postal voting, and electronic and internet voting available in a Member State - and the administrative burden on Member States’ national authorities on the other hand.
Moreover, there is a lack of public and comparable data. In several countries, registration rates for mobile EU voters are not published. Several Member States do not keep record of the amount of mobile EU citizens standing as a candidate in the elections to the European Parliament. Where data is kept and exchanged, the scope and format of the reporting obligations are inconsistent and vary between Member States, leading to incomparable results.
He is also of the opinion that the Council draft improves at the same time the exchange of necessary information between Members States in order to avoid multiple voting or instances where the same person would stand as a candidate more than once at the same elections, and introduces concrete reporting and data collecting and sharing obligations regarding the application of this Directive in the territory of the Member States thus permitting for the identification of measures necessary to ensure the effective exercise of Union citizens’ electoral rights.
The amendments put forward by the Commission are limited and specific to the Council Directive and only marginally solve the difficulties faced by mobile EU citizens. While the new proposal is intended to update, clarify and strengthen the existing, outdated rules, it does so with limited effect as major issues, such as broadening the scope of the Directive as well as truly improving the accessibility to EU elections have not been addressed sufficiently.
Your rapporteur would therefore propose that the Council draft be approved with no amendments.
More ambitious steps have to be taken in order to a) truly ensure a broad and inclusive participation in the 2024 elections to the European Parliament, b) reduce inhibitive and undemocratic registration requirements both for voters and candidates, c) support mobile EU citizens in the exercise of their rights and d) protect the integrity of elections.
ANNEX: LETTER FROM THE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AFFAIRS
Specifically, in order to make access to voting and standing as candidate in EP elections as easy as possible for non-national Union citizens, Member States should ensure that information on mobile citizens’ rights to vote or stand as candidates should be available in all Union languages and should reach marginalised groups, especially disabled people. Additionally, obstacles accessing voting booths and polling stations should be addressed, the possibility for postal, proxy, advance and electronic voting should be revisited. Minimum residence requirement for non-national Union citizens should be abolished, where still existent, and civil society organisations should play an important role in assisting the designated authorities in Member States to reach out to citizens through appropriate information campaigns, encouraging non-national Union citizens to proactively seek information about their voting and candidacy rights in European Parliament elections.
8.11.2022
Moreover, recent developments in reforming the European elections should be taken into account in the recasting of this Directive. The new proposed rules can, if adopted and ratified by Member States, have a truly Europeanising effect that can change the way mobile EU citizens perceive EU democracy. Consequentially, the direction taken in this Directive should, as much as legally possible, reflect these developments.
Mr Salvatore De Meo
Chair
Committee on Constitutional Affairs
BRUSSELS
Subject: Opinion on Proposal for a directive of the Council 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) (COM2021(0372) – C90021/2022 – 2021/0372(CNS))
Dear Mr Chair,The Committee on Legal Affairs has examined the proposal referred to above pursuant to Rule 110 on Recasting of Parliament's Rules of Procedure.
Paragraph 3 of that Rule reads as follows:
“If the committee responsible for legal affairs considers that the proposal does not entail any substantive changes other than those identified as such in the proposal, it shall inform the committee responsible for the subject matter thereof.
In such a case, over and above the conditions laid down in Rules 180 and 181, amendments shall be admissible within the committee responsible for the subject-matter only if they concern those parts of the proposal which contain changes.
However, amendments to parts of the proposal which remain unchanged may, by way of exception and on a case-by-case basis, be accepted by the Chair of the committee responsible for the subject matter if he or she considers that this is necessary for pressing reasons relating to the internal logic of the text or because the amendments are inextricably linked to other admissible amendments. Such reasons must be stated in a written justification to the amendments.”
Following the here attached opinion of the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the Parliament, the Council and the Commission, which has examined the recast proposal, and in keeping with the recommendations of the Rapporteur, the Committee on Legal Affairs considers that the proposal in question does not include any substantive changes other than those identified as such and that, as regards the codification of the unchanged provisions of the earlier act with those substantive amendments, the proposal contains a straightforward codification of the existing text, without any change in its substance.
In conclusion, at its meeting of 27 October 2022, the Committee on Legal Affairs, with 21 votes in favour, no votes against and two abstentions decided to recommend that the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO), as the committee responsible, proceed to examine the above proposal in accordance with Rule 110.
Yours sincerely,
Adrián Vázquez Lázara
ANNEX: OPINION OF THE CONSULTATIVE WORKING PARTY OF THE LEGAL SERVICES OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMISSION
Brussels, 7 July 2022
OPINION
THE COMMISSION
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)0732 of 25 November 2022 – 2021/0372(CNS)
Having regard to the Inter-institutional Agreement of 28 November 2001 on a more structured use of the recasting technique for legal acts, and in particular to point 9 thereof, the Consultative Working Party consisting of the respective legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission met on 1 February 2022 for the purpose of examining, among others, the aforementioned proposal submitted by the Commission.
At that meeting, an examination of the proposal for a Council Directive recasting 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 resulted in the Consultative Working Party’s establishing, by common accord, as follows.
1. The following should have been marked with the grey-shaded type generally used for identifying substantive amendments:
- in recital 5, the adding of the words ‘in accordance with principles common to all Member States’;
- in Article 3, introductory wording, the deletion of the words ‘Any person who’ and the adding of the words ‘The following persons’;
- in Article 3, point (a), the adding of the words ‘the person who’;
- in Article 3, point (b), the adding of the words ‘the person who’.
2. In recital 5, the words ‘Article 20(2) TFEU’ should be replaced by ‘Article 22(2) TFEU’.
In consequence, examination of the proposal has enabled the Consultative Working Party to conclude, without dissent, that the proposal does not comprise any substantive amendments other than those identified as such. The Working Party also concluded, as regards the codification of the unchanged provisions of the earlier act with those substantive amendments, that the proposal contains a straightforward codification of the existing legal text, without any change in its substance.
F. DREXLER T. BLANCHET D. CALLEJA CRESPO
Jurisconsult Jurisconsult Director-General