Tag Archives: European Parliament

Secretariat for the joint supervisory data-protection bodies

Leave a reply

Secretariat for the joint supervisory data-protection bodies

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Secretariat for the joint supervisory data-protection bodies

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Justice freedom and security > Police and customs cooperation

Secretariat for the joint supervisory data-protection bodies

Document or Iniciative

Council Decision 2000/641/JHA of 17 October 2000 establishing a secretariat for the joint supervisory data-protection bodies set up by the Convention on the Establishment of a European Police Office (Europol Convention), the Convention on the Use of Information Technology for Customs Purposes and the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement on the gradual abolition of checks at the common borders (Schengen Convention).

Summary

The aim of this decision is to establish a single, independent joint secretariat for the existing supervisory bodies. In the performance of its tasks, the new secretariat will be bound only by instructions from the data-protection bodies set up by the Europol Convention, the Schengen Convention and the Convention on the use of Information Technology for Customs Purposes. This marks the first step towards the creation of a single supervisory body with legal personality and its own budget.

The data-protection secretariat will be headed by a secretary appointed by the Deputy Secretary-General of the Council, acting on a proposal by the joint supervisory bodies, for a renewable term of three years. It will be entirely independent in the performance of its duties, subject only to instructions from the joint supervisory bodies and their chairmen.

The secretary will have to meet certain requirements: he must be a national of an EU Member State, offer every guarantee of independence, have full civil and political rights, and have the experience and expertise required for the performance of his duties. He may not engage in any other occupation, gainful or not.

He may be removed from office by the Deputy Secretary-General of the Council for serious misconduct or if he no longer fulfils the conditions required for the performance of his duties.

During and after his period of office, the data-protection secretary will be bound by professional secrecy. He will be assisted by the necessary staff, who will not be allowed to receive instructions from any authority or organisation apart from the joint supervisory bodies, the chairmen of these bodies and the secretary himself.

The General Secretariat of the Council will provide the data-protection secretariat with the infrastructure (offices, equipment, etc.) and human resources (interpreters) it needs.

The overheads of the data-protection secretariat will be charged to the section of the general budget of the European Union relating to the Council. The costs relating to meetings will be borne by the Council and by Europol (in the case of meetings relating to matters of implementation of the Europol Convention).

References

Act Entry into force Deadline for transposition in the Member States Official Journal
Council Decision 2000/641/JHA 18.10.2000
applicable from 01.09.2001		 – OJ L 271 of 24.10.2000

 

The strengthening of European democracy

Leave a reply

The strengthening of European democracy

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about The strengthening of European democracy

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Institutional affairs > Building europe through the treaties > The Lisbon Treaty: a comprehensive guide

The strengthening of European democracy

The Treaty of Lisbon puts the citizen back at the heart of the European Union (EU) and its institutions. It aims to revive the citizen’s interest in the EU and its achievements, which sometimes appear too remote. One objective of the Treaty of Lisbon is to promote European democracy which offers citizens the opportunity to take an interest in and participate in the functioning and development of the EU.

Such an objective necessarily depends on better recognition of European citizenship in the founding Treaties of the EU. The Treaty of Lisbon also endeavours to simplify and clarify the functioning of the Union in order to make it more understandable, and therefore more accessible to citizens. Finally, the Treaty of Lisbon strengthens the representation and participation of the citizen in the European process. The creation of a citizens’ initiative is one of the main innovations.

BETTER RECOGNITION OF CITIZENS IN THE TREATIES

The Treaty of Lisbon introduces a new article in which it fully recognises European citizenship. Article 10 of the Treaty on EU provides that citizens are directly represented at institutional level by the European Parliament. The article adds that this representative democracy is one of the foundations of the EU. Such recognition does not give citizens new rights but it does have strong symbolic value in that it enshrines the principle of European citizenship in the founding Treaties.

Article 10 also establishes a principle of proximity which provides that decisions must be taken as closely as possible to the citizens. This principle applies especially in the implementation of competences within the EU. This implementation should involve national and local administrations as effectively as possible, so as to bring the EU closer to its citizens.

A EUROPEAN UNION MORE ACCESSIBLE TO CITIZENS

The EU has often dismissed the image of a body with a complex structure and procedures. The Treaty of Lisbon clarifies the functioning of the EU in order to improve citizens’ understanding of it. The vast numbers of legislative procedures are now giving way to a standard procedure and special legislative procedures detailed on a case by case basis. Similarly, the old pillar structure has been abolished in favour of a clear and precise division of competences within the EU.

In the same context, the Treaty of Lisbon improves the transparency of work within the EU. It extends to the Council the principle of public conduct of proceedings, which is already applied within the European Parliament. Moreover, this greater transparency will result in better information for citizens about the content of legislative proceedings.

STRONGER REPRESENTATION AT INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL

The Treaty of Lisbon greatly strengthens the powers of the European Parliament (see European Parliament). The most significant changes include:

  • the strengthening of legislative power: the ordinary legislative procedure, in which the Parliament has the same powers as the Council, is extended to new policy areas;
  • a greater role at international level: the Parliament shall approve international agreements in the fields covered by the ordinary legislative procedure;
  • the strengthening of budgetary power: the Parliament is henceforth placed on an equal footing with the Council in the procedure for adopting the EU’s annual budget.

Moreover, the Treaty of Lisbon enhances the role of national parliaments in the EU (see national parliaments). The latter are also able to defend the views of citizens within the EU. More specifically, national parliaments must henceforth ensure the proper application of the principle of subsidiarity. In this respect, they are able to intervene in the ordinary legislative procedure and have a right of referral to the Court of Justice of the EU.

GREATER PARTICIPATION OF CITIZENS IN THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

The Treaty of Lisbon establishes a right of citizens’ initiative for the first time, introduced by Article 11 of the Treaty on EU: not less than one million European nationals may invite the Commission to submit a proposal on a specific matter. This provision expresses the EU’s wish to involve its citizens in European projects and in the taking of decisions that concern them.

Such a right is subject to several conditions. The minimum threshold of one million citizens may seem high at first sight. However, it is relatively easy to achieve in a European population approaching half a billion inhabitants and through the use of new communications technologies. Article 11 also provides that the signatory citizens should come from a significant number of Member States, in order to avoid the defence of essentially national interests.

Moreover, the right of citizens’ initiative does not take away the initiative monopoly of the European Commission. The latter remains free to act, or not to act, on the initiative proposed by European citizens. If the initiative gives rise to a legislative proposal, the act will be adopted by the Council and the European Parliament in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure or a special legislative procedure.

Enforcing judgments: the transparency of debtors' assets

Leave a reply

Enforcing judgments: the transparency of debtors’ assets

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Enforcing judgments: the transparency of debtors’ assets

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Justice freedom and security > Judicial cooperation in civil matters

Enforcing judgments: the transparency of debtors’ assets

Even with a court judgment obtained, recovering cross-border debts may be difficult for creditors in practice if no information on the debtors’ assets or whereabouts is available. Because of this, the European Commission has adopted a Green Paper launching a public consultation on how to improve the recovery of debts through possible measures such as registers and debtor declarations.

Document or Iniciative

Green Paper of 6 March 2008 on the effective enforcement of judgments in the European Union: the transparency of debtors’ assets [COM(2008) 128 final – Not published in the Official Journal].

Summary

The late and non-payment of debts is detrimental to business and customers alike, particularly when no information is available on the debtor’s assets or whereabouts. This is a particular cross-border issue in debt recovery and has the potential to affect the smooth running of the internal market. In launching a public consultation, the European Commission has outlined the problems of the current situation and possible solutions in this Green Paper. Interested parties can submit their comments by 30 September 2008.

State of play

The search for a debtor’s address and information on his financial situation is often the starting point for enforcement proceedings. At national level, most Member States mainly use two different systems for obtaining information, either:

  • systems of declaration of the debtor’s entire assets or at least a part of it to satisfy the claim;
  • search systems with specific information (registers).

In this Green Paper, the European Commission focuses more on a series of measures instead of one single European measure to allow the creditor to obtain reliable information on the debtor’s assets and whereabouts within a reasonable period of time. Possible measures include:

  • drawing up a manual of national enforcement laws and practices: at present, there is very little information on the different enforcement systems in the 27 European Union Member States. Such a manual could contain all sources of information on a person’s assets, which could be accessed in each country; contact addresses, costs, etc.
  • increasing the information available and improving access to registers: the main sources of information on the debtor are public registers, such as commercial or population registers. However, these vary from one Member State to the next. The Commission is asking whether to increase information available in and access to commercial registers and in what way access to existing population registers should be enhanced. Furthermore, access to social security and tax registers by enforcement authorities may be increased, while respecting rules of data protection and social and fiscal privacy.
  • exchange of information between enforcement authorities: currently, enforcement bodies are not able to directly access the (non-public) registers of other Member States which are open to national enforcement bodies. In addition, there are no international instruments dealing with the exchange of information between national enforcement bodies. In the absence of a Europe-wide register, enhancing cooperation between national enforcement authorities and direct exchange of information between them may a possible solution.
  • measures relating to the debtor’s declaration: enforcement bodies have in several Member States the option to question the debtor directly regarding his assets, whereas in some Member States the debtor’s declaration is made in the form of a testimony before the enforcement court. In some Member States, the debtor has to fill out mandatory forms, and in others a debtor’s declaration does not exist at all. The European Commission is considering introducing a European Assets declaration, obliging the debtors to disclose all assets in the European judicial area. In this way, the transparency of the debtor’s assets would not be limited by the territoriality of the enforcement proceedings.

Democratic control over Europol

Leave a reply

Democratic control over Europol

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Democratic control over Europol

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Justice freedom and security > Fight against terrorism

Democratic control over Europol

The Commission is clarifying the tasks and powers of Europol compared with those of national police forces. It is also analysing possible methods of exercising democratic control over Europol’s activities while preserving the confidentiality and freedom of action that are essential if Europol is to carry out its tasks.

Document or Iniciative

Commission Communication to the European Parliament and the Council. Democratic control over Europol [COM(2002) 95 final – Not published in the Official Journal].

Summary

In the interests of creating an area of freedom, security and justice, Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union provides for closer cooperation between police and customs authorities in preventing and combating crime. The competent authorities of the Member States may cooperate directly or through Europol.

In October 1999 the Tampere European Council recognised the key role of Europol in crime prevention and called on the Council to provide it with the necessary support and resources for carrying out its tasks (point 45 of the Conclusions).

When the Scoreboard was updated in October 2001, the Commission raised the question of revising the Europol Convention in order to introduce some form of democratic control [COM(2001) 628 final]. The importance of the issue was then highlighted in December 2001 in the Laeken Declaration on the future of the European Union, in which the Member States expressed their commitment to greater transparency and efficiency.

The European Parliament’s Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) recently launched a debate on the possibility of exercising democratic (and more particularly parliamentary) control over Europol.

European Parliament’s position

Maintaining that the arrangements for informing it about Europol’s activities did not constitute an adequate level of control, Parliament formulated proposals in a recommendation on reinforcing parliamentary controls and extending Europol’s powers (April 1999) and two reports on initiatives by the Member States to extend Europol’s powers (October 2000 and 2001).

Parliament made a number of suggestions in these documents. It called on the Council to:

  • provide for adequate parliamentary control in the event of Europol being given operational powers;
  • provide for the creation of a European public prosecutor in the event of Europol being given cross-border operational powers;
  • make the Director of Europol accountable to the competent Parliamentary committee.

Parliament also asked the Commission to present a proposal for a comprehensive reform of Europol which would include other topics, such as judicial review of the instruments of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (third pillar) by the Court of Justice and the funding of the instruments in question from the Community budget.

Analysis of Europol’s current tasks

In order to assess the effectiveness of existing control over Europol, the Commission believes it is necessary to analyse the tasks currently performed by the European Police Office. These essentially consist of exchanging information and analysing criminal activity. On a practical level, Europol stores, analyses and distributes the information it receives from the Member States or collects on its own initiative.

Unlike national police forces, Europol has no powers of enforcement or investigation (search, arrest, use of firearms, etc.). But, whereas until January 2002 Europol was competent to deal only with certain types of criminal activity, the Council Decision of 6 December 2001 extended Europol’s mandate to include all the forms of crime listed in the Annex to the Europol Convention (Official Journal C 362, 18.12.2001).

As Europol’s principal task is to collect information, its activities have a direct bearing on the right to privacy. The Europol Convention devotes a number of articles to the problem of the processing of personal data (Title IV), requiring each Member State to designate a national supervisory body and set up an independent joint supervisory body. In addition, the Council has adopted measures over the years to regulate the transmission of data originating from third parties or intended for third-party organisations.

Europol’s Management Board, which consists of representatives of the Member States and in which the Commission has observer status, meets at least six times a year. It performs a number of tasks which essentially amount to a close monitoring of Europol’s activities.

Practicalities of parliamentary control

Each year the Management Board reports to the Council meeting at the level of the ministers responsible for police cooperation. The ministers are accountable to their national parliaments.

The Europol Convention provides for:

  • the Presidency to present an annual report on Europol’s activities to the European Parliament. This report is not exactly the same as the annual report that Europol presents to the Council. The Commission is suggesting amending the Convention to provide for a single report to Parliament and the Council;
  • the European Parliament to be consulted before any amendment to the Convention.

In addition, the Treaties contain provisions allowing Parliament to intervene in the decision-making process relating to Europol, namely:

  • Article 39 of the EU Treaty introduces the procedure whereby Parliament must be consulted before the adoption of the measures referred to in Title VI of the EU Treaty (decisions, framework decisions). The same article also states that Parliament must be regularly informed by the Commission of activities carried out in the area of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters and that it may ask questions of the Council. Provision is also made for an annual debate on the progress that has been made;
  • Article 195 of the EC Treaty gives the Ombudsman the power to handle complaints of maladministration relating to Community institutions and bodies, including Europol.

Outlook

Debate is currently focusing on Article 30(2) of the EU Treaty, which states that within five years of the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam (1 May 1999 – 1 May 2004) Europol should be able to participate in joint investigation teams, to ask the Member States to conduct investigations and, in general, to wield more extensive operational powers than it does at present.

As soon as such powers are conferred upon Europol, the question of democratic control over the European Police Office will have to be discussed.

Given the very limited nature of Europol’s powers at present, compared with those of the national police forces, the Commission believes that the controls provided for are formally adequate. They are, however, fragmented and in some cases insufficiently explicit.

The Commission therefore suggests that, as soon as Europol’s powers are extended, the arrangements for controlling it should be revised so as to provide for:

  • a regular, formal exchange of information between Europol, the national parliaments and the European Parliament;
  • the creation of a joint committee consisting of representatives of the parliamentary committees (in national parliaments and the European Parliament) that are responsible for police cooperation;
  • the amendment of the Europol Convention (presentation of a single annual report on Europol’s activities to both the European Parliament and the Council, the right of the European Parliament to summon the Director of Europol to appear before the competent committee).

Transparency register

Leave a reply

Transparency register

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Transparency register

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Institutional affairs > The decision-making process and the work of the institutions

Transparency register

Document or Iniciative

Agreement between the European Parliament and the European Commission on the establishment of a transparency register for organisations and self-employed individuals engaged in EU policy-making and policy implementation.

Summary

With this Agreement, the European Parliament and the European Commission have established a common transparency register. This register contains information on organisations and individuals engaged in European policy-making and policy implementation. The information concerns, in particular, their type of activity, the interests they pursue and the resources they devote to their activities.

The register also includes a code of conduct and a complaint mechanism in the event of suspected non-compliance with the code.

The Agreement defines the structure of the transparency register, its scope and the obligations associated with registration.

Representation of interests

In accordance with Article 11 of the Treaty on European Union (EU), the European institutions shall maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with representative associations and civil society. The objective is to optimise the formulation and implementation of European policies by maintaining regular and legitimate relations with the principal stakeholders.

Many organisations have opened a ‘European office’ in Brussels for the purposes of representation activities. These activities include asserting their interests and influencing the EU’s decision-making process.

The transparency register therefore aims to register organisations and individuals engaged in these activities and to bring them together around a common code of conduct. It contributes to transparency and to compliance with laws and ethics in order, for example, to avoid excessive pressure or illegitimate access to information and policy-makers.

It is part of the EU’s transparency policy. Registration remains optional and does not constitute a form of EU accreditation of the organisations concerned.

Structure of the register

The register includes:

  • the scope of the register, eligible activities, sections open to registration (Annex I to the Agreement) and information, including financial information on the registered entities;
  • a code of conduct (Annex III);
  • a complaint mechanism and measures to be applied in the event of non-compliance with the code of conduct (Annex IV); these measures include suspension or removal from the register. These measures may lead to the withdrawal of the different types of badges affording access to the European Parliament.

Scope

The scope of the register covers all activities carried out with the objective of directly or indirectly influencing the formulation or implementation of European policies, irrespective of the channel or medium of communication used (media, forums, organising of events, think-tanks, etc.).

All organisations or individuals engaged in this type of activity are therefore expected to register.

However, this Agreement excludes certain activities from the scope of the register:

  • certain activities concerning the provision of legal and other professional advice to clients in judicial or administrative proceedings;
  • activities of social partners acting as participants in the social dialogue (trade unions, employers’ associations, etc.);
  • activities carried out in response to direct and individual requests from EU institutions or Members of the European Parliament.

The register covers all entities engaged in eligible activities (including lobbyists). However, governments of Member States and third countries, international organisations and diplomatic missions are not expected to register. Churches, religious communities and local and regional authorities are not concerned either; however, their offices or the legal entities they set up to represent them are expected to register.

Rules applicable after registration

By registering, the organisations and individuals concerned:

  • agree that the information which they provide shall be public;
  • agree to act in compliance with the code of conduct;
  • guarantee that the information provided is correct;
  • accept that the complaint mechanism may be implemented.

Implementation of the register

The services of the European Parliament and the European Commission will establish a joint operational structure, to be known as “the joint Transparency Register Secretariat”. This secretariat will be responsible for the ongoing administration of the register and will contribute to the quality of its content.

Context

The new register builds upon and continues the existing registration systems set up by the European Parliament in 1996 and the European Commission in 2008. It is one of the implementing strands of the European Transparency Initiative launched in 2007 by the Commission.

References

Act Entry into force Deadline for transposition in the Member States Official Journal
Agreement between the European Parliament and the European Commission

–

–

OJ L 191 of 22.7.2011

Evaluation of the European Parliament Elections

Leave a reply

Evaluation of the European Parliament Elections

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Evaluation of the European Parliament Elections

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Justice freedom and security > Citizenship of the Union

Evaluation of the European Parliament Elections (2004)

Document or Iniciative

Communication from the Commission of 12 December 2006 – European elections 2004 – Commission report on the participation of European Union citizens in the Member State of residence (Directive 93/109/EC) and on the electoral arrangements (Decision 76/787/EC, as amended by Decision 2002/772/EC, Euratom) [COM(2006) 790 final – Not published in Official Journal].

Summary

This report assesses the application of Directive 93/109/EC 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. The Commission wishes to draw the attention of the European Parliament and the Council to problems raised by Member States concerning the implementation of the Act. It proposes amendments to the Directive in line with its assessment.

The report is based principally on information provided by Member States in response to a questionnaire sent by the Commission in November 2004. More details on the questionnaire are to be found in a Commission working document [SEC(2006) 1645 final].

Preparing for the 2004 elections in the light of the enlargement

The European Parliament elections for the 2004-2009 term were held from 10 to 13 June 2004. Barely a month previously, on 1 May 2004, the European Union was enlarged from 15 to 25 Member States.

To prepare for the 2004 elections, the European Commission:

  • organised two meetings with electoral experts from the Member States. The meetings, held in 2002 and 2003, concerned the implementation of the provisions of the Directive designed to prevent people from voting or standing for election twice (Article 13). The purpose of the meetings was to improve the information exchange system set up between Member States under the same article, which was not functioning well in practice. In December 2006 the Commission therefore proposed amendments to the Directive;
  • took measures to ensure the participation of all citizens in the elections in the enlarged Union. The elections were held shortly after the accession of ten new Member States. Back in April 2003 the Commission had issued a communication on measures to be taken in Member States to ensure participation of all citizens of the Union in the 2004 elections (PDF ). The communication aimed to speed up the implementation of the relevant acquis and ensure registration of all citizens on the electoral rolls in good time;
  • recalled the Council Decision on Cyprus. Council Decision 2004/511/EC of 10 June 2004 stipulates that in the event of the entry into force of a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem, extraordinary elections of the new representatives of the people of Cyprus in the European Parliament will be held in the whole of Cyprus for the remainder of the term or any subsequent term. According to Protocol 10 on Cyprus of the Act of Accession of 2003 (PDF, page 25), the acquis communautaire is suspended in the north of the island (“in those areas… in which the Government of the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control”). Elections for the 2004-2009 term were not therefore held in these areas;
  • reported on the derogation granted to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. In January 2003 the European Commission submitted a report (PDF ) on granting derogation to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. Article 14 of the Directive allows a Member State to restrict the right to vote to Community voters who have resided in that Member State for a minimum period, which may not exceed five years. The condition for granting the derogation is that the proportion of EU citizens of voting age who reside there but are not nationals exceeds 20 %. The Commission concludes that the circumstances warranting the granting of the derogation to Luxembourg still existed and there was therefore no need to propose any adjustment;
  • requested that the results of the elections are not made public too soon. The European Commission asked Member States not to make the results of their count public before 13 June at 22.00 CET (close of polling in the last Member States). Council Decision 2002/772/EC, Euratom, amending the 1976 Act on election of members of the European Parliament, took effect on 1 April 2004: it stipulates that a Member State may not officially make the results of their count public before close of polling in the other Member States.

Participation in the elections: a worrying decline

Citizens’ participation in democratic life is essential, the Commission stresses. It is concerned by the overall fall in turnout for the European elections which continued in 2004. In spite of the large number of voters in the ten new Member States, turnout came to only 45.6 % of voters.

On the basis of the data provided by the Member States, the Commission considers:

  • registration on the electoral rolls: the percentage of EU citizens registered on the electoral rolls of their Member State of residence was low for the 2004 European elections. Nevertheless, registration on the electoral rolls has increased compared to the previous elections: 5.9 % in 1994, 9 % in 1999 and 11.9 % in 2004. The increase may result from greater awareness of the rights of EU citizens, the efforts made by the Member States to encourage participation and greater mobility of citizens;
  • standing as candidate: few Community citizens stand as candidates in the elections in their Member State of residence of which they are not nationals (57 candidates in the EU in 2004 compared to 62 candidates in 1999). This fall may be attributable to the heavy administrative burden that candidates have to face when submitting an application to stand, and especially the requirement to produce an attestation from the competent authorities of the home Member State certifying that he/she has not been deprived of the right to stand as a candidate. The Commission also criticises the difficulties for EU citizens to join existing national political parties and to found a new party. In practice, candidates are put forward in the majority of cases by political parties. The Commission encourages Member States to offer to non-national resident EU citizens the possibility to become members of political parties under the same conditions as are open to their nationals. The Commission will examine further the compatibility with the Directive of the above-mentioned national legislations.

Informing citizens of their rights remains crucial

Even though citizens are aware of their right to vote and stand as candidate in the European elections, the European Commission is convinced that Member States must specifically inform citizens about how to exercise their electoral rights. The Commission encourages Member States to send personal letters to every non-national EU citizen with relevant information, in as many languages as possible, together with the registration form to be returned to the competent authorities.

Determining the persons entitled to vote and stand as candidate: Gibraltar and Aruba

The Commission report also includes important developments in case-law, especially in respect of the European elections in Gibraltar and Aruba. The Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ) rules in favour of the fact that it is for Member States to define the persons entitled to vote and stand as candidate for the European Parliament elections. In this context, they must however respect Community law and, in particular, the principle of equal treatment.

Gibraltar. In 2004, the United Kingdom held European elections in Gibraltar for the first time. Following the judgment “Matthews versus the United Kingdom” (FR), handed down by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on 18 February 1999, the country adopted national legislation enabling the Gibraltar electorate to take part in the European elections. The national law provides for an electoral roll for the European elections in Gibraltar. In addition to the citizens of the European Union, qualifying Commonwealth citizens resident in Gibraltar and at least 18 years of age are eligible to register.

On 18 March 2004, under Case C-145/04, Spain brought proceedings before the ECJ against the United Kingdom for failure to fulfil its obligations. It argues that only EU citizens can have the right conferred upon them to vote in the European Parliament elections.

In its judgment of 12 September 2006 (PDF ), the ECJ ruled that neither the EC Treaty nor the 1976 Act defines expressly and precisely who are to be entitled to the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament. The definition of the persons entitled to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament falls within the competence of each Member State in accordance with Community law. The EC Treaty is not opposed to Member States granting the right to vote and to stand as a candidate to certain persons who have close links to them, other than their own nationals or citizens of the Union resident in their territory.

Gibraltar is a European territory for which one Member State, the United Kingdom, is responsible for external relations and to which the provisions of the EC Treaty apply (Article 299 of the EC Treaty).

Aruba. A Dutch authority referred another case, C-300/04, for a preliminary ruling to the ECJ to ascertain whether, conversely, a Member State could exclude certain categories of its own nationals resident in an overseas territory (OCT) associated with the Community from the right to vote in the European elections. Two citizens of Dutch nationality had applied for entry on the electoral roll in order to participate in the European Parliament elections. Their application was turned down on the grounds that they are resident in Aruba (OCT).

In its judgment of 12 September 2006 (PDF ), the Court confirms that persons possessing the nationality of a Member State and resident or living in an OCT may invoke the rights recognised to citizens of the Union. Under Community law, Member States may define the conditions for the right to vote and to stand as candidate for the European Parliament elections. However, in this case, the Dutch Government has not sufficiently demonstrated that the difference in treatment observed between Dutch nationals resident in a non-member country and those resident in the Netherlands Antilles or Aruba is objectively justified. The principle of equal treatment is therefore infringed. Following the replies given by the ECJ, the national court ruled that Dutch nationals resident in the Netherlands Antilles or Aruba had unjustly not been entered on the electoral roll for the elections of June 2004. The measures permitting the restoration of this right, such as compensation for damages, are established by national law.

 

Voting rights and eligibility in European Parliament elections

Leave a reply

Voting rights and eligibility in European Parliament elections

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Voting rights and eligibility in European Parliament elections

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Institutional affairs > The institutions bodies and agencies of the union

Voting rights and eligibility in European Parliament elections

Document or Iniciative

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.

Summary

The directive lays down detailed arrangements under which European Union (EU) citizens residing in an EU country of which they are not nationals may exercise the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in European Parliament elections in that country.

It does not affect the rights of an EU country’s nationals at elections to the European Parliament in their own country, whether or not those nationals reside in that country.

The directive defines the requirements a national of another EU country must satisfy to vote or to stand as a candidate in his/her country of residence. Namely, such a person must:

  • be a citizen of the Union;
  • be resident in the EU country in which s/he proposes to vote or to stand as a candidate;
  • satisfy the same conditions as a national of that EU country who wishes to vote or to stand as a candidate (the principle of equality between national and non-national voters).

It is ultimately a matter for each EU country to determine which persons are its nationals.

EU citizens may exercise their right to vote and to stand as a candidate either in the EU country of residence or in their home country. No one may vote more than once or stand as a candidate in more than one EU country. To prevent double voting and double candidacy, EU countries must exchange information on citizens registered to vote or to stand as a candidate.

A voter is to be entered on the electoral roll of his/her country of residence only if s/he so requests in advance. A voter who opts for the right to vote in his/her country of residence undertakes not to exercise this right in his/her country of origin. In EU countries where nationals are required to vote, non-national voters who ask to be entered on the electoral roll are subject to the same obligation.

In order to have his/her name entered on the electoral roll, a non-national voter must produce the same documents as a national voter. In addition, s/he must provide further information in the form of a formal statement.

A candidate must not have been deprived of his/her voting rights in the country of residence nor in the country of origin. When s/he submits an application to stand as a candidate, an EU citizen must provide proof supplied by the country of origin that s/he is entitled to stand as a candidate there.

The EU country of residence may refuse, if it so wishes, to enter voters who are disqualified from voting in their country of origin.

The legal remedies available to nationals must also be available to non-nationals who are refused entry on the electoral roll or whose application to stand as a candidate is rejected.

References

Act Entry into force Deadline for transposition in the Member States Official Journal

Directive 93/109/EC

30.12.1993

1.2.1994

OJ L 329, 30.12.1993

Related Acts

Report from the Commission of 27 October on the election of Members of the European Parliament (1976 Act as amended by Decision 2002/772/EC, Euratom) and on the participation of European Union citizens in the elections for the European Parliament in the Member State of residence (Directive 93/109/EC) [COM(2010) 605 final – Not published in the Official Journal].
As a follow-up to the 2009 European Parliament elections, this report evaluates how EU citizens’ electoral rights were enforced by looking at:

  • citizens’ awareness of the elections and the associated rights, and level of participation;
  • non-national EU citizens’ awareness and participation in their countries of residence and EU countries’ action to encourage this participation;
  • the transposition and implementation by EU countries of EU law in this field.

In general, EU countries have correctly transposed and implemented Directive 93/109/EC. Nevertheless, a few countries impose conditions on non-national EU citizens, thereby creating obstacles to the exercise of their right to vote and to stand as a candidate in their countries of residence; in certain cases contrary to the directive. A number of EU countries must also take further measures to ensure that they comply with the obligation to provide sufficient information to citizens on the exercising of their rights.
The mechanism provided by the directive for preventing double voting and double candidacy continues to be deficient. The Commission is considering the replacement of its pending proposal to amend the directive to better address this problem.

Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council of 20 December 2007 on granting a derogation pursuant to Article 19(2) of the EC Treaty, presented under Article 14(3) of Directive 93/109/EC on the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament [COM(2007) 846 final – Not published in the Official Journal].

Pursuant to Article 14 of the directive, the Commission presents this report in the run-up to the June 2009 elections on the validity of the derogations granted to EU countries. Only Luxembourg has been granted such a derogation by the Commission (see below), allowing it to confine the right to vote to individuals who can prove they have lived in Luxembourg for a certain period of time. Upon examination, the Commission considers that the grounds for this derogation are still valid and that no amendments need be proposed.

Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council of 27 January 2003 on granting a derogation pursuant to Article 19(2) of the EC Treaty, presented under Article 14(3) of Directive 93/109/EC on the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament [COM(2003) 31 final – Not published in the Official Journal].

Article 14 of Directive 93/109/EC provides that if, in a given EU country, the proportion of non-national resident EU citizens of voting age exceeds 20 % of the total number of EU citizens of voting age residing there, that EU country may apply for a derogation. Luxembourg has availed itself of this derogation. The Commission concludes that the reasons put forward for keeping this derogation for Luxembourg are still justified. Consequently, there is no need to propose adaptations to it.

Communication from the Commission of 18 December 2000 on the application of Directive 93/109/EC to the June 1999 elections to the European Parliament – Right of Union citizens residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals to vote and stand in elections to the European Parliament [COM(2000) 843 final – Not published in the Official Journal].

The Commission considers the application of Directive 93/109/EC to be rather unsatisfactory to date. The report finds that turnout in the 1999 European Parliament elections by EU citizens not residing in their country of origin was not much higher than before. The right to stand was exercised even less.
Regarding the operation of the information exchange system, it once again proved unsatisfactory. The Commission therefore calls for practical improvements to the exchange system within the current legislative framework, since it does not consider it necessary to amend the Directive, even though the divergent registration deadlines made the exercise of exchanging information difficult in practice.

Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council of 7 January 1998 on the application of Directive 93/109/EC – Voting rights of EU citizens living in a Member State of which they are not nationals in European Parliament elections [COM(97) 731 final – Not published in the Official Journal].

The Commission report on the implementation of Directive 93/109/EC indicates that it had been applied by all EU countries to the elections to the European Parliament of June 1994. Sweden, Austria and Finland had applied the directive to the elections organised in 1995 and 1996 following their accession to the Union.
The report draws two conclusions from the elections:

  • information on the new rights of European citizens has been inadequate;
  • an exceptionally low rate of success for non-national candidates (only one non-national candidate had been elected in his EU country of residence), with an average turnout of non-national voters of 5.87 %.

As the directive had on the whole been satisfactorily transposed by EU countries, the Commission feels that at this point there is no need to amend it.

Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament

Leave a reply

Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Justice freedom and security > Citizenship of the Union

Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament

Document or Iniciative

Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament (EP).

Summary

The Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament (EP) establish the internal organisation and functioning of the institution. Article 232 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU gives Parliament the power to adopt its own Rules of Procedure.

COMPOSITION OF PARLIAMENT

Members

The Members of the EP exercise their mandate independently, subject to the rules concerning incompatibility laid down in the Act of 20th September 1976 (amended by Decision 2002/772/EC). They enjoy privileges and immunities in accordance with the Protocol 7 on the privileges and immunities of the EU.

The President, the 14 Vice-Presidents and the 5 Quaestors are elected by their peers by secret ballot. Their nominations must have the support of a political group or at least 40 Members. Their term of office is two and a half years.

The President:

  • directs all the activities of and represents Parliament;
  • opens, suspends and closes sittings;
  • directs parliamentary debates;
  • rules on the admissibility of amendments in plenary session, on questions to the Council and Commission, and on the conformity of Parliament’s reports with its Rules of Procedure;
  • refers to committees any communications that concern them.

The Vice-Presidents may replace the President as provided for in the Rules of Procedure, for example if the President wishes to take part in a debate. The Quaestors are also responsible for administrative and financial matters.

Governing bodies

Parliament has several governing bodies, the most important of which are:

  • the Bureau: consisting of the President, the 14 Vice-Presidents and the Quaestors (who serve in an advisory capacity), it takes financial, organisational and administrative decisions on matters concerning Parliament;
  • the Conference of Presidents: it consists of the President, the chairmen of the political groups and a non-attached Member who participates in the Conference without a right to vote. The Conference takes decisions on the organisation of Parliament’s work and matters relating to legislative planning, draws up the agendas for Parliament’s part-sessions, determines the composition and areas of competence of committees, and authorises the drawing up of own-initiative reports. It is also responsible for relations with the other institutions and bodies of the European Union as well as with certain non-member countries and non-Union institutions and organisations.

There are also two other Conferences, the Conference of Committee Chairmen and the Conference of Delegation Chairmen. Both may make recommendations to the Conference of Presidents.

Groups and political parties

The political groups are formed on the basis of political affinities and consist of a minimum of 25 Members elected in at least one quarter of the Member States. The political groups and Members who have not joined a group are provided with a secretariat, administrative facilities and the appropriations entered for the purpose in Parliament’s budget.

The Statute of the European political parties was approved in 2004. Parliament’s Rules of Procedure merely set out the powers and responsibilities of its governing bodies in relation to them. The President represents Parliament in its relations with these parties and the Bureau decides on requests for financing.

ORGANISATION

Parliamentary committees

The organisation and operation of Parliament is the responsibility of the parliamentary committees. There are three types of parliamentary committee:

  • standing committees: These committees are at the heart of Parliament’s legislative work (Annex VII to the Rules of Procedure). The standing committees examine the matters referred to them according to their powers and responsibilities. Should it fall within more than one area, the matter may be referred to a maximum of three committees;
  • special committees: Their powers, composition and term of office are defined when they are set up. Their mandate cannot exceed twelve months;
  • committees of inquiry: These are ad hoc committees set up by Parliament at the request of one quarter of its Members to investigate contraventions or maladministration in the implementation of European law.

The standing and special committees are set up on a proposal of the Conference of Presidents. Their permanent and substitute members are elected after nominations have been submitted by the political groups and the non-attached Members. The composition of these committees should correspond as far as possible to that of Parliament as a whole.

Interparliamentary delegations

There are also standing interparliamentary delegations, set up on a proposal from the Conference of Presidents, which decides on their nature and the number of their members. Parliament can also set up joint parliamentary committees with the parliaments of States associated with the Union or States with which accession negotiations have been initiated..

Sessions of Parliament

Each year of the term corresponds to one session divided into 12 part-sessions (monthly plenaries). The monthly part-session is subdivided into daily sittings.

Parliament’s seat is in Strasbourg, where it holds 12 monthly part-sessions. Additional part-sessions and committee meetings are held in Brussels.

Members have the right to speak in the official language of their choice. Leave to speak and speaking time are carefully regulated.

A draft agenda is drawn up by the Conference of Presidents. The final agenda is then adopted at the start of each session. Moreover, the points listed in the agenda may be the subject of a debate, proposals for amendments or the subject of a single vote without debate.

LEGISLATIVE, BUDGETARY AND OTHER PROCEDURES

Parliament cooperates with the Commission and the Council in drawing up the European Union’s legislative programme (see Annex XIV). Once the Commission has submitted a proposal, the legislative procedure in Parliament starts with an in-depth examination of respect for fundamental rights, the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, and an estimate of the financial resources needed.

In the case of legislative reports, the President of Parliament sends the Commission proposals, consultations, requests by the Council or from the Commission for an opinion, and the Council common positions to the parliamentary committee, which first examines the legal basis. The committee then appoints a rapporteur whose report will comprise draft amendments, if any, a draft legislative resolution and, if appropriate, an explanatory statement. The committee chairman may also propose that the proposal be approved without amendment following a first discussion, unless at least one tenth of the committee members object.

A rapporteur is also appointed in the case of non-legislative reports, such as own-initiative reports or opinions. He must present a report comprising a motion for a resolution, an explanatory statement including a financial statement, and the texts of any motions for resolutions to be tabled in plenary.

Own-initiative reports, sent to the Commission so that it can present a proposal for legislation, must first be authorised by the Conference of Presidents. The Conference has two months to take a decision. If authorisation is withheld, the reason must be stated.

Legislative procedures

All legislative proposals from the Commission are sent to the competent parliamentary committee which draws up a report. On the basis of this report, the Parliament may adopt the text, propose amendments or reject the proposal.

In the ordinary legislative procedure, the Parliament is co-legislator with the Council of the EU. The two institutions adopt legislative acts either at first reading or at second reading. If, at the end of the second reading, the two institutions have still not reached agreement, a conciliation committee is convened.

Furthermore, there are special legislative procedures within which the Council of the EU is the sole legislator and the Parliament is only associated with the procedure. The role of the Parliament is therefore limited to consultation on, and approval of, the legislative proposal.

Quorum and voting

A quorum exists when one third of the Members are present in the Chamber. Voting is usually by show of hands, but voting by roll call, electronic voting and voting by secret ballot are also possible in some circumstances.

Other procedures

Particularly sensitive areas, such as the budget and foreign relations, are subject to a separate procedure.

Parliament plays a key role with respect to the EU Budget; it is involved in adopting the budget, controls its implementation and grants discharge to the Commission in respect of such implementation.

The EP also plays an important role in concluding international agreements. In particular, it can formulate recommendations and deliver its opinion or approval on the signing of all international agreements.

RELATIONS WITH OTHER INSTITUTIONS AND WITH CITIZENS

Relations with the other European institutions and bodies

Parliament elects the President of the Commission and the College of Commissioners. Once they have been appointed, the Commissioners are asked to present their policy approaches in plenary and to the committees responsible. Parliament may also submit and vote on a motion of censure leading to the resignation of the Commission. A framework agreement on relations with the Commission can be found in Annex XIII.

Parliament also gives its opinion on the appointment of Members of the Court of Auditors and Members of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank.

Parliament may also consult the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) and the Committee of the Regions on matters of a general nature or on specific points. It also has the right to submit requests to European agencies and to make referrals to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

In order to improve or clarify procedures, Parliament may enter into interinstitutional agreements with the other institutions. Parliament has other means of interacting with the institutions. It may for example put questions to the Council or the Commission, which will answer orally during the debate or in writing if so requested by Parliament. It may also submit written questions to the European Central Bank.

Relations with national parliaments

Parliament briefs the national parliaments regularly on its activities. A delegation from the EP meets the national delegations in the Conference of Parliamentary Committees for European Affairs.

Relations with citizens

All citizens or residents of the European Union have the right of access to parliamentary documents, within the limits defined. Committee and plenary debates are public and reports on plenary debates are published in the Official Journal, thereby guaranteeing the transparency of and the public’s right to information on Parliament’s proceedings.

All citizens or residents of the European Union also have the right to address petitions to Parliament on matters coming within the European Union’s fields of activity and directly affecting them. Petitions are examined by the committee responsible, which may decide to draw up a report or otherwise express an opinion.

European citizens may also address complaints concerning the activities of the European institutions and bodies to the European Ombudsman.

This summary is for information only. It is not designed to interpret or replace the reference document, which remains the only binding legal text.