Brussels, [Date]

                         Ilze Juhansone, Secretary General

European Commission

Rue de la Loi 200 1049, Brussels

Copy: Council of the European Union Presidency (Foreign Minister of Cyprus)

Sven Simon (MEP), AFCO Committee Chair

                       Borja Giménez Larraz (MEP), Rapporteur on the Reform of the European Electoral Act

Draft Letter of complaint to the European Commission

Call for an end to disenfranchisement in European Parliament elections

We, the undersigned are citizens of the EU Member States (“Member States”) of Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Malta and Slovakia (“affected Member States”) are deprived of our rights to vote as European Union (“EU” or “Union”) citizens in the European Parliament (“EP”) elections in our country of origin.^[1] 

General considerations

Disenfranchisement refers to the systematic withholding or restriction of voting rights from identifiable categories of citizens, thereby creating a so-called “democratic void.”^[2] We, disenfranchised citizens, are deprived of our fundamental voting rights in EP elections in our countries of origin, either due to the existing legal provisions of the affected Member States or as a de facto result of the strict requirements in place to exercise our rights. More broadly, disenfranchisement takes two forms:

1. Direct restriction of the right to vote: The loss of voting rights resulting either from a citizen residing outside their country of origin, within or outside the EU, or from having lived abroad for a specific period of time.
2. Restriction of access the exercise of the right to vote: Establishing strict requirements to vote in person in the country of origin without options for remote, proxy, or postal voting. While not an explicit legal prohibition, these requirements function as a “mobility tax” on the right to vote, effectively restricting citizens without the resources or time to travel.

We are deprived of the right to vote for candidates for election to the European Parliament from our countries of origin and thus, of the right to influence our national political position within the EU. While disenfranchisement also occurs at a national level, the lack of action on behalf of affected Member States, as well as the various political and constitutional obstacles within national electoral systems, inevitably direct our focus on combatting disenfranchisement at a Union level. The present complaint thus focuses on elections to the European Parliament, for which Union institutions and Member States have a shared responsibility, and reforms can more readily and widely be introduced.^[3] We, therefore, request the Union regulation and constraint of disenfranchisement practices which disproportionately affect us, in the hopes that our collective efforts will effect not only Union-wide, but also national change.

The sole reason for the restriction of our voting rights is that we do not reside in our home countries. The majority of Member States no longer consider such a condition as significant, given the progress for the inclusion of overseas voters in democratic processes. However, disenfranchisement is often regarded as a minority issue, especially because, as mobile citizens, we are scattered and lack concerted representation. We have come together, united, as a group across borders, in demonstration that disenfranchisement is far from a marginal practice in our democracies. The matter should not be overlooked, as has been recognized by both the European Commission^[4] and the European Parliament.^[5]

In all affected Member States, disenfranchisement occurs in cases of habitual residence outside the EU. Furthermore, in the Czech Republic, Germany and Ireland, disenfranchisement can also occur in cases of habitual residence in another Member State.^[6] Such rules are in breach of the Treaties,^[7] and clearly at odds with the recent case law of the CJEU in Commission v Czech Republic^[8] and Commission v Poland,^[9] which ensures non-discrimination between mobile EU citizens and nationals when it comes to the effective exercise of their electoral rights. Further, the CJEU recently confirmed the right of EU citizens to participate in the democratic life of the Union in its judgement of Commission v Malta,^[10] affirming the existence of a "single polity" at a European level.^[11] 

We call for an end to disenfranchisement and the restoration of our rights to vote in the 2029 EP elections. Our request is supported by the Treaties of the European Union,^[12] as well as the Charter of Fundamental Rights (the “Charter”), and the decisional practice of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”). We wish to emphasize that our engagement with political life – both in our home countries and across the EU – remains undiminished, despite residing in a third country or another Member State. In light of the above, this letter of complaint rests upon fundamental principles of the Union legal order, as follows.

5. Respect for the status of Union citizenship

We recognise that Union citizenship in no way replaces citizenship of a Member State. This European dimension of our citizenship rests on mutual trust and solidarity amongst Member States, as well as amongst Member States and their nationals, as emphasised by the CJEU.^[13] The leeway afforded to Member States to decide on questions relating to nationality and citizenship incorporates a special responsibility to consider the impact of these decisions on other Member States and EU citizenship.

In accordance with the decisional practice of the CJEU, decisions about our status as citizens must be taken with due regard to EU law, including considerations of the impact on EU citizenship, which we all hold. Indeed, EU citizenship is part of the raison d’être of the Union itself, as confirmed in the recent CJEU judgment of Commission v Malta, and is characterised by mobility in an area of freedom, justice and security.^[14] Upon the establishment of Union citizenship by the Treaty of Maastricht,^[15] emphasis was placed on attaching political rights to those associated with freedom of movement. It is thus incompatible with this status and the principle of equal treatment that the vast majority of Union citizens have portable political rights and yet we do not. Our exclusion undisputably has a material effect on the outcome of EP elections; the impact of the overseas vote in recent national elections on a Union level is equally clear.

The right for all EU citizens to vote is enshrined in the principle of universal suffrage (ii). In Commission v Malta, the CJEU reaffirmed the foundational role of EU citizenship within the architecture and objectives of the EU, anchored in the participation of EU citizens in the democratic life of the Union (iii) and defining it by reference to freedom of movement (iv).^[16] Our complaint rests on two further considerations: respect for the principle of sincere cooperation (v) and the core values enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (“TEU”) (vi).

6. Defence of democracy and the principle of universal suffrage

Universal suffrage is a core value of the Union and must be actively upheld and safeguarded in practice. Therefore, greater attention must be paid to overseas voters than what is the case today. To give real effect to universal suffrage in a Union built on free movement, voting rights must be afforded to citizens residing abroad. In Delvigne,^[17] the Court held that the right to vote in EP elections is attached to EU citizenship.^[18] Thus, any restriction to the latter is subject to compatibility with EU law.

Globally, around 304 million people live outside their country of origin, and an estimated 75 million cannot vote in either their country of origin or their country of residence. This gap will likely expand as mobility increases and as highlighted by recent analysis,^[19] migration is becoming a major challenge to participation. As a step forward, the EU should lead by establishing harmonized minimum standards for external voting in EP elections, so that all Union citizens, regardless of where they reside, are able to vote. These must include provisions for postal voting or other means of voting remotely, as recommended by the European Parliament.^[20] Doing so would position the Union as a driving force behind universal suffrage, though effective implementation will hinge on practical cooperation between Member States and EU institutions.

7. The right to participate in the democratic life of the EU

In the judgment of Commission v Czech Republic, the CJEU reaffirmed the fundamental status of EU citizenship as a pilar of the Union which cannot be restricted by Member States. Union citizenship is defined in Articles 20 and 22 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”) by its strong civic component and includes political rights^[21] that cannot be undermined or considered an exception to a purported rule restricting our participation to the democratic life of the Union.^[22] Further, the CJEU emphasized that, under Article 10(1) TEU, the functioning of the EU is founded on representative democracy, as a concrete expression of the democratic values of Article 2 TEU, and that Articles 10(2)-(3) TEU confer on EU citizens the right to be directly represented in the European Parliament and to participate in the democratic life of the Union.^[23]

In accordance with the Treaties and the case law of the CJEU, we, as Union citizens, have the right to petition the European Parliament, submit a European Citizens’ Initiative, and apply to the European Ombudsman. However, these possibilities for democratic participation are no substitutes for the right to vote. So long as we are unable to vote in EP elections, we have no influence over the political life of the Union or the selection of the European Commission President, which are key elements of our representative democracy.

Union citizenship is founded on cross-border political rights, foremost among them the right to vote in EP elections, including in a Member State other than one’s own. This right should be extended to all EU citizens residing within and outside the Union, as mobility forms an intrinsic component of EU citizenship and is essential to the integrity of the Union’s democratic processes. We remain engaged with European politics and are affected by these decisions just as much as other citizens residing in their home country, within the EU, and those residing in EFTA, neighbouring, or candidate countries.

8. The right to free movement within the EU and representation of every Union citizen

United through our concern of being disenfranchised by virtue of merely exercising our right of free movement, the practice of disenfranchisement introduces inequitable treatment amongst “mobile” citizens, violating Article 22 TFEU and the principle of non-discrimination. In EP and municipal elections, most of us can only vote in our country of residence, whilst other mobile EU citizens have the right to vote either in their country of residence or in their country of origin.

However, in Commission v Czech Republic, the CJEU acknowledged that since the Maastricht Treaty, the right to vote has been attached to the rights of free movement and residence within the European Union, and cannot be restricted.^[24] In the same judgment, as well as in the judgment of Commission v Poland,^[25] the CJEU – interpreting Article 22 TFEU in the light of Articles 20 and 21 TFEU, Article 10 TEU, and Article 12 of the Charter – held that mobile EU citizens must have access, on equal terms, to the means necessary to effectively exercise their electoral rights, including membership in political parties where party membership significantly contributes to standing for election.^[26] 

The relevant statistics suggest that more Union citizens choose to vote in their country of origin rather than in their country of residence.^[27] However, many EU citizens are deterred from moving abroad due to the prospect of being deprived of their voting rights for themselves, their family members and future generations. The looming threat of surrendering our electoral rights prevents an estimated 1 million EU citizens^[28] like us from choosing whether to vote in our home country or in our country of residence in EP elections, a choice freely afforded to most EU citizens.

9. Respect for the principle of sincere cooperation

In the judgment of Commission v Malta, the CJEU asserted that the principle of sincere cooperation is characterized by the reciprocity of rights and duties between the Member State and its nationals. Divergent criteria between Member States on the common organisation of European Parliament elections and the effective exclusion of certain EU citizens from these elections conflict with this principle, as well as with the principles of reciprocity and of mutual trust on which Union citizenship is based. As a result, such divergent criteria violate Article 20 TFEU and the principle of sincere cooperation of Article 4(3) TEU.^[29]

The duty of sincere cooperation imposed on Member States, under Article 4(3) TEU, entails a positive obligation to facilitate the Union’s tasks and a negative obligation to refrain from measures that could jeopardise its objectives.^[30] Disenfranchisement goes against the Union objective of strengthening the rights and interests of its citizens through EU citizenship. Therefore, disenfranchisement practices are demonstrably at odds with the fundamental rights attached to EU citizenship, while also violating the principle of sincere cooperation between Member States.

The organization of EP elections by Member States falls within the remit of EU law.^[31] In fact, whilst national rules for conducting EP elections may vary, the affected Member States should recognise that failing to uphold the principle of “one person, one vote,” unlike other Member States, undermines both the European character and fairness of the elections. Such practices violate the principle of sincere cooperation. The organisation of EP elections should be a prime example of the equal application of the principle of sincere cooperation amongst Member States.

vi.    The right to equal treatment

The principle of non-discrimination, enshrined in Articles 2 TEU and 22 TFEU,^[32] is one of the core values of the EU. In the judgment of Commission v Czech Republic, the CJEU asserted that these provisions cannot be undermined by Article 4(2) TEU based on the respect for national identity, in case of a violation of the non-discrimination principle on grounds of nationality.^[33] The derogation under Article 22 TFEU is strictly regulated, and cannot limit the scope of the rights and obligations it establishes.

The inequitable treatment of EU mobile citizens regarding their voting rights in EP elections based on their nationality constitutes a manifest violation of the principle of non-discrimination,^[34] and obstructs the harmonization objective at the core of the EU. While all Union mobile citizens are entitled to elect members of the European Parliament, their voting rights are not granted on an equal basis. Mobile EU citizens residing outside the EU face disenfranchisement, frequently both at national and EP elections.

The same goes for disenfranchisement practices for mobile nationals in our respective affected Member States. While restrictions imposed on mobile citizens residing within the EU may appear less severe, the divergence of practices amongst Member States remains profoundly disproportionate. For instance, as Irish citizens living abroad, we are unable to vote in EP elections even while living in Northern Ireland, despite there being 800,000 [to be updated according with the latest figure on the statistics table] of us with close ties to both the EU and our country of origin. Similarly, as Danish citizens living abroad, we have no general right to vote in EP elections even if we live in Norway or Iceland – countries with deep historical and cultural ties to Denmark, both of which are obligated to incorporate legislative initiatives stemming from the European Parliament into their national laws.

Conversely, all other EU nationals of non-affected Member States residing abroad, whether in another Member State or a third country, are granted full voting rights without the looming threat of disenfranchisement. In general, progress has been made to extend means of voting to overseas voting, but remaining challenges should not be underestimated, as the relevant statistics on disenfranchised citizens demonstrate.^[35]

Call for action

In view of the European Courts’ decisional practice, there are increasingly strong legal arguments in favour of safeguarding the European dimension of democratic rights. At a time of increasing threats to democracy, when the EU is considering proposals for a European Democracy Shield, the political arguments are equally strong. The creation of a European public sphere and a political debate extending beyond national borders, particularly in the context of EP elections, is essential to strengthening European democracies.^[36] 

Voting in EP elections must be accessible to all EU citizens and facilitated through explicit guarantees that all Union citizens are entitled to vote and are able to exercise this right through postal voting or other complementary means. A coordinated European approach, especially for EP elections, can motivate our governments and parliaments to seek solutions. Even before the establishment of the EU, crucial democratic reforms aimed at expanding democratic rights often transcended national borders.

We urge the European Commission to take a decision that upholds the inclusivity of EP elections, ensuring the rights of EU citizens to fair and effective representation.^[37] We call on the European Commission to reiterate, with greater urgency,^[38] the request made to Member States over ten years ago, to end disenfranchisement practices, which seem to be escalating across Member States.^[39] 

Given the recent judgments of the CJEU, the European Commission has compelling arguments to leverage, which we strongly encourage the Commission to do, especially on the matter of EP elections, upon which it wields authority and Member States have greater flexibility to comply. We urge the European Commission to particularly take note of the position of the European Parliament in its proposals for a European Electoral Act^[40] and its Report on Parliamentarism, European citizenship and democracy.^[41] The adoption of the Council Decision amending the European Electoral Act,^[42] based on a proposal from the European Parliament, demonstrated Member States’ approval to “take the measures necessary to allow those of their citizens residing in third countries to vote in elections to the European Parliament.”

If the Commission fails to act on this complaint, we will consult on the possibilities for appeal and raising the issue of disenfranchisement of EU citizens in EP elections in front the CJEU.

We further note that the Council of the European Union has been chaired by Denmark (July-December 2025), followed by Cyprus (January-June 2026) and Ireland (July-December). The succession of three presidencies from Member States directly concerned by this complaint presents a unique opportunity to elevate this issue at the Council level. We urge the Commission to engage with these presidencies to prioritize the inclusion of disenfranchisement and remote voting as matters of priority in the presidency agenda. Prompt action is required to ensure that all Union citizens can exercise their rights to vote in time for the 2029 EP elections.

In the meantime, the ensuing Annexes to this letter summarise the different situations for some 10 million of us in the affected Member Staes.

Yours sincerely,

[Signatures of disenfranchised EU citizens]

4. Please describe yourself in few lines in this questionnaire and explain why voting from a third country or another Member State is important for you.
5. Beyond de facto disenfranchisement, other relevant factors may be considered, supported by the testimonies of EU citizens of non-affected Member States.

Annexes

Annex 1: Disenfranchisement practices across affected Member States

Annex 2: Statistics of disenfranchised “mobile” EU citizens

1. Summary table on statistics of European citizens residing within and outside the EU^[45]

2. Summary table on statistics of disenfranchised EU citizens in EP elections^[47]