Annexes to COM(2015)206 - Report on the 2014 European Parliament elections - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2015)206 - Report on the 2014 European Parliament elections. |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2015)206  |
| date | May 8, 2015 |
(32)
European Parliament, 2009 post-election survey – first results: European average and major national trends, p.2; see: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/pdf/eurobarometre/28_07/FR_EN.pdf .
(33)
For comparison, according to a 2013 public survey (Flash Eurobarometer 375, European Youth: Participation in Democratic Life, p. 11; see: http://ec.europa.eu/youth/library/reports/flash375_en.pdf ), 73 % of young voters had voted in the previous three years in an election other than for the European Parliament (i.e. local, regional or national).
(34)
Based on figures in the EP Review 2014 (see footnote 29), p. 43.
(35)
Erasmus Voting Assessment Project, Generation Europe Foundation, Brussels, 2014; see:
http://erasmusvoting.eu/news/press-release-erasmus-studying-abroad-increases-political-participation-young-people .
(36)
EP post-election survey (see footnote 8), analytical overview, p. 25.
(37)
EP post-election survey (see footnote 8), analytical overview, p. 35: 14 % (as compared with 17 % in 2009) said that they felt that their vote did not have any consequences or change anything. 7 % (against 10 % in 2009) said that they did not know much about the EP or the EP elections.
(38)
EP post-election survey (see footnote 8), analytical overview, p.35: 3 % of abstainers stated this as a reason for not voting, as compared with 6 % of abstainers in 2009.
(39)
EP post-election survey (see footnote 8), analytical overview, p. 35: 13 % of abstainers said they were too busy, had no time or were working, 7 % were ill, 6 % were involved in a family or leisure activity and another 7 % mentioned other reasons.
(40)
EP post-election survey (see footnote 8), analytical overview, p. 3.
(41)
EP post-election survey (see footnote 8), analytical overview, p. 20.
(42)
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 EP for citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals (OJ L 329, 30.12.1993, p. 34). This Directive was amended by Directive 2013/1/EU, which aimed at facilitating the exercise by mobile EU citizens of their right to stand as candidates in elections to the EP.
(43)
Of all non-Czech EU citizens of voting age resident in the Czech Republic, only 0.4 % registered to vote (682 out of 164 644). The mobile EU citizens' registration rate was also low in Hungary – 1.5 % (1 605 out of 104 822), Germany – 5.4 % (172 110 out of 3 168 638) and Cyprus – 6.9 % (7 712 out of 112 012). On the other hand, mobile EU citizens registered in comparatively high numbers in Ireland – 22.2 % (71 735 out of 323 460), France – 17.4 % (245 063 out of 1 199 818), Malta – 17.1 % (7 868 out of 45 917) and Sweden – 19.8 % (49 092 out of 247 426).
(44)
Flash Eurobarometer 364, Electoral rights, March 2013; see:
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_364_en.pdf , p.34.
(45)
Based on figures in the CSES study (see footnote 1), Section 5, Table 5.6.
(46)
CSES study (see footnote 1), Section 5, Table 5.8.
(47)
e.g. the European Youth Forum — League of Young Voters’ online information platform; the VoteWatch etool; the European University Institute’s euandi voting profiler; the WeCitizens voting profiler.
(48)
e.g. the European Disability Forum sought to identify obstacles that people with disabilities face in exercising their electoral rights. Such as, for instance, the European campaign for parity democracy and active European citizenship: no modern European democracy without gender equality!’ by the Mediterranean Institute of Gender Studies.
(49)
Such as, for instance, the European campaign for parity democracy and active European citizenship: 'no modern European democracy without gender equality!’ by the Mediterranean Institute of Gender Studies.
(50)
Social media and the elections — did it have an impact?, Marek Zaremba-Pike, 2014; see:
http://europedecides.eu/2014/06/social-media-and-the-elections-did-it-have-an-impact .
(51)
Ibid.
(52)
On progress towards effective EU Citizenship 2011-2013, report under Article 25 TFEU (COM(2013) 270).
(53)
The Commission’s attention was drawn to instances of the electoral authorities failing to send the separate registration form or to process the form, although it had been properly filled in and submitted.
(54)
UK House of Commons, Voter engagement in the UK, Fourth Report of Session 2014–15; see:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmpolcon/232/232.pdf.
(55)
In one case (Czech Republic), the Commission issued a reasoned opinion. In all other cases, the Member States concerned notified the Commission of transposition measures following receipt of the letter of formal notice.
(56)
Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Slovenia.
(57)
Bulgaria and Finland.
(58)
Germany, Greece and Malta.
(59)
Lithuania, Slovakia and Spain.
(60)
The Czech Republic, Latvia and Poland.
(61)
The ‘1976 Act’ on the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage, which is annexed to Decision 76/787/ECSC, EEC, Euratom of 20 September 1976 and was last amended by Council Decision 2002/772/EC, Euratom (OJ L 283, 21.10.2002, p. 1).
(62)
Article 1(3) of the ‘1976 Act’.
(63)
Article 10 of the ‘1976 Act’.
(64)
Article 9 of the ‘1976 Act’; Article 4 of Directive 93/109/EC.
(65)
e.g. Austria, Cyprus, Slovenia and Portugal.
(66)
Article 9 of the '1976 Act'