No C 71/2 Official Journal of the European Communities 20. 3. 89

Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) amending Regulation (EEC) No 797/85 with regard to the extensification of production

(89/C 71/02)

On 27 December 1988, the Council decided to exercise its option to consult the Economic and Social Committee, in accordance with Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Economic and Social Committee decided to appoint Mr Luchetti rapporteur-general with the task of preparing its work on the subject.

At its 262nd plenary session (meeting of 25 January) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following Opinion with no dissenting votes and one abstention.

The Committee approves the proposal that mandatory application of the extensification scheme be deferred until 31 December 1989. Member States will be able to learn from regional and local pilot schemes in the course of 1989, and will then be better placed to adopt the technical and administrative procedures required to implement the measures laid down in the Regulations on the improvement of the efficiency of agricultural structures and the set- aside of arable land.

Done at Brussels, 25 January 1989.

The Chairman of the Economic and Social Committee

Alberto MASPRONK

Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on voting rights for Community nationals in local elections in their Member State of residence (')

(89/C 71/03)

On 8 July 1988 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee (ESC), under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Social, Family, Educational and Cultural Affairs, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 12 January 1989. The rapporteur was Mr Vercellino.

At its 262nd plenary session (meeting of 25 January 1989) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following Opinion by 126 votes in favour, with 4 dissenting votes and 9 abstentions.

The Committee approves the Commission's proposed various Member States as regards the right to vote in Directive but would make the following comments and local elections. proposals, with the sole aim of facilitating the adoption and implementation of the Directive in the light of 1. General comments experience gained in this field in some countries and in anticipation of the difficulties some Member States may 1.1. Nature and scale of the present problem encounter in applying the Directive. Appended to the Opinion is a chart summarizing the position in the After a long period of research and preparatory work, the Commission has put forward a proposal for a Directive to guarantee the right to vote in local elections for EEC nationals resident in a Member State other (') OJ No C 246, 20. 9. 1988, p. 3. than that of their origin. 20. 3. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 71/3

This idea has already been mooted in the 1976 Com­ interest groups and organizations, notably the Euro­ munity action programme for migrant workers and pean Parliament (June 1983—May and November their families (OJ No C 34, 14. 2. 1976). It was based 1985—December 1987) and the Economic and Social on the statement made in the Council of Ministers, Committee. when Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 was adopted on 15 October 1968 (OJ No L 257, 19. 18. 1968), to the effect that for freedom of movement to be exercised by On all these occasions the Committee expressed support objective standards, equal opportunities would have to for a five-year minimum period of residence if people be guaranteed in fact and in law to facilitate better were to be able to vote in local elections in another integration into the host country. Member State (see Opinions CES 984/84 of 25 October 1984 and CES 470/85 of 29 May 1985), stressing that 'economic rationale (free movements of goods and capi­ tal) will have to be accompanied by parallel legal, The proposed Directive should therefore be seen not social and political considerations for the Community's only as a measure needed to allow millions of citizens citizens' (CES 213/88 of 25 February 1988). living in another Member State to vote—a right which they are at present denied—but also as the endorsement of a long-standing commitment and a significant attempt to: 1.4. Taking stock: The lessons to be learned from initial experience

— overcome remaining obstacles to the free movement of people and create a European area with no inter­ The contributions and experiences of some Member nal frontiers, States (the Netherlands, Denmark and Ireland) which have already granted the right to vote in local elections to nationals of other Member States and non-EEC — complete the single market by 1992 and build a countries are invaluable: results have been positive and People's Europe, encouraging.

— promote the respect and full exercise of the demo­ cratic rights which the Member States pledged to An examination of the initial findings, in addition to uphold in the Single Act, highlighting existing difficulties and demonstrating the usefulness and feasibility of the initiative, reveals, inter alia, that: — more generally, to make for wider participation by citizens and nations in a swifter and more balanced process of economic, social, democratic and cultural — allowing immigrants to vote in local elections has growth in the Community and Member States. not only helped them to integrate better into the local community, but has also made electoral autho­ rities and groupings more aware of the problems which they face, 1.2. Legal basis of the Directive — to achieve positive results, not only does the ground have to be properly prepared for implementing the The Committee, which already expressed its support Directive and relevant national provisions, but also for the recognition and the guarantee of this right some full account has to be taken of specific local and years ago, welcomes the Commission's determination national features and difficulties, by introducing to solve this complex and delicate problem and appropriate information campaigns and adminis­ acknowledges that the Commission is acting within its trative measures, mandate. It endorses the guidelines, main objectives and legal basis (Art. 235 (3) (c) 8 A of the Treaty) of — support measures and media campaigns are the proposed Directive, and the urgent need to approve extremely useful in creating the right kind of climate and implement it by 1992. for encouraging the various national, ethnic and cultural groups to join forces and play a more active part in their local community and in the social and democratic life of the EEC and Member States. 1.3. Debates, surveys and initiatives in Europe—Con­ tributions by the ESC and the European Parlia­ ment 2. Specific comments

The Committee warmly congratulates the Commission 2.1. Freedom of choice but no obligations or dual on the fact that its Directive takes account of and stems votes from the debates which have taken place in Europe, the practical experiments already carried out in some countries and the repeated requests issued in the sevent­ The Committee fully agrees with the crux of the Direc­ ies and eighties by a wide range of social and political tive which, from a legal, social and political viewpoint, No C 71/4 Official Journal of the European Communities 20. 3. 89

considers that voting in local elections in the country deadline, on the basis of the Internationale Handelsge- of residence is an incontrovertible right and a question sellschaft judgment which stipulates that 'the validity of freedom of choice for the citizen, and not an obli­ of a Community measure or its effect within a Member gation or imposition (in full compliance with obli­ State cannot be affected by allegations that it runs gations arising from national and local laws and pro­ counter to .... the principles of its constitutional struc­ visions in the country of residence). It also agrees that ture'^) and the Costa v Enel judgment (2), confirmed the right to vote in local elections cannot be simul­ in 1978 in the Simmenthal judgment (3). taneously exercised in two different municipalities or Member States.

2.4. Length of residence 2.2. Top priority: Rapid implementation of the Direc­ tive

The Committee agrees with the period of residence required (this should not exceed the duration of an The Committee vehemently stresses that maximum pri­ electoral term of office) in order to exercise the right ority should go to rapidly approving and implementing to vote. To avoid differing interpretations and misun­ the Directive on voting rights in local elections by 1992. derstandings as regards the length of residence required Without wishing to underestimate the importance of in order to be registered on the electoral roll, however, the factors which lie behind some of the Directive's the second paragraph of Article 4 should specify that provisions, and whilst it recognizes that they generally continuous residence may be certified by any procedure consist of options open to Member States (as opposed or document in use or recognized as being valid in the to obligations), the Committee is nevertheless baffled by Member State of residence; that the period of residence certain provisions, conditions, deadlines and optional prior to the entry into force of the Directive may also exemptions contained in some articles and in the tran­ be included; and that the total period of residence may sitional and final provisions of the Directive. not be invalidated by temporary or longer periods of absence which do not entail a change in the place of residence.

The Committee therefore recommends that all due attention be given to the following comments and suggestions so that certain aspects of the Directive, on which the Member States and the Council of Ministers 2.5. The right to stand for election can reach a rapid consensus, can be amended without delaying its introduction. Other amendments could be made later or could be considered by the Member States, possibly before the Directive has finally come Article 8 of the Directive stipulates a period of residence into force, or during the initial phase of application. in order to stand for election which is twice as long as that required in order to obtain the right to vote in local elections. In the light of experience and of surveys carried out in various countries, the Committee feels that this longer period of residence unnecessarily com­ 2.3. Adaptation of national laws plicates matters and that it should be reduced to the equivalent of one term of office, as is required in order to vote. This would also prevent excessive penalization of persons changing their place of residence from one Some of the electoral laws and provisions in force in Member State to another, as well as safeguarding free­ certain Member States, including those preventing their dom of movement of individuals, one term of office own nationals from voting in another Member State, allowing plenty of time in wich to integrate into the will have to be brought into step with the Directive so local municipality and become familiar with its chief as to guarantee the freedom to vote in local elections.

The deadline for the Directive's entry into force allows Member States sufficient time to amend articles of their (*) Judgment of 17 December 1970; Case 11/70. ECR 1125. constitutions which may be incompatible. Should this (2) Judgment of 15 July 1964; Case 6/64. ECR 1141. 3 deadline prove to be too short, however, the principle ( ) Judgment of 19 March 1978; Case 106/77. ECR 629. This of the primacy of Community law over national law, judgment states that: 'A national court which is called upon, within the limits of its jurisdiction, to apply provisions of including constitutions, a principle which has been Community law is under a duty to give full effect to those upheld by the Court of Justice, could justify a pro­ provisions, if necessary withdrawing its own motion to apply visional adjustment. At the same time as reconciling any conflicting provision of national legislation, even if adopt­ Community and national interests, this would allow ed subsequently, and it is not necessary for the court to for the non-application of unamended constitutions and request or await the prior setting aside of such provisions by for the application of the Directive within the prescribed legislative or other constitutional means.' 20. 3. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 71/5 problems. Indeed, 'the right to stand for election' is could be in violation of Article 3 of the protocol generally assumed to be based on 'the right to vote'. A appended to the European Convention on Human period of residence equivalent to two terms of office in rights. order to stand for election would also further compli­ cate the local authorities' already time-consuming task of updating the electoral roll. Recourse to both Articles 11 and 12 could excessively delay application of the Directive, possibly by as much as 25 years, given that there is a three-year transitional period before it comes into force. 2.6. Municipal posts and indirect elections

2.9. Report on implementation of the Directive Irrespective of the content of the Directive and of national laws, serious consideration should be given to the possibility of allowing citizens of other Member The report mentioned in Article 13 of the proposal States who have been elected as municipal councillors should also be forwarded to the Economic and Social to take up municipal or lower level posts, particularly Committee. in countries where they are, or might be, deprived of this right. We should draw on the experience of Member States where such restrictions do not exist. 3. Final considerations

In line with the publication and implementation of the Directive on the right to vote in local elections, the 2.7. The possibility of deferring implementation of the Committee would also urge the Commission, Council Directive and Member States to take action to solve, with all possible speed, a number of similar problems, both general and particular, which have been left hanging in The Committee feels that the possibility of waiving the balance and are connected with the prospective application of the Directive or applying it gradually, as right to vote in European elections and with the con­ provided for in Articles 11 and 12, should be used with struction of a People's Europe. the utmost caution and as sparingly as possible by the Member States, as this could delay by many years the implementation of the Directive. 3.1. A People's Europe

With regard to the option of waiving application of the To achieve this, a swift solution should be found to Directive according to the proportion of nationals of major problems such as: the participation of EEC citi­ other Member States (Art. 11) in the total population, zens in intermediate elections (local constituency, prov­ it would be preferable to take account also of the ince, region, etc.); the creation of a Community citizen­ number of citizens of other Member States who have ship, to be clearly defined and independent of national­ the right to vote (having completed the required period ity; and the translation of Article 138 of the Treaty of residence) and have chosen to vote in the Member into an appropriate instrument providing a standard State and municipality of residence, in relation to the procedure for elections to the European Parliament, number of nationals of the Member State of residence based on the active and passive right to vote in Euro­ who are registered on the electoral rolls. Furthermore, pean elections in the country of residence. the wording of this article should be revised as it is too vague in its present format, does not lay down any deadline for derogations and could give rise to discrimi­ nation between EEC Member States and citizens. 3.2. Family members, refugees and stateless persons

Another issue which should be tackled here is that of extending the right to vote in local elections to family 2.8. Limiting the number of municipal councillors members (older and younger dependents) in accordance with the definitions contained in Article 10 of Regu­ lation (EEC) No 1612/68, and to refugees and stateless With respect to Article 12, which limits the number of persons resident in the Member States. nationals of other Member States allowed to sit on a municipal council, it should be borne in mind that a measure of this kind will also penalize nationals intend­ 3.3. Citizens of non-EEC countries ing to vote for candidates who are citizens of other Member States, in violation of existing laws. It should also be remembered that in countries where elections The precarious civil and legal position of many citizens for municipal councillors also consist of indirect elec­ and immigrants from non-EEC countries is a highly tions for members of parliament, recourse to Article 12 topical issue, and one which will become even more so No C 71/6 Official Journal of the European Communities 20. 3. 89 under a People's Europe. In the light of the comments possibility of extending to non-EEC citizens the right made in paragraph 1.4, the Section would, in the inter­ to vote in local elections (*) where this is not already ests of consistency and to avoid alienation, rifts and the case. tension between citizens and workers of different nationalities, advise the Commission, Council and (') The European Parliament has already adopted a similar Member States, in due course and in the light of experi­ stance, requesting that these citizens also be allowed to vote ence already gained in some countries, to look into the in local elections (OJ No C 13, 18. 1. 1988).

Done at Brussels, 25 January 1989.

The Chairman

of the Economic and Social Committee

Alberto MASPRONE

APPENDIX 1

Voting rights in local elections in the Member States

I. Countries which grant voting rights to all non-nationals:

1. DENMARK

A: Danish nationals resident abroad lose their right to vote in local elections in Denmark. B: All foreign nationals resident in Denmark have been entitled to vote in local elections since 1981.

2. IRELAND

A: Irish nationals resident abroad lose their right to vote in local elections in Ireland. B: All foreign nationals resident in Ireland are entitled to vote in local elections.

3. THE NETHERLANDS

A: Dutch nationals resident abroad lose their right to vote in local elections in the Netherlands. B: All foreign nationals resident in the Netherlands have been entitled to vote in local elections since 1983.

II. Countries which grant voting rights to certain categories of non-nationals:

1. UNITED KINGDOM

A: UK nationals resident abroad lose their right to vote in local elections in the United Kingdom. B: Only Irish and Commonwealth citizens are entitled to vote in local elections in the United Kingdom.

2. PORTUGAL

A: Portuguese nationals resident abroad lose their right to vote in local elections in Portugal. B: Foreign nationals resident in Portugal are not entitled to vote in local elections, which are restricted to Portuguese nationals by the Constitution (exception made in the case of nationals of Portuguese-speaking countries which grant reciprocal rights). 20. 3. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 71/7

III. Countries which do not grant voting rights to non-nationals:

1. BELGIUM

A: Belgian nationals resident abroad lose their right to vote in local elections in Belgium. B: Foreign nationals resident in Belgium are not entitled to vote in local elections, which are restricted to Belgian nationals by the Constitution.

2. GERMANY

A: German nationals resident abroad lose their right to vote in local elections in Germany. B: Foreign nationals resident in Germany are not entitled to vote in local elections, which are restricted to the 'People'—interpreted as the German people—by the Basic Constitutional Law.

3. GREECE

A: Greek nationals retain their right to vote in local elections in Greece if they return to cast their vote in person. B: Foreign nationals resident in Greece are not entitled to vote in local elections, which are restricted to Greek nationals by the Constitution.

4. SPAIN

A: Spanish nationals resident abroad retain their right to vote in local elections in Spain, and they may also vote by post or by proxy. B: Foreign nationals resident in Spain are not entitled to vote in local elections, although the Constitution provides that this right may be granted by law on a reciprocal basis.

5. FRANCE

A: French nationals resident abroad retain their right to vote in local elections in France and they may also vote by proxy. B: Foreign nationals resident in France are not entitled to vote in local elections which are restricted to French nationals by the Constitution.

6. ITALY

A: Italian nationals retain their right to vote in local elections in Italy provided they return to vote in person. B: Foreign nationals resident in Italy are not entitled to vote in local elections, which are restricted to Italian nationals by the Constitution.

7. LUXEMBOURG

A: Luxembourg nationals resident abroad lose their right to vote in local elections in Luxembourg. B: Foreign nationals resident in Luxembourg are not entitled to vote in local elections, which are restricted to Luxembourg nationals by the Constitution.

Rules in force in the countries granting voting rights to all non-nationals:

1. DENMARK

Conditions (right to vote and stand for election): — minimum age 18 years, „ — residence in the local authority area in question, — residence in Denmark during the three years immediately preceding the elections in question. No C 71/8 Official Journal of the European Communities 20. 3. 89

2. IRELAND

Conditions (right to vote and stand for election): — minimum age 18 years, — residence in the local authority area in question, — residence in Ireland for six months before the elections in question.

3. THE NETHERLANDS

Conditions (right to vote and stand for election): — minimum age 18 years, — residence in the local authority area in question, — lawful settlement in The Netherlands for a minimum of five years before the elections in question.

APPENDIX 2

Defeated amendment

The following amendment, which received at least one quarter of the total votes cast, was defeated during the debate:

Add a new paragraph 2.3: 'A specific problem with regard to the implementation of the proposals does, however, arise in the case of Member States having a particularly high percentage of foreign residents who are nationals of other EC States. Under the right of eligibility, these foreign residents could secure the leading role in the running of a local community. This problem is well illustrated by the case of Luxembourg, whose population comprises over 27 % foreign residents and in some districts the figure even exceeds 50 %. In such cases provision should therefore be made for the gradual adaptation of the electoral law with the possibility of establishing, for example, a separate consultative college for foreign representatives at local level.'

Reasons

Self explanatory.

Result of voting

For: 34, against: 75, abstentions: 20.