Facts of the cases

According to Czech and Polish law, only Czech and Polish citizens can join national political parties. In Czechia, only registered political parties can submit lists of candidates for the elections to the European Parliament. Independent candidates can run in the Czech municipal elections regardless of EU nationality. In Poland, the electoral committees are instrumental in nominating candidates in different types of elections. Political parties, coalitions of political parties, associations and social organisations, as well as Polish citizens, can form electoral committees for the European and municipal elections.

Before launching the formal infringement procedure, the European Commission expressed doubts as to the compatibility of the Czech and Polish legislation with Article 22 TFEU because of the different treatment of national and mobile EU citizens. Owing to a lack of progress, in 2014 the Commission initiated an infringement procedure in accordance with Article 258 TFEU, and issued reasoned opinions in that regard. Czechia and Poland dismissed them, considering their respective domestic provisions compatible with Article 22 TFEU. Consequently, in 2021, the Commission brought two actions before the CJEU. In these, it asked the Court to declare that Czechia and Poland had failed to fulfil their obligations under Article 22 TFEU, since they were denying mobile EU citizens the right to become members of political parties in their Member State of residence.

Arguments of the parties

The Commission argued that mobile EU citizens residing on Czech or Polish territory could not exercise their right to stand as candidates in municipal and European Parliament elections under the same conditions as Czech or Polish nationals, because they could not become members of political parties. The Commission claimed that a direct link exists between political party membership and the effectiveness of standing in those elections. Mobile EU citizens residing in these Member States could not therefore benefit effectively from Article 22 TFEU rights. Even if a mobile EU citizen residing in these Member States stands as an independent candidate (on a political party list or supported by the electoral committee), they would end up in a less favourable position, with reduced prospects of securing a high-ranking position on that list. The Commission asserted that a narrow (i.e. literal) interpretation of Article 22 TFEU, disregarding political party membership, would undermine the principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of nationality. It also contended that the national restriction on exercising any right deriving from EU citizenship might be justified by the public interest only if that measure is compatible with the fundamental rights guaranteed by EU law. The deprivation of the right to be a member of a political party was a limitation on the fundamental right to freedom of association, and could not go beyond the limitations permitted by Article 11(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Czechia and Poland argued that, since the legal text did not refer to the conditions for becoming a political party member, Article 22 TFEU did not cover the acquisition of political party membership. Czechia claimed that the rules on the functioning of political parties represent the cornerstone of Member States' political and constitutional structures, and could therefore not prevent national laws from limiting the ability of nationals of other Member States to participate in the 'key platform' for political activity at the national level. Czechia and Poland claimed that exercising the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal and European elections could not be applied directly, and required secondary legislation. Both Member States raised the issue of respect for national identity within the meaning of Article 4(2) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU).

Court's rulings

The CJEU declared that, by denying mobile EU citizens residing in Czechia or Poland the right to become political party members, Czechia and Poland were violating their obligations under Article 22 TFEU.

Court's reasoning

In defining the scope of Article 22 TFEU, the CJEU dismissed a simple textual interpretation. It invoked the well-known phrase in the Grzelczyk judgment (C-184/99) that 'Union citizenship is destined to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States' in order to connect the right to freedom of movement and residence with the right to participate in the democratic electoral process of that Member State. In European Commission v Poland, the CJEU held that Article 22 TFEU set out a

specific rule of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality applicable to the exercise of the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal and European Parliament elections … and, consequently, applies to any national measure giving rise to a difference in treatment liable to undermine the effective exercise of those rights.

The CJEU declared that this provision was a specific expression of the fundamental EU law principle of equality. Although matters relating to municipal and European elections, which are not harmonised at EU level, are currently regulated by the Member States, these have to exercise their powers in accordance with EU law. According to Article 22 TFEU obligations, a Member State cannot treat mobile EU citizens differently from its own nationals. Otherwise, the effectiveness of the rule of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality would be undermined.

Next, the CJEU dismissed the claims that there was no statutory difference between the treatment of Czech/Polish citizens and mobile EU citizens, or that this difference was irrelevant. The CJEU explained that prohibiting mobile EU citizens from joining political parties put them in a worse position compared with the Czech/Polish political party members running in the municipal or European elections. In that regard, the CJEU highlighted the main differences existing between party members and independent candidates running in European or municipal elections, such as different statutory requirements, campaign visibility, organisational system, and human, administrative and financial resources.

Finally, the CJEU dealt with the argument that mobile EU citizens could influence the outcome of national (parliamentary and presidential) elections if they were allowed to join political parties. The Court addressed the concerns of intrusions into national identity within the meaning of Article 4(2) TEU by stating that Article 22 TFEU did not concern national elections. This provision did not prohibit the Member States from adopting specific rules regarding national elections that would limit mobile EU citizens' activity or participation. Consequently, the CJEU held that allowing mobile EU citizens to become members of a political party in their Member State of residence could not undermine the Member State's national identity.