EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
COUR EUROPEENNE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME

Guide on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1
to the European Convention
on Human Rights

Right to free elections

Updated on 30 April 2019

COUNCIL OF EUROPE

ah»
.

. .
a,»

CONSEIL DE IJEUROPE

Guide on Article 3 of Protocol No.1 — Right to free elections

Publishers or organisations wishing to translate and/or reproduce all or part of this report in
the form of a printed or electronic publication are invited to contact pubIishing@echr.coe.int
for information on the authorisation procedure.

If you wish to know which translations of the Case—Law Guides are currently under way, please
see Pending translations.

This Guide has been prepared by the Directorate of the Jurisconsult and does not bind the Court. It may be
subject to editorial revision.

This Guide was first published in May 2016. It will be updated regularly as the case~|aw evolves. This update
was finalised on 30 April 2019.

The Case~Law Guides are available for downloading at WWW.echr.c0e.int (Case~|aw — Case~|aw analysis —
Case~|aw guides). For publication updates please follow the Court's Twitter account at https:/twitter.com/
echrpublication.

© Copyright: Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights, 2019

European Court of Human Rights 2/31 Last update: 30.04.2019

Guide on Article 3 of Protocol No.1 — Right to free elections

Table of contents

Note to  4

I. General principles  5
A. Meaning and scope ................................................................................................................... ..5
B. Principles ofinterpretation ....................................................................................................... ..6

ll. Active aspect: the right to vote  7

 

A. Loss of civic rights ..................................................................................................................... ..8
B. Specific case of prisoners .......................................................................................................... ..9
C. Residence, condition of access to voting rights.

1. Right of citizens residing abroad to vote

2. Particular case of certain territories ....................................... ..

 

3. Organisation of elections abroad for non—resident nationals ..

Ill. Passive aspect: the right to stand for election  13

A. Inability to stand for election and the democratic order ....................................................... .. 14
B. Importance of historical context ............................................................................................ .. 15
C. Organisation of elections .............................................................. ..

  

1. Guaranteeing serious candidatures: the deposit requirement
2. Avoiding excessive fragmentation of the political landscape...

D. Other legitimate aims ............................................................................................................. .. 19

 

E. From the election campaign... .

T"

...to the exercise of office...
IV. Processing of election results  23
V. Electoral 24

List of cited cases  27

European Court of Human Rights 3/31 Last update: 30.04.2019

Guide on Article 3 of Protocol No.1 — Right to free elections

Note to readers

This Guide is part of the series of Guides on the Convention published by the European Court of
Human Rights (hereafter ”the Court”, ”the European Court” or ”the Strasbourg Court”) to inform
legal practitioners about the fundamental judgments and decisions delivered by the Strasbourg
Court. This particular Guide analyses and sums up the case—|aw on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the
European Convention on Human Rights (hereafter ”the Convention” or ”the European Convention”)
until 30 April 2019. Readers will find herein the key principles in this area and the relevant
precedents.

The case—|aw cited has been selected among the leading, major, and/or recent judgments and
decisions.*

The Court's judgments and decisions serve not only to decide those cases brought before it but,
more generally, to elucidate, safeguard and develop the rules instituted by the Convention, thereby
contributing to the observance by the States of the engagements undertaken by them as Contracting
Parties (Ireland v. the United Kingdom, § 154, 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, and, more recently,
Jeronovifs v. Latvia [GC], no. 44898/10, § 109, ECHR 2016).

The mission of the system set up by the Convention is thus to determine issues of public policy in the
general interest, thereby raising the standards of protection of human rights and extending human
rights jurisprudence throughout the community of the Convention States (Konstantin Markin
v. Russia [GC], § 89, no. 30078/06, ECHR 2012). Indeed, the Court has emphasised the Convention's
role as a ’’constitutional instrument of European public order” in the field of human rights
(Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Ireland [GC], no. 45036/98, § 156, ECHR
2005—VI).

This Guide contains references to keywords for each cited Article of the Convention and its
Additional Protocols. The legal issues dealt with in each case are summarised in a List of keywords,
chosen from a thesaurus of terms taken (in most cases) directly from the text of the Convention and
its Protocols.

The HUDOC database of the Court's case—|aw enables searches to be made by keyword. Searching
with these keywords enables a group of documents with similar legal content to be found (the
Court's reasoning and conclusions in each case are summarised through the keywords). Keywords
for individual cases can be found by clicking on the Case Details tag in HUDOC. For further
information about the HUDOC database and the keywords, please see the HUDOC user manual.

* The case~|aw cited may be in either or both of the official languages (English and French) of the Court and
the European Commission of Human Rights. Unless otherwise indicated, all references are to a judgment on
the merits delivered by a Chamber of the Court. The abbreviation "(dec.)" indicates that the citation is of a
decision of the Court and "[GC]" that the case was heard by the Grand Chamber. Chamberjudgments that were
not final when this update was published are marked with an asterisk (*).

European Court of Human Rights 4/31 Last update: 30.04.2019

Guide on Article 3 of Protocol No.1 — Right to free elections

I. General principles

Article 3 of Protocol No. 1- Right to free elections

"The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret
ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the
choice of the legislature.'’

Hudoc keywords

Right to free elections (P1-3) — Periodic elections (P1-3) — Elections by secret ballot (P1-3) — Free
expression of opinion of people (P1-3) — Choice of the legislature (P1-3) — Vote (P1-3) — Stand for
election (P1-3)

A. Meaning and scope

1. ”According to the Preamble to the Convention, fundamental human rights and freedoms are best
maintained by ’an effective political democracy’. Since it enshrines a characteristic principle of
democracy, Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 is accordingly of prime importance in the Convention system”
(Mathieu—Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, § 47).

2. Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 concerns only the choice of the legislature. This expression is not,
however, confined to the national parliament. The constitutional structure of the State in question
has to be examined (Timke v. Germany, Commission decision). Generally speaking, the scope of
Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 does not cover local elections, whether municipal (Xuereb v. Malta;
Salleras Llinares v. Spain) or regional (Malarde v. France). The Court has found that the power to
make regulations and by-laws, which is conferred on the local authorities in many countries, is to be
distinguished from legislative power, which is referred to in Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, even though
legislative power may not be restricted to the national parliament alone (Molka v. Poland (dec.)).

3. The Court has clarified the interpretation to be given to the notion of ’’elections’’, thus
determining the scope of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi v. Turkey (dec.),
§§ 33-34 and 37-38).

4. The Court has explained that in principle a referendum does not fall within the scope of Article 3
of Protocol No. 1 (ibid., §§ 33 and 38; Moohan and Gillon v. the United Kingdom (dec.), §40;).
However, it takes account of the diversity of electoral systems in the various States. It has thus not
excluded the possibility that a democratic process described as a ”referendum” by a Contracting
State could potentially fall within the ambit of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. In order to do so the
process would need to take place ”at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which
will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature” (ibid.,
§ 42).

5. The Court has held that the inability to receive the results of opinion polls on voting intentions
over a period of two weeks prior to an election did not affect voters sufficiently ’’directly’’ for them
to claim to be ”victims” of a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, within the meaning of Article 34
of the Convention (Dimitras and Others v. Greece (dec.), §§ 30-32).

6. As regards presidential elections, the Court has taken the view that the powers of the Head of
State cannot as such be construed as a form of ”|egis|ature” within the meaning of Article 3 of
Protocol No. 1. It does not exclude, however, the possibility ofapplying Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to
presidential elections. Should it be established that the office of the Head of State in question had
been given the power to initiate and adopt legislation or enjoyed wide powers to control the

European Court of Human Rights 5/31 Last update: 30.04.2019

Guide on Article 3 of Protocol No.1 — Right to free elections

passage of legislation or the power to censure the principal legislation-setting authorities, then it
could arguably be considered to be a ”|egis|ature” within the meaning of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1
(Bos"koski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.); Brito Da Silva Guerra and Sousa
Magno v. Portugal (dec.)). This possibility has never been used, however, and has not even been
mentioned in subsequent cases (Paksas v. Lithuania [GC]; Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia,
§§ 55-56).

7. The Court has, on a number of occasions, taken the view that the European Parliament forms part
of the ’’legislature’’ within the meaning of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (Matthews v. the United
Kingdom [GC], §§ 45-54; Occhetto v. Italy (dec.), § 42).

8. As to the actual features of elections, the text of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 provides only that
they should be free and by secret ballot, as the European Commission of Human Rights (”the
Commission”) and then the Court have constantly reiterated (X. v. the United Kingdom, Commission
decision of 6 October 1976). The provision further makes it clear that elections must be held at
reasonable intervals. The States have a broad margin of appreciation in such matters. The case-law
nevertheless provides the following guidelines:

"The Commission finds that the question whether elections are held at reasonable intervals must be
determined by reference to the purpose of parliamentary elections. That purpose is to ensure that
fundamental changes in prevailing public opinion are reflected in the opinions of the representatives of
the people. Parliament must in principle be in a position to develop and execute its legislative
intentions — including longer term legislative plans. Too short an interval between elections may
impede political planning for the implementation ofthe will of the electorate; too long an interval can
lead to the petrification of political groupings in Parliament which may no longer bear any resemblance
to the prevailing will of the electorate." (Timke v. Germany, Commission decision)

9. The case-law has continued to develop the requirement of universal suffrage, which is now the
benchmark principle (X. v. Germany, Commission decision; Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC],
§§ 59 and 62; Mathieu—Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, § 51). However, while Article 3 of Protocol
No. 1 includes the principle of equality of treatment of all citizens in the exercise of their right to
vote, it does not follow, however, that all votes must necessarily carry equal weight as regards the
outcome of the election. Thus no electoral system can eliminate ”wasted votes” (ibid., § 54; Partija
”Jaunie Demokrati” and Partija ”Musu Zeme” v. Latvia (dec.)).

10. However, the vote of each elector must have the possibility of affecting the composition of the
legislature, otherwise the right to vote, the electoral process and, ultimately, the democratic order
itself, would be devoid of substance (Riza and Others v. Bulgaria, § 148). States thus enjoy a broad
margin of appreciation in the organisation of the ballot. An electoral boundary review giving rise to
constituencies of unequal population does not breach Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 provided that the
free will of the people is accurately reflected (Bompard v. France (dec.)). Lastly, the choice of
electoral system by which the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the
legislature is ensured — whether it be based on proportional representation, the ”first-past-the-post”
system or some other arrangement — is a matter in which the State enjoys a wide margin of
appreciation (Matthews v. the United Kingdom [GC], § 64).

B. Principles of interpretation

11. Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 differs from the other substantive provisions of the Convention and
the Protocols as it is phrased in terms of the obligation of the High Contracting Party to hold
elections which ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people rather than in terms of a
particular right or freedom. However, having regard to the preparatory work in respect of Article 3
of Protocol No. 1 and the interpretation of the provision in the context of the Convention as a whole,
the Court has established that this provision also implies individual rights, comprising the right to

European Court of Human Rights 6/31 Last update: 30.04.2019

Guide on Article 3 of Protocol No.1 — Right to free elections

vote (the ”active” aspect) and to stand for election (the ”passive” aspect) (Mathieu—Mohin and
Clerfayt v. Belgium, §§ 48-51; Zdanoka v. Latvia [GC], § 102).

12. The rights in question are not absolute. There is room for ”imp|ied limitations”, and the
Contracting States must be given a wide margin of appreciation in this sphere. The concept of
’’implied limitations” under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 is of major importance for the determination
of the relevance of the aims pursued by the restrictions on the rights guaranteed by this provision.
Given that Article 3 is not limited by a specific list of ’’legitimate aims” such as those enumerated in
Articles 8 to 11, the Contracting States are therefore free to rely on an aim not contained in that list
to justify a restriction, provided that the compatibility of that aim with the principle of the rule of
law and the general objectives of the Convention is proved in the particular circumstances of a given
case.

13. The concept of ’’implied limitations” also means that the Court does not apply the traditional
tests of ”necessity” or ”pressing social need” which are used in the context of Artic|es8 to 11. In
examining compliance with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, the Court has focused mainly on two criteria:
whether there has been arbitrariness or a lack of proportionality, and whether the restriction has
interfered with the free expression of the opinion of the people. In addition, it underlines the need
to assess any electoral legislation in the light of the political evolution of the country concerned,
which means that unacceptable features in one system may be justified in another (Mathieu—Mohin
and Clerfayt v. Belgium, § 52; Zdanoka v. Latvia [GC], §§ 103-104 and 115).

14. Stricter requirements may be imposed on eligibility to stand for election to Parliament (the
”passive” aspect) than is the case for eligibility to vote (the ”active” aspect). In fact, while the test
relating to the ”active” aspect of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 has usually included a wider assessment
of the proportionality of the statutory provisions disqualifying a person or a group of persons from
the right to vote, the Court's test in relation to the ”passive” aspect has been limited largely to
verification of the absence of arbitrariness in the domestic procedures leading to disqualification of
an individual from standing as a candidate (Zdanoka v. Latvia [GC], § 115; Melnitchenko v. Ukraine,
§ 57).

15. As to the question of who is entitled to rely on an alleged violation of the ”passive” aspect of the
right, the Court has admitted that, where electoral law or national authorities restrict the right of
candidates individually to stand for election on a party's list, the party concerned may, in that
capacity, claim to be a victim of such a violation independently of its candidates (Georgian Labour
Party v. Georgia, §§ 72-74; Riza and Others v. Bulgaria, § 142).

16. In addition, when it subjects a country's electoral system to its examination — whether it
concerns the active or the passive aspect —, the Court takes account of the diversity of the States’
historical contexts. Those different contexts may thus lead the Court to accepting divergences in
electoral rules from one country to another but also to explaining any evolution in the level of
requirement depending on the period under consideration.

17. Lastly, Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 covers the post-election period, including the counting of votes
and the recording and transmission of the results. The State thus has a positive obligation to ensure
careful regulation of the process in which the results of voting are ascertained, processed and
recorded (Davydov and Others v. Russia, §§ 284-285).

ll. Active aspect: the right to vote

18. The ”active” aspect is subject to limitations. Here, as in any other area under Article 3 of
Protocol No. 1, the member States enjoy a certain margin ofappreciation which varies depending on

European Court of Human Rights 7/31 Last update: 30.04.2019

Guide on Article 3 of Protocol No.1 — Right to free elections

the context. It is, for example, possible to fix a minimum age to ensure that individuals taking part in
the electoral process are sufficiently mature (Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], § 62).

19. However, the supervision exercised consists in a relatively comprehensive review of
proportionality. The margin of appreciation afforded to States cannot have the effect of prohibiting
certain individuals or groups from taking part in the political life of the country, especially through
the appointment of members of the legislature (Aziz v. Cyprus, § 28; Tanase v. Moldova [GC], § 158).
In the case of Aziz v. Cyprus, the Court ruled on the inability for members of the Turkish-Cypriot
community to vote in legislative elections. It took the view that, on account of the abnormal
situation existing in Cyprus since 1963 and the legislative vacuum, the applicant, as a member of the
Turkish-Cypriot community living in the Republic of Cyprus, was completely deprived of any
opportunity to express his opinion in the choice of the members of the House of Representatives.
The very essence of the applicant’s right to vote was thus impaired. The Court also found a clear
inequality of treatment in the enjoyment of the right in question, between the members of the
Turkish-Cypriot community and those of the Greek-Cypriot community. There had accordingly been
a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the
Convention.

20. It should also be noted that complaints concerning elections not falling under Article 3 of
Protocol No. 1 may, if appropriate, be raised under other Articles of the Convention. Thus, in the
case of Molka v. Poland, the applicant was unable to vote in elections to municipal councils, district
councils and regional assemblies. The polling station was not accessible to individuals in wheelchairs
and it was not permitted to take ballot papers outside the premises. The Court took the view that it
could not be excluded that the authorities’ failure to provide appropriate access to the polling
station for the applicant, who wished to lead an active life, might have aroused feelings of
humiliation and distress capable of impinging on his personal autonomy, and thereby on the quality
of his private life. The Court thus accepted the idea that, in such circumstances, Artic|e8 was
engaged.

A. Loss of civic rights

21. When an individual or group has been deprived of the right to vote, the Court is particularly
attentive. Deprivation of the right to vote must then pursue a legitimate aim but also pass a more
stringent proportionality test. The Court has thus had occasion to examine a number of cases in
which the deprivation of voting rights was part of a criminal investigation. The case of Labita v. Italy
[GC] concerned the automatic temporary loss of civic rights imposed on an individual suspected of
belonging to the mafia. The Court agreed that the measure pursued a legitimate aim. However,
taking into account the fact that the measure had only been applied after the applicant’s acquittal, it
found that it had been disproportionate as there was no actual basis on which to suspect him of
belonging to the mafia. In the case of Vito Sante Santoro v. Italy, the applicant had also been
deprived of his right to vote for a limited period on account of his placement under police
surveillance. However, more than nine months had passed between the order placing him under
surveillance and the deletion of his name from the electoral roll. As a result, the applicant had been
prevented from voting in two elections, which would not have been the case if the measure had
been applied immediately. The Government had not provided any reason to justify that time lapse.
The Court thus found that there had been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.

22. The question of the loss of civic rights does not only arise in a criminal context. The case of
Albanese v. Italy concerned the suspension of the applicant’s electoral rights for the duration of
bankruptcy proceedings against him. The Court pointed out that bankruptcy proceedings came
within the ambit of civil rather than criminal law and therefore did not imply any deceit or fraud on
the part of the bankrupt person. The aim of the restrictions on the person’s electoral rights was
therefore essentially punitive. The measure thus served no purpose other than to belittle persons

European Court of Human Rights 8/31 Last update: 30.04.2019

Guide on Article 3 of Protocol No.1 — Right to free elections

who had been declared bankrupt, reprimanding them simply for having been declared insolvent
irrespective of whether they had committed an offence. It did not therefore pursue a legitimate aim
for the purposes of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.

23. The Court also examined the loss of voting rights on account of placement under partial
guardianship. In the case of Alajos Kiss v. Hungary, it took the view that such a measure could pursue
a legitimate aim, namely to ensure that only citizens capable of assessing the consequences of their
decisions and making conscious and judicious decisions should participate in public affairs. However,
the voting ban in question had been imposed as an automatic, blanket restriction, regardless of the
protected person’s actual faculties and without any distinction being made between full and partial
guardianship. The Court further considered that the treatment as a single class of those with
intellectual or mental disabilities was a questionable classification, and the curtailment of their rights
must be subject to strict scrutiny. It therefore concluded that an indiscriminate removal of voting
rights, without an individualised judicial evaluation, could not be considered proportionate to the
aim pursued.

B. Specific case of prisoners

24. Prisoners in general continue to enjoy all the fundamental rights and freedoms secured by the
Convention, except for the right to liberty where lawful detention falls expressly within the scope of
Article 5 of the Convention (Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], § 69). The rights guaranteed by
Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 are no exception. There is no question, therefore, that a prisoner should
forfeit his rights under the Convention merely because of his status as a person detained following
conviction. That does not preclude the taking of steps to protect society against activities intended
to destroy the Convention rights and freedoms.

25. Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 does not therefore exclude that restrictions on electoral rights could
be imposed on an individual who has, for example, seriously abused a public position or whose
conduct threatens to undermine the rule of law or democratic foundations. The severe measure of
disenfranchisement must not, however, be resorted to lightly and the principle of proportionality
requires a discernible and sufficient link between the sanction and the conduct and circumstances of
the individual concerned (Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], § 71).

26. To deprive a prisoner of his political rights may thus meet the legitimate aims of preventing
crime and enhancing civic responsibility, together with respect for the rule of law and ensuring the
proper functioning and preservation of the democratic regime. However, such a measure cannot be
imposed automatically or it would not meet the proportionality requirement.

27. The States may decide either to leave it to the courts to determine the proportionality of a
measure restricting convicted prisoners’ voting rights, or to incorporate provisions into their laws
defining the circumstances in which such a measure should be applied. In this latter case, it will be
for the legislature itself to balance the competing interests in order to avoid any general, automatic
and indiscriminate restriction. Accordingly, the application of a voting ban in the absence of a
specific judicial decision will not in itself entail a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (Scoppola
v. Italy (no. 3) [GC], § 102).

28. In the case of Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], the Court found a violation of Article 3 of
Protocol No. 1 because the voting ban in question had been a blanket ban applied automatically to
anyone serving a custodial sentence. It affected 48,000 prisoners, which was a high number, and
concerned all sorts of prison sentences, ranging from one day to life, and for various types of
offences from the most minor to the most serious. In addition, there was no direct link between the
offence committed by an individual and the withdrawal of his voting rights. The Court also found a
violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 in the case of Soyler v. Turkey, where restrictions imposed on
the voting rights of convicted persons had an even broader scope and impact because they even

European Court of Human Rights 9/31 Last update: 30.04.2019

Guide on Article 3 of Protocol No.1 — Right to free elections

applied to those who were not, or no longer, serving time in prison. In the case of Frodl v. Austria,
the deprivation of voting rights did not systematically affect all prisoners, but only those who had
been sentenced to prison for more than a year for an offence committed voluntarily. Nevertheless,
there was no link between the automatic imposition of the measure and the conduct of the
individual or the circumstances of the case. The Court thus found that the voting ban was not
proportionate to the aims pursued.

29. In the case of Scoppola v. Italy (no. 3) [GC], however, the Court examined a voting ban which
applied only to persons convicted of certain well-determined offences or to a custodial sentence
exceeding a statutory threshold. The legislature had been careful to adjust the duration of this
measure according to the specific features of each case. It had also adjusted the duration of the ban
depending on the sentence imposed and therefore, indirectly, on the gravity of the sentence. Many
of the convicted prisoners had retained the possibility of voting in legislative elections. In addition,
this system had been complemented by the possibility for convicts affected by a permanent ban to
recover their voting rights. The Italian system was not therefore marked by excessive rigidity. The
Court thus held that there had been no violation of Article 3 of Protocol No.1.

30. It must nevertheless be noted that for a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to be found,
prisoners must show that they have actually been prevented from voting. It is not sufficient for them
to rely on their state of detention alone, because events such as early release or admission to a
psychiatric institution, etc., may take place before the date of the elections in question. Such
applications are thus declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded (Dunn and Others v. the United
Kingdom (dec.)).

31. Moreover, the Court has never found it appropriate to indicate to States the necessary
measures to be taken in order to put an end to violations caused by a prisoner voting ban. At best it
has set out a timetable (Greens and M.7'. v. the United Kingdom, § 120). However, States cannot rely
on the complexity of making changes to the law which led to the violation. In the case of Anchugov
and Gladkov v. Russia, the Court took note of the argument that the prohibition had been imposed
by a provision of the Constitution which could not be amended by Parliament and could only be
revised by adopting a new Constitution, thus implying a particularly complex procedure. However, it
pointed out that it was essentially for the authorities to choose, under the supervision of the Council
of Europe’s Committee of Ministers, the means to be used to bring the legislation into conformity
with the Convention. It is open to governments to explore all possible avenues to ensure compliance
with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, including by a form of political process or by interpreting the
Constitution in conformity with the Convention (§ 111).

32. Lastly, in the case of Moohan and Gillon v. the United Kingdom (dec.), convicted prisoners had
complained of being unable to vote in the Scottish independence referendum held in 2014. Finding
that Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 was inapplicable to such a consultation, the Court dismissed their
applications as inadmissible.

C. Residence, condition of access to voting rights

1. Right of citizens residing abroad to vote

33. In a series of cases beginning in 1961, the Commission declared inadmissible, as manifestly ill-
founded, complaints about restrictions on voting rights based on a residence criterion (see the
Commission decisions: X. and Others v. Belgium; X. v. the United Kingdom (11 December 1976);
X. v. the United Kingdom (28 February 1979); X. v. the United Kingdom (13 May 1982); Polacco and
Garofalo v. Italy; Luksch v. Germany).

34. The Court subsequently reiterated the compatibility with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 of the
residence criterion. Such a restriction can bejustified for a number of reasons:

European Court of Human Rights 10/31 Last update: 30.04.2019

Guide on Article 3 of Protocol No.1 — Right to free elections

I first, the presumption that non—resident citizens are less directly or less continuously
concerned by their country’s day-to-day problems and have less knowledge of them;

I second, the fact that candidates standing for election to parliament cannot so easily
present the election issues to citizens living abroad, who will also have less influence on the
selection of candidates or on the drafting of their manifestos;

I third, the close connection between the right to vote in parliamentary elections and the
fact of being directly affected by the acts of the political bodies thus elected; and,

I fourth, the legitimate concern the legislature may have to limit the influence of citizens
living abroad in elections concerning issues which, while fundamental, primarily affect
those living in the country.

35. Even if the person concerned has not severed all ties with his or her country of origin and some
of the above-mentioned factors perhaps do not apply to that person, the law cannot always take
account of every individual case but must lay down a general rule (Hilbe v. Liechtenstein (dec.); Doyle
v. the United Kingdom (dec.); Shindler v. the United Kingdom, § 105).

36. The Court thus considered ill-founded the applications of nationals who had left their country of
origin (Hilbe v. Liechtenstein (dec.)). In two cases it particularly took account of the fact that non-
residents could vote in national elections for the first fifteen years following their emigration and
that their right was, in any event, restored if and when they returned to live in their country of
origin, thus finding that the measure was not disproportionate (Doyle v. the United Kingdom (dec.);
Shindler v. the United Kingdom, § 108). The Court also found it pertinent that Parliament had sought,
more than once, to weigh up the competing interests, and had debated in detail the question of the
voting rights of non-residents; the evolution of opinions in Parliament was reflected in the
amendments to the cut-off period since some non—resident citizens had first been allowed to vote
(ibid., § 117).

37. In the case of Shindler v. the United Kingdom the Court noted that there was a growing
awareness at European level ofthe problems posed by migration in terms of political participation in
the countries of origin and residence. However, none of the material examined formed a basis for
concluding that, as the law currently stood, States were under an obligation to grant non-residents
unrestricted access to the franchise. While there was a clear trend, in the law and practice of the
member States, to allow non-residents to vote, and a significant majority of States were in favour of
an unrestricted right of access, this was not sufficient to establish the existence of any common
approach or consensus in favour of unrestricted voting rights for non-residents. The Court thus
concluded that, although the matter might need to be kept under review, the margin of appreciation
enjoyed by the State in this area remained a wide one (§§ 109-115).

2. Particular case of certain territories

38. In the case of Py v. France the Court referred back to the idea of a sufficiently strong tie between
the potential voter and the territory concerned. A French national from mainland France and living
in Nouméa was refused the right to vote in elections to the Congress of New Caledonia on the
ground that he could not prove at least ten years of residence in the territory. The Court took the
view that cut-off points as to length of residence addressed the concern that ballots should reflect
the will of the population ”concerned” and that their results should not be affected by mass voting
by recent arrivals in the territory who did not have strong ties with it. Furthermore, the restriction
on the right to vote was the direct and necessary consequence of establishing New Caledonian
citizenship. The applicant was not affected by the acts of political institutions in New Caledonia to
the same extent as resident citizens. Consequently, the residence condition was justified and
pursued a legitimate aim. The history and status of New Caledonia — a transitional phase prior to the
acquisition of full sovereignty and part of a process of self-determination — could be regarded as

European Court of Human Rights 11/31 Last update: 30.04.2019

Guide on Article 3 of Protocol No.1 — Right to free elections

constituting ’’local requirements” warranting a restriction as important as the ten-year residence
requirement, a condition which had also been instrumental in alleviating the bloody conflict.

39. The case of Sevinger v. the Netherlands concerned the inability of the residents of the island of
Aruba, which enjoyed a certain autonomy, to vote in elections to the Dutch Parliament. They were
able, however, to vote in elections to the Parliament of Aruba, which was entitled to send special
delegates to the Dutch Parliament. The Court took the view that Dutch nationals residing in Aruba
were thus able to influence decisions taken by the Lower House of the Dutch Parliament and that
they were not affected by the acts of that Parliament to the same extent as Dutch nationals residing
in the Netherlands. It also rejected the complaint under Article 14 taken together with Article 3 of
Protocol No. 1. It found that it was only those Dutch nationals residing in Aruba who were entitled to
vote for members of the Parliament of Aruba and that therefore their situation was not relevantly
similar to that of other Dutch nationals.

40. As regards the geographical and territorial organisation of the ballot within the relevant State,
the Court acknowledged that the obligation to seek the deletion of one’s name from one electoral
roll and its addition to another pursued legitimate aims: to ensure the compilation of electoral rolls
in satisfactory conditions of time and supervision, to enable the proper organisation of ballot-related
operations and to avoid fraud. It took the view that the obligation to comply with those formalities
within the statutory deadline fell within the exercise of the State’s broad margin of appreciation in
such matters (Benkaddour v. France).

3. Organisation of elections abroad for non-resident nationals

41. Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 does not oblige States to introduce a system that ensures the exercise
of the right to vote for their non-resident citizens. In the case of Sitaropoulos and Giakoumopoulos
v. Greece [GC] the applicants complained that, in the absence of regulation on that point, they could
not exercise their voting right in the country where they lived as expatriates (France) even though
the constitution of their country of origin (Greece) provided for that possibility. The Court found that
there had been no violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 as the disruption to the applicants’
financial, family and professional lives that would have been caused had they had to travel to Greece
would not have been disproportionate to the point of impairing the very essence of their voting
rights.

42. However, where national law does provide for such a system, specific obligations may arise as a
result, in particular the obligation to hold fresh elections in the foreign country if necessary. In the
case of Riza and Others v. Bulgaria the Court stated that it did not overlook the fact that the
organisation of fresh elections in another sovereign country, even in only a limited number of polling
stations, might face major diplomatic or organisational obstacles and entail additional costs. It
found, however, that the holding of fresh elections, in a polling station where there had been serious
anomalies in the voting process on the part of the electoral board on the day of the election, would
have reconciled the legitimate aim behind the annulment of the election results, namely the
preservation of the legality of the electoral process, with the rights of the voters and the candidates
standing for election to Parliament.

43. The case of Oran v. Turkey concerned the inability for Turkish voters living abroad to vote for
independent non-party candidates in polling stations set up in customs posts. Votes cast in those
conditions could only be for political parties. That limitation was justified by the fact that it was
impossible to assign expatriated voters to a constituency. The Court found that the limitation had to
be assessed taking account of generally agreed restrictions on the exercise of voting rights by
expatriates and, in particular, the legitimate concern the legislature might have to limit the influence
of citizens resident abroad in elections on issues which primarily affect persons living in the country.
It also emphasised the role played by political parties, the only bodies which could come to power
and have the capacity to influence the whole national regime. Furthermore, the limitation also

European Court of Human Rights 12/31 Last update: 30.04.2019

Guide on Article 3 of Protocol No.1 — Right to free elections

pursued two further legitimate aims: enhancing democratic pluralism while preventing the excessive
and dysfunctional fragmentation of candidatures, thereby strengthening the expression of the
opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature. Consequently, the restriction met the
legislature’s legitimate concern to ensure the political stability of the country and of the government
which would be responsible for leading it after the elections. There had not therefore been a
violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.

III. Passive aspect: the right to stand for election

44. Like the ”active” aspect, the ”passive” aspect, namely the right to stand as a candidate for
election, has been developed in the case-law. The Court has thus stated that the right to stand for
election is ”inherent in the concept of a truly democratic regime” (Podkolzina v. Latvia, §35).
However, it has been more cautious in its assessment of restrictions under this aspect of Article 3 of
Protocol No. 1 than when it has been called upon to examine restrictions on the right to vote: the
proportionality test is more limited. The States thus enjoy a broader margin of appreciation in
respect of the ”passive” aspect (Etxeberria and Others v. Spain, § 50; Davydov and Others v. Russia,
§ 286).

45. However, the prohibition of discrimination, under Article 14 of the Convention, is equally
applicable. In this context, even though the margin of appreciation usually afforded to States as
regards the right to stand for election is a broad one, where a difference in treatment is based on
race, colour or ethnicity, the notion of objective and reasonable justification must be interpreted as
strictly as possible (Sejdic' and Finci v. Bosnia—Herzegovina [GC], § 44).

46. In the case of $ejdic' and Finci v. Bosnia—Herzegovina [GC] the Court examined an exclusion rule
to the effect that only persons declaring affiliation with a ”constituent people” were entitled to run
for the House of Peoples (second chamber of the State Parliament). Potential candidates who
refused to declare such an affiliation could not therefore stand. The Court noted that this exclusion
rule pursued at least one aim which was broadly compatible with the general objectives of the
Convention, namely the restoration of peace. When the impugned constitutional provisions were
put in place a very fragile ceasefire was in effect on the ground. The provisions were designed to end
a brutal conflict marked by genocide and ethnic cleansing. The nature of the conflict was such that
the approval of the ”constituent peoples” (namely, the Bosniacs, Croats and Serbs) was necessary to
ensure peace. This could explain, without necessarily justifying, the absence of representatives of
the other communities (such as local Roma and Jewish communities) at the peace negotiations and
the participants’ preoccupation with effective equality between the ”constituent peoples” in the
post-conflict society. However, there had been significant positive developments in Bosnia and
Herzegovina since the Dayton Agreement. In addition, by ratifying the Convention and the Protocols
thereto without reservations, the respondent State had voluntarily agreed to meet the relevant
standards. The Court thus concluded that the applicants’ continued ineligibility (being of Roma or
Jewish origin) to stand for election lacked an objective and reasonable justification and had
therefore breached Article 14 ofthe Convention in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.

47. In the case of Zornic' v. Bosnia—Herzegovina the Court found, for the same reasons, a violation of
Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 as regards the applicant’s ineligibility, for the same reason, to stand for
election to the House of Peoples and to the presidency. Observing that there had been excessive
delay in executing its judgment in $ejdic' and Finci v. Bosnia—Herzegovina [GC] and that the violation
complained of was the direct result of that delay, the Court made a ruling under Article 46 of the
Convention. It found that, eighteen years after the tragic conflict in Bosnia—Herzegovina, the time
had come to adopt a political system capable of affording all citizens of that country the right to
stand for election to the House of Peoples and to the presidency without any distinction as to ethnic
origin (Zornic' v. Bosnia—Herzegovina, § 43).

European Court of Human Rights 13/31 Last update: 30.04.2019

Guide on Article 3 of Protocol No.1 — Right to free elections

48. In the case of Tanase v. Moldova [GC] the Court ruled on the question of dual nationality, albeit
under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 alone. It found that there was a consensus that where multiple
nationalities were permitted, the holding of more than one nationality should not be a ground for
ineligibility to sit as an MP, even where the population is ethnically diverse and the number of MP5
with multiple nationalities may be high.

A. Inability to stand for election and the democratic order

49. As regards limitations on the right to stand for election, the protection of the democratic order
is one of the aims compatible with the principle of the rule of law and the general objectives of the
Convention.

50. However, in order to be compatible with the Convention, the rejection of a candidature must in
the first place be legal: in particular it must be prescribed by law. In the case of Dicle and Sadak
v. Turkey the applicants, MP5 from a political party that had been dissolved, had been sentenced to
heavy prison sentences for membership of an illegal organisation. They were given a retrial after a
judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. However, their candidatures for the
parliamentary elections were rejected on the ground that they had not served their sentences in full.
In its examination under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, the Court noted that it was clear from the
national decisions that, following the decision to hold a retrial, the case had to be heard as if the
applicants were standing trial for the first time. It concluded that the maintaining of the initial
conviction on the applicants’ criminal record and the subsequent refusal of their candidature was
not prescribed by law and that there had thus been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.

51. In the case of Etxeberria and Others v. Spain the applicants’ candidatures had been annulled on
the grounds that they were pursuing the activities of the three political parties which had been
declared illegal and dissolved on account of their support for violence and for the activities of the
ETA, a terrorist organisation. The Court found that the national authorities had had considerable
evidence enabling them to conclude that the electoral groupings in question wished to continue the
activities of the political parties concerned. The Supreme Court had based its reasoning on elements
external to the manifestos of the disputed groupings and the authorities had taken decisions to bar
individual candidates. After an examination in adversarial proceedings, during which the groupings
had been able to submit observations, the domestic courts had found an unequivocal link with the
political parties that had been declared illegal. Lastly, the political context in Spain, namely the
presence in the government bodies of certain autonomous communities, and in particular in the
Basque country, of political parties calling for independence, proved that the impugned measure
was not part of a policy to ban any expression of separatist views. The Court thus found that the
restriction had been proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.

52. However, whilst it is less stringent than when it concerns the active aspect of Article 3 of
Protocol No. 1, the Court’s scrutiny — of the passive aspect — is not absent. In particular, the
proportionality test, although relatively flexible, is a real one. The Court has, in particular, found a
number of violations of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the disproportionate nature of
sanctions imposed on MP5 after their parties had been dissolved for undermining territorial integrity
and the unity of the State, or to preserve the secular nature of the political system.

53. It is noteworthy that cases concerning the banning of political parties on account of the
incompatibility of their manifestos with democratic principles are usually examined under Article 11
(freedom of assembly and association) of the Convention. Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 is then
regarded only as secondary and as not raising a separate issue (Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and
Others v. Turkey [GC]; Linkov v. the Czech Republic; Parti nationaliste basaue — Organisation
régionale d’lparralde v. France).

European Court of Human Rights 14/31 Last update: 30.04.2019

Guide on Article 3 of Protocol No.1 — Right to free elections

B. Importance of historical context

54. Although they have a common origin in the need to ensure both the independence of elected
representatives and the freedom of choice of electors, the eligibility criteria vary in accordance with
the historical and political factors specific to each State. The multiplicity of situations provided for in
the constitutions and electoral legislation of numerous member States of the Council of Europe
shows the diversity of possible approaches in this area. Therefore, for the purposes of applying
Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, any electoral legislation must be assessed in the light of the political
evolution of the country concerned (Mathieu—Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, §54; Podkolzina
v. Latvia, § 33; Zdanoka v. Latvia [GC], § 106).

55. In the case of Zdanoka v. Latvia [GC] the applicant had been a member of a party which had
attempted to bring about a coup d’état in 1991. Her candidature for elections was subsequently
rejected a number of times on account of her activities in the party in question, continued after the
attempted coup d’état. The Court took the view that the applicant’s former position in that party,
coupled with her stance during the events of 1991, still warranted her exclusion from standing as a
candidate to the national parliament. While such a measure might scarcely be considered
acceptable, for example, in a country which had an established framework of democratic institutions
going back many decades or centuries, it might nonetheless be considered acceptable in Latvia in
view of the historical and political context which had led to its adoption and given the threat to the
new democratic order. The Court nevertheless found that the Latvian parliament had a duty to keep
the statutory restriction under constant review, with a view to bringing it to an early end. Such a
conclusion was all the more justified in view of the greater stability which Latvia now enjoyed, inter
alia, by reason of its full European integration. Hence, any failure by the Latvian legislature to take
active steps in that connection might result in a different finding by the Court (§§ 132-135).

56. The Court subsequently emphasised once again the importance of the passage of time and the
need to reassess legislation concerning lustration laws. In Adamsons v. Latvia the applicant, a former
Prime Minister, had had his candidature refused on the ground that he had been a KGB ’’official’’.
The Court confirmed its findings on the country’s historical context. It added, however, that over the
years a mere general suspicion about a group of individuals was no longer sufficient and that the
authorities had tojustify such a measure on the basis of additional arguments and evidence. The law
applied in this case concerned former KGB ’’officials’’. In view of the diversity of duties which had
existed in that service, the scope was too broad. In those circumstances, it was no longer sufficient
merely to find that the person concerned belonged to a particular group. The group in question
having been defined too generally, any restriction on the electoral rights of its members should have
followed an individualised approach, taking into account their actual conduct. The need for such a
case-by-case approach had becoming increasingly important with the passage oftime. The applicant
had never been accused of being directly or indirectly involved in the misdeeds of the totalitarian
regime, or in any act capable of showing opposition or hostility to the restoration of Latvia’s
independence and democratic order. Moreover, he had only very belatedly been officially
recognised as ineligible, after ten years ofan outstanding military and political career in the restored
Latvia. Only the most compelling reasons could justify the applicant’s ineligibility in those
circumstances. In addition, the ten-year time-frame during which former KGB officials could be
subjected to the restrictions provided for in other legislative instruments had been extended by ten
additional years, without any reasons having been given by Parliament or the Government. The
Court thus found that this prolongation had been manifestly arbitrary in respect of the applicant.

C. Organisation of elections

57. The practical organisation of elections is a complex subject, requiring as it does the introduction
and occasionally the amendment of elaborate legislation. When called upon to examine this subject,

European Court of Human Rights 15/31 Last update: 30.04.2019

Guide on Article 3 of Protocol No.1 — Right to free elections

the Court does not overlook the complexity or the features specific to each State. As a result, a
broad margin of appreciation is also afforded to States in this connection.

58. The Court has taken the view, in particular, that the proper management of electoral rolls is a
pre-condition for a free and fair ballot. The effectiveness of the right to stand for election is
undoubtedly contingent upon the fair exercise of the right to vote. The mismanagement of an
electoral roll could diminish the candidates’ chances of standing equally and fairly for election
(Georgian Labour Party v. Georgia, §§ 82-83). In a case where the rules for the compilation of
electoral rolls had been changed unexpectedly just one month before the election, the Court
accepted that the new system of registration was not perfect but attached greater importance to
the fact that the authorities had not spared any effort to make the new ballot fairer. In particular,
the electoral authorities had had the challenge of remedying manifest shortcomings in the electoral
rolls within very tight deadlines, in a ”post-revo|utionary” political situation, and it would thus have
been an excessive and impracticable burden to expect an ideal solution from the authorities. It was
up to the electors to verify that they were registered and to request any correction if necessary. The
Court found that this fell within the State’s margin of appreciation (ibid.).

1. Guaranteeing serious candidatures: the deposit requirement

59. The electoral laws of a number of States provide for the payment of a deposit by candidates to
discourage frivolous candidatures. Such measures enhance the responsibility of those standing for
election and confine elections to serious candidates, whilst avoiding any unreasonable outlay of
public funds. They may therefore pursue the legitimate aim of guaranteeing the right to effective,
streamlined representation ($ukhovetskyy v. Ukraine, §§ 61-62).

60. The amount of the deposit must nevertheless remain proportionate, such that it strikes a
balance between, on the one hand, deterring frivolous candidates, and, on the other, allowing the
registration of serious candidates. The Court thus takes into account the amount of the sum
involved, the electoral campaign services provided by the State and the other burdensome costs of
organising elections which such deposits may help to allay.

61. For the proportionality test to be satisfied, the deposit required cannot be considered to have
been excessive or to constitute an insurmountable administrative or financial barrier for a
determined candidate wishing to enter the electoral race, and even less an obstacle to the
emergence of sufficiently representative political currents or an interference with the principle of
pluralism ($ukhovetskyy v. Ukraine, §§ 72-73). The requirement to pay an election deposit, and
provisions making reimbursement of the deposit and/or campaigning expenses conditional on the
party’s having obtained a certain percentage of votes, serve to promote sufficiently representative
currents of thought and are justified and proportionate under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, having
regard to the wide margin of appreciation afforded to the Contracting States in this matter (Russian
Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs and Others v. Russia, § 94). This remains true even where the
deposit cannot be refunded (Sukhovetskyy v. Ukraine).

However, the question whether or not a deposit can be refunded may raise questions under
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In the case of Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs and Others
v. Russia, the Court found that the domestic procedure whereby the entire list of a party had been
annulled on account of incorrect information having been given by certain candidates had breached
the principle of legal certainty. The applicant party had already paid the election deposit. In view of
its finding under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, the Court took the view that a refusal to return that sum
breached Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

European Court of Human Rights 16/31 Last update: 30.04.2019

Guide on Article 3 of Protocol No.1 — Right to free elections

2. Avoiding excessive fragmentation of the political landscape

62. Conditions concerning the number of signatures required for the presentation of a list of
candidates do not constitute an impediment to the expression of the opinion of the people in the
choice of the legislature (Asensio Seraueda v. Spain, Commission decision; Federacion nacionalista
Canaria v. Spain (dec.); Brito Da Silva Guerra and Sousa Magno v. Portugal (dec.); Mihaela Mihai
Neagu v. Romania (dec.), § 31).

63. However, such measures must pursue a legitimate aim, such as that of a reasonable selection
among the candidates in order to ensure their representative character and to exclude any improper
candidatures, and must be proportionate to that aim. Thus, a threshold of 100,000 signatures,
representing 0.55% of all citizens registered on the electoral rolls, was found to be compliant with
Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (ibid.).

64. Similarly, a requirement for such signatures to be accompanied by certificates showing that the
signatories were registered on the electoral rolls must pursue the legitimate aim of ensuring that the
signatories have voting rights and that each of them is supporting only one candidature. The Court
found that it was not therefore disproportionate to reject a candidature which did not satisfy the
formalities in question (Brito Da Silva Guerra and Sousa Magno v. Portugal (dec.)).

65. However, the imposition of a minimum number of signatures and their verification must comply
with the rule of law and protect the integrity of the elections. In the case of Tahirov v. Azerbaijan the
safeguards provided by the Electoral Board, which had rejected the applicant’s candidature, were
not sufficient, in particular concerning the appointment of the experts who decided on the validity of
the signatures. In addition, the applicant had not been able to attend the Board’s meetings or
submit his arguments, none of which had been examined by the Board. The rejection of the
applicant’s candidature on account of the alleged invalidity of the signatures he had provided was
thus arbitrary. Based on a report by the OSCE, the Court noted the systemic nature of these
shortcomings and the number of candidatures arbitrarily rejected on those grounds. It concluded
that the Government’s unilateral declaration did not suffice to guarantee respect for human rights,
rejected it and pursued its examination on the merits.

66. Such threshold criteria have also been accepted by the Court in connection with the allocation
of seats according to the results of the elections. Electoral systems seek to fulfil objectives which are
sometimes scarcely compatible with each other: on the one hand to reflect fairly faithfully the
opinions of the people, and, on the other, to channel currents of thought so as to promote the
emergence of a sufficiently clear and coherent political will. Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 thus does not
imply that all votes must necessarily have equal weight as regards the outcome of the election or
that all candidates must have equal chances of winning, and no electoral system can eliminate
”wasted votes” (Partija ”Jaunie Demokrati” and Partija ”Musu Zeme” v. Latvia (dec.)).

67. The effects of an electoral threshold can differ from one country to another and the various
systems can pursue different, sometimes even opposing, political aims. One system might
concentrate more on a fair representation of the parties in Parliament, while another one might aim
to avoid a fragmentation of the party system and encourage the formation of a governing majority
of one party in Parliament. The Court has taken the view that none of these aims can be considered
unreasonable in itself. Moreover, the role played by thresholds varies in accordance with the level at
which they are set and the party system in each country. A low threshold excludes only very small
groupings, which makes it more difficult to form stable majorities, whereas in cases where the party
system is highly fragmented a high threshold deprives many voters of representation. This large
variety of situations shows the diversity of the possible options. The Court cannot therefore assess
any particular threshold without taking into account the electoral system of which it forms a part
(Yumak and Sadak v. Turkey [GC], §§ 131-132).

European Court of Human Rights 17/31 Last update: 30.04.2019

Guide on Article 3 of Protocol No.1 — Right to free elections

68. As regards, for example, the requirement to fulfil two alternative conditions — to obtain either at
least 30% of valid votes cast in an individual island constituency, or at least 6% of valid votes cast in
an entire autonomous community — the Court took the view that such a system, far from
constituting a hindrance to electoral candidatures, granted a certain protection to smaller political
formations (Federacion nacionalista Canaria v. Spain (dec.)). Similarly, the Court concluded that the
threshold of 5% of votes that had to be attained by a list of candidates in order to be considered
elected and to participate in the allotment of seats was compliant with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, in
that it encouraged sufficiently representative currents of thought and helped to avoid an excessive
fragmentation of Parliament (Partija "Jaunie Demokrati" and Partija "Musu Zeme" v. Latvia (dec.)).

69. In the case of Strack and Richter v. Germany (dec.), the Court referred back to the Court’s case-
law on electoral thresholds in the light of the Convention (§ 33). In addition, it addressed the
threshold issue for the first time under the active aspect of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 because the
case had been referred to it by voters. The applicants complained about a threshold of 5% of the
votes cast at national level for a political party to be able to claim one of the seats allocated to
Germany in the European Parliament. In 2011 the German Constitutional Court had declared this
legislative provision to be at odds with the Basic Law, but had not invalidated the 2009 election
results. The Strasbourg Court dismissed the application, finding that the interference was
proportionate to the aim pursued (preservation of parliamentary stability) in the light of the broad
margin of appreciation afforded to States in such matters. It noted that the European Union
expressly permitted member States to fix electoral thresholds of up to 5% of the votes cast and that
a considerable number of member States relied on this faculty.

70. The case of Partei Die Friesen v. Germany concerned the threshold of 5% of votes cast imposed
by the Land of Lower Saxony to obtain seats in Parliament. The applicant, a political party
representing the interests of a minority group in that Land, alleged that the 5% threshold breached
its right to participate in elections without discrimination and had requested to be exempted from
the rule. The issue was thus the scope of the member States’ obligations as regards the protection of
minorities in the electoral context. The Court took the view that, even when interpreted in the light
of the 1998 Framework Convention on the Protection of National Minorities — which laid emphasis
on the participation of national minorities in public affairs —the European Convention did not call for
a different treatment in favour of minority parties in this context. It found no violation of Article 14
of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.

71. In the case of Yumak and Sadak v. Turkey [GC], by contrast, the Court found that, in general, a
10% electoral threshold appeared excessive, and concurred with the organs of the Council of
Europe, which had recommended that it be lowered. The threshold compelled political parties to
make use of stratagems which did not contribute to the transparency of the electoral process.
However, the Court was not persuaded that, when assessed in the light of the specific political
context of the elections in question, and attended as it was by correctives and other guarantees —
such as the possibility of forming an electoral coalition with other political parties or the role of the
Constitutional Court — which had limited its effects in practice, the 10% threshold had had the effect
of impairing in their essence the rights secured to the applicants by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.

72. The case of Cernea v. Romania* concerned a ban on members of parties not already
represented in Parliament from standing as candidates in by-elections. The applicant alleged
discrimination in relation to candidates belonging to parties already represented. The Court found
that the aim pursued of preserving the structure of Parliament and avoiding any fragmentation of
the political groups within it could justify the limitation in question (§ 49). It found that the limitation
of the applicant’s right to stand for by-elections had remained within reasonable proportions, in
particular because the by-election had been held for a single seat in Parliament and the applicant
had been able to stand in the preceding general election (§§ 50-51).

European Court of Human Rights 18/31 Last update: 30.04.2019

Guide on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 — Right to free elections

73. Finally, a sudden and unforeseeable change in the rules for calculating votes might infringe
Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. The Court found a violation of that Article as regards MP5 deprived of
their seats following an unpredictable departure by the Special Supreme Court from its settled case-
law concerning the calculation of the electoral quotient. In particular, it took account of the fact that
the change in case-law, after the elections, had changed the meaning and weight given to blank
ballot papers and that it had therefore been liable to alter the will of the electorate as expressed in
the ballot box. It had also created a disparity in the manner in which sitting MP5 had been elected
(Paschalidis, Koutmeridis and Zaharakis v. Greece).

D. Other legitimate aims

74. Article 3 of Protocol No.1 does not contain a list of legitimate aims capable of justifying
restrictions on the exercise of the rights that it guarantees. Nor does it refer to the ’’legitimate aims”
listed exhaustively in Articles 8 to 11 of the Convention. As a result the Contracting Parties are
entitled to rely on other aims, provided that the compatibility of that aim with the principle of the
rule of law and the general objectives of the Convention is proved in the particular circumstances
(Zdanoka v. Latvia [GC], § 115).

75. The Court has thus made a distinction between loyalty towards the State and loyalty towards
the government. While the need to ensure loyalty towards the State may constitute a legitimate aim
justifying restrictions of electoral rights, that is not the case for loyalty towards the government
(Tanase v. Moldova [GC], § 166). Similarly, the obligation to have sufficient knowledge of the official
language may pursue a legitimate aim (Podkolzina v. Latvia). The Court has also found that the
obligation imposed on candidates in a parliamentary election to submit accurate information on
their employment and party membership served to enable voters to make an informed choice with
regard to the candidate’s professional and political background and thus constituted a legitimate
aim (Krasnov and Skuratov v. Russia). By contrast, a candidate’s ineligibility founded solely on an
allegedly defective form of a document provided by him was not proportionate to the legitimate aim
pursued (ibid., §§ 65-66).

76. The Court also declared inadmissible an application complaining about an obligation for a very
traditional Protestant party to open its lists of candidates to women. It found that the progression
towards gender equality in the member States precluded the State from supporting the idea that the
woman’s role was secondary to that of the man (Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij v. the
Netherlands (dec.)).

77. Moreover, in the case of Melnitchenko v. Ukraine, the applicant, a Ukrainian national who had
refugee status in the USA, had had his candidature for election to the Ukrainian parliament refused
on the ground that he had provided false information about his residence. In accordance with the
legislation in force, he had given information from his internal passport, which he still possessed,
showing that he lived in Ukraine. The Court agreed that it could be acceptable to impose a residence
condition for the registration of candidatures. However, it noted that the applicant had complied
with domestic law, which did not require continuous residence in the country. In addition, he was in
a situation where he could either stay in Ukraine and face a threat of bodily harm, which would have
made it impossible for him to exercise his political rights, or leave the country and no longer qualify
to stand for election. The Court thus found there had been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.

78. In the case of Antonenko v. Russia (dec.), a court had banned the applicant from standing in the
parliamentary elections the day before the ballot on the grounds that there had been financial
irregularities and that the election campaign had been unfair. The applicant did not complain about
the actual annulment of his candidature, but about the fact that it had been decided shortly before
the polling stations opened. The Court found that the timing in question was compliant with
domestic law and had no consequence for a possible appeal, as no further appeal lay against the
decision.

European Court of Human Rights 19/31 Last update: 30.04.2019

Guide on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 — Right to free elections

79. The Court has also accepted, on a number of occasions, that potential candidates may be
excluded on account of the positions held by them. In the case of Gitonas and Others v. Greece,
legislation precluded certain categories of holders of public office — including salaried public servants
and members of staff of public-law entities and public undertakings — from standing for election and
being elected in any constituency where they had performed their duties for more than three
months in the three years preceding the elections: the disqualification would moreover stand
notwithstanding a candidate’s prior resignation, unlike the position with certain other categories of
public servant. The Court found that this measure served a dual purpose: to ensure that candidates
of different political persuasions enjoyed equal means of influence and to protect the electorate
from pressure from public officials. The following year, the Court reiterated that restrictions on the
participation of specific categories of local government officers in forms of political activity pursued
the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of others, council members and the electorate alike, to
effective political democracy at the local level. Having regard to the fact that they only operated for
as long as the applicants occupied politically restricted posts, the measures remained proportionate
(Ahmed and Others v. the United Kingdom). In the case of Brike v. Latvia the Court added that as the
ineligibility of civil servants constituted a proportionate response to the requirement that the civil
service be independent, this was all the more true for the ineligibility of judges, the purpose of
which was to secure to citizens the rights protected by Article 6 of the Convention. It thus concluded
that there had been no impairment of the very essence of the guaranteed rights, as the judge could
have resigned from her post in order to stand for election.

80. The case of Dupré v. France (dec.) concerned the election of two additional French
representatives to the European Parliament in 2011, in the middle of the term, following the entry
into force of the Lisbon Treaty. Among three possibilities the French Government had chosen to
have the new MEPs appointed by the National Assembly, from among its members, thus preventing
the applicant from standing as a candidate. The Court accepted that this form of appointment had
pursued a legitimate aim, in view of the risk of low participation, a high cost for only two seats, and
organisational complexity (§ 25). On account of its limited impact, the Court found that the measure
was not disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.

81. However, restrictions on the right to stand for election, even if they pursue a legitimate aim,
must not have the result of rendering that right ineffective, either because the conditions are
introduced too late or too suddenly, or because they are not clear enough. In the case of Lykourezos
v. Greece legislation making all professional activity incompatible with the duties of a member of
parliament was applied immediately to the current legislature and MP5 had to forfeit their seats
even though that incompatibility had not been announced prior to their election. There were no
grounds of pressing importance that could have justified the immediate application of the absolute
disqualification. For the first time the Court relied on the principle of legitimate expectation and thus
found a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. It applied that principle again in Ekoglasnost
v. Bulgaria. While none of the three new conditions introduced in the electoral legislation raised a
problem in itself, on account of their belated introduction the applicant had only had one month to
comply. The Court took the view that the conditions of participation in elections imposed on political
groups were part of the basic electoral rules. Those conditions should thus have the same stability in
time as the other basic elements of the electoral system. The Court has also found that the
provisions on the basis of which a former member of the clergy had had his candidature refused
were too imprecise and therefore unforeseeable. Consequently, they gave the electoral bodies an
excessive margin of appreciation and left too much room for arbitrariness in the application of that
restriction (Seyidzade v. Azerbaijan).

European Court of Human Rights 20/31 Last update: 30.04.2019

Guide on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 — Right to free elections

E. From the election campaign...

82. In order for the rights guaranteed by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to be effective, their protection
cannot remain confined to the candidature itself. The election campaign thus also falls within the
scope of the provision.

83. Already in a number of cases concerning Article 10 of the Convention, the Court had emphasised
the close relationship between the right to free elections and freedom of expression. It has found
that these rights, particularly freedom of political debate, together form the bedrock of any
democratic system. The two rights are inter-related and operate to reinforce each other: for
example, freedom of expression is one of the ”conditions” necessary to ”ensure the free expression
of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature’’. For this reason, it is particularly
important in the period preceding an election for opinions and information of all kinds to be
permitted to circulate freely (Bowman v. the United Kingdom, § 42).

84. As these rights are inter-dependent, numerous cases concerning election campaigns are
examined under Article 10. The Court, for example, found a violation of Article 10 on account of a
fine imposed on a television channel for broadcasting an advertisement for a small political party, in
breach of legislation prohibiting any political advertising on television (TV Vest AS and Rogaland
Pensjonistparti v. Norway). However, it found no issue under Article 10 in a case where a warning
had been issued by an electoral commission to a female politician for describing a rival candidate as
a ”thief” in her absence on live television in the run up to the election (Vitrenko and Others
v. Ukraine).

85. However, cases concerning, in particular, the distribution of airtime during the pre-election
campaigning period may raise issues under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. In a case concerning the
equality of airtime granted to the various candidates, the Court stated that, while Article 3 of
Protocol No. 1 enshrined the principle of equal treatment of all citizens in the exercise of their
electoral rights, it did not guarantee, as such, any right for a political party to be granted airtime on
radio or television during the pre-election campaign. However, an issue may indeed arise in
exceptional circumstances, for example, if in the run up to an election one party were denied any
kind of party political broadcast whilst other parties were granted slots for that purpose (Partija
"Jaunie Demokrati" and Partija "Musu Zeme" v. Latvia (dec.)).

86. In the case of Communist Party of Russia and Others v. Russia, the Court addressed the question
whether the State had a positive obligation under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to ensure that coverage
by regulated media was objective and compatible with the spirit of ”free elections”, even in the
absence of direct evidence of deliberate manipulation. It found that the existing system of electoral
remedies was sufficient to satisfy the State’s positive obligation of a procedural nature. As to the
substantive aspect of the obligation and the allegation that the State should have ensured neutrality
of the audio-visual media, it took the view that certain steps had been taken to guarantee some
visibility to opposition parties and candidates on TV and to secure the editorial independence and
neutrality of the media. These arrangements had probably not secured defacto equality, but it could
not be considered established that the State had failed to meet its positive obligations in this area to
such an extent as to amount to a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.

87. In the case of Oran v. Turkey, the applicant had complained that, as an independent candidate,
he had not been able to benefit from nationwide electoral broadcasting on Turkish radio and
television, unlike political parties. The Court took the view that, unlike political parties, the applicant,
as an independent candidate, had only to address the constituency in which he was standing. In
addition, he had not been prevented from using all the other available methods of electioneering,
which were accessible to all the unaffiliated independent candidates at the relevant time. The Court
thus found that there had been no violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.

European Court of Human Rights 21/31 Last update: 30.04.2019

Guide on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 — Right to free elections

88. Lastly, in the case of Uspaskich v. Lithuania, the applicant, who was a politician, complained that
his house arrest (in a criminal investigation for political corruption) had prevented him from
participating in the legislative elections on an equal footing with the other candidates. In finding that
there had been no violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, the Court took particular account of the
fact that he had been able to campaign from his home if he so wished. Given that he was a well-
known politician and that members of his party had participated in meetings with voters in person,
the house arrest had not prevented the applicant from participating in the elections to the point that
the final result had been affected. In addition, domestic law provided for a system of individual
complaints and appeals in electoral matters, and the applicant had availed himself of such recourse.

F. ...to the exercise of office

89. From 1984 onwards the European Commission of Human Rights stated that it was not enough
that an individual had the right to stand for election; he must also have a right to sit as a member
once he has been elected by the people. To take the opposite view would render the right to stand
for election meaningless (M. v. the United Kingdom, Commission decision). In that same case,
however, it took the view that the inability for an elected MP to take up his seat on the grounds that
he was already a member of a foreign legislature was a restriction compatible with Article 3 of
Protocol No. 1.

90. In three cases against Turkey the Court examined the consequences for MP5 of the dissolution
of the political parties to which they belonged. In the case of Sadak and Others v. Turkey (no. 2) a
political party was dissolved for breaching the territorial integrity and unity of the State. The MP5
belonging to that party automatically forfeited their seats. The Court took the view that interference
with the freedom of expression ofan opposition MP required particularly stringent scrutiny. The loss
by the applicants of their seats in Parliament was automatic and independent of their political
activities in which they engaged on a personal basis. It had thus been an extremely severe measure
and one that was disproportionate to any legitimate aim invoked.

91. In the case of Kavakgi v. Turkey temporary limitations had been imposed on the applicant’s
political rights on account of the final dissolution of the party to which she belonged. The Court took
the view that those measures had the purpose of preserving the secular character of the Turkish
political regime and that, having regard to the importance of that principle for the democratic
regime in Turkey, the measure pursued the legitimate aims of preventing disorder and protecting
the rights and freedoms of others. As to the proportionality of the sanction, however, the
constitutional provisions concerning the dissolution of a political party, as then in force, had a very
broad scope. All the acts and remarks of party members could be imputable to the party in finding it
to be a centre of anti-constitutional activity and deciding on its dissolution. No distinction was made
between the various degrees of involvement of members in the impugned activities. In addition,
certain party members who were in a comparable situation to that of the applicant, especially the
President and Vice-President, had not been penalised. Consequently, the Court found that the
sanction was not proportionate and that there had been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.

92. In another case concerning an MP from the same party who had also lost his seat, the Court
again found a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 but noted with interest the adoption of a
constitutional amendment reinforcing the status of MP5 and probably having the effect of making
the disqualification of MP5 on such grounds less frequent (Sobaci v. Turkey).

93. In the case of Lykourezos v. Greece the Court had found that the new professional
incompatibility applicable to MP5 had not been announced prior to the elections and had surprised
both the applicant and those who had voted for him, during his term of office. It took the view that
in assessing the applicant’s election under the new Article of the Constitution which entered into
force in 2003, without taking account of the fact that his election had taken place beforehand
perfectly legally, the judge had stripped the applicant of his seat and deprived his voters of the

European Court of Human Rights 22/31 Last update: 30.04.2019

Guide on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 — Right to free elections

candidate whom they had freely and democratically chosen to represent them for four years, in
disregard of the principle of legitimate expectation. Similarly, in the case of Paschalidis, Koutmeridis
and Zaharakis v. Greece, the Court had found that an unforeseeable departure from precedent, after
the elections, concerning the calculation of the electoral quotient, with the effect of disqualifying a
number of elected MP5, had entailed a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.

94. In the case of Paunovic' and Milivojevic' v. Serbia the Court had occasion to rule on the practice of
political parties consisting of using undated resignation letters signed, before taking up office, by
their members who are elected to Parliament; the party is thus able to remove those members from
office at any time and against their will. The Court began by taking the view that, even though the
resignation letter would be presented by the party, only Parliament was entitled to withdraw a seat.
It was therefore the State which deprived the MP of his or her seat by accepting the resignation. The
application of an MP who had lost his seat was thus admissible ratione personae. The Court then
found that the impugned practice was at odds with domestic law, which required such resignations
to be submitted by the MP in person. There had thus been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.
The case of Occhetto v. Italy (dec.) concerned the relinquishment of a seat in the European
Parliament. After signing a document relinquishing his seat, as a result of an agreement with the co-
founder of the political movement to which he belonged, the applicant had changed his mind.
However, the candidate next on the list had already taken up the seat in question. The Court found
that, following an election, a candidate was entitled to take up a seat in a legislature, but had no
obligation to do 50. Any candidate could renounce, for political or personal reasons, the office to
which he or she was elected, and the decision to register such a renouncement could not be
regarded as contrary to the principle of universal suffrage. It added that the refusal to accept the
withdrawal of the applicant’s relinquishment had pursued the legitimate aims of legal certainty in
the electoral process and the protection of the rights of others, in particular the rights of the
candidate next on the list. The applicant’s wish had been expressed in writing and in unequivocal
terms, and he had stipulated that his relinquishment was final. Lastly, the domestic proceedings — in
compliance with EU law — had enabled him to submit the arguments that he deemed useful for his
defence. The Court thus found that there had been no violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.

IV. Processing of election results

95. The post-election periods, including the counting of votes and the recording and transmission of
the results were considered in the Davydov and Others v. Russia case which concerned alleged
anomalies in federal legislative and municipal elections. The applicants had participated in these
elections in various capacities: they were all registered on electoral rolls, and some had also stood
for election to the legislative assembly (50 the case concerned both the active and passive aspects of
the right to free elections), and others were members of electoral commissions or observers.

96. Referring to the recommendations of the Venice Commission, the Court found that these post-
election phases must be surrounded by precise procedural safeguards; the process must be
transparent and open, and observers from all parties must be allowed to participate, including
opposition representatives. It pointed out, however, that Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 was not
conceived as a code on electoral matters designed to regulate all aspects of the electoral process.
Thus the Court’s level of scrutiny in a given case depended on the aspect of the right to free
elections. Tighter scrutiny should be reserved for any departures from the principle of universal
suffrage, but a broader margin of appreciation could be afforded to States where the measures
prevented candidates from standing for elections. A still less stringent scrutiny would apply to the
more technical stage of vote counting and tabulation. A mere mistake or irregularity at this technical
stage would not, per se, signify unfairness of the elections, if the general principles of equality,
transparency, impartiality and independence of the electoral administration were complied with.

European Court of Human Rights 23/31 Last update: 30.04.2019

Guide on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 — Right to free elections

The concept of free elections would be put at risk only if (i) there is evidence of procedural breaches
that would be capable of thwarting the free expression of the opinion of the people, for instance
through gross distortion of the voters’ intent; and (ii) where such complaints receive no effective
examination at the domestic level (although the Court would accept reasonable restrictions on the
individual voters’ ability to challenge the results, such as a quorum of voters) (§§ 283-288).

97. In that case the Court found there had been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 for the
following reasons: the applicants have presented, both to the domestic authorities and to the Court,
an arguable claim that the fairness of the elections had been seriously compromised by the
procedure in which the votes had been recounted (§§ 310-311). Such irregularities could lead to
gross distortion of the voters’ intent in all the constituencies concerned. But the applicants had not
had their complaints about the recount process effectively examined by the domestic authorities,
i.e. the electoral commissions, the public prosecutor, the commission of inquiry or the courts
(§§ 335-337).

V. Electoral disputes

98. Cases concerning election-related disputes have been numerous. This issue cannot, however, be
examined under Article 6 of the Convention, which the Court has found inapplicable. It took the view
that an applicant’s right to stand for election to the French National Assembly and to keep his seat
was a political one and not a ’’civil’’ one within the meaning of Article 6 § 1, such that disputes
relating to the arrangements for the exercise of that right lay outside the scope of Article 3 of
Protocol No. 1 (Pierre—Bloch v. France, §50). Nor was the criminal limb of Artic|e6 engaged as
regards penalties imposed for non-compliance with electoral rules (ibid., §61). In the case of
Geraguyn Khorhurd Patgamavorakan Akumb v. Armenia, the applicant NGO had been an observer
during parliamentary elections. Following a subsequent dispute as to the failure of the Central
Election Commission to transmit various documents, the Court took the view that the outcome of
the proceedings in question had not been decisive of the NGO’s civil rights and that it did not
therefore fall within the scope of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

99. However, on several occasions, the lack of an effective remedy in the context of the electoral
process has been examined under Article 13 of the Convention. The Court has indicated that in
electoral matters only those remedies which are capable of ensuring the proper functioning of the
democratic process may be regarded as effective (Petkov and Others v. Bulgaria). In the case of
Petkov and Others v. Bulgaria, the applicants’ names had been struck out of the lists of candidates
only ten days before the election day, and on the basis of legislation passed less than three months
earlier. Those strike-out decisions were subsequently declared null and void but, as the electoral
authorities had not reinstated the applicants as candidates, they were unable to stand for election.
The Court took the view that, since the remedy available in the context of the elections offered only
pecuniary redress, it could not be regarded as effective under Article 13 of the Convention. In
Grosaru v. Romania the Court noted that the applicant, who was an unsuccessful candidate in
legislative elections, had not been able to obtain any judicial review of the interpretation of the
impugned electoral legislation and it found a violation of Article 13 taken together with Article 3 of
Protocol No. 1. The Court also found a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol
No. 1 in the case of Paunovic' and Milivojevic' v. Serbia concerning the lack of an effective possibility
to challenge the illegal removal of an MP from his seat (§§ 68-72).

100. The existence of a domestic system for effective examination of individual complaints and
appeals in matters concerning electoral rights is one of the essential guarantees of free and fair
elections. Such a system ensures an effective exercise of individual rights to vote and to stand for
election, maintains general confidence in the State’s administration of the electoral process and
constitutes an important device at the State’s disposal in achieving the fulfilment of its positive

European Court of Human Rights 24/31 Last update: 30.04.2019

Guide on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 — Right to free elections

obligation under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to hold democratic elections (Uspaskich v. Lithuania,
§ 93).

101. Where a remedy does exist, any deficiencies may be raised before the Court under Article 3 of
Protocol No. 1. Such deficiencies may constitute a violation of that Article when they call into
question the integrity of the electoral process. The decision-making process concerning ineligibility
or a dispute as to election results must be surrounded by certain minimum safeguards against
arbitrariness (Davydov and Others v. Russia, § 288). In particular, the findings in question must be
reached by a body which can provide minimum guarantees of its impartiality. Similarly, the
discretion enjoyed by the body concerned must not be exorbitantly wide: it must be circumscribed,
with sufficient precision, by the provisions of domestic law. Lastly, the procedure must be such as to
guarantee a fair, objective and sufficiently reasoned decision and prevent any abuse of power on the
part of the relevant authority (Podkolzina v. Latvia, § 35; Kovach v. Ukraine, §§ 54-55; Kerimova
v. Azerbaijan, §§ 44-45; Riza and Others v. Bulgaria, § 144). Where it engages in such an
examination, the Court confines itself, however, to ascertaining whether the decision rendered by
the domestic body was arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable in nature (ibid., § 144; Kerimli and
Alibeyli v. Azerbaijan, §§ 38-42; Davydov and Others v. Russia, § 288).

102. Decisions to invalidate an election must reflect a genuine inability to establish the wishes of the
electors (Kovach v. Ukraine). In the Kerimova v. Azerbaijan case the Court found that tampering by
two election officials had not succeeded in altering the final result of the election, in which the
applicant had been successful. The national authorities had, nevertheless, invalidated the results in
breach of domestic electoral law and without taking into account the limited impact of the effects of
the tampering. By doing so, the authorities had essentially helped the officials to obstruct the
election. This decision had arbitrarily infringed the applicant’s electoral rights by depriving her of the
benefit of election to Parliament. It had also shown a lack of concern for the integrity and
effectiveness of the electoral process which could not be considered compatible with the spirit of
the right to free elections. The role of the courts is not to modify the expression of the people. Thus
in two cases (l.Z v. Greece, Commission decision; and Babenko v. Ukraine (dec.)) the Convention
organs examined complaints by unsuccessful candidates who alleged that the electoral processes
had been unfair, but dismissed them for lack of any real damage with regard to the outcome of the
election. In Riza and Others v. Bulgaria the results of 23 polling stations set up abroad had been
invalidated on account of alleged anomalies, depriving an MP of his seat. The Court examined both
the interference with the voting rights of 101 electors and the right to stand for election of the MP
and the party he represented. It found that only purely formal grounds had been given to invalidate
the election in a number of polling stations. In addition, the circumstances relied on by the court to
justify its decision were not provided for, in a sufficiently clear and foreseeable manner, in the
domestic law, and it had not been shown that they would have altered the choice of the voters or
distorted the result of the election. In addition, electoral law did not provide for the possibility of
organising fresh elections in the polling stations where the ballot had been invalidated — contrary to
the Venice Commission’s Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters — which would have reconciled
the legitimate aim pursued by the annulment of the election results, namely the preservation of the
legality of the election process, with the subjective rights of the electors and the candidates in
parliamentary elections. Consequently, the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 3
of Protocol No. 1. Decisions to invalidate a ballot must therefore be based on a genuine inability to
establish the wishes of the electors.

103. Nevertheless, States must ensure that arguable complaints by individuals concerning election
irregularities are effectively addressed and that domestic decisions are sufficiently reasoned.

104. Noting the existence of arguable complaints of serious electoral anomalies in the counting of
votes, the Court found that the domestic remedy should provide sufficient guarantees against
arbitrariness. Failure to ensure effective examination of such arguable complaints would constitute
violations of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (Davydov and Others v. Russia, §§ 288 and 335). In that case,

European Court of Human Rights 25/31 Last update: 30.04.2019

Guide on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 — Right to free elections

none of the bodies involved — electoral commission, public prosecutor, courts— had carried out a
proper examination of the reasons underlying the applicants’ complaints.

105. Relying in particular on the Venice Commission’s Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters,
the Court has had occasion to find that national authorities had given excessively formalistic reasons
to avoid examining the substance of electoral complaints. The fact that there was a wide difference
in votes between candidates did not matter when it came to examining, independently, the extent
of the irregularities, before determining their effects on the overall result of the election (Namat
Aliyev v. Azerbaijan).

European Court of Human Rights 26/31 Last update: 30.04.2019

Guide on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 — Right to free elections

List of cited cases

The case-law cited in this Guide refers to judgments or decisions delivered by the Court and to
decisions or reports of the European Commission of Human Rights (”the Commission”).

Unless otherwise indicated, all references are to a judgment on the merits delivered by a Chamber
of the Court. The abbreviation ”(dec.)” indicates that the citation is of a decision of the Court and
”[GC]” that the case was heard by the Grand Chamber.

Chamber judgments that were not final within the meaning of Article 44 of the Convention when
this update was published are marked with an asterisk (*) in the list below. Article 44 § 2 of the
Convention provides: ”The judgment of a Chamber shall become final (a) when the parties declare
that they will not request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber; or (b) three months after
the date of the judgment, if reference of the case to the Grand Chamber has not been requested; or
(c) when the panel of the Grand Chamber rejects the request to refer under Article 43”. In cases
where a request for referral is accepted by the Grand Chamber panel, it is the subsequent Grand
Chamber judgment, not the Chamberjudgment, that becomes final.

The hyperlinks to the cases cited in the electronic version of the Guide are directed to the HUDOC
database (http://hudoc.echr.coe.int) which provides access to the case-law of the Court (Grand
Chamber, Chamber and Committee judgments and decisions, communicated cases, advisory
opinions and legal summaries from the Case—Law Information Note) and of the Commission
(decisions and reports), and to the resolutions of the Committee of Ministers.

The Court delivers its judgments and decisions in English and/or French, its two official languages.
HUDOC also contains translations of many important cases into more than thirty non-official
languages, and links to around one hundred online case-law collections produced by third parties.

_A_
Adamsons v. Latvia, no. 3669/03, 24 June 2008
Ahmed and Others v. the United Kingdom, 2 September 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions

1998-VI

Alajos Kiss v. Hungary, no. 38832/06, 20 May 2010
Albanese v. Italy, no. 77924/01, 23 March 2006
Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia, nos. 11157/04 and 15162/05, 4 July 2013
Antonenko v. Russia (dec.), no. 42482/02, 23 May 2006
Asensio Seraueda v. Spain, no. 23151/94, Commission decision of9 May 1994, D.R. n“ 77-B, p. 122
Aziz v. Cyprus, no. 69949/01, ECHR 2004—V

_ B_
Babenko v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 43476/98, 4 May 1999
Benkaddour v. France (dec.), no. 51685/99, 10 November 2003
Bompard v. France (dec.), no. 44081/02, ECHR 2006-IV
Bos"koski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 11676/04, ECHR 2004-VI
Bowman v. the United Kingdom, 19 February 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I
Brike v. Latvia (dec.), no. 47135/99, 29 June 2000

European Court of Human Rights 27/31 Last update: 30.04.2019

Guide on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 — Right to free elections

Brito Da Silva Guerra and Sousa Magno v. Portugal (dec.), nos. 26712/06 and 26720/06, 17 June
2008

_c_
Cernea v. Romania*, no. 43609/10, 27 February 2018
Communist Party ofRussia and Others v. Russia, no. 29400/05, 19 June 2012
Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi v. Turkey, no. 19920/13, ECHR 2016

_D_
Davydov and Others v. Russia, no. 75947/11, ECHR 2017
Dicle and Sadak v. Turkey, no. 48621/07, 16 June 2015
Dimitras and Others v. Greece (dec.), nos. 59573/10 and 65211/09, 4 July 2017
Doyle v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 30158/06, 6 February 2007
Dunn and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), nos. 566/10 and 130 others, 13 May 2014
Dupré v. France (dec.), no. 77032/12, 3 May 2016

_ E_
Ekoglasnost v. Bulgaria, no. 30386/05, 6 November 2012
Etxeberria and Others v. Spain, nos. 35579/03 and 3 others, 30 June 2009

_F_
Federacion nacionalista Canaria v. Spain (dec.), no. 56618/00, ECHR 2001-VI
Frodl v. Austria, no. 20201/04, 8 April 2010

_ G _

Georgian Labour Party v. Georgia, no. 9103/04, ECHR 2008

Geraguyn Khorhurd Patgamavorakan Akumb v. Armenia (dec.), no. 11721/04, 14 April 2009
Gitonas and Others v. Greece, 1 June 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-IV
Greens and M. T. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 60041/08 and 60054/08, ECHR 2010

Grosaru v. Romania, no. 78039/01, ECHR 2010

_H _
Hilbe v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 31981/96, ECHR 1999-VI
Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], no. 74025/01, ECHR 2005-IX

l.Z. v. Greece, no. 18997/91, Commission decision of 28 February 1994, D.R. no. 76-A, p. 65

European Court of Human Rights 28/31 Last update: 30.04.2019

Guide on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 — Right to free elections

_K_

Kavakgi v. Turkey, no. 71907/01, 5 April 2007

Kerimli andAlibeyli v. Azerbaijan, nos. 18475/06 and 22444/06, 10 January 2012
Kerimova v. Azerbaijan, no. 20799/06, 30 September 2010

Kovach v. Ukraine, no. 39424/02, ECHR 2008

Krasnov and Skuratov v. Russia, nos. 17864/04 and 21396/04, 19 July 2007

_|__
Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000—IV
Linkov v. the Czech Republic, no. 10504/03, 7 December 2006
Luksch v. Germany, no. 35385/97, Commission decision of 21 May 1997, D.R. n“ 89-B, p. 175
Lykourezos v. Greece, no. 33554/03, ECHR 2006-VIII

_|V| _

M. v. the United Kingdom, no. 10316/83, Commission decision of 7 March 1984, D.R. 37, p. 129
Malarde v. France (dec.), no. 46813/99, 5 September 2000

Mathieu—Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, 2 March 1987, Series A No. 113

Matthews v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24833/94, ECHR 1999-I

Melnitchenko v. Ukraine, no. 17707/02, ECHR 2004-X

Mihaela Mihai Neagu v. Romania (dec.), no. 66345/09, 6 March 1994

Molka v. Poland (dec.), no. 56550/00, ECHR 2006-IV

Moohan and Gillon v. the United Kingdom (dec.), nos. 22962/15 and 23345/15, 13 June2017

_N_

Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 18705/06, 8 April 2010

_O_
Occhetto v. Italy (dec.), no. 14507/07, 12 November 2013
Oran v. Turkey, nos. 28881/07 and 37920/07, 15 April 2014

_ P_

Paksas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 34932/04, ECHR 2011

Partei Die Friesen v. Germany, no. 65480/10, 28 January 2016

Parti nationaliste basque — Organisation régionale d’lparralde v. France, no. 71251/01, ECHR 2007-II
Partija "Jaunie Demokrati" and Partija "Musu Zeme" v. Latvia (dec.), nos. 10547/07 and 34049/07,

29 November 2007

Paschalidis, Koutmeridis and Zaharakis v. Greece, nos. 27863/05 and 2 others, 10 April 2008
Paunovic' and Milivojevic' v. Serbia, no. 41683/06, 24 May 2016

Petkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 77568/01 and 2 others, 11 June 2009

Pierre—Bloch v. France, no. 24194/94, 21 October 1997

Podkolzina v. Latvia, no. 46726/99, ECHR 2002-II

Polacco and Garofalo v. Italy, no. 23450/94, Commission decision of 15 September 1997

Py v. France, no. 66289/01, ECHR 2005-I

European Court of Human Rights 29/31 Last update: 30.04.2019

Guide on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 — Right to free elections

_ R_

Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 41340/98 and 3 others, ECHR
2003-II

Riza and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 48555/10 and 48377/10, 13 October 2015

Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs and Others v. Russia, nos. 55066/00 and 55638/00,
11 January 2007

_s_

Sadak and Others v. Turkey (no. 2), nos. 25144/94 and 8 others, ECHR 2002-IV

Salleras Llinares v. Spain (dec.), no. 52226/99, ECHR 2000-XI

Scoppola v. Italy (no. 3) [GC], no. 126/05, 22 May 2012

Sejdic' and Finci v. Bosnia—Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, ECHR 2009
Sevinger v. the Netherlands (dec.), nos. 17173/07 and 17180/07, 6 September 2007
Seyidzade v. Azerbaijan, no. 37700/05, 3 December 2009

Shindler v. the United Kingdom, no. 19840/09, 7 May 2013

Sitaropoulos and Giakoumopoulos v. Greece [GC], no. 42202/07, ECHR 2012

Sobaci v. Turkey, no. 26733/02, 29 November 2007

Socialist Party and Others v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III
Soyler v. Turkey, no. 29411/07, 17 September 2013

Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 58369/10, 10 July 2012
Strack and Richter v. Germany (dec.), nos. 28811/12 and 50303/12, 5 July 2016
Sukhovetskyy v. Ukraine, no. 13716/02, ECHR 2006-VI

_'|'_
Tahirov v. Azerbaijan, no. 31953/11, 11 June 2015
Tanase v. Moldova [GC], no. 7/08, ECHR 2010
Timke v. Germany, no. 27311/95, Commission decision of 11 September 1995
TV VestAS and Rogaland Pensjonistparti v. Norway, no. 21132/05, ECHR 2008

_ U _
United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey, 30 January 1998, Reports of Judgments and
Decisions 1998-I
Uspaskich v. Lithuania, no. 14737/08, 20 December 2016

_V_
Vito Sante Santoro v. Italy, no. 36681/97, ECHR 2004-VI
Vitrenko and Others v. Ukraine, no. 23510/02, 16 December 2008

_X_

v. Germany, no. 2728/66, Commission decision of 6 October 1967, Collection 25, pp. 38-41

v. the United Kingdom, no. 7140/75, Commission decision of 6 October 1976, D.R. 7, p. 95

v. the United Kingdom, no. 7566/76, Commission decision of 11 December 1976,D.R. 9, p. 121
v. the United Kingdom, no. 7730/76, Commission decision of 28 February 1979, D.R. 15, p. 137
v. the United Kingdom, no. 8873/80, Commission decision of 13 May 1982, D.R. 28, p. 99

European Court of Human Rights 30/31 Last update: 30.04.2019

Guide on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 — Right to free elections

X. and Others v. Belgium, no. 6837/74, Commission decision of 2 October 1975, D.R. 3, p. 137
Xuereb v. Malta, no. 52492/99, 15 June 2000

_y_

Yumak and Sadak v. Turkey [GC], no. 10226/03, ECHR 2008

_Z_
Zdanoka v. Latvia [GC], no. 58278/00, ECHR 2006—IV
Zornic' v. Bosnia—Herzegovina, no. 3681/06, 15 July 2014

European Court of Human Rights 31/31 Last update: 30.04.2019