Previous 26 / 64 Next

42. In Greens, the Court noted (para 113) that the Grand Chamber had emphasised in Hirst (No 2) that “there are numerous ways of organising and running electoral systems and a wealth of differences, inter alia, in historical development, cultural diversity and political thought within Europe which it is for each contracting state to mould into their own democratic vision. The Court recalls that its role in this area is a subsidiary one: the national authorities are, in principle, better placed than an international court to evaluate local needs and conditions and, as a result, in matters of general policy, on which opinions within a democratic society may reasonably differ, the role of the domestic policy-maker should be given special weight.” See also Scoppola, para 83 and Söyler, para 33. Within the domestic legal context, it is now therefore for Parliament as the democratically elected legislature to complete its consideration of the position in relation to both RPA section 3 and EPEA section 8. There is no further current role for this Court, and there is no further claim, for a declaration or, in the light of the incompatibility, for damages which the appellant Chester can bring. European law 43. I turn to the position under European Community and now Union law. Before Burton J and the Court of Appeal, and reflecting no doubt the argument before those courts, any claim under European Union law by Chester was treated as effectively consequential on the incompatibility of the ban with A3P1, and attracted no separate analysis. Bearing in mind the date of Chester’s claim for judicial review (December 2008), he is also unable to rely upon European law as it stands after 1 December 2009 under the TEU and TFEU, as a result of the Treaty of Lisbon. This difficulty is not overcome by maintaining that his claim related to forthcoming elections. It still required to be viewed in the light of the law when it was brought. 44. At that date, the Charter of Fundamental Rights did not have direct legal force, so that there was no equivalent of article 6.1 TEU. The predecessor of article 6.3 TEU was article 6.2 of the pre-December 2009 TEU reading: “The Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the [Human Rights] Convention and as they result from the Page 25

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Chester v. Secretary of State for Justice

Judgment

Alleged Acts: Two plaintiffs claimed their rights were infringed based on their disenfranchisement. The first plaintiff served the entirety of his sentence and filed suit under the United Kingdom’s Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 claiming that his right to vote in the European Parliamentary Elections was infringed. The second plaintiff finished his sentence, but had several intervening violent offenses and filed his suit under the European Union law exclusively claiming that his right to vote municipal and Scottish Parliamentary elections was infringed.

Procedural history: The lower courts dismissed both claims. The first plaintiff’s claim was dismissed because the court found that it was not their role to sanction the government for delay in implementing the European Court of Human Rights ruling Hirst v. United Kingdom. The second plaintiff’s claim was dismissed because the included the Scottish Parliamentary which were not considered municipal elections and the EU law required the right to vote in municipal elections in member states where the citizen is residing but not citizen. Therefore, the local municipal elections also did not apply. The second plaintiff was denied the opportunity to amend the complaint to include European Parliamentary Elections.

Summary: The court determined that the law does not incorporate any additional voting rights as those outlined in the European Court of Human Rights. If there were relevant provisions that engaged a right to vote beyond the European Court of Human Rights, the court here could merely declare the two inconsistent with the United Kingdom’s laws. Further, the court may not create laws to bring any alleged compatibility, that role would be reserved for Parliament.

Conclusion: Both appeals for infringing voting rights are dismissed are dismissed.

Legal Issue(s)

Judicial Independence
Voter Registration

Region: Europe and Eurasia

Country: United Kingdom

Language of Decision

English

Court: Supreme Court

Election Type: Review of law

Date of decision: Oct 16, 2013

Geolocation

Latitude: 51.58405438621691

Longitude: -0.152343750002267

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

Chester v. Secretary of State for Justice.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Chester v. Secretary of State for Justice

Primary Documents

Notifications