Previous 27 / 64 Next

constitutional traditions common to the Member States, as general principles of Community law.” The predecessor of article 14.3 TEU was article 190.1 and 4 of the Treaty on the European Community (“EC”), set out in para 11 above. Article 22.1 and 22.2 had a precise equivalent in article 19.1 and 19.2 EC, but the predecessor of article 20 was article 17 EC, reading simply: “17.1 Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall complement and not replace national citizenship. 2. Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights conferred by this Treaty and shall be subject to the duties imposed thereby”. 45. McGeoch’s claim under European Union law was on the other hand issued in early 2011 and relates to voting in local as well as Scottish and European Parliamentary elections. It therefore opens up all possible avenues for exploration under current European Union law. However, there is nothing in European Union law which can entitle McGeoch to complain in respect of his inability to vote in Scottish Parliamentary elections. European Union law refers in various contexts, which have already been set out in this judgment, to voting in European Parliamentary elections and in “municipal” elections, and to no other elections. It is obvious that Scottish Parliamentary elections fall within neither category: see also what I have already said in para 9 above. That municipal elections are local government elections at a lower level of government, closer to people and with a more direct responsibility for service delivery, is furthermore consistent with the nature of the units found (though in the case of Scotland, not yet updated) in the annex to Council Directive 94/80/EC, which lays down detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to vote and stand in municipal elections by Union citizens residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals. 46. The submissions under European Union law are put at various different levels. Mr Aidan O’Neill QC for McGeoch concentrated upon articles 20 and 22 TFEU, read with articles 39 and 40 CFR. Mr Southey for Chester adopted Mr O’Neill’s submissions, but relied in addition upon the more general provisions of articles 6.3 (or its predecessor article 6.2 in the pre-December 2009 TEU), 10 and 14.3 TEU (or the latter’s predecessor articles 190.1 and 4 EC). In his submission, the effect of these articles was, at the least, to incorporate into European Union law in relation to voting in European Parliamentary elections the principles recognised under Strasbourg case-law (Hirst (No 2) and Scoppola) in relation to national Page 26

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