STRØBYE AND ROSENLIND v. DENMARK JUDGMENT Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Slovakia. This exclusion is either set out in the country’s constitution or in electoral legislation. The German Federal Election Law is an example of this second approach. Persons for whom a custodian to manage all their affairs is appointed, not just by temporary order, are automatically deprived of their voting rights.” The Court observes that it seems that other European States, including Albania, Moldova, Serbia and Turkey, also had legislation restricting the right to vote in respect of persons who had been deprived of their legal capacity. THE LAW I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 72. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. II. ARTICLE 3 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 TO THE CONVENTION 73. The applicants complained that the Supreme Court judgment of 18 January 2018 had breached their right to vote under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which reads as follows: “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.” A. Admissibility 1. Submissions by the parties 74. The Government submitted that the complaint should be declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. 75. The applicants disagreed. 2. The Court’s assessment 76. The Court notes that the complaint is neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible. 23