Previous 1 / 4 Next

Published on The Estonian Supreme Court (https://www.riigikohus.ee) Home > Constitutional judgment 3-4-1-7-11 Constitutional judgment 3-4-1-7-11 JUDGMENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT No. of case 3-4-1-7-11 Date of judgment 23 March 2011 Composition of court Chairman Märt Rask and members Jüri Põld and Harri Salmann Court Case Complaint of Teet Raatsin for declaration of invalidity of the voting results of the Riigikogu elections 2011. Hearing Written proceeding DECISION To dismiss the complaint of Teet Raatsin. FACTS, COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS AND JUSTIFICATIONS OF THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROCEEDING 1. Teet Raatsin filed a complaint to the National Electoral Committee on 9 March 2011 requesting declaration of invalidity of the voting results of the Riigikogu elections and based on that, to declare the Riigikogu elections null and void. In that complaint T. Raatsin found that § 4(3) and § 22(3) of the Riigikogu Election Act (REA) and § 58 of the Constitution are not in compliance with §§ 1, 3, 10, 11 and 56 of the Constitution, with constitutional basic principles of the Republic of Estonia and with principles arising from international agreements, such as the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the Convention) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Namely, the European Court of Human Rights found in its judgment of 6 October 2005 in Case Hirst v the United Kingdom, and in judgment of 23 November 2010 in Case Greens and M. T. v the United Kingdom that the regulation applicable in the United Kingdom pursuant to which prisoners lack the possibility to vote while serving a sentence is in contradiction with the

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Raatsin for the Declaration of Invalidity of the Voting Results of the Riigikogu Elections of 2011

Judgment

Alleged Acts: The European Court of Human Rights found that the United Kingdom’s regulation that prisoners could not vote violated the Convention. The plaintiff argues that because the European court of Human Rights publishes its judgments in a different language and they cannot be understood in the same way that the domestic caselaw can. The plaintiff also argues that the electronic voting software was inadequate and failed to meet security requirements. The plaintiff accordingly asserts that because his right to vote was violated the entirety of the Riigikogu elections are invalid.

Procedural history: The Electoral Committee responded to the complaint and indicated that it was not competent to verify the compliance of the domestic election laws with the European Court of Human Rights. The Electoral Committee forwarded the complaint to the complaint to the Supreme Court and stated that the complaint was beyond the powers of the Electoral Committee because it did not reference any Committee Actions.

Summary: The plaintiff does not assert that he ran as a candidate or that his individual voting rights were hindered. Further, it does not appear that the plaintiff committed a crime for which he was serving a prison sentence. Accordingly, the plaintiff asserted that the complaint was brought because it violated other’s subjective rights. This configuration does not make the action reviewable by the court.

Conclusion: The court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint, but noted that there pay be a contradiction between the Riigikogu Election Act and Constitution and Article 3 Protocol No. 1 of the Convention.

Legal Issue(s)

Elections as a Fundamental Right
Electronic Voting

Region: Europe and Eurasia

Country: Estonia

Language of Decision

English

Court: Supreme Court

Election Type: Review of law

Date of decision: Mar 23, 2011

Geolocation

Latitude: 59.4490167

Longitude: 24.69960785

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

the_estonian_supreme_court-constitutional_judgment_3-4-1-7-11.pdf
english
Download View