Previous 4 / 4 Next

established violation of the voter's rights. 10. Therefore, the complaint of T. Raatsin shall be dismissed based on § 46(1)2) of the CRCPA. 11. However, the Supreme Court notes that the fact that pursuant to § 4(3) and § 22(3) of the REA, a person who is convicted of a crime by a court and who is serving a prison sentence cannot participate in voting may be in a contradiction with § 58 of the Constitution and Article 3 of the Protocol No. 1 of the Convention as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights. Upon reviewing the complaint of T. Raatsin, the Chamber is not procedurally able to establish that contradiction or declare the provisions of the Riigikogu Election Act invalid. Therefore, it is the obligation of Riigikogu to react to this possible contradiction. Märt Rask, Jüri Põld, Harri Salmann Source URL: https://www.riigikohus.ee/en/constitutional-judgment-3-4-1-7-11#comment-0

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

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

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

Primary Documents

Notifications