Previous 22 / 28 Next

20 SITAROPOULOS AND GIAKOUMOPOULOS v. GREECE JUDGMENT C. The Court’s assessment 1. General principles 63. The Court reiterates that Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 enshrines a characteristic principle of an effective political democracy and is accordingly of prime importance in the Convention system (see MathieuMohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, 2 March 1987, § 47, Series A no. 113). This Article would appear at first to differ from the other provisions of the Convention and its Protocols, as it is phrased in terms of the obligation of the High Contracting Parties to hold elections under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people rather than in terms of a particular right or freedom. However, having regard to the travaux préparatoires of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 and the interpretation of the provision in the context of the Convention as a whole, the Court has held that it also implies individual rights, including the right to vote and the right to stand for election (ibid., § 51). It has also held that the standards to be applied for establishing compliance with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 must be considered to be less stringent than those applied under Articles 8 to 11 of the Convention (see Ždanoka v. Latvia [GC], no. 58278/00, § 115, ECHR 2006-IV). 64. The concept of “implied limitations” under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 is of major importance for the determination of the relevance of the aims pursued by the restrictions on the rights guaranteed by this provision (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt, cited above, § 52). Given that Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 is not limited by a specific list of “legitimate aims” such as those enumerated in Articles 8 to 11 of the Convention, the Contracting States are free to rely on an aim not contained in such a list to justify a restriction, provided that the compatibility of that aim with the principle of the rule of law and the general objectives of the Convention is proved in the particular circumstances of a case (see Ždanoka, cited above). Nevertheless, it is for the Court to determine in the last resort whether the requirements of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 have been complied with; it has to satisfy itself that the conditions to which the right to vote and the right to stand for election are made subject do not curtail the rights in question to such an extent as to impair their very essence and deprive them of their effectiveness; that they meet the requirements of lawfulness; that they are imposed in pursuit of a legitimate aim; and that the means employed are not disproportionate (see Tănase v. Moldova [GC], no. 7/08, § 162, ECHR 2010, and Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt, cited above, § 52). 65. As regards, in particular, the choice of electoral system, the Court reiterates that the Contracting States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in this sphere. In that regard, Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 goes no further than prescribing “free” elections held at “reasonable intervals”, “by secret ballot” and “under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Sitaropoulos v. Greece

Resources

Preview

Legal Issue and/or Topic

Election Accessibility
Regional Jurisprudence

Description: The applicants filed suit alleging that their inability to vote from home infringed on the right to vote generally. The applicants were permenately residing in France and sought to exercise their right to vote during the September 16, 2007 elections. On September 10, 2007 the applicants faxed a letter to the Greek Ambassador expressing their wish to exercise the right to vote from their homes in France. On September 12, 2007 the Ambassador stated that the applicants would not be able to vote unless they were physically in Greece. The lower court determined that the application was admissible with regard to at least some of the applicants and that there was an violation in the right to vote. The court first look at the legislative history and determined the failed bill entitled “exercise of the right to vote in parliamentary election by Greek voters living abroad” was before Parliament in 2009. This legislative action served the purpose of ensuring vital rights to Greek citizens residing abroad — a right the legislation stated was already in existence. However, conflicting reports stated that voting abroad was an option presented to the legislature to permit, but not a duty to allow. The court stated that Article Three ensures that all elections are held under conditions that ensure free expression of political preferences. Exclusion of person from the right to vote must therefore, be reconcilable with Article Three. Thus, this case pertains to the ability to exercise the right to vote. The court determined that the nature of the right to vote was not infringed because there were not sufficient facts to call into question the existing legal framework in Greece. The court found not violation of Article Three of Protocol No. 1.

Language

English

Geolocation

Latitude: 38.061568849909236

Longitude: 23.74405129550924

: Geolocation

Author(s): European Court of Human Rights

Date: Mar 25, 2012

Primary Documents

CASE OF SITAROPOULOS AND GIAKOUMOPOULOS v. GREECE.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Sitaropoulos v. Greece

Primary Documents

Notifications