GROSARU v. ROMANIA JUDGMENT 15 Italian organisation having secured the largest number of votes in a single constituency, in the instant case, the Italian Community of Romania. The applicant represented the Association of Italians of Romania. 39. Lastly, the Government pointed out that the representation of minorities in the Romanian Parliament was an important issue. That had also been noted by the Venice Commission in its Report on electoral law and national minorities of 25 January 2000 and in its Opinion on the draft law on the status of national minorities living in Romania of 2005. Accordingly, in the parliamentary elections of 2000, national minorities had been allocated 45 seats out of a total of 341 and, in the municipal elections, hundreds of mayors and departmental and local councillors from national minorities had been elected. 40. The applicant claimed that the Association of Italians of Romania, of which he was a member, and the Italian Community of Romania had signed an alliance agreement validated by the Central Electoral Office, under which the Association of Italians of Romania would take part in the elections using its electoral emblem and the Italian Community of Romania would take part using its name. Therefore, in the parliamentary elections of 2000 he had been a member of the same organisation as Ms Ileana Stana Ionescu, namely, the Italian Community of Romania. 41. The applicant argued that the Central Electoral Office’s interpretation of the electoral provisions failed even to recognise the possibility afforded by law to minority representatives to submit a list in more than one constituency, in accordance with the principle of representation at national level. Furthermore, he argued that a parliamentary seat was allocated to minorities having obtained at least 5% of validly cast votes at national level for the election of an MP, in addition to the number of MPs elected according to the rules of representation. B. The Court’s assessment 1. Principles established by the Court’s case-law 42. The Court reiterates that Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 differs from other rights guaranteed by the Convention and its Protocols as it is phrased in terms of the obligation of the High Contracting Party to hold elections which 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 preparatory work to Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 and the interpretation of the provision in the context of the Convention as a whole, the Court has established that this provision also implies individual rights, including the right to vote and to stand for election (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, 2 March 1987, §§ 46-51, Series A no. 113, and Ždanoka v. Latvia [GC], no. 58278/00, § 102, ECHR 2006-IV).