Guide on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 – Right to free elections that the threshold of 5% of votes that had to be attained by a list of candidates in order to be considered elected and to participate in the allotment of seats was compliant with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, in that it encouraged sufficiently representative currents of thought and helped to avoid an excessive fragmentation of Parliament (Partija "Jaunie Demokrāti" and Partija "Mūsu Zeme" v. Latvia (dec.), 2007). 70. In Strack and Richter v. Germany (dec.), 2016, the Court referred back to the Court’s case-law on electoral thresholds in the light of the Convention (§ 33). In addition, it addressed the threshold issue for the first time under the active aspect of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 because the case had been referred to it by voters. The applicants complained about a threshold of 5% of the votes cast at national level for a political party to be able to claim one of the seats allocated to Germany in the European Parliament. In 2011 the German Constitutional Court had declared this legislative provision to be at odds with the Basic Law, but had not invalidated the 2009 election results. The Strasbourg Court dismissed the application, finding that the interference was proportionate to the aim pursued (preservation of parliamentary stability) in the light of the broad margin of appreciation afforded to States in such matters. It noted that the European Union expressly permitted member States to fix electoral thresholds of up to 5% of the votes cast and that a considerable number of member States relied on this faculty. 71. The case of Partei Die Friesen v. Germany, 2016, concerned the threshold of 5% of votes cast imposed by the Land of Lower Saxony to obtain seats in Parliament. The applicant, a political party representing the interests of a minority group in that Land, alleged that the 5% threshold breached its right to participate in elections without discrimination and had requested to be exempted from the rule. The issue was thus the scope of the member States’ obligations as regards the protection of minorities in the electoral context. The Court took the view that, even when interpreted in the light of the 1998 Framework Convention on the Protection of National Minorities – which laid emphasis on the participation of national minorities in public affairs – the European Convention did not call for a different treatment in favour of minority parties in this context. It found no violation of Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. 72. In Yumak and Sadak v. Turkey [GC], 2008, by contrast, the Court found that, in general, a 10% electoral threshold appeared excessive, and concurred with the organs of the Council of Europe, which had recommended that it be lowered. The threshold compelled political parties to make use of stratagems which did not contribute to the transparency of the electoral process. However, the Court was not persuaded that, when assessed in the light of the specific political context of the elections in question, and attended as it was by correctives and other guarantees – such as the possibility of forming an electoral coalition with other political parties or the role of the Constitutional Court – which had limited its effects in practice, the 10% threshold had had the effect of impairing in their essence the rights secured to the applicants by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. 73. The case of Cernea v. Romania, 2018, concerned a ban on members of parties not already represented in Parliament from standing as candidates in by-elections. The applicant alleged discrimination in relation to candidates belonging to parties already represented. The Court found that the aim pursued of preserving the structure of Parliament and avoiding any fragmentation of the political groups within it could justify the limitation in question (§ 49). It found that the limitation of the applicant’s right to stand for by-elections had remained within reasonable proportions, in particular because the by-election had been held for a single seat in Parliament and the applicant had been able to stand in the preceding general election (§§ 50-51). 74. In two other cases against Romania, the applicants complained about legislation imposing an additional eligibility condition applicable solely to national minority organisations not already represented in Parliament. Examining those complaints under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, the Court accepted that the law in question pursued a legitimate aim of ensuring that organisations not yet represented in Parliament were properly represented and of European Court of Human Rights 19/35 Last update: 30.04.2021