Guide on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 – Right to free elections provisions concerning the dissolution of a political party, as then in force, had a very broad scope. All the acts and remarks of party members could be imputable to the party in finding it to be a centre of anti-constitutional activity and deciding on its dissolution. No distinction was made between the various degrees of involvement of members in the impugned activities. In addition, certain party members who were in a comparable situation to that of the applicant, especially the President and Vice-President, had not been penalised. Consequently, the Court found that the sanction was not proportionate and that there had been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. 95. In another case concerning an MP from the same party who had also lost his seat, the Court again found a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 but noted with interest the adoption of a constitutional amendment reinforcing the status of MPs and probably having the effect of making the disqualification of MPs on such grounds less frequent (Sobacı v. Turkey, 2007). 96. In Lykourezos v. Greece, 2006, the Court had found that the new professional incompatibility applicable to MPs had not been announced prior to the elections and had surprised both the applicant and those who had voted for him, during his term of office. It took the view that in assessing the applicant’s election under the new Article of the Constitution which entered into force in 2003, without taking account of the fact that his election had taken place beforehand perfectly legally, the judge had stripped the applicant of his seat and deprived his voters of the candidate whom they had freely and democratically chosen to represent them for four years, in disregard of the principle of legitimate expectation. Similarly, in Paschalidis, Koutmeridis and Zaharakis v. Greece, 2008, the Court had found that an unforeseeable departure from precedent, after the elections, concerning the calculation of the electoral quotient, with the effect of disqualifying a number of elected MPs, had entailed a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. 97. In Paunović and Milivojević v. Serbia, 2016, the Court had occasion to rule on the practice of political parties consisting of using undated resignation letters signed, before taking up office, by their members who are elected to Parliament; the party is thus able to remove those members from office at any time and against their will. The Court began by taking the view that, even though the resignation letter would be presented by the party, only Parliament was entitled to withdraw a seat. It was therefore the State which deprived the MP of his or her seat by accepting the resignation. The application of an MP who had lost his seat was thus admissible ratione personae. The Court then found that the impugned practice was at odds with domestic law, which required such resignations to be submitted by the MP in person. There had thus been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. 98. The case of Occhetto v. Italy (dec.), 2013, concerned the relinquishment of a seat in the European Parliament. After signing a document relinquishing his seat, as a result of an agreement with the co-founder of the political movement to which he belonged, the applicant had changed his mind. However, the candidate next on the list had already taken up the seat in question. The Court found that, following an election, a candidate was entitled to take up a seat in a legislature, but had no obligation to do so. Any candidate could renounce, for political or personal reasons, the office to which he or she was elected, and the decision to register such a renouncement could not be regarded as contrary to the principle of universal suffrage. It added that the refusal to accept the withdrawal of the applicant’s relinquishment had pursued the legitimate aims of legal certainty in the electoral process and the protection of the rights of others, in particular the rights of the candidate next on the list. The applicant’s wish had been expressed in writing and in unequivocal terms, and he had stipulated that his relinquishment was final. Lastly, the domestic proceedings – in compliance with EU law – had enabled him to submit the arguments that he deemed useful for his defence. The Court thus found that there had been no violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. 99. In G.K. v. Belgium, 2019, a senator alleged that she had not signed her resignation letter voluntarily. The Court held that, where a dispute arose as to the resignation of a member of parliament who wished to retract that decision or to contend that the resignation was invalid under domestic law, the decision-making process had to afford minimum safeguards against arbitrariness. European Court of Human Rights 24/35 Last update: 30.04.2021