Guide on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 – Right to free elections not be considered established that the State had failed to meet its positive obligations in this area to such an extent as to amount to a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. In a different context, in Abdalov and Others v. Azerbaijan, 2019, the applicants were registered late for the 2010 parliamentary elections due to the lack of safeguards against arbitrariness in the candidate registration procedures and to delays in the examination of their appeals attributable to the electoral authorities and the courts. As a consequence, they had no or very little time to campaign. Concluding that the foregoing had curtailed the applicants’ individual electoral rights to such an extent as to significantly impair their effectiveness, the Court found a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. 90. In Oran v. Turkey, 2014, the applicant had complained that, as an independent candidate, he had not been able to benefit from nationwide electoral broadcasting on Turkish radio and television, unlike political parties. The Court took the view that, unlike political parties, the applicant, as an independent candidate, had only to address the constituency in which he was standing. In addition, he had not been prevented from using all the other available methods of electioneering, which were accessible to all the unaffiliated independent candidates at the relevant time. The Court thus found that there had been no violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. 91. Lastly, in Uspaskich v. Lithuania, 2016, the applicant, who was a politician, complained that his house arrest (in a criminal investigation for political corruption) had prevented him from participating in the legislative elections on an equal footing with the other candidates. In finding that there had been no violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, the Court took particular account of the fact that he had been able to campaign from his home if he so wished. Given that he was a wellknown politician and that members of his party had participated in meetings with voters in person, the house arrest had not prevented the applicant from participating in the elections to the point that the final result had been affected. In addition, domestic law provided for a system of individual complaints and appeals in electoral matters, and the applicant had availed himself of such recourse. F. ...to the exercise of office 92. From 1984 onwards the European Commission of Human Rights stated that it was not enough that an individual had the right to stand for election; he must also have a right to sit as a member once he has been elected by the people. To take the opposite view would render the right to stand for election meaningless (M. v. the United Kingdom, Commission decision, 1984). In that same case, however, it took the view that the inability for an elected MP to take up his seat on the grounds that he was already a member of a foreign legislature was a restriction compatible with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. 93. In three cases against Turkey the Court examined the consequences for MPs of the dissolution of the political parties to which they belonged. In Sadak and Others v. Turkey (no. 2), 2002, a political party was dissolved for breaching the territorial integrity and unity of the State. The MPs belonging to that party automatically forfeited their seats. The Court took the view that interference with the freedom of expression of an opposition MP required particularly stringent scrutiny. The loss by the applicants of their seats in Parliament was automatic and independent of their political activities in which they engaged on a personal basis. It had thus been an extremely severe measure and one that was disproportionate to any legitimate aim invoked. 94. In Kavakçı v. Turkey, 2007, temporary limitations had been imposed on the applicant’s political rights on account of the final dissolution of the party to which she belonged. The Court took the view that those measures had the purpose of preserving the secular character of the Turkish political regime and that, having regard to the importance of that principle for the democratic regime in Turkey, the measure pursued the legitimate aims of preventing disorder and protecting the rights and freedoms of others. As to the proportionality of the sanction, however, the constitutional European Court of Human Rights 23/35 Last update: 30.04.2021