Guide on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 – Right to free elections surveillance and the deletion of his name from the electoral roll. As a result, the applicant had been prevented from voting in two elections, which would not have been the case if the measure had been applied immediately. The Government had not provided any reason to justify that time lapse. The Court thus found that there had been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. 22. The question of the loss of civic rights does not only arise in a criminal context. The case of Albanese v. Italy, 2006, concerned the suspension of the applicant’s electoral rights for the duration of bankruptcy proceedings against him. The Court pointed out that bankruptcy proceedings came within the ambit of civil rather than criminal law and therefore did not imply any deceit or fraud on the part of the bankrupt person. The aim of the restrictions on the person’s electoral rights was therefore essentially punitive. The measure thus served no purpose other than to belittle persons who had been declared bankrupt, reprimanding them simply for having been declared insolvent irrespective of whether they had committed an offence. It did not therefore pursue a legitimate aim for the purposes of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. 23. The Court also examined the loss of voting rights on account of placement under partial guardianship. In Alajos Kiss v. Hungary, 2010, it took the view that such a measure could pursue a legitimate aim, namely to ensure that only citizens capable of assessing the consequences of their decisions and making conscious and judicious decisions should participate in public affairs. However, the voting ban in question had been imposed as an automatic, blanket restriction, regardless of the protected person’s actual faculties and without any distinction being made between full and partial guardianship. The Court further considered that the treatment as a single class of those with intellectual or mental disabilities was a questionable classification, and the curtailment of their rights must be subject to strict scrutiny. It therefore concluded that an indiscriminate removal of voting rights, without an individualised judicial evaluation, could not be considered proportionate to the aim pursued. B. Specific case of prisoners 24. Prisoners in general continue to enjoy all the fundamental rights and freedoms secured by the Convention, except for the right to liberty where lawful detention falls expressly within the scope of Article 5 of the Convention (Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], 2005, § 69). The rights guaranteed by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 are no exception. There is no question, therefore, that a prisoner should forfeit his rights under the Convention merely because of his status as a person detained following conviction. That does not preclude the taking of steps to protect society against activities intended to destroy the Convention rights and freedoms. 25. Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 does not therefore exclude that restrictions on electoral rights could be imposed on an individual who has, for example, seriously abused a public position or whose conduct threatens to undermine the rule of law or democratic foundations. The severe measure of disenfranchisement must not, however, be resorted to lightly and the principle of proportionality requires a discernible and sufficient link between the sanction and the conduct and circumstances of the individual concerned (Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], 2005, § 71). 26. To deprive a prisoner of his political rights may thus meet the legitimate aims of preventing crime and enhancing civic responsibility, together with respect for the rule of law and ensuring the proper functioning and preservation of the democratic regime. However, such a measure cannot be imposed automatically or it would not meet the proportionality requirement. 27. The States may decide either to leave it to the courts to determine the proportionality of a measure restricting convicted prisoners’ voting rights, or to incorporate provisions into their laws defining the circumstances in which such a measure should be applied. In this latter case, it will be for the legislature itself to balance the competing interests in order to avoid any general, automatic and indiscriminate restriction. Accordingly, the application of a voting ban in the absence of a European Court of Human Rights 9/35 Last update: 30.04.2021