TĂNASE v. MOLDOVA JUDGMENT
43
Sanctions for illegal conduct or conduct which threatens national interests
are likely to have a preventative effect and enable any particular threat
posed by an identified individual to be addressed. The Government have not
suggested that security clearance for access to confidential documents is
inadequate to ensure protection of confidential and sensitive information. It
should be noted that both of these measures are concerned with identifying a
credible threat to State interest in particular circumstances based on specific
information, rather than operating on a blanket assumption that all dual
nationals pose a threat to national security and independence. The Court
reiterates that this is the approach preferred where an immediate threat to
democracy or independence has passed (ibid., § 125).
176. Further, and in any event, historico-political considerations should
be viewed in the broader context of the obligations which Moldova has
freely undertaken under the ECN and the recommendations and conclusions
of relevant international bodies. It is appropriate to consider in this context
the objection ratione materiae raised by the respondent Government (see
paragraphs 131-32 above). The Court emphasises that it has consistently
held that it must take into account relevant international instruments and
reports, and in particular those of other Council of Europe organs, in order
to interpret the guarantees of the Convention and to establish whether there
is a common European standard in the field. It is for the Court to decide
which international instruments and reports it considers relevant and how
much weight to attribute to them. Where there is a common standard which
the respondent State has failed to meet, this may constitute a relevant
consideration for the Court when it interprets the provisions of the
Convention in specific cases (see, inter alia, Demir and Baykara, cited
above, §§ 85-86, and Shtukaturov, cited above, § 95). In the present case,
the Court considers the provisions of the ECN, the conclusions and reports
of ECRI and the Venice Commission (see paragraphs 45 and 51 above) and
the resolutions of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (see
paragraphs 48-50 above) to be relevant to its assessment of whether Law
no. 273 is proportionate. In particular, in making reference to the ECN, the
Court is not seeking to examine the applicant’s right to hold dual nationality
but rather the right of the respondent State to introduce restrictions on his
right to take his seat following his election as a result of his dual nationality
and the compatibility of any such restriction with Article 3 of Protocol
No. 1.
177. As to the content of such reports and commentaries, the Court
observes that the Venice Commission, ECRI, the Parliamentary Assembly
of the Council of Europe and the Monitoring Committee were unanimous in
their criticism of the prohibition (see paragraphs 45-51 above). Concerns
were expressed as to the discriminatory impact of Law no. 273 as well as its
impact on the ability of a number of political forces to participate effectively
in the political process. The Court further takes note of Article 17 of the