44
TĂNASE v. MOLDOVA JUDGMENT
ECN and Moldova’s undertaking pursuant to that Article to ensure that
Moldovan nationals in possession of another nationality have the same
rights and duties as other Moldovan nationals (see paragraph 85 above).
178. Finally, the Court notes that any restriction on electoral rights
should not be such as to exclude some persons or groups of persons from
participating in the political life of the country (see paragraph 158 above).
In this respect, the Court emphasises the disproportionate effect of the Law
on the parties which were at the time of its introduction in opposition (see
paragraph 168 above). Pluralism and democracy must be based on dialogue
and a spirit of compromise, which necessarily entails various concessions
on the part of individuals or groups of individuals which are justified in
order to maintain and promote the ideals and values of a democratic society
(see United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey, 30 January
1998, § 45, Reports 1998-I, and Leyla Şahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 44774/98,
§ 108, ECHR 2005-XI). In order to promote such dialogue and exchange of
views necessary for an effective democracy, it is important to ensure access
to the political arena for opposition parties on terms which allow them to
represent their electorate, draw attention to their preoccupations and defend
their interests (see Christian Democratic People’s Party v. Moldova,
no. 28793/02, § 67, ECHR 2006-II).
179. The Court must examine with particular care any measure which
appears to operate solely, or principally, to the disadvantage of the
opposition, especially where the nature of the measure is such that it affects
the very prospect of opposition parties gaining power at some point in the
future. Restrictions of this nature curtail the rights guaranteed by Article 3
of Protocol No. 1 to such an extent as to impair their very essence and
deprive them of their effectiveness. The introduction of the prohibition in
the present case shortly before the elections, at a time when the governing
party’s percentage of the vote was in decline (see paragraphs 31-44 above),
further militates against the proportionality of the measure.
180. In the light of all of the above factors, and notwithstanding
Moldova’s special historical and political context, the Court finds the
provisions of Law no. 273 preventing elected MPs with multiple
nationalities from taking seats in Parliament to be disproportionate and in
violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. The respondent Government’s
objection ratione materiae is accordingly dismissed.