Election Dispute Resolution Report 2020
Document contents
Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy,
Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Montenegro, the Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway,
18
- Preview
Resources
Grosaru v. Romania
Document contents
of appreciation as regards Article 13 of the Convention (see
Wille v. Liechtenstein [GC], no. 28396/95, § 75, ECHR 1999-VII) and that
the legislative provisions
- Preview
Resources
Zdanoka v. Latvia
Document contents
principle, compatible with Article 3 of
Protocol No. 1 (see Hilbe v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 31981/96, ECHR
1999-VI; see also Hirst, cited above, § 62).
- Preview
Resources
Guide to Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights
Document contents
of every individual case but must lay down a general rule (Hilbe v. Liechtenstein (dec.), 1999;
Doyle v. the United Kingdom (dec.), 2007; Shindler v. the
- Preview
Resources
Yumak & Sadak v. Turkey
Document contents
States have
opted for high thresholds: Turkey has the highest, at 10%; Liechtenstein has
an 8% threshold; and the Russian Federation and Georgia a 7% one
- Preview
Resources
Sitaropoulos v. Greece
Document contents
Denmark,
Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Italy,
Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Republic of Moldova,
Monaco, the Netherlands, Norway,
- Preview
Resources
Chester v. Secretary of State for Justice
Document contents
no restrictions on voting by
prisoners. Bulgaria, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Japan, Liechtenstein, Russia and
the United States ban all convicted prisoners from voting, as
Judgment
8 shown of 8 entities