Search Tips
sorted by
Cards viewTable viewMap view
11 shown of 11 entities

Caamaño Valle v. Spain

Document contents
Europe (the only two States that are not party to the CRPD are Liechtenstein and Ukraine). It is true that a number of these 45 States have
Question Presented
Whether the rescission of voting rights for disabled person under guardianship based on individualized assessment is legal under Article 3, Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Legal Issue(s)
  • Accessibility
Country
Spain
Language of Decision
  • English
Date of decision
Aug 11, 2021
Judgment

Strøbye & Rosenlind v. Denmark

Document contents
close links to, or a stake in, the country concerned (see Hilbe v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 31981/96, ECHR 1999-VI, and Melnychenko v. Ukraine, no. 17707/02,
Question Presented
Whether the automatic removal of persons contravened Article 3, Protocol No. 1 of European Convention on Human Rights and, consequently, constituted illegal discrimination under Article 14 under the same Convention.
Legal Issue(s)
  • Accessibility
  • Voters' Rights
Country
Denmark
Language of Decision
  • English
Date of decision
Feb 2, 2021
Judgment

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
Legal Issue(s)
  • Judicial Independence
  • Voter Registration
Country
United Kingdom
Language of Decision
  • English
Date of decision
Oct 16, 2013
Judgment

Alajos Kiss v. Hungary

Document contents
close links to, or a stake in, the country concerned (see Hilbe v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 31981/96, ECHR 1999-VI, and Melnychenko v. Ukraine, no. 17707/02,
Question Presented
Whether Hungary's voting restriction was proportional and legitimate under Article 1, Protocol 3
Legal Issue(s)
  • Accessibility
  • Elections as a Fundamental Right
  • Voters' Rights
Country
Hungary
Language of Decision
  • English
Date of decision
May 20, 2010
Judgment

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Document contents
• Nations Unies — Recueil des Traités 270 FOR LIECHTENSTEIN: POUR LE LIECHTENSTEIN: 3a POR LIECHTENSTEIN: FOR LUXEMBOURG: POUR LE LUXEMBOURG: &&&'• 3a JIioKceMÔypr:
Preview
Preview
Legal Issue and/or Topic
  • International Treaty
Language
  • English
Date of decision
Item does not have this property
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
Preview
Legal Issue and/or Topic
  • Regional Jurisprudence
  • Violation of an International Treaty
Language
  • English
Date of decision
Item does not have this property
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
Preview
Legal Issue and/or Topic
  • Legal Frameworks
  • Regional Jurisprudence
Language
  • English
  • French
Date of decision
Item does not have this property
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
Preview
Legal Issue and/or Topic
  • Election Accessibility
  • Regional Jurisprudence
Language
  • English
Date of decision
Item does not have this property
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
Preview
Legal Issue and/or Topic
  • Regional Jurisprudence
  • Violation of an International Treaty
Language
  • English
Date of decision
Item does not have this property
Resources

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
Preview
Legal Issue and/or Topic
  • Election Dispute Resolution
  • Legal Frameworks
  • Regional Jurisprudence
Language
  • English
Date of decision
Item does not have this property
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
Preview
Legal Issue and/or Topic
  • Legal Frameworks
Language
  • English
Date of decision
Item does not have this property
Resources

11 shown of 11 entities

  • Uwazi is developed by Human Rights Information and Documentation Systems

  •  
  • Election Judgments - IFES
  •  
  • Library
  • Login