Previous 41 / 64 Next

liability of the Community for damage caused to individuals by unlawful legislative measures adopted by its institutions. …. 55 As to the second condition, as regards both Community liability under Article 215 and Member State liability for breaches of Community law, the decisive test for finding that a breach of Community law is sufficiently serious is whether the Member State or the Community institution concerned manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits on its discretion. 56 The factors which the competent court may take into consideration include the clarity and precision of the rule breached; the measure of discretion left by that rule to the national or Community authorities; whether the infringement and the damage caused was intentional or involuntary; whether any error of law was excusable or inexcusable; the fact that the position taken by a Community institution may have contributed towards the omission, and the adoption or retention of national measures or practices contrary to Community law. 57 On any view, a breach of Community law will clearly be sufficiently serious if it has persisted despite a judgment finding the infringement in question to be established, or a preliminary ruling or settled case-law of the Court on the matter from which it is clear that the conduct in question constituted an infringement.” These principles were reiterated in Case 392/93 R v HM Treasury, Ex p British Telecommunications plc [1996] QB 615, an example of a case where the Court of Justice held that the breach had not involved a manifest and grave disregard of European law, and Case 278/05 Robins v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2007] ICR 779, where the Court emphasised the importance of the breadth of the legislative discretion in that case and the fact that the provisions of the relevant directive did not make it possible to establish with any precision the level of pension protection which it required. 78. Turning to apply these principles to the present cases, I make the twin assumptions (again contrary to my conclusions) that (a) European Union confers rights to vote on individual citizens of the Union, subject to the United Kingdom’s legislative discretion to introduce limitations, but that (b) the present general Page 40

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Chester v. Secretary of State for Justice

Judgment

Alleged Acts: Two plaintiffs claimed their rights were infringed based on their disenfranchisement. The first plaintiff served the entirety of his sentence and filed suit under the United Kingdom’s Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 claiming that his right to vote in the European Parliamentary Elections was infringed. The second plaintiff finished his sentence, but had several intervening violent offenses and filed his suit under the European Union law exclusively claiming that his right to vote municipal and Scottish Parliamentary elections was infringed.

Procedural history: The lower courts dismissed both claims. The first plaintiff’s claim was dismissed because the court found that it was not their role to sanction the government for delay in implementing the European Court of Human Rights ruling Hirst v. United Kingdom. The second plaintiff’s claim was dismissed because the included the Scottish Parliamentary which were not considered municipal elections and the EU law required the right to vote in municipal elections in member states where the citizen is residing but not citizen. Therefore, the local municipal elections also did not apply. The second plaintiff was denied the opportunity to amend the complaint to include European Parliamentary Elections.

Summary: The court determined that the law does not incorporate any additional voting rights as those outlined in the European Court of Human Rights. If there were relevant provisions that engaged a right to vote beyond the European Court of Human Rights, the court here could merely declare the two inconsistent with the United Kingdom’s laws. Further, the court may not create laws to bring any alleged compatibility, that role would be reserved for Parliament.

Conclusion: Both appeals for infringing voting rights are dismissed are dismissed.

Legal Issue(s)

Judicial Independence
Voter Registration

Region: Europe and Eurasia

Country: United Kingdom

Language of Decision

English

Court: Supreme Court

Election Type: Review of law

Date of decision: Oct 16, 2013

Geolocation

Latitude: 51.58405438621691

Longitude: -0.152343750002267

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

Chester v. Secretary of State for Justice.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Chester v. Secretary of State for Justice

Primary Documents

Notifications