Previous 3 / 4 Next

Pursuant to § 72(1) of the REA and § 37(1) of the Constitutional Review Court Procedure Act (CRCPA), an electoral complaint shall be filed for the protection of the complainant's subjective rights. None of the arguments described in the complaint concern a violation of the complainant's subjective rights, rather the complaint has been filed in public interests. Arguments regarding the electronic voting software solution are general in nature and are not related to violation of the complainant's rights. The concept of secrecy of voting does not comprise a prohibition that the voting organiser cannot ascertain the fact of voting. To avoid repeated voting, a note on every voter regarding the fact of voting is entered in the polling list. The National Electoral Committee responded on 14 March 2011 in writing to the complainant's address, titled as a complaint, of 9 March 2011. Since the address did not contest any resolutions or acts of the National Electoral Committee, the National Electoral Committee could not review it as a complaint. The National Electoral Committee recommended to the complainant to have recourse to the Chancellor of Justice based on § 15 of the Chancellor of Justice Act. OPINION OF THE CHAMBER 5. First, the Chamber deems it necessary to note that the National Electoral Committee should have regarded T. Raatsin's complaint of 9 March 2011 addressed to the National Electoral Committee as a complaint against the Committee's own activity and should have forwarded it together with explanations to the Supreme Court (§ 38 of the CRCPA). It appeared from the complaint addressed to the National Electoral Committee that the complainant requested declaration of invalidity of the voting results of the Riigikogu elections because his rights were violated thereby that contrary to the Convention and its interpretations by the European Court of Human Rights, persons convicted of a crime by a court and serving a prison sentence could not participate in the Riigikogu elections pursuant to § 4(3) and § 22(3) of the REA. According to § 61(2) of the REA, the National Electoral Committee shall prepare a record concerning the voting results. The said record is a resolution of the National Electoral Committee for the purposes of § 72 of the REA and can therefore be contested in the Supreme Court. Failing to forward T. Raatsin's complaint of 9 March 2011 does not, however, preclude the Supreme Court from forming an opinion on the complaint addressed to it. 6. In the assessment of the Chamber, the Supreme Court cannot satisfy the complaint of T. Raatsin in the part in which it requests declaration of invalidity of the voting results because persons convicted of a crime and serving a prison sentence were not able to participate in the voting. Ascertainment of the voting results cannot violate the rights of T. Raatsin for the reasons hereunder. 7. Pursuant to § 72(1) of the REA, an interested person who finds that an act of a division committee, a resolution or act of a county electoral committee or a resolution or act of the National Electoral Committee violates his or her rights, may file an appeal with the Supreme Court pursuant to the procedure prescribed in the Constitutional Review Court Procedure Act. § 70(1) of the REA deems an interested person as an individual, a candidate or a political party. Based on § 72(1) and § 70(1) of the REA, a person can file a complaint only for the protection of the person's own violated rights. 8. It does not appear from the complaint of T. Raatsin that he ran as a candidate in the elections or that voting for him was hindered or that he was not able to vote. It also does not appear from the complaint that T. Raatsin is convicted of a crime and serving a prison sentence. His complaint has been filed for the protection of other persons' subjective rights. The Chamber cannot satisfy such a complaint. Also, the Chamber cannot expand T. Raatsin's right to appeal in a way requested by him. That would be in contradiction with § 72(1) of the REA and § 37(1) of the CRCPA. 9. Regarding the argument of T. Raatsin about the non-safety of the e-voting, a hypothetical possibility that someone has monitored, changed or affected in any other way his voting during the election process, as well as a similar hypothetical possibility that the electronic vote cast by him has not been delivered to the specified destination or has not been received, cannot be the reason for satisfaction of the complaint of T. Raatsin even if he himself voted electronically. A prerequisite for declaring the voting results invalid is an

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Raatsin for the Declaration of Invalidity of the Voting Results of the Riigikogu Elections of 2011

Judgment

Alleged Acts: The European Court of Human Rights found that the United Kingdom’s regulation that prisoners could not vote violated the Convention. The plaintiff argues that because the European court of Human Rights publishes its judgments in a different language and they cannot be understood in the same way that the domestic caselaw can. The plaintiff also argues that the electronic voting software was inadequate and failed to meet security requirements. The plaintiff accordingly asserts that because his right to vote was violated the entirety of the Riigikogu elections are invalid.

Procedural history: The Electoral Committee responded to the complaint and indicated that it was not competent to verify the compliance of the domestic election laws with the European Court of Human Rights. The Electoral Committee forwarded the complaint to the complaint to the Supreme Court and stated that the complaint was beyond the powers of the Electoral Committee because it did not reference any Committee Actions.

Summary: The plaintiff does not assert that he ran as a candidate or that his individual voting rights were hindered. Further, it does not appear that the plaintiff committed a crime for which he was serving a prison sentence. Accordingly, the plaintiff asserted that the complaint was brought because it violated other’s subjective rights. This configuration does not make the action reviewable by the court.

Conclusion: The court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint, but noted that there pay be a contradiction between the Riigikogu Election Act and Constitution and Article 3 Protocol No. 1 of the Convention.

Legal Issue(s)

Elections as a Fundamental Right
Electronic Voting

Region: Europe and Eurasia

Country: Estonia

Language of Decision

English

Court: Supreme Court

Election Type: Review of law

Date of decision: Mar 23, 2011

Geolocation

Latitude: 59.4490167

Longitude: 24.69960785

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

the_estonian_supreme_court-constitutional_judgment_3-4-1-7-11.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Raatsin for the Declaration of Invalidity of the Voting Results of the Riigikogu Elections of 2011

Primary Documents

Notifications