Previous 25 / 28 Next

SITAROPOULOS AND GIAKOUMOPOULOS v. GREECE JUDGMENT 23 the presumption in a democratic State must be in favour of inclusion (see Hirst, cited above, § 59), such measures are consonant with that provision. The question is, however, whether Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 goes so far as to require them to be taken. In answering that question, Article 3 should be interpreted with reference to the relevant international and comparative law (see Yumak and Sadak, cited above, § 127, and Demir and Baykara v. Turkey [GC], no. 34503/97, §§ 76 and 85, ECHR 2008) and to the domestic law of the country concerned. 72. Firstly, with regard to international law, the Court notes that neither the relevant international and regional treaties – such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights – nor their interpretation by the competent international bodies provide a basis for concluding that voting rights for persons temporarily or permanently absent from the State of which they are nationals extend so far as to require the State concerned to make arrangements for their exercise abroad (see paragraphs 26-31 above). 73. It is true that, in order to give greater effect to the right to vote in parliamentary elections, the institutions of the Council of Europe have, inter alia, invited member States to enable their citizens living abroad to participate to the fullest extent possible in the electoral process. Hence, Resolution 1459 (2005) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (see paragraph 21 above) states that member States should take appropriate measures to facilitate the exercise of voting rights to the fullest extent possible, in particular by means of postal voting. Furthermore, in Recommendation 1714 (2005), the Parliamentary Assembly invited the Council of Europe to develop its activities aimed at improving the conditions for the effective exercise of election rights by groups facing special difficulties, including expatriates. The Venice Commission, for its part, observed that since the 1980s the recognition of external voting rights had gained ground in Europe. While it also recommended that member States facilitate the exercise of expatriates’ voting rights, it did not consider that they were obliged to do so. Rather, it viewed such a move as a possibility to be considered by the legislature in each country, which had to balance the principle of universal suffrage on the one hand against the need for security of the ballot and considerations of a practical nature on the other (see, in particular, paragraph 25 above). 74. Furthermore, a comparative survey of the legislation of Council of Europe member States in this sphere shows that, while the great majority of them allow their nationals to vote from abroad, some do not (see paragraph 38 above). However, as regards those States which do allow voting from abroad, closer examination reveals that the arrangements for the exercise of expatriates’ voting rights are not uniform, but take a variety of forms. By way of example, some countries allow voting in polling stations

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Sitaropoulos v. Greece

Resources

Preview

Legal Issue and/or Topic

Election Accessibility
Regional Jurisprudence

Description: The applicants filed suit alleging that their inability to vote from home infringed on the right to vote generally. The applicants were permenately residing in France and sought to exercise their right to vote during the September 16, 2007 elections. On September 10, 2007 the applicants faxed a letter to the Greek Ambassador expressing their wish to exercise the right to vote from their homes in France. On September 12, 2007 the Ambassador stated that the applicants would not be able to vote unless they were physically in Greece. The lower court determined that the application was admissible with regard to at least some of the applicants and that there was an violation in the right to vote. The court first look at the legislative history and determined the failed bill entitled “exercise of the right to vote in parliamentary election by Greek voters living abroad” was before Parliament in 2009. This legislative action served the purpose of ensuring vital rights to Greek citizens residing abroad — a right the legislation stated was already in existence. However, conflicting reports stated that voting abroad was an option presented to the legislature to permit, but not a duty to allow. The court stated that Article Three ensures that all elections are held under conditions that ensure free expression of political preferences. Exclusion of person from the right to vote must therefore, be reconcilable with Article Three. Thus, this case pertains to the ability to exercise the right to vote. The court determined that the nature of the right to vote was not infringed because there were not sufficient facts to call into question the existing legal framework in Greece. The court found not violation of Article Three of Protocol No. 1.

Language

English

Geolocation

Latitude: 38.061568849909236

Longitude: 23.74405129550924

: Geolocation

Author(s): European Court of Human Rights

Date: Mar 25, 2012

Primary Documents

CASE OF SITAROPOULOS AND GIAKOUMOPOULOS v. GREECE.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Sitaropoulos v. Greece

Primary Documents

Notifications