Guide on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 – Right to free elections choice of the legislature (Asensio Serqueda v. Spain, Commission decision, 1994; Federación nacionalista Canaria v. Spain (dec.), 2001; Brito Da Silva Guerra and Sousa Magno v. Portugal (dec.), 2008; Mihaela Mihai Neagu v. Romania (dec.), 1994, § 31). 64. However, such measures must pursue a legitimate aim, such as that of a reasonable selection among the candidates in order to ensure their representative character and to exclude any improper candidatures, and must be proportionate to that aim. Thus, a threshold of 100,000 signatures, representing 0.55% of all citizens registered on the electoral rolls, was found to be compliant with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (Mihaela Mihai Neagu v. Romania (dec.), 1994). 65. Similarly, a requirement for such signatures to be accompanied by certificates showing that the signatories were registered on the electoral rolls must pursue the legitimate aim of ensuring that the signatories have voting rights and that each of them is supporting only one candidature. The Court found that it was not therefore disproportionate to reject a candidature which did not satisfy the formalities in question (Brito Da Silva Guerra and Sousa Magno v. Portugal (dec.), 2008). 66. However, the imposition of a minimum number of signatures and their verification must comply with the rule of law and protect the integrity of the elections. In Tahirov v. Azerbaijan, 2015, the safeguards provided by the Electoral Board, which had rejected the applicant’s candidature, were not sufficient, in particular concerning the appointment of the experts who decided on the validity of the signatures. In addition, the applicant had not been able to attend the Board’s meetings or submit his arguments, none of which had been examined by the Board. The rejection of the applicant’s candidature on account of the alleged invalidity of the signatures he had provided was thus arbitrary. Based on a report by the OSCE, the Court noted the systemic nature of these shortcomings and the number of candidatures arbitrarily rejected on those grounds. It concluded that the Government’s unilateral declaration did not suffice to guarantee respect for human rights, rejected it and pursued its examination on the merits. 67. Such threshold criteria have also been accepted by the Court in connection with the allocation of seats according to the results of the elections. Electoral systems seek to fulfil objectives which are sometimes scarcely compatible with each other: on the one hand to reflect fairly faithfully the opinions of the people, and, on the other, to channel currents of thought so as to promote the emergence of a sufficiently clear and coherent political will. Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 thus does not imply that all votes must necessarily have equal weight as regards the outcome of the election or that all candidates must have equal chances of winning, and no electoral system can eliminate “wasted votes” (Partija “Jaunie Demokrāti” and Partija “Mūsu Zeme” v. Latvia (dec.), 2007). 68. The effects of an electoral threshold can differ from one country to another and the various systems can pursue different, sometimes even opposing, political aims. One system might concentrate more on a fair representation of the parties in Parliament, while another one might aim to avoid a fragmentation of the party system and encourage the formation of a governing majority of one party in Parliament. The Court has taken the view that none of these aims can be considered unreasonable in itself. Moreover, the role played by thresholds varies in accordance with the level at which they are set and the party system in each country. A low threshold excludes only very small groupings, which makes it more difficult to form stable majorities, whereas in cases where the party system is highly fragmented a high threshold deprives many voters of representation. This large variety of situations shows the diversity of the possible options. The Court cannot therefore assess any particular threshold without taking into account the electoral system of which it forms a part (Yumak and Sadak v. Turkey [GC], 2008, §§ 131-132). 69. As regards, for example, the requirement to fulfil two alternative conditions – to obtain either at least 30% of valid votes cast in an individual island constituency, or at least 6% of valid votes cast in an entire autonomous community – the Court took the view that such a system, far from constituting a hindrance to electoral candidatures, granted a certain protection to smaller political formations (Federación nacionalista Canaria v. Spain (dec.), 2001). Similarly, the Court concluded European Court of Human Rights 18/35 Last update: 30.04.2021