Within the UN system, one generally distinguishes ‘Charter-based’ bodies, whose legal basis is in the 1945 UN Charter, from ‘treaty-based bodies’, whose creation is foreseen by a specific human rights treaty.
Charter-based Mechanisms:
Under Article 68 of the UN Charter, the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) is to ‘set up commissions in economic and social fields and for the promotion of human rights, and such other commissions as may be required for the performance of its functions’.
In 1946 the UN Commission on Human Rights was created, and one of its first tasks was to elaborate human rights standards: in 1948 it completed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and later-on the legally-binding ICCPR and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
In the mid-1970s, the Commission on Human Rights became more active in investigating and reporting on human rights violations, and since 1979, special procedures have been put in place with a thematic or country-specific focus. As of October 2021, there were 45 thematic and 13 country-specific special procedures.[1] For each of these areas, special rapporteurs are assigned with a mandate to report to the Human Rights Council.
Of particular interest for electoral matters are the reports of the country-specific mandates, as well as the reports of several thematic mandates, most notably of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, and the Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association.
In UNGA Resolution 60/251 in 2006, the Commission became the UN Human Rights Council and the process of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) was created. The UPR is a cyclical peer review process in which States declare to other States the steps they are taking to foster human rights in their country. The process involves several stages, inter alia a report by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) compiling information from treaty bodies, submissions by stakeholders (NGOs, national human rights bodies), and a national report. The outcome of the review can be found in the ‘Report of the Working Group’, at the end of each UPR cycle.
In 2007 the Human Rights Council created a new complaint procedure to examine cases submitted by individuals, groups or NGOs alleging human rights violations. The procedure is confidential.
Treaty-based Bodies
Each of the nine universal human rights treaties establishes its own ‘treaty monitoring body’, whose task it is to monitor States’ implementation of their human rights commitments specific to that treaty. These are the Committee on Civil and Political Rights (the UN Human Rights Committee, also abbreviated CCPR), the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD Committee), the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee), the Committee against Torture (CAT), the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the Committee on Migrant Workers (CMW), the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD Committee), and the Committee on Enforced Disappearances (CED). In addition, the Optional Protocol of the Convention against Torture (2002) has established a Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (SPT), a new form of treaty body focused on prevention.
Treaty bodies consist of independent human rights experts serving in their own capacity, and operate with the support of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).
Their tasks involve reviewing States parties' periodic reports, report and provide recommendations, and provide authoritative interpretation of the provisions of the relevant treaty. Treaty bodies may also, under certain conditions, consider individual cases.[2]
Finally, several human rights treaties foresee the possibility for inter-state complaints, complaints by a State party alleging violation of a treaty obligation by another State party. This procedure has never been used.
The UN Human Rights Committee
In the case of the ICCPR, the UN Human Rights Committee monitors compliance by State parties through several mechanisms:
The European human rights protection system emerged within the Council of Europe (CoE), founded in 1949.
The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (usually called European Convention on Human Rights - ECHR) was the first treaty to establish a supranational organ, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), to ensure that the States Parties fulfil their obligations.[3] The Committee of Ministers ensures continuous supervision of the execution of judgments. Until a reshaping of the system in 1998, there was a European Commission of Human Rights to which individuals had to apply. The Commission would forward only those cases deemed sufficiently grounded to the Court. In the new system, the Commission no longer exists and individuals can directly apply to the Court.
Several rights are not covered by the Convention but by the First Protocol to the European Convention, signed in 1952, specifically the right to property, the right to education and the right to free elections. According to the Preamble to the Convention, fundamental human rights and freedoms are best maintained by ‘an effective political democracy’. Article 3 of the First Protocol (P1-3) is hence of crucial importance in the Convention system.
The other substantive clauses in the Convention system use the words ‘Everyone has the right’ or ‘No one shall’, while Article 3 of the 1st Protocol (P1-3) uses the phrase ‘The High Contracting Parties undertake’; consequently, for many years the position of the Court was that P1-3 did create an obligation for State Parties to hold free elections, but did not create substantive rights for individuals. The Court then moved to the concept of subjective rights of participation - the ‘right to vote’ and the ‘right to stand for election to the legislature’.
For a complaint to be admissible, the plaintiff must qualify as a victim. There is no ‘actio popularis’ (action in the name of a collective interest) in the ECHR system. Applicants have to be personally affected by the measure they challenge.
There are implied limitations to these rights, and States have a wide margin of appreciation to establish the conditions in which they are exercised. The Court has clarified the conditions under which these limitations are acceptable in a number of judgements since the case of Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt:
Case of Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, 1987
Since the Mathieu-Mohin case, the ECtHR has developed a substantive corpus of principles in its case law related to Article P1-3. (See below : Election-related jurisprudence).
The African human rights protection system developed within the Organisation of African Unity (1963) then African Union (2001). The African Union has 55 Member States which represent all African States, including South Sudan (2011) and Morocco, which re-joined the organisation in 2017.
The OAU Charter (1963) was adopted in the post-colonial context and put a strong emphasis on sovereignty and non-interference, as demonstrated in Article II and III below. The OAU Charter makes no mention of human rights, and there was no human rights instrument before 1981.
The OAU Charter (1963)
Article I
The Organization shall have the following purposes:
(…) (d) To defend their sovereignty, their territorial integrity and independence;
Article III
The Member States, in pursuit of the purposes stated in Article II solemnly affirm and declare their adherence to the following principles:
In 1981, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights was adopted; it entered into force in 1986. It lists rights and also duties. Provisions dealing with political rights include Articles 9, 10, 11 and 13, which provides the right to participation. In 2007, the African Union adopted the African Charter on Democracy Elections and Governance (ACDEG) as the main instrument setting democratic standards across the continent. It came into force in February 2012 and as of July 2022 had 36 State parties.
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) (1981-1986)
Article 9
Each individual shall have the right to receive information.
Every individual shall have the right to express and disseminate his opinions with- in the law.
Article 10
Article 11
Every individual shall have the right to assemble freely with others. The exercise of this right shall be subject only to necessary restrictions provided for by law in particular those enacted in the interest of national security, the safety, health, ethics and rights and freedoms of others.
Article 13
Every citizen shall have the right to participate freely in the government of his country, either directly or through freely chosen representatives in accordance with the provisions of the law.
Every citizen shall have the right of equal access to the public service of his country.
The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights also creates the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (1987, Banjul), with three main roles:
The competence of the Commission to examine communications does not require explicit State acceptance. Communications can be files by direct victims, but also by any individual or organisation. In practice, most communications have been authored by NGOs (for example Interights).
The creation of the African Union (AU) has given a new impetus to the protection of human rights in Africa, as demonstrated in the Constitutive Act of the African Union (2000, 2001) by the inclusion of a reference to human rights in the objectives of the Union (Article 3) and a less absolute formulation of the principle on non-interference, which allows interference by the Union (Article 4).
During the same period, the AU adopted the Protocol to the African Charter on the Establishment of an African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights (1998, 2004). As of July 2022, the protocol has 33 States parties. The Court sits in Arusha (Tanzania) and has been operational since 2006.
The African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACtPHR) has competence for delivering advisory opinions (Article 4) on any legal matter relating to the Charter or any other relevant human rights instruments, to any Member State, to the AU organs or any other “African organisation recognised by the AU”. The Court has established in 2017 that the term "organisation" used in Article 4 (1) of the Protocol covers both non-governmental organisations and inter-governmental organisations as long as they are ‘recognised by the AU.[4]
The Court has competence for delivering advisory opinions to any Member State, and may receive complaints through several channels:
The enforcement of the Court’s judgements is under the responsibility of the African Union Executive Council (foreign affairs ministers) who shall ‘monitor the execution on behalf of the assembly’ (Article 29).
In the case of Tanganyika Law Society v. Tanzania, 2013, the Court clarified that: ‘the rights guaranteed under the Charter as stated in Article 13(1) are individual rights. They are not meant to be enjoyed only in association with some other individuals or group of individuals such as political parties’ (paragraph 98); and that Article 27(2) of the Charter allows restrictions on the rights and freedoms of individuals only on the basis of the rights of others, collective security, morality and common interest. In its reasoning, the Court mentions the United Nation’s Human Rights Committee’s position on the matter in General Comment 25 and cites jurisprudence from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.
Since then, the ACtHPR has handled a number of cases dealing with electoral issues and political rights, including independent candidates in the above-mentioned Tanganyika Law Society v. Tanzania, freedom of expression in Lohé Issa Konaté v. Burkina Faso in 2014, and the composition and functioning of EMBs in Actions pour la Protection des Droits de l’Homme v Côte d’Ivoire in 2016. Crucially, in the latter case the Court also determined that the 2007 African Charter on Democracy Elections and Governance (ACDEG) and the ECOWAS Protocol on Democracy and Governance were human rights instruments in the meaning of Article 3 of the Protocol, and that therefore it had jurisdiction to interpret and apply them.
It must be noted that in parallel, the AU Assembly adopted in 2008 a Protocol on the Statute of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights, designed to create a single court by merging the ACtHPR and the Court of Justice of the African Union (CJAU). As of January 2022, this new court was not established due to insufficient ratification of its protocol.
Finally, at sub-regional level, the Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) was formally established by a 1991 Protocol; it became operational in 2001 and received its first case in 2004. Its mandate explicitly includes human rights violations in any Member State since the 2005 Supplementary Protocol amending the Protocol relating to the Community Court of Justice, which has also expanded its admissibility rule to include individual petitions. In this context, the Court has handled an increasing number of human rights cases, especially stemming from electoral processes in member States.
Human rights protection in the Americas developed within the Organization of American States (OAS). It went through several phases of development, and operates through a dual system.
The OAS Charter did not originally foresee a specialised human rights institution. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IAComHR) was created in 1959 following the 5th Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, with the purpose to protect ‘those [human rights] set forth in the American Declaration…’ and the competence to issue recommendations to governments, make country reports and receive reports from States. The first report was on Cuba, and resulted in the exclusion of Cuba from the OAS in 1962. The IAComHR was included in the OAS Charter in 1967 following the Buenos Aires Protocol, which also called for the adoption of a human rights convention. Originally, the Commission was not meant to consider individual cases, but received that competence in 1965.
In 1969, the system was reshaped with the adoption of the American Convention on Human Rights, which entered into force in July 1978. The Convention has been ratified by 25 of the 35 OAS member States. The Convention has currently 23 State parties, since the withdrawal of Trinidad and Tobago in 1998 and of Venezuela in 2012.
The Convention creates the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (1979, San José, Costa Rica). All parties to the Convention have accepted the jurisdiction of the Court except Dominica, Grenada, and Jamaica.
These successive phases of development have shaped a dual system:
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has an advisory role and an adjudicatory role. It provides opinions on the interpretation of the Convention, and on compatibility of legislation at the request of states parties. The adjudicatory role operates as follows: the Court can consider cases submitted to it by a State party to the Convention or by the Inter-American Commission (if the defending state is a party to the Convention). Any person or group of persons, or NGO[5] may lodge petitions to the Commission containing denunciations or complaints of violation by a State party.
For OAS member States that are not party to the ACHR (procedure based on the OAS Charter)
For OAS Member State party to ACHR (procedure based on the 1969 Convention)
There are an ever-larger number of cases from the bodies supervising the application of the various human rights treaties that illustrate the interpretation of the various election elements. Indeed, over the last three decades, an important corpus of election-related jurisprudence has developed under the framework of regional human rights protection mechanisms and of UN treaty monitoring bodies. This jurisprudence has largely clarified the scope and the meaning of the norms provided in international instruments.
The list of cases below includes jurisprudence from both the UN Human Rights Committee as well as cases from the Inter-American Commission and Court on Human Rights, the African Court and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the European human rights system. It should be noted that the cases resolved by the European Court of Human Rights do not have any binding effect outside the immediate European context, but they can be useful at least for giving direction for the argumentation and possibly also for interpretation in other human rights systems. In the same way, cases resolved by treaty bodies in the Inter-American human rights system formally only apply within that system, and those resolved by the treaty bodies of the African human rights system only in the African context.
EODS has developed a searchable online database of international election-related case-law sorted by norms, country, year and court/arbiter, available on its website ().
The table below presents a selection of cases ordered by election-related principle stemming from human rights bodies. It uses the following abbreviations:
Jurisprudence related to the scope of the rights protected:
|
CCPR |
No guaranteed right to be elected as Head of State in a constitutional monarchy. No violation. |
José Luis Mazón Costa v. Spain, 23 April 2008 |
|
EComHR |
Applicability of ECHR electoral rights to sub-national level assemblies if they qualify as “legislature” (German Land). |
Timke v. Germany, 11 Sept. 1995 |
|
ECHR |
Applicability of ECHR electoral rights to sub-national level assemblies if they qualify as “legislature” (Trentino-Alto Adige) |
Repetto Visentini v. Italy, 9 mars 2021 |
|
ECHR |
Non-applicability of ECHR electoral rights to a regional council if it does not qualify as “legislature”. (French Region) |
Malarde v. France, 5 Sept. 2000
|
|
ECHR |
Non-applicability of ECHR electoral rights to a municipal council if it does not qualify as “legislature”. |
Xuereb v. Malta, 15 June 2000
|
|
ECHR |
Non-applicability of ECHR electoral rights to a referendum. |
Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi v. Turkey, 21 Nov. 2017 |
|
ECHR |
Applicability of electoral rights under ECHR to the European Parliament elections. |
Matthews v. the United Kingdom, 18 Feb. 1999 |
Jurisprudence concerning the holding of periodic elections:
|
EComHR |
Indefinite suspension of elections following a military coup was a violation. |
“Greek case”, Denmark et al. v. Greece (1969) |
|
EComHR |
Interval between elections must ensure that the will of the electorate is still reflected. |
Timke v. Germany, 11 Sept. 1995 |
|
AComHPR |
Violation of article 13 of the African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights in a context where the king exercised all-encompassing powers. |
Lawyers of Human Rights v. Swaziland, 11 May 2005 |
Jurisprudence concerning the right to vote:
|
CCPR |
Right to vote. Residency requirement. The exclusion of the authors from the Referendum on New Caledonia’s future status due to a 10 years residency requirement (1998) and 20 years requirement (2014) was not disproportionate, because this was “a self-determination process involving the participation of persons able to prove sufficiently strong ties to the territory whose future is being decided.” No violation of Art. 25 |
Marie-Hélène Gillot et al. v. France, 15 July 2002 |
|
CCPR |
Right to vote. Exclusion based on political affiliation. A separatist proponent was detained and his name removed from list of voters while not convicted, and a without legal basis. Violations of articles 9, paragraph 1; 10, paragraphs 1 and 2 (a); 12, paragraph 1; and 25 (b) of the Covenant. |
Fongum Gorji-Dinka v. Cameroon, 17 March 2005 |
|
CCPR |
Right to vote. Prisoners. A political opponent to the President was detained and disqualified from voting and standing for elections after he was found in contempt of court and punished with two years prison sentence and, after the sentence was served, another seven years of suspension of the right to elect and be elected. Violations of articles 19 and 25 of ICCPR. |
M.S.B. Dissanayake v. Sri Lanka, 22 July 2008 |
|
CCPR |
Right to vote. Prisoners. A blanket ban applied automatically to anyone serving a prison sentence was a violation of Art. 25 |
Denis Yevdokimov v. the Russian Federation, 21 March 2011 |
|
CRPD |
Right to vote, mental disability. CRPD (Art. 27) does not foresee any possibility to restrict suffrage rights on the basis of mental of physical disability. |
Zsolt Bujdosó and others v. Hungary, 9 September 2013 |
|
IAComm.HR |
Genuine elections. Right to vote. Right to be elected. The country's system of senator-for-life' - such as Pinochet - were senators-for-life were not elected in direct, popular elections, was in breach of articles 23 and 24 of the American Convention. |
Andres Aylwin Azocar et al. v. Chile, 27 Dec. 1999 |
|
IAComm.HR |
Genuine elections. Right to vote, Right to be elected. The exclusion of residents of the District of Columbia from designating members of the US Congress was a violation of Article II and XX of the American Declaration. |
Statehood Solidarity Committee v. United States, 29 Dec. 2003 |
|
AComHPR |
Right to vote. Right to be elected. Citizenship. Leader of an opposition party was granted citizenship after years of denial, but could not run for president due to ban on ‘citizens by registration’. |
Modise v. Botswana (Comm. No. 97/93(2001)), |
|
AComHPR |
Right to vote. Right to be elected. Citizenship. Requirement to prove that both parents were Zambians by birth or descent in order to run for president was a violation of article 13. |
Legal Resources Foundation v. Zambia, 7 May 2001 |
|
AComHPR |
Right to vote, persons held in psychiatric facilities. People held in psychiatric facilities were denied political rights. The Commission stated that “there are no objective basis within the legal system of the Respondent State to exclude mentally disabled persons from political participation.” |
Purohit and Moore v. the Gambia, 29 may 2003 |
|
EComHR |
Right to vote, residency requirement. Exclusion from taking part in the Regional Council elections in Trentino-Alto Adige, for lacking a prerequisite of four years' continuous residence in the Region was not deemed arbitrary and was not violating P1-3. |
Polacco and Garofalo v. Italy, 15 Sept. 1997 |
|
ECHR |
Right to vote, residency requirement. The exclusion from participation in a referendum on status of New Caledonia based on a 10 years residency requirement pursued a legitimate aim and was proportionate. No violation of P1-3. |
Py v. France, 11 Jan. 2005 |
|
ECHR |
Right to vote, criminal context. Temporary suspension of voting rights as preventive measure against suspected mafioso. While temporarily suspending voting rights of persons against whom there is evidence of mafia membership pursues a legitimate aim, but there was no concrete evidence on which a suspicion that he belonged to the mafia could be based, and the measure could not be regarded as proportionate. Violation of P1-3. |
Labita v. Italy, 6 Apr. 2001 |
|
ECHR |
Right to vote, criminal context. Exclusion as a result of being under special police supervision after a series of criminal complaint, was deemed disproportionate. Violation of P1.3. |
Vito Sante Santoro v. Italy, 1 Oct. 2004 |
|
ECHR |
Right to vote, restrictions based on national origin. Resident of Nicosia was denied registration as a voter on the basis that he was a member of the Turkish-Cypriot community, who, under the Constitution could not be registered in the Greek-Cypriot VL. He was , as a consequence, denied any possibility of political participation. Violation of P1-3 and of Art. 14. |
Aziz v. Cyprus, 22 June 2004 |
|
ECHR |
Right to vote, prisoners. A blanket ban applied automatically to anyone serving a custodial sentence was a violation of P1-3. |
Hirst v. the UK (No.2), 6 Oct. 2005 |
|
ECHR |
Right to vote, prisoners. A blanket ban applied automatically to anyone serving a custodial sentence was a violation of P1-3. |
Greens and M.T. v. the United Kingdom, 23 Nov. 2011 |
|
ECHR |
Right to vote, prisoners. A blanket ban based in the constitution, to anyone serving a custodial sentence was a violation of P1-3. |
Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia, 4 July 2013 |
|
ECHR |
Right to vote, prisoners. A blanket ban applied automatically to anyone serving a custodial sentence of more than a year was a violation of P1-3. |
Frodl v. Austria, 8 Apr. 2010 |
|
ECHR |
Right to vote, prisoners. A voting ban applying only to persons convicted of certain well-determined offences or to a custodial sentence exceeding a statutory threshold was not a violation of P1-3. |
Scoppola v. Italy (No. 3), 22 May 2012 |
|
ECHR |
Right to vote, bankruptcy. Voting ban on basis of bankruptcy proceedings was a violation of P1-3. |
Albanese v. Italy, 23 March 2006 |
|
ECHR |
Right to vote. Guardianship. A blanket exclusion of all persons placed under guardianship was a violation of P1-3. |
Alajos Kiss v. Hungary, 20 May 2010 |
|
ECHR |
Right to vote. Mental disability. Disenfranchisement of a mentally disabled person was not a violation if based on thorough individualised assessment by a court. |
Caamaño Valle v. Spain, 11 Aug. 2021 |
|
ECHR |
Right to vote, mental disability. Disenfranchisement of persons divested of legal capacity affecting only a small group and subject to thorough parliamentary and judicial review was not a violation. |
Strøbye and Rosenlind v. Denmark, 6 Sept. 2021 |
|
ECHR |
Right to vote, citizens abroad. No obligation to organise voting for nationals living abroad. |
Sitaropoulos and Giakoumopoulos, 15 March 2012 |
|
ECHR |
Right to vote, citizens abroad. No obligation to organise voting for nationals living abroad. |
Shindler v. the United Kingdom, 7 May 2013 |
|
ECHR |
Right to vote, citizens abroad. Restrictions to voting options for citizens abroad not a violation. |
Oran v. Turkey, 15 Apr. 2014 |
Jurisprudence concerning the right and opportunity to be elected:
|
CCPR |
Right to be elected. Exclusion based on political affiliation. Restrictions on political activity outside the only recognized political party amount to an unreasonable restriction of the right to participate in the conduct of public affairs. Violation of Art. 25. |
Peter Chiiko Bwalya v. Zambia, 14 July 1993 |
|
CCPR |
Right to be elected. Exclusion based on political affiliation. Deprivation of a trade union member from her political rights for 15 years solely because of their political opinion was a violation of Article 25. |
Alba Pietraroia v. Uruguay, 27 March 1981 |
|
CCPR |
Right to be elected. Exclusion based on status. The exclusion of a serving policeman from taking his seat as an elected member of a municipal council could be justified in order to avoid conflict of interest. No violation of Art. 25. |
Debrezceny v. the Netherlands, 3 April 1995 |
|
CCPR |
Right to be elected. Exclusion based on competency. Denial of registration as a candidate due to failing a language test, even though she held a valid language certificate, amounted to restriction based on subjective criteria, and was a violation of article 25. |
Antonina Ignatane v. Latvia, 25 July 2001 |
|
CCPR |
Right to be elected, loss of right. A seven years prohibition on standing in elections for a breach of the Constitution was considered disproportionate under the circumstances. |
M.S.B. Dissanayake v. Sri Lanka, 22 July 2008 |
|
CCPR |
Right to be elected. Registration requirements. Registration was denied for made-up reasons not provided in law. Violation of art. 25. |
Valery Lukyanchik v. Belarus, 21 October 2009 |
|
CCPR |
Right to be elected. Registration requirements. The mandatory requirement for candidates in general elections to declare their community classification without the corresponding updated figures of the community affiliation of the population in general would appear to be arbitrary and therefore violates article 25 (b) of the Covenant. |
Devianand Narrain et al. v. Mauritius, 27 July 2012 |
|
CCPR |
Right to be elected, prior conduct. Under the specific circumstances of the case, lifelong disqualifications to stand as a candidate for various elected and appointed offices lacked necessary foreseeability and objectivity and thus amounted to an unreasonable restriction. |
Rolandas Paksas v. Lithuania, 25 March 2014 |
|
CCPR |
Right to be elected. Denied registration. EMB refusal to register a candidate from an opposition party without objective and reasonable criteria was a violation of article 25. |
Leonid Sudalenko v. Belarus, 19 October 2010 |
|
IACommHR |
Genuine elections. Right to vote, Right to be elected. The country's 'senator-for-life' system. 20.83% of Senate - such as Pinochet - were senators-for-life were not elected in direct, popular elections, was in breach of articles 23 and 24 of the American Convention. |
Andres Aylwin Azocar et al. v. Chile, 27 Dec. 1999 |
|
IACtHR |
Right to be elected. Minority rights. Effective remedy. An indigenous organisation recognised as ‘regional political party’ could not run in municipal elections, for failing to meet specific requirements (minimum number of candidates, delay since obtaining legal status, etc.). The Court noted that while YATAMA was able to gain legal status as a political party, the requirements to do so disregarded the customs, organization, and culture of the candidates proposed by YATAMA. The State’s restrictions on participation through a political party impeded the YATAMA members’ full exercise of the right to be elected and the State did not justify this restriction with a useful or legitimate purpose. Furthermore, YATAMA had had no access to a judicial remedy. Violation of article 23 and 25. |
Yatama v. Nicaragua, 23 June 2005 |
|
IACtHR |
Right to be elected. Independent candidates. Effective remedy. The registration of a candidate for president was refused because the electoral law did not allow independent candidates; there were no effective judicial procedures for an independent candidate to challenge the denial of registration. The Court held “local and federal elections cannot be compared”, and the Convention did not require that independent candidates be allowed to stand in federal elections. However, the Court did find a violation of the requirement for an effective remedy. |
Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico, 6 Aug. 2008 |
|
IACtHR |
Right to be elected. Administrative disqualification. Effective remedy. A candidate in local elections was disqualified as a result of an administrative sanction and not by a court. The Court found a violation of Article 23 of the American Convention, as the restriction imposed by way of a sanction was not imposed by a “competent court,” nor was there a “conviction,” and the sanction was not applied as a result of a “criminal proceeding”. |
López Mendoza v. Venezuela, 1 Sept. 2011
|
|
IAComHR |
Right to be elected. Registration requirements. Effective remedy. The petitioner (ex-wife of former president Fujimori) was denied the right to stand, along with her candidates list, due to a defect of formality. The IAComHR, in view of the urgency of the matter and the imminence of the elections, ordered the national election board to provisionally register the candidate. It then concluded that the petitioner had not been given an opportunity to correct their registration formalities, and that there was no recourse against the National Elections Board's decisions. |
Susana Higuchi Miyagawa v. Peru, 6 Oct. 1999 |
|
IACtHR |
Right to be elected. Right to vote. Freedom of expression and assembly. In the context of the forced disappearance of a Mayan indigenous political leader and mayor. The Court found the State violated several articles of the American Convention on Human Rights, including a violation of article 23 (Right to Participate in Government). The Court also found violations in relation to 1.1 for articles 7.1, 5.1, 5.2, 4.1, 3, 22, 17, 19, 8.1 and 25.1 but found no violation of article 2. |
Chitay Nech and others v. Guatemala, 25 May 2010 |
|
IACtHR |
Right to be elected. Right to vote. Freedom of expression and assembly. The case relates to the extrajudicial execution of a senator and leader of the opposition in 1994, in relation to his alleged links with the FARC; it refers to the responsibility of the State for failing to investigate and prosecute those responsible. The Court found violations in relation to Article 1.1 of Articles: 4.1 (right to life), 5.1 (humane treatment), 8.1 (fair trial) and 25 (judicial protection), 11(privacy), 13.1 (freedom of thought and expression), 16 (freedom of association) And 23 (right to participate in government). |
Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, 26 May 2010 |
|
ACtHPR |
Right to be elected. independent candidates. Lack of possibility for independent candidates was a violation of Art. 13 of ACHPR and of freedom of association. |
Tanganyika Law Society v. Tanzania, 14 June 2013 |
|
AComHPR |
Right to be elected, persons held in psychiatric facilities. People held in psychiatric facilities were denied political rights. The Commission stated that “there are no objective basis within the legal system of the Respondent State to exclude mentally disabled persons from political participation.” |
Purohit and Moore v. the Gambia, 29 may 2003 |
|
AComHPR |
Right to be elected. Citizenship. A requirement that candidates for president and their parents must all have been born in Cote d’Ivoire was found a violation of article 13 of the African Charter because suffrage was based on parents’ citizenship by descent. |
Mouvement ivoirien des droits humains (MIDH) v. Côte d’Ivoire 28 July 2008 |
|
ECHR |
Right to be elected. Disqualifications The legislation precluded certain categories of holders of public office from being elected in any constituency where they had performed their duties for more than three months in the three years preceding the elections: the disqualification would moreover stand notwithstanding a candidate’s prior resignation. The Court found that this measure pursued a legitimate aim of ensuring that candidates enjoyed equal means of influence and protecting the electorate from pressure from public officials. No violation of P1-3. |
Gitonas and others v. Greece, 1 July 1997 |
|
ECHR |
Right to be elected. Disqualifications Regarding a law limiting local government officials from involvement in political activities such as holding offices in political parties and standing for and canvassing at elections. The ECtHR concluded, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, but that there had been a violation of Article 10 and that it was not necessary to consider whether there had been a violation of Article 11. |
Ahmed and others v. UK, 2 Sept. 1998 |
|
ECHR |
Right to be elected. Party dissolution. The applicants forfeited their seats in parliament following the dissolution of their party. The Court concluded that the penalty could not be regarded as proportionate to any legitimate aim, and that the measure was incompatible with the very substance of the applicants' right to be elected and sit in parliament under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 and infringed the sovereign power of the electorate who elected them as members of parliament. |
Selim Sadak and others v. Turkey, 11 June 2002 |
|
ECHR |
Right to be elected. Language proficiency. Exclusion for lack of proficiency in the national language pursued a legitimate aim but was disproportionate and lacked safeguards against arbitrary decisions. Violation of P1-3. |
Podkolzina v. Latvia, 9 Apr. 2002 |
|
ECHR |
Right to be elected. Ukrainian national with refugee status in the US was denied registration as a candidate for parliament on the basis that he lived outside of the country and had given untruthful information regarding his residence. The ECtHR found a violation of article 3 of Protocol No. 1 because there were circumstances present that explained the uncertain status of the applicant’s residency, namely his fear of persecution in Ukraine. The Court noted the difficult position of the applicant that “if he had stayed in Ukraine his personal safety or physical integrity may have been seriously endangered, rendering the exercise of any political rights impossible, whereas, in leaving the country, he was also prevented from exercising such rights.” |
Melnychenko v. Ukraine, 30 March 2005 |
|
ECHR |
Right to be elected, deposit requirement. A deposit requirement of approx. 160 EUR for parliamentary elections (not refundable) was within the margin of discretion of States and not a violation of P1-3. |
Sukhovetskyy v. Ukraine, 28 March 2006 |
|
ECHR |
Right to be elected, exclusion based on political affiliation. Exclusion of a member of a party which had attempted a coup d’état in 1991 was not a violation of P1-3, but should be rapidly reviewed by parliament. |
Ždanoka v. Latvia, 16 March 2006 |
|
ECHR |
Right to be elected, exclusion based on status. (clergy) Exclusion was based on an excessively vague term (“clergyman”), and therefore a violation of P1-3. |
Seyidzade v. Azerbaijan, 3 Mar. 2010
|
|
ECHR |
Right to be elected, information requirements. Exclusion of all candidates on a list on basis that several of them had submitted inaccurate information was a violation of P1-3. |
Russian Conservative Party of Entrepeneurs v. Russia, 11 Apr. 2007 |
|
ECHR |
Right to be elected. Information requirements. Requirement that candidates submit information on employment was not a violation of P1-3. |
Krasnov and Skuratov v. Russia, 19 July 2007 |
|
ECHR |
Right to be elected. Information requirements. The registration of a candidate was refused for having provided false information about the candidate’s assets. Noting the minor nature of the property rights information concerned, along with the existence of objectively justified and sufficient reasons for his omission, led the Court to conclude the disqualification was disproportionate The ECtHR found a violation of article 3 of Protocol No. 1. |
Sarukhanyan v. Armenia, 27 May 2008 |
|
ECHR |
Right to be elected, exclusion based on prior conduct. Exclusion of a former KGB official on the basis of a ten year prolongation of a general ban was no longer legitimate and arbitrary. |
Adamsons v. Latvia, 24 June 2008 |
|
ECHR |
Right to be elected, exclusion based on prior conduct. Candidates who had allegedly collaborated with the former State security agencies were struck off the lists of candidates by the election commission at the request of the political parties who had nominated them only ten days before the election day, and on the basis of legislation passed less than three months earlier. Those strike-out decisions were subsequently declared null and void but, as the electoral authorities had not reinstated the applicants as candidates, they were unable to stand for election. Court concluded that the applicants did not have at their disposal effective remedies in respect of their complaint under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 |
Petkov and others v. Bulgaria,11 June 2009 |
|
ECHR |
Right to be elected. Citizenship Exclusion based on dual citizenship was a violation of P1-3. |
Tanase and Chirtoaca v. Moldova, 27 Apr. 2010 |
|
ECHR |
Right to be elected, restriction based on ethnicity. Ineligibility of candidates not belonging to one of the three “constituent peoples” to run for the second chamber of parliament was a violation. |
Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, 22 Dec. 2009 |
|
ECHR |
Right to be elected, restriction based on ethnicity. Ineligibility of candidates not belonging to one of the three “constituent peoples” to run for the second chamber of parliament and for the presidency was a violation. |
Zornic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, 15 Dec. 2014 |
|
ECHR |
Right to be elected. Effective remedy. Genuine elections A parliamentary candidate reported irregularities and fraud during the elections, but the election management bodies and courts did not investigate the alleged violations in depth. The Court noted that the conduct of the electoral commissions and courts and their respective decisions revealed an appearance of lack of any genuine concern for the protection of the applicant's right to stand for election. Violation of P1-3. |
Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, 8 Apr. 2010 |
|
ECHR |
Right to be elected. Effective remedy. Genuine elections that reflect the will of the electorate. Invalidation of election results. Arbitrary invalidation by EMB of election results in a constituency resulting in winning candidate being deprived of mandate was a violation of P1-3. |
Kerimova v. Azerbaijan, 30 Sept. 2010 |
|
ECHR |
Right to be elected. Effective remedy. Prior conduct. A former President was prohibited from standing for parliamentary elections due to his previous removal from office after an impeachment procedure based on prohibition applying to any person removed from office by impeachment proceedings. The ECtHR found a violation of article 3 of Protocol No. 1 because the prohibition was a permanent and irreversible disqualification from standing for election as a result of a general provision without regard to the particular circumstances. |
Paksas v. Lithuania, 6 Jan. 2011 |
|
ECHR |
Right to be elected. Effective remedy. Genuine elections that reflect the will of the electorate. Invalidation of election results. Arbitrary invalidation by EMB of election results in several polling stations was a violation of P1-3. |
Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (No. 2), 10 Jan. 2012 |
|
ECHR |
Right to be elected. Effective remedy. Disqualification for campaign violation. A candidacy was cancelled on grounds of alleged private funding of urban improvement works, allegedly with the purpose of winning over the support and votes of the residents, contrary to provision banning use of “unfair and illegal means of gaining voter support”. The ECtHR found a violation of article 3 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention, as “the applicant’s disqualification from running for election was not based on sufficient and relevant evidence, the procedures of the electoral commission and the domestic courts did not afford the applicant sufficient guarantees against arbitrariness, and the domestic authorities’ decisions were unreasoned and arbitrary.” |
Orujov v. Azerbaijan, 26 July 2011 |
|
ECHR |
Right to be elected. Effective remedy. Cancellation of results. The election results of several polling stations and as a result the election in one entire constituency were invalidated by the election administration on grounds of alleged “impermissible alterations” in the local electoral commissions’ protocols. The Court reiterated that Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 guarantees not a right to win the election per se, but a right to stand for election in fair and democratic conditions. The ECtHR held that the decision was arbitrary, unlawful and a violation of article 3 of Protocol No. 1, as the decision to invalidate the results “was totally unsubstantiated”. |
Hajili v. Azerbaijan, 10 Jan. 2012 |
|
ECHR |
Right to be elected. Effective remedy. Disqualification for campaign violation. The applicant had been disqualified from parliamentary elections for alleged early campaigning and vote buying. The Court held that the domestic procedures had not afforded him sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness at any stage of the proceedings. The domestic authorities’ decisions had lacked sufficient reasoning and adequate assessment of the evidence to establish the applicant’s responsibility for the misconduct attributed to him. |
Abil v. Azerbaijan, 5 March 2020 |
|
ECHR |
Right to be elected. Effective remedy. Disqualification for campaign violation. The registration of a candidate in parliamentary elections was cancelled on grounds of alleged promise of money to the electors, allegedly with the purpose of winning over their votes. The ECtHR found a violation of article 3 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention, as “the applicant’s disqualification from running for election was not based on sufficient and relevant evidence, the procedures of the electoral commission and the domestic courts did not afford the applicant sufficient guarantees against arbitrariness, and the domestic authorities’ decisions lacked sufficient reasoning and were arbitrary.” |
Khanhuseyn Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, 21 Feb. 2012 |
|
ECHR |
Right to be elected. Effective remedy. Disqualification for campaign violation. Registration of a candidate was cancelled on grounds of insulting another candidate and of alleged promise of money to the electors, allegedly with the purpose of winning over their votes. The ECtHR found a violation of article 3 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention, as “the applicant’s disqualification from running for election was not based on sufficient and relevant evidence, the procedures of the electoral commission and the domestic courts did not afford the applicant sufficient guarantees against arbitrariness, and the domestic authorities’ decisions lacked sufficient reasoning and were arbitrary.” |
Atakishi v. Azerbaijan, 28 Feb. 2012 |
|
ECHR |
Right to be elected. Independent candidates. Citizens abroad. An independent candidate who stood without party affiliations in the parliamentary elections complained that Turkish citizens who had lived abroad for more than six months could only vote for the lists presented by political parties, and not for independent candidates, like himself. The Court noted that Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 did not require the Contracting Parties to enable their citizens living abroad to exercise the right to vote. Furthermore, it was clear from the work of the Venice Commission that a refusal to grant the right to vote to citizens living abroad or limits on that right did not constitute a restriction of the principle of universal suffrage. No violation of P1-3. |
Oran v. Turkey, 15 Apr. 2014 |
|
ECHR |
Right to be elected, banned party. Disqualification of candidates of a political party that had been declared illegal was not a violation. |
Herritarren Zerrenda v. Spain, 30 June 2009 |
|
ECHR |
Right to be elected, banned party. Disqualification of candidates of a political party that had been declared illegal was not a violation. |
Etxeberria and Others v. Spain, 30 June 2009 |
|
ECHR |
Right to be elected, banned party. Disqualification of candidates of a political party that had been declared illegal was not a violation. |
Eusko Abertzale Ekintza – Acción Nacionalista Vasca (EAE-ANV) v. Spain, 7 Dec. 2010 |
|
ECHR |
Right to be elected, banned party. Exclusion due to political party’s disqualification three days before elections was a violation. |
Political Party “Patria” and Others v. the Republic of Moldova, 2020 |
|
ECHR |
Right to be elected. Banned party. Freedom of association. Temporary limitations had been imposed on the applicant’s political rights on account of the final dissolution of the party to which she belonged. The measures pursued the legitimate aims of preventing disorder and protecting the rights and freedoms of others. But were disproportionate as no distinction was made between the various degrees of involvement of members in the impugned activities. Violation of P1-3. |
Kavakci v. Turkey, 5 Apr. 2007 |
|
ECHR |
Right to be elected, incompatibilities. Ex-post disqualification on basis of new rule prohibiting parliamentarians from holding any professional position was a violation. |
Lykourezos v. Greece, (2008) |
|
ECHR |
Right to be elected, right to take office. Ex-post disqualification through a change of seat allocation formula was a violation. |
Paschalidis, Koutmeridis and Zaharadis v. Greece (2008) |
|
ECHR |
Right to be elected, support signatures. Signatures verification procedure lacked safeguards, and implementation was arbitrary and a violation. |
Tahirov v. Azerbaijan, 11 June 2015 |
|
ECHR |
Right to be elected. Electoral system, threshold. A 10 per cent national threshold for parliamentary elections appears excessive and should be lowered, but does not constitute a violation. |
Yumak and Sadak v. Turkey, 8 Jul 2008 |
Genuine elections that reflect the will of the electorate
|
ECHR |
Genuine elections that reflect the will of the electorate, right to be elected. Effective remedy. Lack of consideration of complaint on potentially serious irregularities, by the election commission and courts, was a violation of P1-3. |
Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, 8 April 2010 |
|
ECHR |
Genuine elections that reflect the will of the electorate. Invalidation of election results. Arbitrary invalidation by EMB of election results in a constituency resulting in winning candidate being deprived of mandate was a violation of P1-3. |
Kerimova v. Azerbaijan, 30 Sept. 2010 |
|
ECHR |
Genuine elections that reflect the will of the electorate. Invalidation of election results. Arbitrary invalidation by EMB of election results in several polling stations was a violation of P1-3. |
Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (No. 2), 10 Jan. 2012 |
|
ECHR |
Genuine elections that reflect the will of the electorate. Invalidation of election results. Arbitrary invalidation by EMB of election results in several polling stations was a violation of P1-3. |
Hajili v. Azerbaijan, 10 Jan. 2012 |
|
ECHR |
Genuine elections that reflect the will of the electorate. The deliberate practice of organising military voting in breach of the requirement of the Electoral Code was a violation of P1-3. |
Karimov v. Azerbaijan, 25 Sept. 2014 |
|
ECHR |
Genuine elections that reflect the will of the electorate. EMB-related. The form of the EMB (here the composition of the electoral commission) is not determined in the ECHR, but it should act impartially. |
Georgian Labour Party v. Georgia, 8 July 2008 |
|
ACtHPR |
Genuine elections that reflect the will of the electorate. EMB-related. Lack of independence of EMB is a violation of ACHPR, ACDEG and ECOWAS PDGG. |
Apdh v. Cote d'Ivoire, 18 Nov. 2016 |
|
ECHR |
Genuine elections that reflect the will of the electorate. Right to be elected. The election commission annulled voting results in four polling stations, which changed applicant from winning candidate to losing candidate. The ECtHR found a violation of article 3 of Protocol No. 1 because the decision to annul the voting results in the four polling stations was arbitrary and not proportionate to any legitimate aim pleaded by the government. |
Kovach v. Ukraine, 7 Feb. 2008 |
|
ECHR |
Genuine elections that reflect the will of the electorate. Right to be elected. Effective remedy. Invalidation of election results in constituencies won by the applicants, by the Constitutional Court on the basis of vague and unsubstantiated allegations of fraud, and without clear legal reasoning. Violation of P1-3. |
Kerimli and Alibeyli v. Azerbaijan, 10 Jan. 2012 |
|
ECHR |
Genuine elections that reflect the will of the electorate. Right to be elected. Effective remedy. Minority representation. A mandate of a minority population in the national parliament was not allocated to the applicant, who had secured the greatest number of votes at a national level, but to another candidate, who had secured a large number of votes in a single constituency. The ECtHR found a violation of article 3 of Protocol No. 1 because “the lack of clarity of the electoral law as regards national minorities and the lack of sufficient guarantees as to the impartiality of the bodies responsible for examining the applicant’s challenges impaired the very essence of the rights guaranteed by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.” The Court also found a violation of Article 13 (right to effective remedy). |
Grosaru v. Romania (ECtHR, Jdg. of 2 March 2010), |
|
ECHR |
Right to be elected. Genuine elections that reflect the will of the electorate. Seat allocation formula. Elected MPs were deprived of their seats following an unpredictable departure by the Special Supreme Court from its settled case-law concerning the calculation of the electoral quotient. The change in case-law, after the elections, had changed the meaning and weight given to blank ballot papers and that it had therefore been liable to alter the will of the electorate as expressed in the ballot box. It had also created a disparity in the manner in which sitting MPs had been elected. Violation of P1-3. |
Paschalidis, Koutmeridis and Zaharakis v. Greece, 10 Apr. 2008
|
Jurisprudence concerning equal suffrage
|
CCPR |
Equal suffrage, malapportionment. The number of voters per municipal district ranged from 200 to 1,400 voters. Committee found violation, stating: “in the absence of any reference by the State party to factors that might explain the differences in the number of inhabitants or registered voters per elected representative in different parts of Rožòava, the Committee is of the opinion that the State party violated the author's rights under article 25 of the Covenant. |
Istvan Mátyus v. Slovakia, 22 July 2002 |
Jurisprudence concerning freedom of expression
|
CCPR |
Freedom of expression. Freedom of the press. Publication of opinion polls. The fining of a journalist for violating a ban on the publication of opinion polls starting 23 days before elections, did not violate article 19 of ICCPR. |
Kim Jong-Cheol v. the Republic of Korea, 27 July 2007 |
|
CCPR |
Freedom of expression. Campaign material. Seizure and destruction of campaign material, and fining of candidate for transporting it, violated Art. 19 and consequently Article 25 of ICCPR. |
Viktor Korneenko v. Belarus, 24 April 2009 |
|
CCPR |
Freedom of expression. Call for boycott. Fining for distribution of leaflets calling for the boycott of elections was a violation of article 19 of ICCPR. |
Shchetko and Shchetko v. Belarus, 8 August 2006 |
|
ACtHPR |
Freedom of expression. Defamation Imprisonment for defamation was a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression as protected under the ACHPR, ICCPR and ECOWAS Treaty. The court ordered Burkina Faso to amend its legislation |
Lohé Issa Konaté v. Burkina Faso, 5 December 2014 |
|
ECHR |
Freedom of expression. Defamation. The fining of a journalist and seizure of a publication after it compared a candidate’s programme with Nazism was a violation of Art. 10. |
Oberschlick v. Austria (1), 23 May 1991 |
|
ECHR |
Freedom of expression. Defamation. The fining of a journalist for calling a politician ‘an idiot’, as part of a political discussion and in response to a provocative speech, was a violation of Art. 10. |
Oberschlick v. Austria (2), 1 July 1997 |
|
ECHR |
Freedom of expression. Defamation. The fining of a journalist for calling a politician ‘grotesque’, ‘boorish’ and ‘foul’ after his provocative political writings, was a violation of Art. 10. |
Lopes Gomes da Silva v. Portugal, 28 Sept. 2000 |
|
ECHR |
Freedom of expression. Defamation. The sentencing of a candidate to a suspended prison term for having accused, during an election campaign, a high level politician of abuse of power. Assessing that the statements were part of a political debate, and recalling that ”very strong reasons are required to justify restrictions on political speech”, the court found the measure disproportionate. Violation of art. 10 |
Malisiewicz-Gasior v. Poland, 6 Apr. 2006 |
|
ECHR |
Freedom of expression. Ceiling of expenses. A ceiling of 5 GBP applied during an election process to a non-candidate wishing to inform the public about candidates’ positions on abortion, pursued the legitimate aim of equality between candidates, but was a not necessary to achieve that aim. Violation of Art. 10. |
Bowman v. U.K., 19 Feb. 1998 |
|
ECHR |
Freedom of expression. Imprisonment of a party member for the publication of a leaflet which allegedly contained separatist propaganda and incitement to violence. Assessing the content of the leaflet, the Court saw the conviction as disproportionate. Violation of Art. 10. |
Incal v. Turkey, 9 June 1998 |
|
ECHR |
Freedom of expression. Media. Paid advertising. A TV station was fined for violating a ban on political advertising when it aired ads of a small party. Assessing that in contrast to the major political parties, the small party was hardly ever mentioned in the media, and that without paid advertising to put its message across to the public the party was at a disadvantage compared with major parties, the Court found the measure to be disproportionate. Violation of art. 10. |
TV Vest & Rogaland Pensjonistparti v. Norway, 11 Dec. 2008 |
|
ECHR |
Freedom of expression. Media coverage. Russian opposition parties complained that the 2003 parliamentary elections had not been free as a result of unequal and biased media coverage. The Court found that, while equality in TV coverage had not been achieved in reality, differences had not been sufficient to find that the elections had not been “free” within the meaning of the Convention. No violation. |
Communist Party of Russia and Others v. Russia, 19 June 2012 |
|
ECHR |
Freedom of expression. Media coverage. Opinion polls. Ban on publication of opinion polls two weeks prior to elections did not affect voters’ rights. |
Dimitras and Others v. Greece, 4 Jul.2017
|
Jurisprudence concerning freedom of association
|
ECHR |
Freedom of association. No democracy without pluralism. General position of the Court on the link between democracy and pluralism (para.89-93) |
Gorzelik and others v. Poland, 17 Feb. 2004 |
|
ECHR |
Freedom of association. Dissolution of a party. Dissolution of a party accused of inciting Kurdish separatism. In the Court's view, it is of the essence of democracy to allow diverse political programmes to be proposed and debated, even those that call into question the way a State is currently organised, provided that they do not harm democracy itself. Violation of article 11. |
Socialist Party and others v. Turkey, 25 May 1998 |
|
ECHR |
Freedom of association. Dissolution of a party. Dissolution of the party on grounds of “having carried on activities likely to undermine the territorial integrity of the State and the unity of the nation” and because of its name. The Court found that there could be no justification for hindering a political group solely because it sought to debate in public the situation of part of the population, and because of the name it chooses. Violation of article 11. |
United Communist Party and others v. Turkey, 30 Jan. 1998 |
|
ECHR |
Freedom of association. Dissolution of a party. The ban of the party based on the incompatibility of its manifesto with democratic principles was legitimate, proportionate and, in light of the manifesto’s content, necessary and not a violation of art. 11 |
Refah Partisi (Welfare Party) and others v. Turkey, 13 Feb. 2003 |
|
ECHR |
Freedom of association. Dissolution of a party. The ban of the party based on the incompatibility of its manifesto with democratic principles, even though it was no threat to the democratic regime, was disproportionate and was a violation. |
Linkov v. the Czech Republic, 7 Dec. 2006 |
|
ECHR |
Freedom of association. Dissolution of party. Dissolution of party three days before elections on grounds of illegal foreign funding was not based on sufficient evidence and was arbitrary, violation. |
Party “Patria” and Others v. the Republic of Moldova, 4 Aug. 2020 |
|
ECHR |
Freedom of association. Freedom of assembly. Prohibition of a Macedonian minority party from holding meetings on alleged grounds of danger to the public order. The ECtHR found no real foreseeable risk of violent action or of incitement to violence or any other form of rejection of democratic principles. Violation of article 11. |
Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, 2 Oct. 2001 |
|
ECHR |
Freedom of association. Freedom of assembly. Members of the dissolved political party were prohibited from founding and were stripped of their parliamentary mandates. The Court found violation of article 3 of Protocol No. 1. |
Silay v. Turkey, 5 Apr. 2007 |
|
ECHR |
Freedom of association. Freedom of expression. The military, police and security forces were prohibited from engaging in any political activity by the Constitution. The ECtHR found that, against the background of recent history and the impact of a politically committed police force exploited for decades by a totalitarian regime, efforts to depoliticise the police could not be regarded as arbitrary and the means employed to achieve the legitimate aims pursued were not disproportionate. No violation of articles 10 or 11. |
Rekvényi v. Hungary, 20 May 1999 |
[1] See: www.ohchr.org
[2] As of writing, this was not the case for CMW, for which the individual complaint mechanism had not entered into force.
[3] Decisions and judgements of the ECtHR are available at: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int
[4] ACtHPR, Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP), Request No. 001/2013, Advisory Opinion of 26 May 2017.
[5] This form of Actio Popularis does not exist in the ECtHR system.
