CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 5 novembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6F88BEDC { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s7F441D50 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC7F250FD { font-style:normal } .s70C137AC { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; list-style-position:inside } .s3D0129E0 { width:3.07pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE9505853 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-15pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sF7610474 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:36.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD0682254 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s30C8A987 { width:4.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB2ED4664 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4E0353E8 { width:4.23pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE330DFD7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s2DED9654 { width:26.12pt; display:inline-block } .s7DABF6D6 { width:152.09pt; display:inline-block } .s9CF7E27B { width:131.86pt; display:inline-block }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 7651/17 Evelin KULLASEPP against Estonia   The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 5   November 2019 as a Chamber composed of:   Robert Spano, President,   Julia Laffranque,   Valeriu Griţco,   Egidijus Kūris,   Ivana Jelić,   Arnfinn Bårdsen,   Darian Pavli, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 January 2017, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicant, Ms Evelin Kullasepp, is an Estonian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Tapa. She was represented before the Court by Ms   P. Blankin, a lawyer practising in Tallinn. 2.     The Estonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Kuuberg of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. A.     The circumstances of the case 3 .     It appears from the documents submitted by the applicant that as of 30   January 2006 her residence in the population register had solely been specified only as lying within the Tallinn city district. 4 .     On 16 November 2010 the Harju County Court placed the applicant under partial guardianship because she had been diagnosed with unspecified dementia. Under the terms of the ruling the guardian’s duty was to represent the applicant in dealing with, inter alia , court cases. The applicant was entitled to carry out daily household transactions. The court did not restrict her right to vote. The applicant did not appeal against this ruling. 5.     From 24 February 2011 to 6 March 2011 parliamentary ( Riigikogu ) elections were held in Estonia. According to the applicant, on 6   March 2011 she went to a polling station at Mustamäe administrative district office of the City of Tallinn to cast her vote in the elections. The polling station was one where, inter alia , voters whose addresses in the population register had been determined as lying within only the Tallinn city district could vote. The applicant claimed that at the polling station she discovered that she was not on the electoral register ( valijate nimekiri ). It was recommended that she go to the polling station in North Tallinn administrative district office because she lived in that district. The applicant did not go there. 6.     From 15 to 25 May 2014 the European Parliament elections were held in Estonia. According to the applicant, on 25 May 2014 she went to the polling station in Mustamäe administrative district office with the intention of casting her vote in elections. In that polling station, inter alia , voters whose addresses in the population register were within the Tallinn city district without further detail could vote. The applicant asserted that in the polling station she discovered that she was not on the electoral register. The applicant also stated that an official of the polling station asked whether a guardian had ever been appointed in respect of her. The applicant replied in the affirmative but elaborated that she had the right to vote. Then, according to the applicant, the official explained that as a guardian had been appointed, the applicant’s residence had been considered to be the same as the guardian’s residence and that the applicant had to vote in the respective polling station. The applicant did not go to the respective polling station. 7.     According to the applicant, she realised that an entry had been made in the population register that her right to vote had been restricted on 28   July 2014 when she contacted the Police and Border Guard Board with a wish to apply for an identity card, and the latter had made an enquiry in the population register. 8 .     On 13 October 2014 the applicant lodged a request by telephone to the Harju County Government to correct the erroneous entry in the population register regarding the restriction on her right to vote. The correction to the population register was made on the same date. B.     Subsequent developments 9.     On 26 August 2015 the Harju County Court terminated the applicant’s guardianship. The court adjudged that the applicant was able to understand her personality as well as the time, place and situation, so that it could be concluded that the need for her guardianship had completely ceased to exist. 10.     On 18 December 2015, the applicant lodged a claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of 8,000 euros with the Ministry of the Interior. The applicant contended that owing to the Ministry of Interior’s removal of her from the list of citizens eligible to vote, she had not been able exercise her right to vote and to participate in the elections held on 6 March 2011 and on 25 May 2014. 11.     On 3 March 2016 the Ministry of the Interior explained to the applicant that it was not responsible for the alleged damage and forwarded the applicant’s claim to the Harju County Government ( Harju Maavalitsus ) and the Tallinn City Government ( Tallinna Linnavalitsus ). 12.     The applicant’s claim was dismissed by the Harju County Government on 1 April 2016 and by the Tallinn City Government on 18 April 2016. 13.     On 12 April 2016 the applicant lodged a claim for non-pecuniary damage with the administrative court. 14.     On 9 May 2016, the Tallinn Administrative Court returned the complaint without having adjudicated on it. The court found that the action had no prospect of success on the merits. The court noted that exclusion of the applicant from the electoral register may have been caused by actions of the Harju County Government, which had made the erroneous entry in the population register based on the Harju County Court ruling of 16 November 2010, erroneously recording that the applicant had been divested of the right to vote whereas in fact the applicant’s right to vote had remained despite her active legal capacity having been restricted. At the same time, the court reached the opinion that even if the action by the Harju County Government could possibly have been unlawful, the court would not be able to grant the claim for compensation for damage. The court found that the violation of the right to vote was not such as to provide grounds to claim compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicant’s assertions that unfounded exclusion from the electoral register had degraded her human dignity, defamed her good name and seriously interfered with her private life were found by the court to be unproven. The applicant appealed against that ruling. 15.     On 2 August 2016, the Tallinn Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the ruling. The Tallinn Court of Appeal agreed with the Administrative Court, but added that the applicant could have, either by herself or with the help of her legal guardian, submitted a request to amend the electoral register. 16.     On 11 October 2016, the Supreme Court decided not to examine an appeal by the applicant. C.     Relevant domestic law and practice General Part of the Civil Code ( Tsiviilseadustiku üldosa seadus ) 17 .     Article 8 § 2 provides that individuals who have reached 18 years of age (adults) have full active legal capacity. Individuals who are under 18 years of age (minors) and individuals who owing to mental illness, mental disability or another mental disorder are permanently unable to understand or direct their actions have restricted active legal capacity. Article 8 § 3 states that if a guardian is appointed by a court for a person who owing to mental illness, mental disability or other mental disorder is permanently unable to understand or direct his or her actions, the person is presumed to have restricted active legal capacity to the extent to which a guardian has been appointed for him or her. Family Law Act ( Perekonnaseadus ) 18 .     Section 203(2) provides that a guardian can be appointed only for the performance of the functions for which guardianship is required. Code of Civil Procedure ( Tsiviilkohtumenetluse seadustik ) 19 .     Article 526 § 4 states that a ruling on establishment of guardianship gives the guardian the right to represent the person under guardianship. Article 526 § 5 provides that if a court establishes guardianship for managing all the affairs of a person or if the scope of duties of a guardian is extended in such manner, the person under guardianship is also deemed to be without active legal capacity with regard to the right to vote, and he or she loses that right. Administrative Procedure Act ( Haldusmenetluse seadus ) 20 .     Section 12(2) states that a minor or any other person with restricted active legal capacity cannot perform procedural acts in administrative proceedings independently unless otherwise prescribed by law. An administrative authority must ensure such a person legal representation in administrative proceedings. Population Register Act ( Rahvastikuregistri seadus ) (as in force at the material time) 21.     Section 21(1)(13) states that personal data to be entered in the population register are data stating that the person has restricted active legal capacity and has been divested by a court ruling of his or her active legal capacity with regard to the right to vote. 22.     Pursuant to section 55(1), if a person submitting data discovers inaccurate data entered in the population register, the person submitting such data must correct them online to the extent of the right of data processing granted to the person submitting the data within one working day of the discovery of the error. If the person submitting the data has no right to correct inaccurate data, he or she must notify the authorised registrar immediately of the inaccuracies entered in the population register. Section   55(2) provides that in the cases set out in section 54(3) of this Act or in the case of a person submitting data giving notice of inaccurate data, the authorised registrar is required to verify the accuracy of the data and correct the inaccuracies. Riigikogu Election Act ( Riigikogu valimise seadus ) (version in force during 2011 elections) 23.     Section 20(1) provided that voters had to be registered in the population register. Section 20(3) stated that voters had to be registered on the basis of the information entered in the population register. Pursuant to the same section information on divestment of active legal capacity had to be entered in the population register. 24 .   Section 21(1) provided that the “controller” ( vastutav töötleja ) of the population register had to organise the preparation of polling cards (valijakaart ) and their delivery to voters not later than on the twentieth day before election day. A polling card did not have to be sent to a voter if the information on his or her residence had been solely entered in the population register on the initiative of a local government body as lying within a rural municipality or city only, or in Tallinn within the city district only. Section 21(3) stated that a voter who had not received a polling card on the fifteenth day before election day or whose polling card contained incorrect information could apply to the rural municipality secretary or city secretary ( valla- või linnasekretär ) for clarification to be given or errors to be corrected. The rural municipality secretary or city secretary had to promptly review the application together with the person who had prepared the polling card and had to respond to the application in writing within three working days of receiving the application. 25 .     Section 23(1) concerned the accessibility of the electoral register and stated that a voter could check the correctness of the information entered in the list of voters concerning himself or herself. 26 .     Section 24(1) stated that if a voter found that information entered in the electoral register concerning himself or herself contained errors, he or she could submit an application for correction of the errors to the electoral ward committee ( jaoskonnakomisjon ) which had to promptly forward it to the rural municipality secretary or city secretary. Section 24(2) provided that the rural municipality secretary or city secretary had to promptly review the application together with the person who had prepared the electoral register and had to respond to the applicant and inform the electoral ward committee of the results of the review. Pursuant to section   24(3), the electoral ward committee had to correct errors in the electoral register on the basis of a notice issued by a rural municipality secretary or city secretary. Section 24(4) stated that if it were clear from the documents submitted to an electoral ward committee that the information entered in the electoral register contained errors, the electoral ward committee could correct the errors. The rural municipality secretary or city secretary had to be promptly informed of the correction of errors. 27 .     Section 25(2) provided that in order to amend the electoral register, a person had to submit an application to amend the population register or an application for the amendment of register information which was the basis for the registration of voters to a rural municipality secretary or city secretary. The rural municipality secretary or city secretary had to review the application together with the person who had prepared the electoral register and had to promptly respond to the person. Section 25(5) stated that if   a rural municipality secretary or city secretary denied an application under section 25(2), the applicant could lodge an action with the relevant administrative court with jurisdiction for his or her place of residence against the action of the rural municipality secretary or city secretary. A complaint could be lodged with the rural municipality secretary or city secretary, who had to forward the complaint to the administrative court with jurisdiction for his or her location together with a written explanation within twenty-four hours. Under section 25(8), if the administrative court allowed the complaint, the person was to be promptly entered in the population register or the information pertaining to him or her had to be amended and the electoral ward committee had to be promptly notified thereof. European Parliament Election Act ( Euroopa Parlamendi valimise seadus ) (version in force during 2014 elections) 28 .   Section 19(1) provided that the “controller” ( vastutav töötleja ) of the population register had to organise the preparation of polling cards ( valijakaart ) and their sending to voters not later than on the twentieth day before election day. A polling card was not sent to a voter if the information on his or her residence had solely been entered in the population register on the initiative of a local government as lying within the rural municipality or city only, or in Tallinn within the city district only. Section 19(3) stated that a voter who had not received a polling card on the fifteenth day before election day or whose polling card contained incorrect information could apply to the rural municipality secretary or city secretary ( valla- või linnasekretär ) for clarification to be given or errors to be corrected. The rural municipality secretary or city secretary had to promptly review the application together with the person who had prepared the polling card and had to respond to the application in writing within three working days of receiving the application. 29 .     Section 22(1) concerned the accessibility of the electoral register and stated that a voter could check the correctness of the information entered in the list of voters concerning himself or herself 30 .     Pursuant to section 23(1), if a voter found that information entered in the electoral register concerning himself or herself contained errors, he or she could submit an application for correction of the errors to the electoral ward committee, which had to promptly forward it to the rural municipality secretary or city secretary. Section 23(2) stated that the rural municipality secretary or city secretary had to promptly review the application together with the person who had prepared the electoral register and had to respond to the applicant in writing within three working days as of the date of receipt thereof and inform the electoral ward committee of the results of the review. Section 23(3) provided that the electoral ward committee had to correct errors in the electoral register on the basis of a notice issued by a rural municipality secretary or city secretary. Section   23(4) set out that if it were clear from the documents submitted to an electoral ward committee that the information entered in the electoral register contained errors, the electoral ward committee could correct the errors. The rural municipality secretary or city secretary had to be promptly informed of the correction of errors. 31 .     Section 24(2) stated that in order to amend the electoral register, a person had to submit an application to amend the population register or an application for the amendment of register information which was the basis for the registration of voters to a rural municipality secretary or city secretary. The rural municipality secretary or city secretary had to review the application together with the person who had prepared the electoral register and had to promptly respond to the person. Section 24(5) provided that if a rural municipality secretary or city secretary denied an application under section 24(2), the applicant could lodge an action with the relevant administrative court with jurisdiction for his or her place of residence against the action of the rural municipality secretary or city secretary. A complaint had to be lodged with the rural municipality secretary or city secretary, who had to forward the complaint to the administrative court with jurisdiction for his or her location together with a written explanation within twenty-four hours. Under section 24(8), if the administrative court granted a complaint, the person’s data had to be promptly entered in the population register or the information pertaining to him or her had to be amended and the electoral ward committee had to be promptly notified thereof. Recommendations for correcting errors and amending the electoral register issued by the Ministry of Interior ( Siseministeeriumi soovitused vea parandamiseks ja muudatuste tegemiseks valijate nimekirjas ) (valid version during 2014 elections) 32 .     Under Article 4 § 2 of the Recommendations the electoral ward committee could correct errors if it were clear from the documents submitted to the electoral ward committee that the information entered in the electoral register contained errors. The rural municipality secretary or city secretary had to be promptly informed of the correction of errors. Complaints concerning entering of individuals on the electoral register 33 .     The Government provided information that the electoral register had in the past been amended during a campaign period or on election day. In the 2011 elections a similar incident had occurred, where a person’s right to vote had been maintained while that person’s active legal capacity had been restricted but the person had not been entered on the electoral register. The reason had been an erroneous entry made in the population register. On election day, 6 March 2011, an official of the relevant local authority had lodged a request for the rectification of the person’s data, which had been immediately reviewed. The person had been entered in the electoral register and had been able to vote. An amending entry had been made in the population register on the first working day after the error had been detected. 34 .     During the 2015 parliamentary elections, the Tartu County Government found out during early voting that an erroneous entry had been made in the population register regarding a person’s right to vote. Since the person had not actually been without legal capacity and that person’s right to vote had not been restricted, the person had been entered on the electoral register on the same day.       Case-law of domestic courts 35 .     The Supreme Court Constitutional Review Chamber stated in case no. 3-4-1-26-12 that during the parliamentary elections in 2011 and before the 2015 parliamentary elections the complainant (a prisoner) could have lodged an application for amending the electoral register with the relevant city secretary under section 25(2) of the Riigikogu Election Act. Even though pursuant to section 25(2) of that Act a person could not be entered in the electoral register if, according to the criminal records database, he or she had been convicted of a criminal offence by a court and if, on the thirtieth day before election day, the person was to be imprisoned until election day, upon dismissal of the relevant application the complainant could nonetheless have lodged a complaint with the relevant administrative court under section 25(5) of the Act along with an application not to apply section   4(3) and section 22(3) of the Act on constitutional grounds. The Supreme Court further explained that lodging an application under section   25(2) of the Riigikogu Election Act presumed the existence of the electoral register. The electoral register was drawn up on the basis of population register data as they were on the thirtieth day before an election day. An application to amend the electoral register could be lodged not earlier than thirty days before the elections. Upon receipt of such an application, the rural municipality secretary or city secretary must immediately respond to the applicant. In the event of a negative reply, the person may lodge a complaint with the relevant administrative court. 36 .     In paragraph 30 of case no. 3-4-1-58-13 the Supreme Court Constitutional Review Chamber repeated those principles in the context of municipal council elections. The Supreme Court emphasised that that process should be swifter than an ordinary procedure, so as to ensure the protection of the applicant’s rights. Should this prove to be insufficient, the applicant could also apply for additional legal protection, more specifically to be entered on the electoral register pending delivery of the final judgment. 37 .     Case no. 3-4-1-2-15 concerned a situation where a person had lodged an application for amending the electoral register with the relevant rural municipality, which had rejected it. The person had lodged a complaint with an administrative court, which had dismissed the complaint. The person had lodged an appeal with the Tallinn Court of Appeal, which had quashed the decision of the administrative court, opted not to apply sections 4(3) and 22(3) of the Riigikogu Election Act on constitutional grounds, and declared the decision to be enforceable without delay. Thus, the person had been able to vote in the elections. 38 .     In case no. 3-3-1-48-15 the Supreme Court Administrative Law Chamber reiterated in the context of European Parliament elections that in a situation where a person (a prisoner) had not been entered on the electoral register, the most effective remedy for protection of that person’s rights was to lodge an action with the relevant administrative court in order to issue a court order to the rural municipality or city secretary. COMPLAINTS 39.     The applicant complained that her inability to vote in the national parliament elections in 2011 and in the European Parliament elections in 2014 as a result of the alleged administrative error of marking her in the population register as having been divested of the right to vote had violated her right to free elections. THE LAW Alleged violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention 40.     The applicant complained of a violation of her rights under Article 3 of Protocol No.   1, read alone or in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention. 41.     The Government contested the applicant’s arguments. 42.     The Court considers that the application falls to be examined under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis , Alajos Kiss v. Hungary , no. 38832/06, § 18-20, 20 May 2010), which provides, in so far as relevant, as follows: “The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.” The parties’ submissions (a)    The Government 43.     The Government raised several preliminary objections. Firstly, the Government called on the Court to declare the application inadmissible   ratione materiae . Secondly, they argued that the applicant could not claim to be a “victim” of a violation of her rights under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Thirdly, the Government stated that the applicant had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies. The Government were firstly of the view that the applicant and her guardian had failed to specify the applicant’s residential data in the population register, so that it would have been possible to send a polling card to the applicant before the elections. The Government emphasised especially the following domestic remedies which, in their view, had been effective and available to the applicant: 1) under section 55 of the Population Register Act, section   24(1) and (4) of the Riigikogu Election Act and section 23(1) and   (4) of the European Parliament Election Act, the applicant could have requested the amendment of the erroneous data in the population register and in the electoral register; the applicant could have made a request in the polling station on the day of the elections; any such request would be dealt with even if the request were made by a person with restricted active legal capacity; acting on the basis of these principles had ensured a possibility to vote for one person, who had been in a similar situation to the applicant, in the 6 March 2011 election (see paragraph 33 above); 2) if the polling station had dismissed that individual’s request and had not forwarded it to the relevant city secretary, the applicant could have applied for amendment of register information to the rural municipality secretary or city secretary in accordance with section 25(2) of the Riigikogu Election Act or section   24(2) of the European Parliament Election Act; 3) under section   25(5) and (8) of the Riigikogu Election Act and section 24(5) and   (8), the applicant could have lodged a complaint with the relevant administrative court against the action of the rural municipality secretary or city secretary, if the rural municipality secretary or city secretary had dismissed the applicant’s application for amendment of the register information; the administrative court could have allowed the complaint and ordered the city secretary to amend the population register data on which the electoral register had been based. Fourthly, the Government noted that the applicant had failed to lodge the application with the Court within the six-month time-limit. Fifthly, the Government stated that the application was manifestly ill ‑ founded because the applicant had not been divested of her right to vote and the applicant had not proved that she had wished to exercise that right. Lastly, the Government argued that the application should be declared inadmissible as the applicant had not suffered a significant disadvantage. (b)    The applicant 44.     The applicant contested those arguments. As regards non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, the applicant argued that asking for a polling card or contacting a rural municipality secretary or city secretary for clarification on not having received a polling card should not be considered as a remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. Receiving a polling card was not a prerequisite for exercising the right to vote. The applicant could not have foreseen the necessity to apply for the correction of the entry in the population register even after the election on 6 March 2011. The applicant stated that she had become aware of the erroneous entry on 28   July 2014 when she had tried to apply for an identity card. Upon becoming aware of the cause of the erroneous entry, the applicant had asked for it to be corrected. This had been the only extrajudicial measure available to the applicant. She had done everything possible to put right the violation of her right to vote by returning to the national courts with a claim for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Court’s assessment 45.     Among the numerous preliminary objections which the Government raised, they also argued that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies. The Court considers it appropriate to address firstly that objection. 46.     The Court reiterates that under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, it may only deal with an application after domestic remedies have been exhausted. The purpose of Article 35 is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see, among many other authorities, Vučković and Others v. Serbia (preliminary objection)   [GC], nos. 17153/11 and 29 others, §§ 70-72, 25   March 2014, and Karácsony and Others v. Hungary [GC], nos. 42461/13 and 44357/13, § 76, 17 May 2016). 47.     In the area of the exhaustion of domestic remedies, there is a distribution of the burden of proof. It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say that it was accessible, was one which was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant’s complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success. Once this burden of proof has been satisfied, it falls to the applicant to establish that the remedy advanced by the Government was in fact exhausted, or was for some reason inadequate and ineffective in the particular circumstances of the case, or that there existed special circumstances absolving him or her from this requirement (see Chaykovskiy v. Ukraine , no. 2295/06, § 71, 15 October 2009). A mere doubt as to the prospect of success is not sufficient to exempt an applicant from submitting a complaint to the competent court (see, for example, Samoylov v. Russia , no. 64398/01, § 25, 2 October 2008). 48.     Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court observes that before the elections in question the applicant had been placed under partial guardianship, but her right to vote and right to carry out daily household transactions had not been restricted (see paragraph 4 above). There is no dispute that an erroneous entry was made in the population register to the effect that the applicant had no right to vote. 49.     The Court notes that despite the fact that the applicant was placed under partial guardianship, she was able to carry out everyday financial transactions and exercise her right to vote. It appears from her application and the complaint lodged with the Tallinn Administrative Court on 12 April 2016 that during the time at issue the applicant was aware that she had the right to vote and she had gone to the polling station to realise that right. In the polling station she was denied a vote as she was not on the electoral register. 50.     The Government stated that during the elections in question the applicant had had at her disposal effective domestic remedies. Firstly, the applicant could have applied in the polling station for corrections to be made to the population register and to the electoral register. Secondly, the applicant could have applied for amendment of register information and for amendment of the electoral register to the rural municipality secretary or city secretary. Lastly, the applicant could have lodged a complaint with the relevant administrative court against the action of the relevant city secretary, if the latter had dismissed her application for amendment of register information. While lodging the complaint with the relevant administrative court, the applicant could also have applied for additional legal protection, more specifically to be entered on the electoral register pending delivery of the final judgment (see paragraph 36 above). 51.     The Court has no grounds to doubt the effectiveness of the domestic remedies raised by the Government. The Court sets out its position as follows. 52.     The Government stated that the polling station in Mustamäe administrative district office had been equipped with computers. The court ruling on the establishment of guardianship over the applicant had been entered in the population register. Therefore the competent authorities could have assessed it using the population register on election day in order to issue a decision to amend the entry. The Court has no grounds to doubt the statements of the Government. Thus, the applicant’s data could have been verified and the procedure for correction of the data could have been carried out in the polling station on election day under section 24(1) and (4) of the Riigikogu Election Act and section 23(1) and (4) of the European Parliament Election Act (see paragraphs 26 and 30), if the applicant had submitted an application to this effect. 53.     The Government presented evidence that acting in accordance with section 24(4) of Riigikogu Election Act and Article 4 § 2 of the Recommendations for correcting errors and amending the electoral register issued by the Ministry of Interior (see paragraph 32 above) had ensured a possibility to exercise the right to vote for one person on election day on 6   March 2011. The person in question had been in a similar situation to the applicant, because that person’s active legal capacity had been restricted but the entry in the population register on restriction of the right to vote had been erroneous (see paragraph 33 above). As can be seen from the evidence submitted by the Government the 2015 European Parliament elections had also shown that errors in the electoral register could be swiftly resolved upon receipt of a relevant application (see paragraph 34 above). 54.     The Court emphasises that the applicant could have applied in the polling station for correction of the erroneous entry in the electoral register and in the population register. The fact that an erroneous entry regarding a person with restricted active legal capacity is corrected upon the person’s own request is affirmed by the fact that the erroneous entry concerning the applicant was corrected on 13 October 2014 based on her own telephone call to the Harju County Government (see paragraph 8 above). 55.     The Court observes that if the polling station had dismissed the applicant’s application for amendment of register information, she could have submitted under section 25(2) of the Riigikogu Election Act or under section 24(2) of the European Parliament Election Act an application to the rural municipality secretary or city secretary for the amendment of register information (see paragraphs 27 and 31 above). Since a guardian had been appointed in respect of the applicant, she could have submitted the application with the help of her guardian (see paragraphs 17, 18 and 19   above). Even if the applicant had submitted the application on her own, the rural municipality secretary or city secretary would have ensured her legal representation (see paragraph   20 above). 56.     If the rural municipality secretary or city secretary had denied the applicant’s application, she could have lodged under section 25(5) of the Riigikogu Election Act and section 24(5) of the European Parliament Election Act a complaint with the relevant administrative court against the action of the rural municipality secretary or city secretary (see paragraphs   27 and 31 above). Since a guardian had been appointed in respect of the applicant, she could have submitted the complaint with the help of her guardian. By lodging the complaint with the relevant administrative court, the applicant could also have applied for additional legal protection, more specifically to be entered on the electoral register pending delivery of the final judgment (see paragraph 36 above). 57.     The Government presented information that the Supreme Court of Estonia had found that lodging a complaint with the relevant administrative court against the action of the rural municipality secretary or city secretary was an effective remedy and that that procedure had been swifter than the ordinary procedure, so as to ensure the protection of the applicant’s rights (see paragraphs 35, 36 and 38 above). Furthermore, the Government presented information that a court could allow a person’s complaint against the action of a rural municipality secretary or city secretary, and order the decision to be enforceable without delay, allowing the person to vote in elections (see paragraph 37 above). 58.     Given the above arguments the Court finds that the domestic remedies raised by the Government were effective and available to the applicant. 59.     The Court finds that as the applicant had been placed under partial guardianship, and was confident that she had the right to vote, and was sure that she had come to the right polling station to vote, she could have availed herself of the effective remedies, which would have given her a possibility to vote. It is apparent from the documents submitted to the Court that the applicant did not take appropriate steps to avail herself of those remedies. The Court emphasises that the applicant has not argued the contrary. Furthermore, the Court notes that the claim for compensation does not, in principle, constitute an effective remedy with respect to a complaint under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 60.     The Court recalls that the domestic electoral system provides a possibility for all potential voters to find out whether or not the information regarding them in the electoral register is correct (see paragraphs 25 and 29 above). Under the Riigikogu Election Act and the European Parliament Election Act, a person who has a right to vote (or considers that they do) but who does not receive a polling card prior to the elections can contact the rural municipality secretary or the city secretary to clarify the matter and correct the possible errors before election day (see paragraphs 24 and 28   above). 61.     The Court finds that as the applicant did not avail herself of the effective domestic remedies available to her, the applicant’s complaint must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. 62.     Given the above conclusion it is not necessary for the Court to examine the Government’s other preliminary objections. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 28 November 2019.   Hasan Bakırcı   Robert Spano Deputy Section Registrar   President