CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 mai 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 9 May 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 7651/17 Evelin KULLASEPP against Estonia lodged on 20 January 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the inability of the applicant – a person with a restricted active legal capacity ( piiratud teovõime ), but whose right to vote was not restricted by the court – to vote in the national parliament ( Riigikogu ) elections in 2011 and in the European Parliament elections in 2014 as a result of an alleged administrative error of marking the applicant in the Population Register ( rahvastikuregister ) as having been divested of a right to vote between 20 December 2010 and 13 October 2014. The application also raises the question of whether there was an effective remedy before the domestic authorities. The Harju County Court refused to examine the applicant’s claim for non-pecuniary damage, considering that it did not have perspective of success ( materiaalõiguslikult perspektiivitu ) and noted that the domestic law did not provide for compensation for non ‑ pecuniary damage for the breach of the right to vote. The Tallinn Court of Appeal agreed with that position, but added that the applicant could have, either by herself or with the help of her legal guardian, submitted a request to the city secretary ( linnasekretär ) to amend the electoral list ( valijate nimekiri ). The Supreme Court refused to examine the appeal on points of law. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a breach of the applicant’s right under Article   3 of Protocol No.   1 to vote in national parliament elections in 2011 and European Parliament elections in 2014?   2.     Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaint under Article 3 of Protocol No.   1, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? In particular, could the possibility to ask, on the election day, for the electoral list be amended be considered an effective (preventive) remedy, taking into account the time constraints and that a)     the applicant’s voting right had not been restricted by the Harju County Court; b)     the Population Register nevertheless contained a reference to such a restriction and c)     the applicant was unaware of such a reference in the Population Register at the relevant time, but only found out later when applying for an ID card at the Police and Border Guard Board?