CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 mars 2019

.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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD2EAB1C3 { width:57.2%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sE75E1D31 { width:12.6%; border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s3FAB130A { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#f8f8f8 } .s886D8256 { width:87.4%; border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s8DE70000 { width:12.6%; border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sB2B51256 { width:87.4%; border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Communicated on 20 March 2019   FOURTH SECTION Applications nos. 25802/18 and 27338/18 Tomas STRØBYE against Denmark and Martin ROSENLIND against Denmark lodged on 25 May 2018 and 25 May 2018 respectively SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE At some point in time, the applicants were deprived of their legal capacity falling under Section 6 of the Danish Guardianship Act. Consequently, by virtue of Section 1 of the Danish Act on Parliamentary Elections, they were not entitled to vote, inter alia, for the 2015 parliamentary election. The applicants brought their case before the domestic courts, maintaining that the disenfranchisement was in contravention of Section 29 of the Danish Constitution, the Convention, and/or the UN Disability Convention. They claimed compensation. The High Court (Østre Landsret) found against them by a judgment of 29   June 2017. On appeal, the judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court (Højesteret) on 18 January 2018. The latter noted that according to Section   29 of the Constitution, people who have been declared incapable of conducting their own affairs do not have the right to vote for Parliament. It found that people who have been deprived of their legal capacity under Section 6 of the Guardianship Act had to be regarded as having been declared incapable of conducting their own affairs within the meaning of the Constitution and were thus not entitled to vote for Parliament. Section 1 of the Danish Act on Parliamentary Elections had been worded to reflect this. Accordingly, regardless of what followed from Denmark’s international obligations, the applicants’ claim that they were entitled to vote for the 2015 parliamentary election was not upheld. Furthermore, in light of the Court’s case law, inter alia, Alajos Kiss v.   Hungary, no. 38832/06, 20 May 2010, the Supreme Court did not find any basis for concluding that the provision in Section 29 of the Constitution was in contravention of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention or of Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (or of the UN Disability Convention). Accordingly, the applicants had no right to compensation. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES   Was the Supreme Court’s judgment of 18 January 2018 in breach of the applicants’ right under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, alone or read in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention? aPPENDIX   Application no 25802/18   No. Firstname LASTNAME 1 Tomas STRØBYE     Application no 27338/18   No. Firstname LASTNAME 1 Tomas STRØBYE