CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 janvier 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sD37F5C3B { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sC202EACC { clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } Communicated on 21 January 2021 Published on 8 February 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 68958/17 Hyqmet MYSLIHAKA against Albania and 5 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants were convicted of various criminal offences and sentenced to terms of imprisonment ranging from four years and eight months to sixteen years (see the Appendix). They are currently serving their prison sentences in penal institutions. The applicants complain under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that they were unable to vote in the 2017 parliamentary elections, since the relevant domestic legislation, namely section   2   §   4 of the Officials’ Integrity Act (Law no. 138/2015 on ensuring the integrity of persons elected to, appointed to or exercising public functions), barred a convicted person from voting in general elections if he or she had been, on the date of the elections, serving a prison sentence imposed on him or her by a final court decision for the commission of one of the criminal offences set out in that Act.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants exhausted all effective remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did domestic law, including the Administrative Courts Act and the Electoral Code, provide for a remedy against the applicants’ inability to vote? Alternatively, should the applicants have lodged an individual constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court challenging their statutory disenfranchisement, in accordance with sections 71 and 71/a of the Constitutional Court Act? 2.     Has there been a breach of Article 3 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention as regards the applicants’ right to vote in the 2017 parliamentary elections (see Scoppola v. Italy (no. 3) [GC], no. 126/05, §§   85-87, 22 May 2012)? In particular:   (i)     Does section   2   §   4 of the Officials’ Integrity Act (Law no. 138/2015 on ensuring the integrity of persons elected to, appointed to or exercising public functions) impose a general, automatic and indiscriminate restriction on convicted prisoners’ right to vote (see Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no.   2) [GC], no. 74025/01, § 82, ECHR 2005 ‑ IX)? (ii)     In passing section 2 § 4 of the Officials’ Integrity Act, how did the legislature balance any competing interests in order to avoid general, automatic and indiscriminate restrictions on convicted prisoners’ right to vote? The Government are invited to submit a copy of the explanatory report to the Officials’ Integrity Act, a copy of the report prepared by the relevant parliamentary commission on the draft act as well as relevant transcripts of parliamentary debate dealing with the Officials’ Integrity Act. (iii)     Does the statutory restriction on convicted persons’ right to vote pursue a legitimate aim? If so, is this restriction proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued? The parties are invited to provide figures as to the number of convicted prisoners who were deprived of the right to vote in the 2017 parliamentary election by reason of section 2 § 4 of the Officials’ Integrity Act.       APPENDIX   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Nationality Represented by 1. 68958/17 Myslihaka v. Albania 14/09/2017 Hyqmet MYSLIHAKA Albanian Erida SKENDAJ 2. 68965/17 Ruko v. Albania 14/09/2017 Imer RUKO Albanian Erida SKENDAJ 3. 68970/17 Rrapaj v. Albania 14/09/2017 Mehmet RRAPAJ Albanian Erida SKENDAJ 4. 68976/17 Bakalli v. Albania 14/09/2017 Fatmir BAKALLI Albanian Erida SKENDAJ 5. 68985/17 Kushe v. Albania 14/09/2017 Rigels KUSHE Albanian Erida SKENDAJ 6. 68993/17 Spaho v. Albania 14/09/2017 Blendi SPAHO Albanian Erida SKENDAJ