CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 18 janvier 2011

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 137 January 2011 Scoppola v. Italy (no. 3) - 126/05 Judgment 18.1.2011 [Section II] Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 Vote Ban on prisoner voting imposed automatically as a result of sentence: violation [This case was referred to the Grand Chamber on 20 June 2011] Facts – In 2002 an assize court sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment for murder, attempted murder, ill-treatment of members of his family and unauthorised possession of a firearm. Under Italian law, his life sentence resulted in a lifetime ban from public office, entailing permanent forfeiture of his right to vote. Appeals by the applicant against the ban were unsuccessful. The Court of Cassation found against him in 2006, pointing out that permanent forfeiture of the right to vote resulted only from prison sentences of at least five years or life sentences (voting rights being forfeited for only five years in the case of sentences of less than five years). Law – Article 3 of Protocol No. 1: The Court reiterated that a blanket ban on the right of prisoners to vote during their detention constituted a general, automatic and indiscriminate restriction incompatible with Article   3 of Protocol No.   1*.Furthermore, a decision on disenfranchisement should be taken by a court and should be duly reasoned**. In the present case, while it was not disputed that the permanent voting ban imposed on the applicant had a legal basis in Italian law, the application of that measure had been automatic since it derived as a matter of course from the main penalty imposed on him (life imprisonment) and had not been mentioned in the court decisions convicting him. Moreover, that general measure had been applied indiscriminately, since it had been taken on account of the length of the prison sentence, irrespective of the offence committed and beyond any consideration by the trial court of the nature and seriousness of the offence. The assessment carried out by the sentencing judge and the possibility that the applicant might one day be rehabilitated by a court decision did not in any way alter that finding. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: Finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage. * See Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no.   2) [GC], no.   74025/01, 6   October 2005, Information Note no.   79. ** See Frodl v. Austria , no. 20201/04, 8   April 2010, Information Note no.   129.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes