CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 8 juillet 2010

.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. 132 July 2010 Sitaropoulos and Giakoumopoulos v. Greece - 42202/07 Judgment 8.7.2010 [Section I] Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 Vote Failure for more than thirty years to introduce legislation giving practical effect to expatriates’ constitutional right to vote in parliamentary elections from overseas: violation [This case was referred to the Grand Chamber on 22 November 2010] Facts – In a fax of September 2007 to the Greek Ambassador in France, the applicants, who were permanent residents in France, expressed the wish to exercise their voting rights in France for the Greek parliamentary elections. The Ambassador replied that their request could not be granted “for objective reasons”, namely the absence of the legislative regulation that was required to provide for “special measures ... for the setting up of polling stations in Embassies and Consulates”. As a result, the applicants were unable to exercise their voting rights in the elections. Law – Article 3 of Protocol No. 1: An Article of the Constitution authorised the legislature to lay down the conditions for the exercise of voting rights by expatriate voters. But the Constitution did not directly oblige the domestic authorities to give effect to such voting rights. Article   3 of Protocol No.   1 was not to be interpreted as generally imposing a positive obligation on national authorities to secure voting rights in parliamentary elections for voters living abroad. However, the possibility afforded by the Constitution could not remain inapplicable indefinitely, otherwise its content and the intention of its drafters would be deprived of any normative value. Thirty-five years after it was adopted, the legislature had still not rendered that provision of the Constitution effective. The lack of legislative implementation had shown de facto that the national authorities were unwilling to secure expatriates the possibility to exercise their voting rights at their place of residence. Expatriates could find it impossible in practice, for economic, professional or family reasons, to return to their country of origin in order to vote in national elections. As a result, the absence of any regulation for such a long period was likely to constitute unfair treatment of Greek citizens living abroad in comparison to those living in Greece. Moreover, the respondent State clearly fell short of the common denominator between contracting member States, which had been urged by the Council of Europe to enable their non-resident citizens to participate to the fullest extent possible in national elections. In addition, the margin of appreciation afforded to the respondent State was limited, as when the Court assessed restrictions on voting rights – the “active” aspect of the rights secured by Article   3 of Protocol No.   1 – it was more demanding than when dealing with the right to stand for election – the “passive” aspect. Whilst taking into account the national autonomy as regards the conditions of exercise of voting rights, the fact that for over three decades there had been no legislative implementation of the relevant Article of the Constitution, combined with the evolution of the Contracting States’ law in such matters, showed that the respondent State’s responsibility was engaged. The failure by the State to take effective measures had breached the right to free elections. Conclusion : violation (five votes to two). Article 41: Finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage.   © 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