CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 9 octobre 2025
- ECLI
- ECLI:CEDH:002-14567
- Date
- 9 octobre 2025
- Publication
- 9 octobre 2025
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officiellePreliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections - {general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Choice of the legislature);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Résumé généré automatiquement — à vérifier avec la décision originale.
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; 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 } Legal summary October 2025 Georgios Papadopoulos v. Cyprus - 21454/21 Judgment 9.10.2025 [Section I] Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 Choice of the legislature Electoral decisions annulling the applicant’s declaration as an elected Member of Parliament on three occasions after his appointment as the first runner-up to a seat that was renounced before the start of the parliamentary term: violation Facts – The applicant was a runner-up candidate in the 2016 parliamentary elections but was appointed when a member of the European Parliament, who was elected, decided not to take up her seat before the start of the parliamentary term, as she wished to retain her seat as MEP. At the time, however, domestic law only provided for the possibility of filling a seat that became vacant after the start of the parliamentary term; it did not address the situation where an elected MP chose not to take up his or her seat before the start of the parliamentary term. Thus in 2017, 2018 and 2020 the Electoral Court annulled the authorities’ decisions to appoint the applicant owing to the absence – in that court’s view – of a legal or permissible constitutional framework clearly allowing for such substitution. Although Parliament amended the relevant electoral law and the Constitution over those three years to specifically address this issue, the Electoral Court ruled that these legislative efforts were unconstitutional or retroactive. It found in particular that the amendments resulted in the applicant’s election through specific legislation rather than a free general election or by-election, which undermined popular sovereignty. Law – Article   3 of Protocol No.   1: At the outset the Court noted that the way the elections had been conducted and the subsequent distribution of parliamentary seats by the Chief Returning Officer (“CRO”), responsible for the administration of elections, and the determination of the elected candidates had never been challenged or invalidated. Moreover, the OSCE’s Needs Assessment Mission Report on the May 2016 elections, had expressed full confidence in the integrity of the electoral process and in the professionalism and impartiality of the election administration. No concerns had been raised relating to the transparency of the electoral process, voter and candidate registration, as well as election day proceedings and the CRO’s declaration concerning the distribution of parliamentary seats and the determination of the elected candidates had not been questioned. The issue had arisen later when the candidate who had been elected for the seat had renounced taking it up prior to taking office. That was because t he domestic legal system issue did not initially expressly regulate the contingency. The scenario of a seat not being taken before Parliament convened, while novel for Cyprus, had not been unforeseeable, as it could have taken place not only if a declared MP had declined to take up the seat, but also for other reasons, such as the death of the declared MP. Regardless, once the issue had become apparent, it had been incumbent upon the authorities to find a timely and effective solution. Despite being declared elected three times by the CRO, the applicant’s mandate had been annulled each time by the Electoral Court and legislative efforts to specifically address the issue had been deemed unconstitutional or retroactive. Nor had the absence of a sufficiently precise and foreseeable statutory provision been remedied by the practice of the domestic courts. Although it was not the Court’s role to decide what the appropriate method was for filling the disputed parliamentary seat, the facts of the case revealed the inability of the domestic authorities to effectively resolve the issue. While the Court did not doubt that that had been unintentional and acknowledged the constitutional issues raised by the new situation, the result was that a parliamentary seat had been left unfilled for a significant period between the repeated annulment and reinstatement of the applicant, and the issue had remained unresolved for almost an entire parliamentary term. Both the applicant and the voters had been trapped in a legal deadlock. There had been no mechanism – whether the appointment of a runner-up or a by‑election – which could be applied to fill the seat that the CRO had duly allocated to the party pursuant to the domestic law. The domestic authorities’ failure to resolve the issue through legislative or judicial intervention had ultimately frustrated the choice of the people as expressed in May 2016. Accordingly, the Court found that the interference had not been “lawful” within the meaning of the Convention. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 8,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; claim for pecuniary damage dismissed.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. To access legal summaries in English or French click here . For non-official translations into other languages click here .Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;CLIN;ENG
- Dispositif
- Satisfaction
- Date
- 9 octobre 2025
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CEDH:002-14567
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral