CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 11 janvier 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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. 93 January 2007 Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs and Others v. Russia - 55066/00 Judgment 11.1.2007 [Section I] Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 Stand for election Vote Entire party list disqualified on account of incorrect information provided by some candidates on it: violation   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Refusal to refund election deposit: violation   Facts : The applicants are the Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs and two Russian nationals, Mr   Zhukov (one of the party's candidates for the 1999 elections to the State Duma of the Russian Federation, the lower chamber of Parliament) and Mr   Vasilyev, a party supporter. The applicant party is a national party established under the laws of the Russian Federation. In September   1999 it nominated 151 candidates for the elections to the State Duma. In October, the Central Electoral Commission (“the CEC”) confirmed receipt of the party's list and the party paid its electoral deposit. In November 1999 the CEC refused registration of the applicant party's list of candidates, having found that certain people on the list, including the candidate listed second, had provided incorrect information about their income and property. Section 51(11) of the 1999 Elections Act provided for disqualification of the entire party's list in the event of “withdrawal” of one of the top three candidates on the list. That provision was interpreted by the CEC as encompassing all instances of “withdrawal”, whether voluntary or not. As a result, all candidates on the list, including Mr   Zhukov, were disqualified. Disagreeing with the CEC's interpretation, the applicant party successfully challenged its decision before the domestic courts. On 22 November 1999 it obtained a final judgment to the effect that section 51(11) applied only if the “withdrawal” had been voluntary. The judgment was immediately enforced, the CEC registering the applicant party and allowing it to carry on its electoral campaign. Nevertheless, later that month a deputy prosecutor-general lodged an application for supervisory review, requesting the Supreme Court to reopen the proceedings and to accept the CEC's original interpretation of section 51(11). The Presidium of the Supreme Court subsequently quashed the earlier judgments by way of supervisory-review proceedings and upheld the CEC's position. In December 1999 the CEC annulled its earlier decisions, refused the registration of the applicant party's list and ordered the party's name to be removed from the ballot papers. The applicant party appealed unsuccessfully and on 19 December 1999 the elections took place. In April 2000 the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation declared unconstitutional the part of section 51(11) which provided for the refusal or cancellation of a party's registration in the event of the withdrawal of one of its top three candidates. However, the Constitutional Court also ruled that the finding that section   51(11) was unconstitutional had been of no consequence for the State Duma elections of December 1999 and could not be relied upon to seek a review of the election results. All further appeals by the applicant party were unsuccessful, including its application to have its election deposit returned. Law : Article   3 of Protocol No. 1 - The right to stand for election (complaint by the applicant party and Mr   Zhukov) : The final and enforceable judgment of 22 November 1999, which had cleared the way for the applicant party and Mr   Zhukov to stand in the elections, had been quashed by means of supervisory-review proceedings on an application by a State official who was not a party to the proceedings. The purpose of his application had been precisely to obtain a fresh determination of an issue that had been already settled. The Government had not pointed to any circumstances of a substantial and compelling character that could have justified that departure from the principle of legal certainty in the applicants' case. As a result of the re-examination, the applicant party and Mr   Zhukov had been prevented from standing for election. By using the supervisory-review procedure to set aside the judgment of 22   November 1999, the domestic authorities had violated the principle of legal certainty in the procedure for determining the applicant party's and Mr   Zhukov's eligibility to stand in the elections. Concerning whether the decision to disqualify the applicant party and Mr   Zhukov from standing in the election had been proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued, the Court found that requiring a candidate for election to the national parliament to make his or her financial situation publicly known pursued a legitimate aim, in that it enabled voters to make an informed choice and promoted the overall fairness of elections. In a party-list proportional representation system, where a voter voted for a party list on the understanding that candidates placed higher on the list had more chances of obtaining seats in the parliament, it was not surprising that political parties placed the most well-liked or charismatic figures at the top of their lists. Legal provisions reinforcing the bond between the top candidates and the entire party list were therefore instrumental for promoting the emergence of coherent political thinking, which was also a legitimate aim under the terms of Article   3 of Protocol No. 1. The Court observed that neither the applicant party nor Mr   Zhukov had been found to have been in breach of the electoral laws. Thus, it was not their own conduct that had led to their ineligibility or disqualification. They had been sanctioned for circumstances which were both unrelated to their own conduct and outside their control. Their disqualification for those reasons had been disproportionate to the legitimate aims pursued, this being also the view of the Constitutional Court. Conclusion : violation of the applicant party's and Mr   Zhukov's right to free elections (unanimously). The right to vote in elections (complaint by prospective voter Vasilyev) : Concerning Mr   Vasilyev's complaint that it had been impossible for him to cast his vote for a party of his choosing (the applicant party) which had been denied registration for the election, the Court did not consider that an allegedly frustrated voting intention could be considered grounds for an arguable claim of a violation of the right to vote. An intention to vote for a specific party was essentially a thought; is existence could not be proved or disproved until and unless it had manifested itself through the act of voting or handing in a blank or spoiled paper. An individual applicant had to be able to claim to be actually affected by the measure of which he complained. But Mr   Vasilyev did not furnish any information about the way in which he had exercised his right to vote. The Court concluded that the right to vote could not be construed as laying down a general guarantee that every voter should be able to find on the ballot paper the candidate or the party he or she had intended to vote for. It reiterated, nevertheless, that the free expression of the opinion of the people was inconceivable without the participation of a plurality of political parties representing the different shades of opinion to be found within a country's population. Accordingly, it had to be regarded in the broader context in which the right to vote could be exercised by Mr   Vasilyev: more than 25 political parties and electoral blocs representing a broad gamut of political views and platforms had competed in the 1999 elections to State Duma. The elections were acclaimed as competitive and pluralistic by international observers. It was not alleged that the voters lacked sufficient or adequate information about the candidates. Nor had it been claimed that Mr   Vasilyev was subjected to any form of pressure or undue inducement in his voting choices. It could not therefore be said on the basis of the information available that Mr   Vasilyev's right to take part in free elections had been unduly restricted. Conclusion : no violation of Mr   Vasilyev's right to vote(unanimously). Article   13 (the applicant party and Mr   Zhukov) : The applicant party and Mr   Zhukov had been denied an effective remedy in respect of the violation of their electoral rights through the use of the supervisory-review procedure. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (the applicant party) : The Court having found, in particular, that the domestic proceedings concerning the applicants had been conducted in breach of the principle of legal certainty, there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 in respect of the domestic authorities' refusal to refund the election deposit to the applicant party. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   41 – EUR 66,000 for 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