CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 28 mars 2006

.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 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 84 March 2006 Sukhovetskyy v. Ukraine - 13716/02 Judgment 28.3.2006 [Section II] Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 Stand for election Refusal to register candidate for parliamentary elections as he had failed to pay an electoral deposit: no violation Facts : In January 2002 a local electoral commission refused to register the applicant as a candidate for the parliamentary elections due to his failure to pay an electoral deposit equivalent to some 160 euros at the time. The applicant claimed he was unable to meet that requirement, his annual income amounting to the equivalent of some 140 euros. The Central Electoral Commission upheld the refusal and his complaint to the Supreme Court was likewise refused. Law : The Court noted that the electoral laws of a number of European States provided for measures to discourage frivolous candidates from standing. The State’s participation in the campaign costs of the registered candidates, aimed at promoting equality among the contestants, was also a factor which could not be overlooked. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the law in question pursued the legitimate aim of guaranteeing the right to effective, streamlined representation by enhancing the responsibility of those standing for election and confining elections to serious candidates, whilst avoiding the unreasonable outlay of public funds. Moreover, among European jurisdictions, the amount of the deposit in Ukrainian law was one of the lowest. The fee required of the applicant could not therefore be considered to have been excessive or such as to constitute an insurmountable administrative or financial barrier for a determined candidate wishing to take part in elections, and even less so an obstacle to the emergence of sufficiently representative political currents or an interference with the principle of pluralism. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).   © 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