CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 1 février 2005

.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 72 February 2005 Sukhovetskyy v. Ukraine (dec.) - 13716/02 Decision 1.2.2005 [Section II] Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 Stand for election Denied registration as a candidate in parliamentary elections due to the applicant’s inability to pay a deposit: admissible Article 14 Discrimination Denied registration as a candidate in parliamentary elections due to the applicant’s inability to pay a deposit: admissible The Electoral Committee refused to register the applicant as a candidate for the 2002 parliamentary elections due to his failure to pay the election deposit of sixty times the tax-free monthly income (around EUR 160). The applicant unsuccessfully challenged these decisions before the Central Electoral Committee and the Supreme Court, stating that he was unable to pay the deposit as his annual income was less than this sum. The applicant complains under Article   3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, separately and in conjunction with Article   14. He argues that the refusal to register him as a candidate was based on his financial status and therefore his right to participate in the elections was limited in comparison with other “wealthy” candidates. Article   3 of Protocol No. 1 and Article   14 of the Convention: admissible . Articles 17 and 18 of the Convention: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded) .   © 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