CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 7 septembre 1999

.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 10 September 1999 Hilbe v. Liechtenstein (dec.) - 31981/96 Decision 7.9.1999 [Section IV] Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 Vote Liechtenstein national living in Switzerland prevented from voting in his country: inadmissible In 1995 the applicant, a national of Liechtenstein, was refused permission to have his name entered on the electoral roll for a referendum on the ground that for a number of years he had been living outside his country and the law limited the exercise of the right to vote to persons habitually resident in the country. The applicant unsuccessfully appealed to the authorities. In 1986 Parliament confirmed that citizens of Liechtenstein living abroad could not exercise the right to vote. Inadmissible under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1: only parliamentary elections fell within the scope of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1; referenda were excluded from that provision. According to the Commission’s case-law, a residence requirement was not in itself contrary to the provisions of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for example, Luksch v. Italy, DR 89, p.   175 and Polacco and Garofalo v. Italy, DR 90, p. 5). In the present case the legislation in question had been inspired by legitimate considerations in so far as nationals living abroad lost contact with “public affairs” and, furthermore, were not directly concerned by the work of elected assemblies. The residence requirement of which the applicant complained was neither unreasonable nor arbitrary: 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