CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 mai 2014

.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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; 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 No. 175 June 2014 Dunn and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.) - 7408/09, 566/10, 578/10 et al. Decision 13.5.2014 [Section IV] Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 Vote Failure of applicant prisoners to substantiate that they were affected by blanket ban on voting: inadmissible Facts – In their application forms to the Court, the applicants complained, inter alia , about the blanket ban on prisoners’ voting rights in the United Kingdom in view of “forthcoming” elections to the United Kingdom or Scottish Parliaments, without however articulating clear complaints as regards any potential exclusion from those elections. Law – Article 3 of Protocol No. 1: The applicants had given no details in their application forms of the dates of their convictions or the length of their sentences. It was therefore far from evident that they were expected to be in post-conviction detention on the date of the “forthcoming” elections in question. Even if these details had been provided, other relevant events might have occurred between the lodging of the applications and the date of the elections, including release from detention, transfer to a psychiatric hospital or even death. Although some of the applicants may well have remained in detention and therefore found themselves excluded from voting in the elections concerned, none of them had contacted the Court following the date of the elections to confirm that this was the case. In conclusion, even if they were to be taken as having properly complained about elections that had not yet taken place by the date on which they lodged their application forms, they had failed to adduce the necessary facts to substantiate their complaints. Conclusion : 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