CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 15 juin 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s97C4B4C1 { width:44pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   346 15.6.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT LYKOUREZOS v. GREECE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Lykourezos v. Greece (application no. 33554/03).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the applicant’s forfeiture of his parliamentary seat; by five votes to two that it was not necessary to carry out a separate examination of the complaint under Article 8 (right to respect for private life).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 20,000 euros (EUR) for pecuniary damage and EUR 14,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Alexandros-Leon Lykourezos, is a 72-year-old Greek national who lives in Athens. The application concerns his forfeiture of his parliamentary seat on the ground that carrying on a professional activity disqualified him from holding such office.   Mr Lykourezos has been a member of the Athens Bar since 1960. In April 2000 he stood in the parliamentary elections in the first constituency of Athens as a candidate on the “Nea Dimokratia” party’s list. He obtained 44,387 votes and was elected as a member of parliament for a four-year term.   In 2001 a revision of the Constitution made all professional activity incompatible with the duties of a member of parliament. Such a disqualification is provided for in the new Article 57 of the Constitution, although the relevant implementing legislation has yet to be passed.   In February 2003 a constituent lodged a complaint against the applicant with the Special Supreme Court, arguing among other things that, under Article 57 of the Constitution, his practising as a lawyer disqualified him from holding parliamentary office. In a judgment of 3 July 2003 the Special Supreme Court allowed the complaint and ruled that the applicant had forfeited his seat. In particular, it dismissed the applicant’s argument that he could not be deemed to be practising a profession as he no longer received any fees.   Accordingly, the applicant was replaced as a member of the Chamber of Deputies by his substitute in July 2003.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 9 October 2003 and declared admissible on 13 December 2005. A hearing was held in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 16 March 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), President , Christos Rozakis (Greek), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant complained that his forfeiture of his parliamentary seat had infringed his right to be elected to the national parliament and had deprived his constituents of the candidate they had elected before his term of office had expired. He also alleged that the fact that he had forfeited his seat in order to be able to carry on his professional activities had amounted to unjustifiable interference with his private and professional life, in breach of Article 8.   Decision of the Court   Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 It was not the Court’s task to state its view on the general prohibition on practising any profession. It confined itself to observing that the disqualification created by the new Article 57 of the Constitution, whereby members of parliament were prohibited from carrying on a professional activity, was rarely encountered in other European states.   However, the Court could not overlook the fact that the applicant had been elected in conditions not open to criticism, in accordance with the electoral system and the Constitution as in force at the time. Nobody could have imagined that his election might be called into question while his term of office was in progress on the ground that his simultaneously carrying on a profession was incompatible with his duties as a member of parliament. The applicant’s disqualification on professional grounds during his term of office had therefore come as a surprise both to him and to his constituents.   In those circumstances, the Court concluded that by considering the applicant’s election under the new Article 57 of the Constitution without taking into account the fact that he had been elected in 2000 in accordance with the law, the Special Supreme Court had caused him to forfeit his seat and had deprived his constituents of the candidate they had chosen freely and democratically to represent them in Parliament, in breach of the principle of legitimate expectation. The Greek Government, moreover, had not advanced any grounds of pressing importance to the democratic order that could have justified the immediate application of the absolute disqualification.   The Court therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.   Article 8 Having regard to its finding of a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, the Court did not consider it necessary to consider the case under Article 8 as well.   Judge Loucaides expressed a partly concurring opinion and Judge Spielmann, joined by Judge Tulkens, a partly dissenting opinion. The opinions are annexed to the judgment.   ***   These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of the Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press Contacts     Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.