CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 11 janvier 2007

.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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   19 11.1.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT RUSSIAN CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF ENTREPRENEURS v. RUSSIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of the Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs v. Russia (application no.   55066/00).   The Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) to the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of the Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs and one of the party’s candidates for the 1999 general election in the Russian Federation; no violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 concerning a prospective voter in those elections; a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention in respect of the applicant party and its candidate; no violation of Article 13 concerning the voter; and, a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) concerning the applicant party.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant party 2,315,520 Russian roubles (RUR) (approximately 66,432 euros (EUR)) for pecuniary damage and RUR 196,677 (approximately EUR 5,643) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants are the Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs ( Российская консервативная партия пред ­ при ­ ни ­ ма ­ те ­ лей ) and two Russian nationals, Aleksandr Anatolyevich Zhukov, who was born in 1949 and lives in Smolensk (Russia), and Viktor Sergeyevich Vasilyev who was born in 1959 and lives in Moscow.   The Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs is a national political party established under the laws of the Russian Federation. Mr Zhukov stood as one of the party’s candidates for the 1999 elections to the State Duma of the Russian Federation, the lower chamber of   Parliament. Mr Vasilyev was a party supporter.   On 24   September   1999 the applicant party nominated 151 candidates for the elections to the State Duma and, in October, the Central Electoral Commission (CEC) confirmed receipt of the party’s list and the party paid its electoral deposit.   On 3 November 1999 the CEC refused registration of the applicant party's list of candidates, having found that certain people on the list, including the candidate listed second, had provided incorrect information about their income and property. Section 51(11) of the 1999 Elections Act provided for disqualification of the entire party's list in the event of “withdrawal” ( выбытия ) of one of the top three candidates on the list. That provision was interpreted by the CEC as encompassing all instances of “withdrawal”, whether voluntary or not. As a result, all candidates on the list, Mr Zhukov among them, were disqualified.   Disagreeing with the CEC’s interpretation, the applicant party successfully challenged its decision before the domestic courts. On 22   November 1999 the applicant party obtained a final judgment to the effect that section 51(11) applied only if the “withdrawal” had been voluntary. The judgment was immediately enforced and, that same day, the CEC registered the applicant party and allowed it to carry on its electoral campaign.   Nevertheless, on 26 November 1999 a deputy prosecutor general lodged an application for supervisory review, requesting the Supreme Court to reopen the proceedings and to accept the CEC's original broad interpretation of section 51(11). The Presidium of the Supreme Court subsequently quashed the earlier judgments by way of supervisory-review proceedings and upheld the CEC's position.   On 9 December 1999 the CEC annulled its earlier decisions, refused the registration of the applicant party's list and ordered the applicant party's name to be removed from the ballot papers. The applicant party appealed unsuccessfully.   On 19 December 1999 the elections to the State Duma took place. The applicant party was not listed in the voting papers.   On 25 April 2000 the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation declared unconstitutional the part of section 51(11) which provided for the refusal or cancellation of a party's registration in the event of the withdrawal of one of its top three candidates. However, the Constitutional Court also ruled that the finding that section   51(11) was unconstitutional was of no consequence for the State Duma elections of 19 December 1999 and could not be relied upon to seek a review of the election results.   All further appeals by the applicant party were unsuccessful, including its application to have its election deposit returned.               2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The applications were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 8 and 22   February 2000. On 3 April 2003 the Chamber decided to join the applications. They were declared admissible on 18 March 2004. Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Anatoli Kovler (Russian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .     3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints The applicants alleged a violation of the Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs’s and Mr Zhukov’s right to stand for election and a violation of Mr Vasilyev’s right to vote for the party of his choice. The applicant party also complained about the domestic authorities’ refusal to return its election deposit. All the applicants relied on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, Article 13 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   Decision of the Court   Article 3 of Protocol No. 1   The right to stand for election The Court noted that the final and enforceable judgment of 22 November 1999, which cleared the way for the applicant party and Mr Zhukov to stand in the elections, was quashed by means of supervisory-review proceedings on an application by a State official who was not a party to the proceedings. The purpose of his application was precisely to obtain a fresh determination of the issue that had been already settled. The Government did not point to any circumstances of a substantial and compelling character that could have justified that departure from the principle of legal certainty in the applicants’ case. As a result of the re-examination, the applicant party and Mr Zhukov were prevented from standing for election. It followed that, by using the supervisory-review procedure to set aside the judgment of 22 November 1999, the domestic authorities violated the principle of legal certainty in the procedure for determining the applicant party's and Mr Zhukov's eligibility to stand in the elections.   Concerning whether the decision to disqualify the applicant party and Mr Zhukov from standing in the election was proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued, the Court found that requiring a candidate for election to the national parliament to make his or her financial situation publicly known pursued a legitimate aim, in that it enabled voters to make an informed choice and promoted the overall fairness of elections.   In a party-list proportional representation system, where a voter voted for a party list on the understanding that candidates placed higher on the list had more chances of obtaining seats in the parliament, it was not surprising that political parties placed the most well-liked or charismatic figures at the top of their lists. Legal provisions reinforcing the bond between the top candidates and the entire party list were therefore instrumental for promoting the emergence of coherent political thinking, which was also a legitimate aim under the terms of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.   The Court observed that neither the applicant party nor Mr Zhukov had been found to have been in breach of the electoral laws. Thus, it was not their own conduct that led to their ineligibility or disqualification. They were sanctioned for circumstances which were both unrelated to their own conduct and outside their control. The Court considered that their disqualification for those reasons was disproportionate to the legitimate aims pursued. The Court added that that was also the view of the Russian Constitutional Court.   It followed that there had been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No.   1 in respect of the applicant party and Mr Zhukov.   The right to vote in elections Concerning Mr Vasilyev’s complaint that it had been impossible for him to cast his vote for a party of his choosing – the applicant party – which had been denied registration for the election, the Court did not consider that an allegedly frustrated voting intention could be considered grounds for an arguable claim of a violation of the right to vote.   An intention to vote for a specific party was essentially a thought; is existence could not be proved or disproved until and unless it had manifested itself through the act of voting or handing in a blank or spoiled paper. An individual applicant had to be able to claim to be actually affected by the measure of which he complained. But Mr Vasilyev did not furnish any information about the way in which he had exercised his right to vote.   The Court concluded that the right to vote could not be construed as laying down a general guarantee that every voter should be able to find on the ballot paper the candidate or the party he or she had intended to vote for. It reiterated, nevertheless, that the free expression of the opinion of the people was inconceivable without the participation of a plurality of political parties representing the different shades of opinion to be found within a country's population. Accordingly, it had to be regarded in the broader context in which the right to vote could be exercised by Mr Vasilyev.   The Court noted that more than 25 political parties and electoral blocs representing a broad gamut of political views and platforms competed in the 1999 elections to State Duma. The elections were acclaimed as competitive and pluralistic by international observers. It was not alleged that the voters lacked sufficient or adequate information about the candidates. Nor had it been claimed that Mr Vasilyev was subjected to any form of pressure or undue inducement in his voting choices. It could not therefore be said on the basis of the information available that Mr Vasilyev's right to take part in free elections had been unduly restricted.   There had therefore been no violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 as regards Mr Vasilyev’s right to vote. Article 13   Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs and Mr Zhukov The Court found that the Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs and Mr Zhukov were denied an effective remedy in respect of the violation of their electoral rights through the use of the supervisory-review procedure. There had accordingly been a violation of Article 13. (The Court did not consider it necessary to examine whether further developments in the case also disclosed a violation of Article 13.)   Mr Vasilyev Having found that Mr Vasilyev did not have an arguable claim of a violation of his right to vote, the Court found no violation of his right under Article 13.   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Having found, in particular, that the domestic proceedings concerning the applicants were conducted in breach of the principle of legal certainty, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 in respect of the domestic authorities’ refusal to refund the election deposit to the applicant party.   ***   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.