CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 10 avril 2008

.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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   258 10.4.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT PASCHALIDIS, KOUTMERIDIS AND ZAHARAKIS v. GREECE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Paschalidis, Koutmeridis and Zaharakis v. Greece (application nos. 27863/05, 28422/05 and 28028/05).   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 forfeiture of the applicants’ parliamentary seats.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court held that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. In respect of pecuniary damage, the Court awarded 119,613   euros (EUR) to Mr   Paschalidis, EUR   78,298   to Mr   Koutmeridis and EUR   142,532   to Mr   Zaharakis. It also awarded EUR   5,000   to Mr   Paschalidis and Mr   Koutmeridis and EUR   2,000   to Mr   Zaharakis for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     1.     Principal facts   The applicants, Giorgos Paschalidis, Efstathios Koutmeridis and Konstantinos Zaharakis, are Greek nationals.   The case concerned the applicants’ complaint about the forfeiture of their parliamentary seats, in application of a judgment by the Special Supreme Court.   During the parliamentary elections of 7   March 2004, Mr   Paschalidis and Mr   Koutmeridis stood as candidates on lists submitted by the “PASOK” party in the Pella and Serres constituencies, and Mr   Zaharakis stood for election on a list submitted by the “Nea Dimokratia” party in the second constituency in Salonika. All three were elected as members of parliament and obtained seats in their respective constituencies.   On 30   March 2004 Parthena Fountoukidou, an unsuccessful candidate in the same elections on “Nea Dimokratia’s” list for the Pella constituency, lodged an application before the Special Supreme Court, seeking to have Mr   Paschalidis’s election overturned on the ground of electoral irregularities. Mrs   Fountoukidou complained, in particular, that the blank ballot papers cast in the Pella constituency had not been taken into consideration in calculating the electoral quotient. She argued that this had affected the distribution of seats in the Pella constituency and the main constituency of Central Macedonia, with the result that Mr   Paschalidis had been elected in her place.   In a new interpretation of the legislation in question, the Supreme Court concluded in a final decision of 9   May 2005 that the blank ballot papers should be taken into consideration in calculating the electoral quotient and the distribution of seats.   In application of that interpretation of the electoral law, the Supreme Court re-distributed the seats. As a result, the seat for the Pella constituency, initially awarded to Mr   Paschalidis, was allocated to Mrs   Fountoukidou, and the other two applicants were also removed from their seats (judgment no.   12/2005).   In February 2006, the Greek Parliament enacted a new provision (section   1 of law no.   3434/2006) under which blank ballot papers were not to be taken into consideration during elections.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The applications were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 19, 29 and 28   July 2005 respectively and declared partly admissible on 24   October 2006 and 20   September 2007.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nina Vajić (Croatian), President , Christos Rozakis (Greek), Anatoly Kovler (Russian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), Giorgio Malinverni (Swiss), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   Relying on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections), the applicants complained about the forfeiture of their parliamentary seats.   Decision of the Court   Article 3 of Protocol No. 1   The Court noted, firstly, that the applicants had been elected in compliance with the electoral law in force and that they could not therefore have foreseen that their election would be cancelled following a reversal in the case-law. It also highlighted the fact that judgment no.   12/2005 was the sole decision in favour of the inclusion of blank ballot papers in the total of valid ballot papers, since the Greek Parliament had subsequently enacted a new provision (section   1 of law no.   3434/2006) under which blank ballot papers were not to be taken into consideration.   In addition, the Court considered that that situation was liable to alter the will of the electorate as expressed by them in the ballot box.   The Court also noted that during the parliamentary elections in question the main constituency in Central Macedonia was the only one in which the calculation of the electoral quotient was carried out on the basis of the Supreme Court’s new case-law. In consequence, judgment no.   12/2005 had created two categories of members of the Greek Parliament: those who were elected without the inclusion of blank ballot papers, and those who held their seats because such ballot papers had been taken into consideration, to the detriment of the three applicants.   The Court concluded that the unforeseeable manner in which the Greek courts had interpreted and applied the electoral law had entailed a violation of Article   3 of Protocol No.   1.     ***   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) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   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 Convention, 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.