CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 24 juin 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; 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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   467 24.6.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT ĀDAMSONS v. LATVIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Ādamsons v. Latvia (application no. 3669/03).   The Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 10,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Jānis Ādamsons, is a Latvian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Preiļi (Lavia).   The case concerns the applicant’s disqualification from standing for election on account of his previous service in the Border Guard Forces of the Soviet Union, which were subordinate to the KGB, and his removal from the electoral list of the party of which he was then Vice-President.   In 1979 Mr Ādamsons became an officer of the Border Guard Forces of the former Soviet Union, an armed corps placed under the supervision of the KGB. During his service, which was mainly in the Far East, he was promoted to the rank of Commander. After the break-up of the USSR in December 1991 all the Soviet Armed Forces came under the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation. In June 1992 the applicant left the Russian Border Guard Forces and returned to Latvia, where he was appointed to important posts in the command of the newly restored Latvian army. First he became Vice-Commander of the Navy and then Commander of the Latvian Border Guard Forces. In 1994 he abandoned his military career to go into politics. After having been Minister of the Interior, he was elected to Parliament and remained a member until 2002.   In 1996 the applicant left the party then in power, Latvijas ceļš (“The Latvian Way”), and joined the ranks of the Social Democrat opposition. In 1998 the Parliamentary Record Office took measures to have him formally recorded as having collaborated with the KGB. In a judgment of 3 March 2000, given at the request of the prosecutor’s office, the District Court of Zemgale found that the applicant had been a “serving officer of the KGB Border Guard Forces” and not a “KGB officer” as the prosecution had maintained. On the basis of that judgment, in April 2000, a number of members of parliament unsuccessfully attempted to have the applicant’s parliamentary mandate revoked. They referred to section 5(5) of the Parliamentary Elections Act which disqualified citizens “who are or have been serving officers of organs of public security or intelligence or counter-espionage services of the USSR, the Republic of Latvia or of a foreign State”. However, the parliamentary commission found that the judgment drew a clear distinction between a “KGB officer” and an “officer of the KGB Border Guard Forces”, even if the latter was subordinate to the KGB. The restriction in question applied only to the first category.   In 2002 the applicant stood in the parliamentary elections as a candidate for the Workers’ Social Democratic Party of Latvia. Under section 5(5) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, however, the Central Electoral Commission struck the applicant out of the list.   The applicant appealed to the Central District Court. His appeal was dismissed on 20 August 2002 and that ruling was upheld by the Senate of the Supreme Court.   Mr Ādamsons stood in the European elections in June 2004, as the European Parliament Elections Act did not provide for similar restrictions. The applicant’s list did not obtain any seats in the European Parliament.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 27 January 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorran), President , Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), Lech Garlicki (Polish), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian), Egbert Myjer (Dutch), judges , and also Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections), Mr Ādamsons complained of his removal from the electoral list and his disqualification from standing in elections. He also relied on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Decision of the Court   Article 3 of Protocol No. 1   Having regard to Latvia’s experience under Soviet rule and the active role played by the KGB, the main State security agency of the former USSR, in preserving totalitarian rule and repressing any political opposition to the regime, the Court considered that the electoral legislation in question had the legitimate aim of protecting the independence of the State, its democratic order, its institutional system and its national security.   With regard to the question whether the decision that had prevented Mr Ādamsons from standing was proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued, the Court considered, in the light of the particular socio-historical background to the applicant’s case, that during the first years after Latvia had regained independence electoral rights could be substantially restricted without thereby infringing Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. However, with the passing of time, a mere general suspicion regarding a group of persons no longer sufficed and the authorities had to provide further arguments and evidence to justify the measure in question.   The Court noted that section 5(5) of the Parliamentary Elections Act targeted former “officers” of the KGB. Having regard to the wide-ranging functions of that agency, it considered that that concept was too broad and that a restriction of the electoral rights of a member of that group should take a case-by-case approach which would allow their actual conduct to be taken into account.   The Court noted that the applicant had never been accused of having been directly or indirectly involved in the misdeeds of the communist totalitarian regime, such as repression of political and ideological opposition, informing against people or taking any other measure against them. The Court did not perceive anything in the applicant’s past to suggest that he had opposed or expressed hostility to the recovery of Latvia’s independence and democratic order.   Moreover, the applicant was not officially declared disqualified from standing in elections until 2002, that is, much later, after a remarkable ten-year military and political career in Latvia as re-established. Indeed, from his return in 1992, he held very important posts before embarking on a parliamentary career. In the Court’s opinion, only the most compelling reasons could justify disqualifying the applicant in such conditions and the Government had failed to provide such reasons.   Moreover, during that decade the applicant had had ample opportunity to prove his loyalty towards the Latvian State and his attachment to democratic values, and the Government had failed to adduce any evidence of a lack of integrity on his part in that respect.   Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.   Article 14   Regard being had to the conclusion it had reached regarding Article 3 of Protocol No.1, the Court did not consider it necessary to examine whether there had been a violation of Article   14.     Judge Garlicki, joined by Judges Zupančič and Gyulumyan, expressed a concurring opinion. Judge Fura-Sandström expressed a dissenting opinion. These opinions are annexed to the judgment.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts 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.