CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 18 novembre 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 } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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   811 18.11.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT TĂNASE AND CHIRTOACĂ v. MOLDOVA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Tănase and Chirtoacă v. Moldova (application no. 7/08).   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 concerning Mr   Tănase’s complaint that a new electoral law in Moldova breached his right to stand as a candidate in free elections and to take his seat in Parliament if elected.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded Mr   Tănase 3,860   euros (EUR) in respect of costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants, Alexandru Tănase and Dorin Chirtoacă, are Moldovan and Romanian nationals who were born in 1971 and 1978 respectively and live in Chişinău. They are both well-known Moldovan politicians: Mr   Chirtoacă is Vice-President of the Liberal Party and Mayor of Chişinău; and, Mr   Tănase Vice-President of the Liberal Democratic Party and a member of the Chisinau Municipal Council.   The case concerned the applicants’ complaint that a new electoral law in Moldova breached their right to stand as candidates in free elections and to take their seats in Parliament if elected.   The Republic of Moldova is situated on territory which used to be part of Romania before World War II. That territory’s population lost its Romanian citizenship after annexation by the Soviet Union in 1940. Following Moldova’s declaration of independence in August 1991, a new law was adopted on Moldovan nationality. All those who had lived in the territory of the former Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic before annexation were proclaimed citizens of Moldova; as descendants of those persons, both applicants obtained Moldovan nationality.   In 1991 the Romanian Parliament also adopted a new law on citizenship: former Romanian nationals and their descendants who had lost their nationality before 1989 were allowed to re-acquire Romanian nationality. The applicants subsequently requested and obtained Romanian nationality, the restriction on Moldovan nationals holding other nationalities having been repealed in June 2003.   On 10 April 2008 the Moldovan Parliament reformed the electoral legislation, notably by introducing a ban on those with dual or multiple nationality from becoming members of Parliament (Law   no. 273). Other important amendments included the increasing of the electoral threshold and a ban on all forms of electoral blocks and coalitions. Those amendments were enacted and entered into force in May 2008.   Both the Council of Europe’s Commission against Racism and Intolerance (“ECRI”) and the Venice Commission have expressed concern about those amendments to the Electoral Code. In particular, both bodies pointed out that the provisions of the new law were incompatible with the European Convention on Nationality, ratified by Moldova in November 1999.   The next general elections in Moldova will be held in spring 2009. Mr Chirtoacă has stated to the press that he would actively participate in those elections but, as it is impossible under Moldovan legislation to hold a dual mandate, he would not give up his position of mayor of Chişinău even if he was elected. Mr Tănase has made it clear that he will stand and take his seat if elected but that he has no intention to renounce his dual nationality.   It is estimated that between 95,000 and 300,000 Moldovans have obtained Romanian nationality between 1991 and 2001; in February 2007 some 800,000 Moldovans had applications pending for Romanian nationality. The most popular second nationality after Romanian is Russian; the Russian Ambassador to Moldova has recently stated that there were approximately 120,000 Moldovans with Russian passports.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 27 December 2007.   The Romanian Government was granted leave to intervene in the proceedings as a third party.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Lech Garlicki (Polish), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Ljiljana Mijović (citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina), David Thór Björgvinsson (Icelandic), Ledi Bianku (Albanian), Mihai Poalelungi (Moldovan), judges , and also Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicants alleged, in particular, that the new electoral law was anti-democratic and breached their right to stand as candidates in free elections and to take their seats in Parliament if elected. Mr Tănase further claimed that Law no. 273 was part of the Communist Party’s larger plan to diminish the chances of the opposition in the forthcoming elections. The applicants relied on Article   3 of Protocol No.   1 (right to free elections) and Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Decision of the Court   Admissibility   The Court noted that Mr   Chirtoacă had been quite clear in his statements to the press that he did not intend to cumulate the functions of Mayor and MP. Therefore, he was not affected by Law No. 273 and in the present case could not claim to be a victim. Accordingly, the Court declared inadmissible the application in respect of Mr   Chirtoacă. Mr   Tănase, on the other hand, was directly affected by the new electoral law because, if elected, he would have to make the difficult choice between sitting as an MP and renouncing his dual nationality. Indeed, awareness of that difficult choice could have an adverse affect on the applicant’s electoral campaign, both in terms of his personal investment and effort and in terms of the risk of losing votes with the electorate.   Article 3 of Protocol No. 1   Firstly, the Court noted that Moldova was apparently the only European country which allowed individuals to have multiple nationalities but prohibited them from being elected to Parliament.   The Court stressed that in a democracy, loyalty to a State did not necessarily mean loyalty to the actual government of that State or to a particular political party. There were other methods available to the Moldovan Government to ensure loyalty of MPs to the nation, such as requiring them to take an oath. Such measures had been adopted by other European countries.   Indeed, ECRI and the Venice Commission had underlined the incompatibility between certain provisions of the new electoral law and the undertakings Moldova had accepted when ratifying the Council of Europe’s European Convention on Nationality, which in particular guaranteed to all those holding multiple nationality and residing on the territory of Moldova equal treatment with other Moldovans who hold exclusively Moldovan nationality.   Moreover, the Court was struck by the fact that in 2002 and 2003 the Moldovan Parliament had actually adopted legislation allowing Moldovans to hold dual nationality. At that time the authorities had not apparently had any concerns about the loyalty of those opting for dual nationality. Nor had the Government mentioned that the political rights of those who had decided to acquire another nationality would be impaired. Since 2003, and no doubt encouraged by the new policy, a large section of the Moldovan population had obtained dual or multiple nationality in the legitimate expectation that their existing political rights would not be curtailed.   In the specific context of Moldova’s political evolution, the Court was not satisfied that Law No. 273 could be justified, particularly in view of the fact that such a far-reaching restriction had been introduced approximately a year or less before the general elections. Such practice was at odds with the recommendations by the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission concerning the crucial nature of the stability of the law for the credibility of the electoral process. Those in favour of the electoral reform had even categorically rejected the opposition’s proposal to have the draft submitted to the Council of Europe for expertise. Nor had the Government reacted in any way to the unequivocal concern expressed by the Council of Europe.   The Court therefore concluded that the means employed by the Moldovan Government for the purpose of ensuring loyalty of its MPs to the State had been disproportionate, in violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.   Article 14   Given the above finding, the Court considered that there was no need to examine separately Mr   Tănase’s complaint under Article   14.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Adrien Raif-Meyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 33 37) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) 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.