CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 11 juin 2009

.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 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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 }   459 11.6.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT PETKOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Petkov and Others v. Bulgaria (applications nos. 77568/01, 178/02 and 505/02). The case concerned the applicants’ complaint that they could not stand as candidates in the 2001 parliamentary elections.   The Court held by 5 votes to 2 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 failure of the electoral authorities to reinstate the applicants on the electoral lists despite the final judicial decisions in their favour; and, a violation of Article 13 (right of an effective remedy) of the Convention, on account of the lack of effective remedies allowing the applicants to vindicate effectively their right to stand for Parliament.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicants respectively 2,500   euros   (EUR) to Mr Georgiev and EUR   3,000 to Mr Dimitrov for costs and expenses. ( The judgment is available only in English .)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants are three Bulgarian nationals living in different towns in Bulgaria: Mr   Naum Ivanov Petkov was born in 1941 and lives in Vratsa; Mr Boris Radkov Georgiev was born in 1944 and lives in Montana; and Mr Ventseslav Asenov Dimitrov was born in 1945 and lives in Sofia.   In 1997, a law was adopted, the so-called “Dossiers Act”, which provided for the disclosure of the names of individuals who had collaborated with the State security agencies in the communist past. The task of disclosure was entrusted to a special body, “the Dossiers Commission”, which had to publish reports containing the names of such individuals.   In the context of the parliamentary elections on 17 June 2001, the Election of Members of Parliament Act (“the electoral law”), which was adopted on 9 April 2001, allowed political parties to withdraw nominations of candidates if there was information which indicated that they had collaborated with the former State security agencies.   On 5 June 2001 the Central Electoral Commission decided that the relevant information could be provided by the Dossiers Commission either through the reports it was supposed to prepare or through certificates issued by it. The Central Electoral Commission’s decision specified that on the basis of these documents, and of a request by the political party concerned, the relevant regional electoral commission could annul the candidate’s registration. On 13 June 2001 this decision was declared null and void by the Supreme Administrative Court, which held that the only lawful means for establishing collaboration with the former State security agencies were the reports to be drawn up by the Dossiers Commission, not certificates issued by it.   In the parliamentary elections held on 17   June 2001 all three applicants ran as candidates for the National Movement Simeon II. Prior to these elections, the applicants were struck off the lists of candidates by the relevant regional electoral commissions on account of allegations – based on certificates issued by the Dossiers Commission – that they had collaborated with the former State security agencies. The decisions to strike them off the lists were subsequently declared null and void by the Supreme Administrative Court, in line with its judgment of 13   June 2001. However, the electoral authorities did not restore the applicants’ names to the lists. As a result, they could not run for Parliament.   Subsequently, Mr Dimitrov’s case was reviewed by the Constitutional Court, which acted upon the request of fifty-seven members of Parliament and the Plenary Meeting of the Supreme Administrative Court. The Constitutional Court found against Mr Dimitrov, stating that while the electoral authorities’ failure to give effect to the final judgment in his favour was problematic, it could not render the election of the person who had replaced him on the ballot illegal, but only lead to an award of damages. Accordingly, in October 2004 Mr Dimitrov brought an action for damages under the 1988 State Responsibility for Damage Act. In February 2008, these proceedings were still pending before the first instance court.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The applications were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 16 November, 1   October and 21   December 2001, respectively, and were declared partly admissible on 4   December 2007.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), President , Rait Maruste (Estonia), Karel Jungwiert (Czech Republic), Renate Jaeger (Germany), Mark Villiger (Liechtenschtein), Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgaria), judges , and Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar ,   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article 3 of Protocol 1 and on Article 13, the applicants complained that they had been prevented from running in the 2001 parliamentary elections and had not had effective remedies in that respect.   Decision of the Court   Article 3 of Protocol 1   The Court first pointed out that the right to stand for Parliament was an individual right protected by Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. In order to determine whether it had been breached in this case, it examined whether the electoral authorities’ failure to give effect to the final and binding judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court had prevented the applicants from standing in the parliamentary elections on 17 June 2001. It pointed out that it was not its task to determine whether these judgments had been correct, nor to resolve the issues of which they had disposed.   The Court observed that, while the reason for this failure had apparently been the electoral authorities’ belief that the judgments had been erroneous and outside the jurisdiction of the Supreme Administrative Court, in a democratic society abiding by the rule of law the authorities could not cite their disapproval of the findings made in a final judgment to justify their refusal to comply with it.   The Court took account of the difficulties facing the electoral authorities due to the fact that two of the Supreme Administrative Court’s judgments had been delivered just a couple of days before the elections, and one even afterwards. However, the Court found that these difficulties had been of the authorities’ own making: notably, the electoral law had been adopted just over two months before the elections, at odds with the Council of Europe’s recommendations on the stability of electoral law; instead of requiring political parties to verify links with former State security agencies before nominating candidates, parties had been allowed to do so after the nomination; and the practical arrangements for the application of the rule concerning withdrawal of candidates had been clarified by the Central Electoral Commission only 12 days before the elections actually took place. All this had resulted in serious practical difficulties and had led to legal challenges that had to be adjudicated and acted upon under extreme time constraints.   Accordingly, the electoral authorities’ failure to reinstate the applicants on the lists despite the final domestic judgments in their favour had been in violation of Article 3 of Protocol 1.   Article 13   The Court found that the remedy relied on by the Government – a claim under the 1988 State Responsibility for Damage Act – could not by itself be considered effective. Even if ultimately successful, it would not have been sufficient, as it could have only led to an award of compensation. The Court pointed out that in the electoral context only remedies capable of ensuring the proper unfolding of the democratic process could be considered effective.   The Court examined the availability of such remedies in Bulgaria and found that the Constitutional Court could hear challenges to the lawfulness of parliamentary elections and review the lawfulness of the election of individual members of Parliament. However, the Court was not persuaded that this remedy was effective, because it was not clear whether the scope of the Constitutional Court’s review allowed it to address satisfactorily the essence of the applicants’ grievances and whether it would have been able to provide the applicants with sufficient redress, by, for instance, ordering repeat elections. This uncertainty was apparently due to the lack of clear and unambiguous provisions in this domain and to the scarcity of rulings on such matters. The latter, in turn, stemmed from the limitation on the persons and bodies who could bring a case to the Constitutional Court. Under Bulgarian law, only a limited category of persons or bodies were entitled to refer a matter to that court. This meant that the participants in the electoral process could not directly compel the institution of proceedings before it, whereas under the Court’s settled case-law, a remedy could only be considered effective if the applicant were able to initiate the procedure directly.   There had therefore been a violation of Article 13 in respect of the applicants’ complaint under Article 3 of Protocol 1.     Judges Maruste and Jaeger expressed a dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   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.