CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 2 mars 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s7940ED5C { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline } .s43719078 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }   173 02.03.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] Grosaru v. Romania (application no. 78039/01)       REFUSAL TO ALLOCATE A SEAT AS MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT UNDER AN ELECTORAL LAW THAT LACKED CLARITY AND WITH NO EFFECIVE REMEDY TO COMPLAIN OF IT   Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections), taken alone and in conjunction with Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicant, Mircea Grosaru, is a Romanian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Bucharest. He was a candidate in the parliamentary elections of November 2000, when he stood for the seat assigned to the Italian minority in Romania. The “Italian Community of Romania”, one of the organisations representing the Italian minority, nominated Mr Grosaru as their candidate in 19 out of 42 constituencies. Once all the votes had been counted the central electoral office, on the basis of the 1992 Law on Elections to the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate, granted the parliamentary seat belonging to the Italian minority to the “Italian Community of Romania”. Although Mr Grosaru was the candidate from that organisation who had obtained the most votes – 5,624 votes at national level –, the central electoral office allocated the seat in Parliament to another member of the organisation, Ms Ileana Stana Ionescu, who had obtained only 2,943 votes, but in a single constituency.   Mr Grosaru challenged that decision before the central electoral office. On 2 December 2000 his challenge was dismissed as unfounded, in a decision signed by six judges and six representatives of political parties. On the same date he lodged an appeal with the central electoral office, which declared it inadmissible on 3 December 2000, ruling as a panel composed of six judges and twelve representatives of political parties.   Complaints by Mr Grosaru to the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court were declared inadmissible for lack of jurisdiction in electoral disputes. His complaint to the validation commission of the Chamber of Deputies was dismissed on the same grounds as those put forward by the central electoral office.   The 2004 Law on Elections to the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate now states that the parliamentary seat assigned to a particular national minority is to be allocated to the electoral constituency in which the list of candidates put forward obtained the most votes.   In 2004 and 2008 Mr Grosaru was elected Member of Parliament on behalf of the Italian minority of Romania.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article   3 of Protocol No. 1, taken alone and in conjunction with Article   13, Mr Grosaru complained that he had been refused a seat as member of parliament in 2000.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 30 April 2001.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorra), President , Elisabet Fura (Sweden), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romania), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenia), Egbert Myjer (the Netherlands), Ineta Ziemele (Latvia), Ann Power (Ireland), Judges , and Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   As to the alleged violation of Article   3 of Protocol No. 1   The Court reiterated that the States had a wide margin of discretion in determining electoral rules. However, the decisions taken in application of these rules had to be accompanied by sufficient guarantees to avoid any arbitrariness.   In this connection, the Court noted firstly the lack of clarity in the 1992 Electoral Law with regard to the procedure to be followed in assigning the parliamentary seat set aside for an organisation representing a national minority. This law stated that the seat was to be allocated to the candidate who received the largest number of votes, but did not specify whether this was the largest number of votes at national level or at the level of an electoral constituency. This lack of clarity in the electoral rules entailed an obligation on the Romanian authorities to be prudent in interpreting them, bearing in mind the direct impact that their interpretation would have had on the result of the elections. Specifically, the central electoral office had not given sufficient reasons for its decision in this regard. In particular, it had not indicated whether its decision corresponded to established practice, or why it chose to allocate the parliamentary seat to the candidate with greater representation at regional rather than national level. Admittedly, the Court took note of the legislative amendment introduced in the 2004 Law on Elections to Parliament, but that amendment had largely post-dated the facts complained of by Mr Grosaru and was not therefore capable of remedying the situation.   The Court then considered the issue of the impartiality of the bodies responsible for examining the applicant’s challenges. It noted, firstly, that the central electoral office and the validation commission of the Chamber of Deputies, which dismissed the applicant’s challenge, were composed of a large number of representatives of political parties. Yet a person in Mr Grosaru’s situation had legitimate reasons to believe that the latter individuals’ interests were contrary to his. These bodies did not therefore appear to offer sufficient guarantees of impartiality. Secondly, the Court noted that no national court had ruled on the interpretation of the disputed legal provision, which would nonetheless have been important, as was clear not only from its case law but also from reports by the Venice Commission and a comparative law analysis.   Given the lack of clarity in the electoral law and the absence of sufficient guarantees with regard to the opportunity of obtaining an impartial remedy, the Court concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.   As to the alleged violation of Article   13, taken in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1   In view of the absence of any judicial review of the application of the electoral rules (see above), the Court also concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.   Application of Article 41 (just satisfaction)   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 5,000   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   ***   The judgment is available only in French. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its   website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     Press contacts Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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.