The claimant, a French national wished to vote in a French overseas territory. Registration was refused because he had not been permanently resident for ten years. The local administration was concerned that ballots should reflect the will of the local population and should not be affected by mass voting by recent arrivals in the territory who did not have strong ties with it. The ten year residence requirement had been laid down ‘after a turbulent political and institutional history’ and had been instrumental in alleviating the ‘bloody conflict’.
Held: The restrictions imposed on the applicant’s right to vote were warranted. The court stated as general principles: ‘Contracting States have a wide margin of appreciation, given that their legislation on elections varies from place to place and from time to time. The rules on granting the right to vote, reflecting the need to ensure both citizen participation and knowledge of the particular situation of the region in question, vary according to the historical and political factors peculiar to each state. The number of situations provided for in the legislation on elections in many member States of the Council of Europe shows the diversity of possible choice on the subject. However, none of these criteria should in principle be considered more valid than any other provided that it guarantees the expression of the will of the people through free, fair and regular elections. For the purposes of applying Art.3, any electoral legislation must be assessed in the light of the political evolution of the country concerned, so that features that would be unacceptable in the context of one system may be justified in the context of another.’ and ‘The State’s margin of appreciation, however, is not unlimited. It is for the Court to determine in the last resort whether the requirements of Protocol No.1 have been complied with. It has to satisfy itself that any such conditions do not curtail the rights in question to such an extent as to impair their very essence and deprive them of their effectiveness; that they are imposed in pursuit of a legitimate aim; and that the means employed are not disproportionate. In particular, such conditions must not thwart ‘the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature’.’
Citations:
66289/01, [2005] ECHR 7, [2006] 42 EHRR 26
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Barclay and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and others CA 2-Dec-2008
The claimant appealed against refusal of his challenge to the new constitutional law for Sark, and sought a declaration of incompatibility under the 1998 Act. He said that by restricting the people who could stand for election, a free democracy had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Elections
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227663
