Late change in electoral law infringed right to stand for election of an association representing the Turkish minority

In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Danis and Association of Ethnic Turks v. Romania (application no. 16632/09) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:

a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) to the Convention.

The case concerned the applicant association’s inability to meet the requirements for standing in the 2008 parliamentary elections following the entry into force of a new electoral law only seven months before the elections. The new law required national minority organisations not represented in Parliament to have been granted charitable status in order to be able to stand for election.

The Court observed that in the 2004 parliamentary elections the association had polled only slightly fewer votes than another association representing the Turkish minority, which had won a seat in Parliament as a result; it thus concluded that at that time the applicant association had satisfied all the requirements for standing for election and that it not had been able to organise its subsequent activities except in accordance with the statutory provisions in force at the relevant time.

The Court found in particular that by amending electoral legislation seven months before the 2008 parliamentary elections, the authorities had not given the applicants the opportunity to organise their activities in such a way as to be able to satisfy the eligibility criteria introduced as a result of the new legislation.

Remaining legacy prisoner voting cases: ECHR finds violation of the right to vote but awards no compensation or legal costs
In today’s Committee judgment in the case of McHugh and Others v. the United Kingdom (no. 51987/08 and 1,014 others), which is final, the European Court of Human Rights 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.
The case concerned 1,015 prisoners who, as an automatic consequence of their convictions and detention pursuant to sentences of imprisonment, were unable to vote in elections. The Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 because the case was identical to other prisoner voting cases in which a breach of the right to vote had been found and the relevant legislation had not yet been amended. It rejected the applicants’ claim for compensation and legal costs.