367 Results
Quotes
Quotes based on international documents, law, and treaties- "The Court points out that implicit in Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, which provides for “free” elections at “reasonable intervals” “by secret ballot” and “under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people”, are the subjective rights to vote and to stand for election. Although those rights are important, they are not absolute. Since Article 3 recognises them without setting them forth in express terms, let alone defining them, there is room for implied limitations (see the Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 113, p. 23, § 52). In their internal legal orders the Contracting States make the rights to vote and to stand for election subject to conditions which are not in principle precluded under Article 3. They have a wide margin of appreciation in this sphere, but 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 the 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 (see the Gitonas and Others v. Greece judgment of 1 July 1997, Reports 1997-IV, pp. 1233-34, § 39, and Matthews v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24833/94, § 63, ECHR 1999-I). "
- "Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 appears at first sight to differ from the other rights guaranteed in the Convention and its Protocols, as it is phrased in terms of the obligation for the High Contracting Party to hold elections which ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people rather than in terms of a particular right or freedom. However, having regard to the preparatory work to Article 3 of Protocol No. 1and the interpretation of the provision in the context of the Convention as a whole, the Court has established that it guarantees individual rights, including the right to vote and to stand for election (see, among many other authorities, Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, 2 March 1987, §§ 46-51, Series A no. 113; Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], no. 74025/01, § 56-57, ECHR 2005-IX; and, more recently, Ždanoka v. Latvia [GC], no. 58278/00, § 102, ECHR 2006-IV). Furthermore, the Court has considered that this Article guarantees the individual’s right to stand for election and, once elected, to sit as a member of parliament (see Sadak and Others v. Turkey (no. 2), nos. 25144/94, 26149/95 to 26154/95, 27100/95 and 27101/95, § 33, ECHR 2002-IV). "
- "The rights guaranteed under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 are crucial to establishing and maintaining the foundations of an effective and meaningful democracy governed by the rule of law. Nonetheless, those rights are not absolute. There is room for “implied limitations”, and Contracting States must be given a margin of appreciation in this sphere. The Court would reaffirm that the margin in this area is wide (see Matthews v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24833/94, § 63, ECHR 1999-I; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 201, ECHR 2000-IV; and Podkolzina v. Latvia, no. 46726/99, § 33, ECHR 2002-II). There are numerous ways of organising and running electoral systems and a wealth of differences, inter alia, in historical development, cultural diversity and political thought within Europe which it is for each Contracting State to mould into their own democratic vision (see Hirst (no. 2), cited above, § 61). "
- "It is, however, for the Court to determine in the last resort whether the requirements of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 have been complied with; it has to satisfy itself that the conditions imposed in the right to vote and to stand for election 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 (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt, cited above, § 52). In particular, any conditions imposed must not thwart the free expression of the people in the choice of the legislature – in other words, they must reflect, or not run counter to, the concern to maintain the integrity and effectiveness of an electoral procedure aimed at identifying the will of the people through universal suffrage (see Hirst (no. 2), cited above, § 62). Equally, once the wishes of the people have been freely and democratically expressed, no subsequent amendment to the organisation of the electoral system may call that choice into question, except in the presence of compelling grounds for the democratic order. "
- "As to the nature of the rights thus enshrined in Article 3 (P1-3), the view taken by the Commission has evolved. From the idea of an "institutional" right to the holding of free elections (decision of 18 September 1961 on the admissibility of application no. 1028/61, X v. Belgium, Yearbook of the Convention, vol. 4, p. 338) the Commission has moved to the concept of "universal suffrage" (see particularly the decision of 6 October 1967 on the admissibility of application no. 2728/66, X v. the Federal Republic of Germany, op. cit., vol. 10, p. 338) and then, as a consequence, to the concept of subjective rights of participation - the "right to vote" and the "right to stand for election to the legislature" (see in particular the decision of 30 May 1975 on the admissibility of applications nos. 6745-6746/76, W, X, Y and Z v. Belgium, op. cit., vol. 18, p. 244). "
- "The rights in question are not absolute. Since Article 3 (P1-3) recognises them without setting them forth in express terms, let alone defining them, there is room for implied limitations (see, mutatis mutandis, the Golder judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, pp. 18-19, § 38). In their internal legal orders the Contracting States make the rights to vote and to stand for election subject to conditions which are not in principle precluded under Article 3 (P1-3) (Collected Edition of the "Travaux Préparatoires", vol. III, p. 264, and vol. IV, p. 24). They have a wide margin of appreciation in this sphere, but it is for the Court to determine in the last resort whether the requirements of Protocol No. 1 (P1) have been complied with; it has to satisfy itself that the 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 (see, amongst other authorities and mutatis mutandis, the Lithgow and Others judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, p. 71, § 194). In particular, such conditions must not thwart "the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature". "
- "As regards the method of appointing the ""legislature"", Article 3 (P1-3) provides only for "free" elections "at reasonable intervals", "by secret ballot" and "under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people". Subject to that, it does not create any "obligation to introduce a specific system" (""Travaux Préparatoires"", vol. VII, pp. 130, 202 and 210, and vol. VIII, p. 14) such as proportional representation or majority voting with one or two ballots. Here too the Court recognises that the Contracting States have a wide margin of appreciation, given that their legislation on the matter varies from place to place and from time to time. Electoral systems seek to fulfil objectives which are sometimes scarcely compatible with each other: on the one hand, to reflect fairly faithfully the opinions of the people, and on the other, to channel currents of thought so as to promote the emergence of a sufficiently clear and coherent political will. In these circumstances the phrase "conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature" implies essentially - apart from freedom of expression (already protected under Article 10 of the Convention) (art. 10) - the principle of equality of treatment of all citizens in the exercise of their right to vote and their right to stand for election. It does not follow, however, that all votes must necessarily have equal weight as regards the outcome of the election or that all candidates must have equal chances of victory. Thus no electoral system can eliminate "wasted votes". For the purposes of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-3), any electoral system must be assessed in the light of the political evolution of the country concerned; features that would be unacceptable in the context of one system may accordingly be justified in the context of another, at least so long as the chosen system provides for conditions which will ensure the ""free … "
- "The Court recalls that the rights set out in Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 are not absolute, but may be subject to limitations. The Contracting States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in imposing conditions on the right to vote, but 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 the conditions do not curtail the right to vote to such an extent as to impair its very essence and deprive it of 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 people in the choice of the legislature” (see the above-mentioned Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt judgment, p. 23, § 52). "
- "The Court reiterates that Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, which provides for “free” elections “at reasonable intervals”, “by secret ballot” and “under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people”, involves the subjective rights to vote and to stand for election. Yet however important they may be, those rights are not absolute. Since Article 3 recognises them without setting them forth in express terms, let alone defining them, there is room for “implied limitations” (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, 2 March 1987, § 52, Series A no. 113). Under their respective legal systems, the Contracting States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in imposing conditions on the right to vote, which conditions are not, in principle, precluded by Article 3, but 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 the conditions do not curtail the right to vote to such an extent as to impair its very essence and deprive it of effectiveness; that they are imposed in pursuit of a legitimate aim; and that the means employed are not disproportionate. "
- "As regards restrictions on the exercise of the right to vote abroad based on the criterion of the voter’s place of residence, Convention institutions have in the past accepted several reasons justifying such restrictions: first of all, the presumption that a non-resident citizen is less directly or less continually concerned with his country’s day-to-day problems and has less knowledge of them; secondly, the fact that it is impracticable for the parliamentary candidates to present the different electoral issues to citizens abroad and that non-resident citizens have no influence on the selection of candidates or on the formulation of their electoral programmes; thirdly, the close connection between the right to vote in parliamentary elections and the fact of being directly affected by the acts of the political bodies so elected; and, fourthly, the legitimate concern the legislature may have to limit the influence of citizens living abroad in elections on issues which, while admittedly fundamental, primarily affect persons living in the country (see Hilbe v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 31981/96, ECHR 1999-VI ; X and association Y v. Italy, no. 8987/80, Commission decision of 6 May 1981, Decisions and Reports (DR) 24, p. 192 ; and Polacco and Garofalo v. Italy, no. 23450/94, Commission decision of 15 September 1997, DR 90-B, p. 5). More recently the Court held that having to satisfy a residence or length-of-residence requirement in order to have or exercise the right to vote in elections is not, in principle, an arbitrary restriction of the right to vote and is therefore not incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (see Doyle v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 30158/06, 6 February 2007, and Sitaropoulos and Giakoumopoulos v. Greece [GC], no. 42202/07, § 69, ECHR 2012). "
- "The Court reiterates that national practices concerning voting rights for expatriates and the exercise of such rights are far from being uniform across the States Parties. Broadly speaking, Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 does not impose on States Parties any obligation to enable citizens resident abroad to exercise their right to vote (see Sitaropoulos and Giakoumopoulos [GC], cited above, §§ 74 and 75). Furthermore, the work of the Venice Commission has shown that withholding or limiting the voting rights of expatriates does not amount to a restriction on the principle of universal suffrage. In fact, the different interests involved should be weighed up, including the State’s choice to enable its expatriate citizens to exercise their voting rights, practical and security considerations relating to the exercise of this right, and the technical arrangements for implementing it. "
- "[Consider] signing and ratifying or acceding to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other core international human rights treaties. "
- "Tak[e] all necessary measures to eliminate laws, regulations and practices that discriminate, directly or indirectly, against citizens in their right to participate in public affairs on grounds of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, or on the basis of disability. "
- "Tak[e] proactive measures to eliminate all barriers in law and in practice that prevent or hinder citizens, in particular women, persons belonging to marginalized groups or minorities, persons with disabilities and persons in vulnerable situations, from participating fully in effectively in political and public affairs, including, inter alia, reviewing and repealing measures that unreasonably restrict the right to participate in public affairs, and considering adopting, on the basis of reliable data on participation, temporary special measure, including legislative acts, aimed at increasing the participation of underrepresented groups in all aspects of political and public life; "
- "Campaign finance rules should ensure equality of opportunity for parties and candidates alike. Special measures may be incorporated to encourage more balanced participation of underrepresented groups, such as women, national minorities or persons with disabilities."
- "Limitations on expenditures may be imposed to ensure equality of opportunities among the various political forces."
- "Limits (on contributions and spending) should be clearly defined in the law and be realistic to ensure that all electoral contestants are able to run an effective campaign, recognizing the cost of modern elections. It is good practice for limits to be indexed against inflation, rather than set as absolute amounts. "
- "When used, direct public campaign financing of political parties and, in some cases, candidates should be provided equitably and based on objective criteria."
- "It is in the interest of political pluralism to condition the provision of direct public financing on attaining a lower threshold of support than the electoral threshold for the allocation of mandates in parliament."
- "State resources should not be diverted or misused for campaign purposes. All state resources used for campaign purposes, such as media, buildings and event venues, must be made available to all electoral contestants on the basis of equal treatment, and disclosed or reported accordingly. "
- "We, Ministers and Heads of Delegation of the States and Governments of Countries using French as a common language, (…) 4 - Undertake the following commitments: (…) B. For the holding of free, fair and transparent elections (...) 10. To involve all legally established political parties, those in the majority as well as those in the opposition, in all stages of the electoral process, with full respect for the democratic principles enshrined in the basic legislation and the institutions, and allow them access to funding from the State budget."
- "We, Ministers and Heads of Delegation of the States and Governments of Countries using French as a common language, (…) 4 - Undertake the following commitments: (…) B. For the holding of free, fair and transparent elections (...) 11. To take the necessary steps to move towards national financing of elections with public funds."
- "State Parties shall take all appropriate policy, legislative and other measures to ensure this right (to participate in political and public life), on the basis of equality, including through: (…) e) Repealing or amending laws that on the basis of disability restrict the right of persons with disabilities to vote, stand for or remain in public office. "
- "Persons with disabilities have the right to be effectively protected and to positively engage. The law itself shall guarantee the substantive equality of all those within a given jurisdiction. Thus, the recognition that all persons with disabilities are equal under the law means that there should be no laws that allow for specific denial, restriction or limitation of the rights of persons with disabilities, and that disability should be mainstreamed in all legislation and policies."
- "Campaign finance rules should ensure equality of opportunity for parties and candidates alike. Special measures may be incorporated to encourage more balanced participation of underrepresented groups, such as women, national minorities or persons with disabilities."
- "Limitations on expenditures may be imposed to ensure equality of opportunities among the various political forces."
- "Limits (on contributions and spending) should be clearly defined in the law and be realistic to ensure that all electoral contestants are able to run an effective campaign, recognizing the cost of modern elections. It is good practice for limits to be indexed against inflation, rather than set as absolute amounts. "
- "When used, direct public campaign financing of political parties and, in some cases, candidates should be provided equitably and based on objective criteria."
- "It is in the interest of political pluralism to condition the provision of direct public financing on attaining a lower threshold of support than the electoral threshold for the allocation of mandates in parliament."
- "State resources should not be diverted or misused for campaign purposes. All state resources used for campaign purposes, such as media, buildings and event venues, must be made available to all electoral contestants on the basis of equal treatment, and disclosed or reported accordingly. "
- "We, Ministers and Heads of Delegation of the States and Governments of Countries using French as a common language, (…) 4 - Undertake the following commitments: (…) B. For the holding of free, fair and transparent elections (...) 10. To involve all legally established political parties, those in the majority as well as those in the opposition, in all stages of the electoral process, with full respect for the democratic principles enshrined in the basic legislation and the institutions, and allow them access to funding from the State budget."
- "We, Ministers and Heads of Delegation of the States and Governments of Countries using French as a common language, (…) 4 - Undertake the following commitments: (…) B. For the holding of free, fair and transparent elections (...) 11. To take the necessary steps to move towards national financing of elections with public funds."
- "State Parties shall take all appropriate policy, legislative and other measures to ensure this right (to participate in political and public life), on the basis of equality, including through: (…) e) Repealing or amending laws that on the basis of disability restrict the right of persons with disabilities to vote, stand for or remain in public office. "
- "Persons with disabilities have the right to be effectively protected and to positively engage. The law itself shall guarantee the substantive equality of all those within a given jurisdiction. Thus, the recognition that all persons with disabilities are equal under the law means that there should be no laws that allow for specific denial, restriction or limitation of the rights of persons with disabilities, and that disability should be mainstreamed in all legislation and policies."
- "While residency requirements are in principle a permissible restriction to this right, they must be reasonable. The criterion of reasonableness is arguably not complied with, when residence requirements in domestic laws prevent the political participation of IDPs, especially after forcible displacement."
- "Along similar lines, standards of the Council of Europe require member states to “grant electoral rights to all their citizens (nationals), without imposing residency requirements”, “to take appropriate legal and practical measures to enable internally displaced persons to effectively exercise their right to vote in national, regional or local elections and to ensure that this right is not infringed by obstacles of a practical nature” and “ to ensure that IDPs can exercise their right to participate in public affairs at all levels, including their right to vote or stand for election, which may require special measures such as IDP voter registration drives, or absentee ballots”."
- "There is thus no ‘best procedure’ for external voting. Much will depend on the context, such as the infrastructure of those foreign countries where external voting is to be held. The decision on suitability will depend on the costs and practical aspects of the different procedures for external voting (...)."
- "Entitlement to cast an external vote is usually linked to the general entitlement to vote that applies to all eligible electors in a country. However, there are sometimes extra requirements imposed on external electors, such as a minimum period of previous residence or an intention to return to the country. In some cases only limited groups of external electors may be eligible to vote, such as diplomats, other public officials and members of the armed forces, and their families."
- "Particularly where the right to vote is extended to all citizens who are resident abroad, regardless of intention to return, it may be desirable to have stricter eligibility rules for candidates. This would usually take the form of a residence requirement."
- "The security and control of registration and voting materials require special attention for external voting. Security is as essential externally as it is internally but there is the added challenge of securing sensitive materials during transport to and from several countries."
- "In most cases the duties and responsibilities of countries hosting foreign electoral activity on their soil are minimal, being confined to the role of facilitator rather than that of organizer or implementer. While host countries can assist in the external voting process, their role should not threaten the secrecy of the ballot or the neutrality or transparency of the programme. It is critical that external voting programmes be conducted without political or government influence or interference."
- "Any language requirements should not present an unreasonable limitation on candidacies and should be clearly provided for by law. Language tests should be transparent, objective, non-discriminatory and administered fairly."
- "With regard to the principle of proportionality, parties or candidates should not be disqualified from standing for election other than for the most serious reasons given the fundamental nature of the right to stand. They should be given an opportunity to correct any technical deficiencies on their applications for registration and should not be disqualified or refused registration solely on technical grounds."
- "An invalid signature should not invalidate other signatures or the signature list."
- "A credible process of signature verification would include the verification of all signatures submitted up to the point when the minimum number of verified signatures required for registration has been reached. Once the minimum number of signatures has been established, the political party or candidate should be registered."
- "Everyone enjoying electoral rights is entitled to sign a popular initiative or request for a referendum."
- "Everyone enjoying electoral rights must be entitled to collect signatures. This right may be extended to other categories of people."
- "The Special Rapporteur calls upon States in times of elections: (…) (e) To ensure that an enabling framework is provided for political parties to be formed — regardless of their political ideology — and to enjoy the level playing field, in particular in relation to their ability to access funding, and to exercise their rights to freedom of expression, including through peaceful demonstrations and access to the media."
- "At the same time, cancellation (“de-registration”) of candidacy is an extraordinary measure that effectively deprives eligible candidates of the right to stand in election. As such, it may only be applied for the most serious violations of the law following a fair EDR process."
- "Political parties must be protected as an integral expression of the right of individuals and groups to freely form associations. But, given the unique and vital role of political parties in the electoral process and democratic governance, it is commonly accepted for states to regulate their functioning insofar as is necessary to ensure effective, representative and fair democratic governance."