European Court of Human Rights
6 December 2022
Facts
The applicant was detained in prison serving a sentence of life imprisonment after being convicted of numerous criminal offences. In April 2019 he applied to the regional government requesting to be allowed to vote in the European Parliament Elections taking place the following month. His request was dismissed. He unsuccessfully challenged this decision in the domestic courts.
Complaint
The applicant complained that the prisoners’ voting ban had violated his right to free elections as guaranteed by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
Court’s ruling: The Court noted that the applicant had been deprived of the right to vote to EU elections as a result of a statutory blanket ban automatically applicable to all convicts in detention. Such ban constituted an interference with the applicant’s right to vote, but as this right was not absolute, limitations were possible. The Court found that the interference pursued a legitimate aim. Concerning the proportionality of the ban, the Court noted that this ban was indiscriminate as it did not take into account the nature or gravity of the offence, the length of the prison sentence etc. Despite this, the Court found that there was no violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 in the present case because in the proceedings concerning the applicant’s right to vote, the domestic courts had assessed the proportionality of the application of the voting ban in the specific circumstances related to the applicant, taking into account the nature and gravity of the offences he had committed, his continued criminal behaviour while in prison etc. The Court indicated that in cases arising from individual applications like here, the Court’s task was not to review the relevant legislation but to examine the manner in which the domestic legislation had been applied to the specific applicant.