European Court of Human Rights
22 May 2012
Facts
The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment for various crimes. Under Italian law, his life sentence entailed a lifetime ban from public office, which in turn meant the permanent loss of his right to vote. The applicant’s appeals against the ban were unsuccessful.
Complaint
The applicant complained that such ban violated his right to vote, guaranteed by Article 3 of the Protocol No 1 to the Convention.
Court’s ruling
The Court ruled that the Italian voting ban constituted an interference with the applicant’s right to vote but found that it pursued the legitimate aim of enhancing civic responsibility and respect for the rule of law. Regarding the proportionality of the interference, the Court reaffirmed the principles set out in the Hirst judgment. The Court noted that in the Italian system, the measure was applied only to individuals convicted of certain well-defined offences, or to people sentenced to certain terms of imprisonment specified by law. The law also adjusted the duration of the measure to the sentence imposed and thus, indirectly, to the gravity of the offence. Moreover, a large number of convicted prisoners in Italy were not deprived of the right to vote in parliamentary elections. It was also possible for a convicted person who had been permanently deprived of the right to vote to recover that right. The Court therefore concluded that the Italian system had not overstepped its margin of appreciation and found that there was no violation of Article 3 of Protocol No 1.