CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 mai 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 3 May 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no 2513/14 Vladimir Vladimirovich KARA-MURZA against Russia lodged on 16 December 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE The applicant is a journalist, political activist and a leader of an opposition party. The application concerns annulment of the applicant’s registration as a candidate for election of the regional legislature (the Yaroslavl Regional Duma) in 2013, on the ground of his dual – Russian and British – nationality. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Regard being had to the annulment of the applicant’s registration as a candidate for election to the Yaroslavl Regional Duma scheduled for 8   September 2013 (hereinafter “the applicant’s disqualification”), has there been a breach of the applicant’s right under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention to stand as a candidate in free elections which ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of legislature (see Tănase v. Moldova [GC], no. 7/08, §§ 154-180, ECHR 2010)? In particular, (a)     did the applicant’s disqualification curtail his right to stand for election under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention to such an extent as to impair its very essence and deprive it of its effectiveness?   (b)     did the applicant’s disqualification pursue a legitimate aim?   (c)     were the means employed proportionate to that aim? In particular, was the applicant afforded sufficient safeguards to protect him against arbitrary decisions? Did the applicant have an ample opportunity to challenge effectively the findings that led to his disqualification?   2.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his right to stand as a candidate in free elections which ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of legislature for election on the grounds of his nationality, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article   3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?