CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 4 août 2020

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 243 August-September 2020 Political Party "Patria" and Others v. the Republic of Moldova - 5113/15, 14963/15, 15910/15 et al. Judgment 4.8.2020 [Section II] Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 Stand for election Arbitrary disqualification of a party three days before parliamentary elections on account of alleged use of undeclared foreign funds: violation Facts – The applicant party is a Moldovan political party without representation in Parliament at the time of the events. The other applicants were candidates on its electoral list in the November 2014 legislative elections. The leader of the party, one of the applicants, was a businessman in the Russian Federation. The application concerned the removal of the applicant party from the list of participants three days before the elections on the ground that, contrary to the provisions of the electoral law, it had used undeclared funds, including money from abroad. Law – Article 3 of Protocol No. 1: The annulment of the party’s registration constituted an interference both with the rights of the party and of the individual applicants under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. This interference was based on a foreseeable law and pursued the legitimate aim of observance of the rule of law and the protection of democracy’s proper functioning which implied the assurance of equal and fair conditions for all candidates in the electoral campaign and the protection of free expression of the opinion of the people in elections. The decision to disqualify the applicant party had been based in the first place on the allegation that it had used for its campaign money of foreign origin belonging to the applicant, leader of the party. However, no evidence for this allegation had been presented by the police, and none had been requested by the Central Electoral Commission (“CEC”) nor by the domestic courts which had accepted this hypothesis without any reserve and, apparently, in the absence of any proof.   Another argument for disqualifying the applicant party, accepted by the CEC and the domestic courts, had been that it had spent undeclared money on the purchase of eleven cars in May 2014, as well as fuel and mobile communications. Again, no evidence had been presented to support these allegations by the police and none had been required by the CEC and domestic courts. Nevertheless, the applicant, leader of the party, had admitted during the proceedings that he had financed the purchase of eleven cars, but that purchase had taken place before the impugned foreign money had been brought into Moldova and before the electoral campaign had commenced, not to mention that it had happened before the creation of the applicant party. Besides the lack of substantiation of the allegations against the applicant party, the applicant party had not been afforded sufficient procedural safeguards against arbitrariness. In particular, the CEC had informed the applicant party about its hearing only fifteen minutes in advance, instead of the minimum twelve hours required by the CEC rules thus taking the applicant party by surprise and leaving it unprepared for the hearing before the CEC. Moreover, the courts had disregarded all the pertinent arguments brought by the applicant party and had accepted without hesitation what appeared to be unsubstantiated accusations against it. In sum, the applicant party’s disqualification from participating in the elections had not been based on sufficient and relevant evidence, the procedures of the electoral commission and the domestic courts had not afforded the applicant party sufficient guarantees against arbitrariness, and the domestic authorities’ decisions had lacked reasoning and had been thus arbitrary. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 7,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage for the applicant party; finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage for the applicants other than the applicant party; claim for pecuniary damage dismissed.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes