CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 6 septembre 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 No. 100 August-September 2007 Sevinger v. the Netherlands - 17173/07 Decision 6.9.2007 [Section III] Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 Vote Inability of Netherlands nationals resident in Aruba to vote in elections to the Netherlands Parliament: inadmissible   Article 14 Discrimination Inability of Netherlands nationals resident in Aruba to vote in elections to the Netherlands Parliament: inadmissible   Aruba was part of the Netherlands Antilles until 1986, when it obtained internal autonomy and became a country within the Kingdom of the Netherlands with its own Constitution and a freely elected parliament. Unlike other Netherlands nationals, including those resident outside the territory of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, residents of Aruba are not entitled to vote in elections to the Lower House of the Netherlands Parliament, the sole body with power to legislate in areas such as external relations, defence and citizenship. Nevertheless, the Aruban representative assembly does have power , inter alia , to examine and report on bills before the Lower House, to designate special delegates, to attend the parliamentary debate and to propose amendments. Any bill to which the minister plenipotentiary or special delegates have stated their opposition can only be adopted by a qualified majority. The applicants were Netherlands nationals, resident in Aruba. In 2006 they applied for registration on the electoral register for the Lower House. Their requests were refused n the grounds that they had not resided in the Netherlands for the requisite ten-year period. Their appeals against that decision were dismissed. Inadmissible under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 – The applicants were Netherlands nationals resident in Aruba. As such they were not residents of the Netherlands since, although part of the Kingdom, Aruba did not form an integral and territorial part of the Netherlands itself. The applicants therefore had the right to vote in elections to the Aruban Parliament. The Aruban elections conformed to the requirements of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 in that they provided opportunities for the free expression of the opinion of the people of Aruba concerning their internal affairs at reasonable intervals by secret ballot. As regards Kingdom matters, legislative power was exercised by the legislature of the Kingdom, namely the Netherlands Parliament and the Kingdom Government. Although (with certain exceptions) the Charter did not confer on Netherlands nationals residing in Aruba a right to vote for the Lower House, they could vote in the elections to the Aruban Parliament, which in turn was entitled to send special delegates to the Netherlands Parliament who could express their opinion in respect of Kingdom affairs. In this manner, Netherlands nationals residing in Aruba were able to influence decisions taken by the Lower House on Kingdom affairs. Having regard to the relatively small amount of Kingdom affairs in comparison with the amount of Netherlands internal affairs, it could not reasonably be said that Netherlands nationals residing in Aruba were affected by the acts of the Lower House to the same extent as Netherlands nationals residing in the Netherlands. Accordingly, taking into account the State’s wide margin of appreciation, the fact that the applicants were not entitled to vote for members of the Lower House could not be regarded as unreasonable or arbitrary: manifestly ill-founded . Inadmissible under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 – The legislature had granted a right to vote for members of a representative body to all Netherlands nationals regardless of where they resided. From this point of view all Netherlands nationals were thus in a comparable situation. However, it was only Netherlands nationals residing in Aruba who were entitled to vote for members of the Parliament of Aruba. Therefore, the applicants’ situation was not relevantly similar to that of Netherlands nationals not residing in Aruba, who were not eligible to vote for the Parliament of Aruba. Further, the obligation to satisfy a length-of-residence requirement was not, in principle, an arbitrary restriction of the right to vote. Accordingly, to the extent that the applicants were in a relevantly similar situation as the persons with whom they sought to compare themselves, the impugned difference in treatment was justified. Lastly, the Court distinguished a separate case ( M.G. Eman and O.B. Sevinger v. College van burgemeester en wethouders van Den Haag , C-300/04) involving the applicants in which the European Court of Justice had given a preliminary ruling that their inability to vote in elections to the European Parliament had infringed their right to equal treatment. In that case the applicants had been completely denied any opportunity to express their opinion in European Parliamentary elections, whereas in the instant case they did have a say – albeit an indirect one – in Kingdom matters: manifestly ill‑founded .   © 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