CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 4 avril 2006

.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. 85 April 2006 Bompard v. France (dec.) - 44081/02 Decision 4.4.2006 [Section II] Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 Free expression of opinion of people Delimitation of constituencies for parliamentary elections: inadmissible   The applicant is a French voter who disputed the parliamentary election results on the ground that the constituency boundaries had not been reviewed to take account of population changes. In her view, statistics from the most recent censuses showed that the constituencies, whose boundaries had been drawn before they were taken, were unbalanced and differed significantly in terms of population. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully to the Constitutional Court, arguing that the distribution of parliamentary seats between constituencies did not have an essentially demographic basis, in breach of the principle of voting equality. Inadmissible under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 – The system of electoral boundaries laid down by an Act of 1986 had ensured that the right to vote was granted under conditions that reflected the need to ensure both citizen participation and knowledge of the particular situation of the region in question, in accordance with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. In particular, such conditions could not in themselves have the effect of impeding the “free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature”. In the constituency where the applicant had voted, even though its boundary had not been redrawn, there had been no demographic discrepancy leading to an inaccurate reflection of the opinion of the people in the choice of their national representation or capable of altering the result of the parliamentary election at issue. The Government explained that there had not been enough time to organise a boundary review before the date of the election. The Court found that it was legitimate in a democratic society to carry out such a review only after comprehensive studies and consultations. In addition, States enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation in such matters: manifestly ill-founded . Inadmissible under Articles 6 and 13.   © 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