CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 18 novembre 2003

.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 58 November 2003 Benkaddour v. France (dec.) - 51685/99 Decision 18.11.2003 [Section II] Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 Vote Obligation to request removal from electoral list when requesting addition to a different list: inadmissible The applicant sought to be entered on the register of electors of a municipality in France when he was still registered on the register of electors at a French consulate abroad. According to the electoral code, an application to change an entry on the register of electors must be accompanied by an application to be removed from the register of the former place of residence for election purposes. When the applicant attended the polling station in order to participate in the European elections, he was refused the right to vote on the ground that he was registered in another constituency. Inadmissible under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1: The Court reiterates that the subjective right to vote guaranteed by that article permits implied limitations. States may make that right subject to conditions and have a wide margin of appreciation, provided that they do not impair the very substance of the right and render it wholly ineffective. In the present case, the applicant did not take in good time the measures necessary to have his name removed from the register of electors of his former place of residence and to be entered on the register of his new place of residence, although he was aware of those formalities; nor did he take any steps before the date of the elections to ensure that he was actually registered on the list of the polling station where he proposed to vote. Accordingly, the obligation to observe, within the statutory period, the formalities for removal and registration on a new register of electors did not reduce the applicant’s rights to the point of impairing their very substance and rendering them ineffective. As to whether the conditions provided for in national law pursued a legitimate aim and were proportionate, the Court considers that the rules pursue legitimate aims, namely to ensure that the registers of electors are drawn up in satisfactory conditions as regards both time and control, to allow the voting operations to proceed smoothly and to prevent fraud. The limitations which the applicant encountered were imposed in the exercise of the wide margin of appreciation which the State enjoys in such matters. Those limitations, and the refusal to allow the applicant to vote on election day, are not disproportionate: 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