CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 18 mai 2000

.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 18 May 2000 Gaulieder v. Slovakia - 36909/97 Judgment 18.5.2000 [Section II] Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 Stand for election Termination of Member of Parliament’s mandate on basis of letter of resignation which he denied sending: friendly settlement In 1994 the applicant was elected a member of the National Council of the Slovak Republic. Prior to the election, he had signed an undated letter of resignation from the National Council.   In 1996 he informed the President of the National Council that he did not intend to resign from his office.   However, the Office of the National Council received a letter stating that the applicant did wish to resign and the National Council subsequently adopted a resolution taking note of the resignation. As from that date, the applicant’s mandate was terminated. He continued to deny any intention of resigning. The Constitutional Court found that the National Council had violated the applicant’s constitutional rights but   the National Council failed to adopt a draft resolution proposing that the applicant’s mandate be renewed. Following the 1998 elections, in which the applicant did not stand as a candidate, the newly elected National Council expressed its regret that during the previous term it had not remedied the violation of the applicant’s   rights, and it later quashed the resolution which had resulted in the termination of his mandate. The parties have reached a friendly settlement whereby the applicant will be met by the Prime Minister and the Government will issue a press release expressing their regret about the termination of his mandate as well as about the failure to redress the violation of the principles of the State of law in the applicant’s case without delay. The Government will further express their regret as regards inappropriate statements made by their Agent in respect of the applicant. Both parties expressed their gratitude to the President of the European Commission of Human Rights, Mr   S.   Trechsel, for his efforts which contributed to the settlement of the case. Furthermore, the Government will pay the applicant within seven days of the settlement of the case compensation of 1,399,148 Slovak korunas (SKK) for pecuniary damage and one koruna for non-pecuniary damage. Finally, the Government will pay the applicant’s legal costs of SKK   141,877.40 within seven days of the settlement of the case.   © 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