CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 9 avril 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s6AC0F6D4 { width:22.13pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     192   9.4.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF PODKOLZINA v. LATVIA   In a judgment [1] (which is only in French) communicated in writing today in the case of Podkolzina v. Latvia (no. 46726/99), the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 7,500 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for legal costs and expenses.   1.     Principal facts   Ingrida Podkolzina, a Latvian national born in 1964 and resident in Daugavpils (Latvia), is a member of the Russian-speaking minority in Latvia.   She stood as a candidate in the Latgale constituency on the list of the National Harmony Party (Tautas saskanas partija) for election to the Latvian parliament (Saeima) in the general election of 3 October 1998. The list in question was registered with the Central Electoral Commission after the National Harmony Party had supplied it with all the documents required by the legislation on parliamentary elections, including a copy of the certificate attesting to the fact that the applicant knew the State’s official language - Latvian - issued by the Standing Committee for Language Certification of the town of Daugavpils, a branch of the State Language Centre, an administrative institution which was itself answerable to the Ministry of Justice.   During the following week an examiner belonging to the language examination service of the State Language Centre came to the applicant’s workplace to check how well she knew Latvian, and to that end began a conversation with her in that language in the course of which Ms Podkolzina was asked, among other questions, why she supported the National Harmony Party rather than another party. The examiner returned the next day accompanied by witnesses and asked the applicant to write an essay in Latvian. Being extremely nervous, because she had not expected such an examination and because of the constant presence of the witnesses, the applicant stopped writing and tore up her work. The examiner then drew up a report to the effect that the applicant did not have an adequate command of the official language and the Central Electoral Commission struck the applicant’s name off the list of candidates.   The National Harmony Party, acting on the applicant’s behalf, asked the Riga Regional Court to set aside the above decision. This application was refused on the ground that possession of a certificate attesting to knowledge of the official language was a precondition for registration on a list of candidates for persons who had not completed their studies in Latvian. A third-party application against that judgment by the National Harmony Party to the President of the Civil Division of the Supreme Court and the Attorney-General was also refused.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 25 February 1999. The case was assigned to the Second Section of the Court, which declared it admissible on 8   February 2001.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), Jerzy Makarczyk (Polish), Viera Strážnická (Slovakian), Marc Fischbach (Luxemburger), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Rait Maruste (Estonian),   and also Michael O’Boyle , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained that the removal of her name from the list of candidates for the parliamentary elections on the ground that she had an inadequate command of Latvian, the official language of Latvia, infringed her right to stand as a candidate in elections, as guaranteed by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. She further alleged violations of Articles 13 and 14.   Decision of the Court   Article 3 of Protocol No. 1   The Court found that the purpose of the legislation on parliamentary elections barring citizens without an advanced degree of proficiency in the national language from standing for election was to ensure the proper functioning of the Latvian institutional system. It added that it was not for the Court to determine the choice of the working language of a national parliament, as that choice was dictated by historical and political considerations and, in principle, was exclusively for the State concerned to determine. Requirements of that kind pursued a legitimate aim. The Court therefore had to decide whether the measure removing the applicant’s name from the list of candidates had been proportionate to the aim pursued. The Court noted that the applicant held a valid language certificate in due form that had been issued by a standing committee following an examination. The standing committee had deliberated and had followed objective marking criteria and a set of rules when voting. Although the Latvian authorities had not contested the validity of that document, the applicant had nonetheless been required to sit a further language examination, in company with eight other candidates of the 21 who had been required to furnish a certificate of proficiency in the national language. The assessment had been left to the sole discretion of a single official, whose discretionary powers the Court considered to be excessive. The Court also expressed surprise that, according to the applicant in an account that was not disputed by the Government, the official had questioned the applicant about the reasons for her political affinities.   Consequently, the Court considered that, in the absence of any objective guarantees, the procedure followed in the applicant’s case was incompatible with the procedural requirements of fairness and legal certainty for determining eligibility for election. That conclusion was, in the Court’s view, supported by the fact that when examining the applicant’s application for judicial review the Riga Regional Court had only had regard to the certificate issued as a result of the impugned examination and had accepted those results as incontrovertible. The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.   Articles 13 and 14   The Court considered that the complaint under Article 14 was essentially the same as that under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. It therefore found it unnecessary to examine that complaint separately.   The Court considered that its finding of a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 taken alone made it unnecessary for it to carry out an examination of the complaint under Article 13 also.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. 1.     Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17—member Grand Chamber of the Court.   In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its Protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] .     This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.