003-4425069-5319054

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 203 (2013)   04.07.2013   Automatic and indiscriminate ban on Russian   prisoners’ voting rights was disproportionate   In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia   (application no. 11157/04), which is not final1, 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   The case concerned two prisoners who complained in particular that their   disenfranchisement had violated their right to vote and had prevented them from   participating in a number of elections.   The Court found that the applicants had been deprived of their right to vote in   parliamentary elections regardless of the length of their sentence, of the nature or   gravity of their offence or of their individual circumstances. It rejected the Government’s   argument that this case was essentially different from the cases against other countries,   notably Italy and the United Kingdom, in which the Court had addressed the issue of   disenfranchisement, as the ban on prisoners’ voting rights in Russia was laid down in the   Constitution rather than in an act of parliament. Indeed, all acts of a member State are   subject to scrutiny under the Convention, regardless of the type of measure in question.   The Court therefore concluded that, despite the room for manoeuvre they had to decide   on such matters, the Russian authorities had gone too far in applying an automatic and   indiscriminate ban on the electoral rights of convicted prisoners.   As regards the implementation of the judgment, and in view of the complexity of   amending the Constitution, the Court considered that it was open to the Government to   explore all possible ways to ensure compliance with the Convention, including through   some form of political process or by interpreting the Constitution in harmony with the   Convention.   Principal facts   The first applicant, Sergey Borisovich Anchugov, is a Russian national who was born in   and lives in Chelyabinsk (Russia). In a judgment of June 1998, he was convicted   on a charge of murder and several counts of theft and fraud and sentenced to death. The   second applicant, Vladimir Mikhaylovich Gladkov, is a Russian national who was born in   and lives in Moscow. In November 1998, he was convicted of murder, aggravated   robbery, participation in an organised criminal group and resistance to police officers and   sentenced to death. Both applicants’ convictions were upheld on appeal but their death   sentences were commuted to 15 years’ imprisonment in, respectively, December 1999   and February 2000.   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month   period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the   Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further   examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral   request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for   supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:   www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution   Following their transfer to prison, both Mr Anchugov and Mr Gladkov were debarred from   voting in elections in application of Article 32 § 3 of the Russian Constitution. In   particular, they were ineligible to vote in the elections of members of the State Duma   held in December 2003 and December 2007 as well as in the presidential elections of   March 2000, March 2004 and March 2008. Mr Gladkov was also unable to vote in   additional parliamentary elections held in the electoral constituency of his home address   in December 2004.   At various times, both Mr Anchugov and Mr Gladkov challenged Article 32 § 3 of the   Constitution before the Russian Constitutional Court, without success. Mr Gladkov then   repeatedly brought proceedings against election commissions at various levels   complaining of their refusal to allow him to vote in parliamentary and presidential   elections. However, his claims were rejected several times by appellate courts from   December 2007 to September 2008.   In his first letter to the European Court of Human Rights, dispatched on 17 February   2004, Mr Anchugov described the circumstances of his case and formulated his   complaint. He later reproduced his original submissions in an application form received   by the Court in June 2004. Mr Gladkov filed an application with the Court in December   which was not dispatched until February 2005. Subsequently, both Mr Anchugov   and Mr Gladkov updated their applications referring to new elections in which they were   still ineligible to vote.   Mr Anchugov was still imprisoned on the date of his latest correspondence with the   Court, whilst Mr Gladkov was released from prison on parole in April 2008.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections), Mr Anchugov and   Mr Gladkov complained that their disenfranchisement on the ground that they were   convicted prisoners had violated their right to vote and, in particular, that they had been   ineligible to vote in a number of elections held on various date from 2000 to 2008. They   also complained under Article 10 (freedom of expression) that their disenfranchisement   had breached their right to express their opinion, and under Article 14 (prohibition of   discrimination) that they had been discriminated against as convicted prisoners.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 16 February   2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monaco), President,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (“the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”),   Julia Laffranque (Estonia),   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Greece),   Erik Møse (Norway),   Ksenija Turković (Croatia),   Dmitry Dedov (Russia),   and also Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections)   As concerned the admissibility of the applicants’ complaints, the Court reiterated that   Protocol No. 1 did not apply to the elections of a Head of State. Therefore, the part of   Mr Anchugov’s and Mr Gladkov’s applications concerning their ineligibility to vote in   presidential elections was not covered by the European Convention and the Court only   had competence to address their complaints in so far as they concerned their inability to   vote in elections of members of the State Duma. Mr Gladkov’s complaint, lodged in   February 2005, about his inability to vote in the parliamentary elections of 7 December   was also declared inadmissible for failure to comply with the six-month time-limit   for lodging a case.   However, the applicants’ complaints as to their disenfranchisement under Article 32 § 3   of the Russian Constitution, which concerned a continuing situation against which no   domestic remedy was available, and their ineligibility to vote in the parliamentary   elections held on December 2003 and December 2007, as regards Mr Anchugov, and on   December 2004 and December 2007, as regards Mr Gladkov, had not been lodged out of   time and were therefore declared admissible.   As concerned the right to vote in parliamentary elections, the Court found that   Article 32 § 3 of the Constitution, under which Mr Anchugov and Mr Gladkov had been   deprived of their right to vote, applied automatically and indiscriminately to all convicted   prisoners, regardless of the length of their sentence and irrespective of the nature or   gravity of their offence or of their individual circumstances.   Whilst the Court was prepared to accept that the applicants’ disenfranchisement had   pursued the aims of enhancing civic responsibility and respect for the rule of law as well   as ensuring the proper functioning of civil society and the democratic regime, it could not   accept the Government’s argument regarding the proportionality of the restrictions   imposed on both Mr Anchugov and Mr Gladkov. In particular, the Court rejected the   Government’s argument that the ban was not indiscriminate since only those prisoners   who had been convicted of criminal offences sufficiently serious to warrant an immediate   custodial sentence had been disenfranchised. Indeed, whilst a large category of   prisoners, namely those in detention during judicial proceedings, retained their right to   vote, disenfranchisement nonetheless concerned a wide range of offenders and   sentences from two months – which was the minimum period of imprisonment following   conviction in Russia – to life and from relatively minor offences to the most serious ones.   Nor was there evidence that, when deciding whether or not an immediate custodial   sentence should be imposed, the Russian courts took into account the fact that such a   sentence would involve disenfranchisement, or that they could make a realistic   assessment of the proportionality of disenfranchisement in the light of the circumstances   of each case.   Moreover, the Court rejected the Government’s argument that this case was essentially   different from the cases against other countries in which the Court had addressed the   issue of disenfranchisement2, as the ban on prisoners’ voting rights in Russia was laid   down in the Constitution – the basic law of Russia adopted following a nationwide vote -   rather than in an act of parliament. It stressed that all acts of a member State are   In the case of Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) (application no. 74025/01) of 6 October 2005, the Court   had come to the same conclusion about the legislation of the United Kingdom depriving all convicted prisoners   serving sentences of the right to vote. On the contrary, in the case of Scoppola v. Italy (no. 3) (application   no. 126/05) of 22 May 2012, it could not be said that the ban on the electoral rights of convicted prisoners had   an automatic and indiscriminate character as the legislation took into account such factors as the gravity of the   offence and the conduct of the offender.   subject to scrutiny under the Convention, regardless of the type of measure concerned.   Besides, no relevant materials had been provided to the Court showing that an attempt   had been made to weigh the competing interest or to assess the proportionality of a   blanket ban on convicted prisoners’ voting rights. The Court therefore concluded that,   despite the room for manoeuvre they had to decide on such matters, the Russian   authorities had gone too far in applying an automatic and indiscriminate ban on the   electoral rights of convicted prisoners.   As regards the implementation of the judgment, it noted the Government’s argument   that the ban was imposed by a provision of the Russian Constitution which could not be   amended by the Parliament and could only be revised by adopting a new Constitution,   which would involve a particularly complex procedure. However, it was primarily for the   Russian authorities to choose, subject to the supervision of the Committee of Ministers,   the executive arm of the Council of Europe, the means to be used in order to bring its   legislation into line with the Convention once the judgment in this case became final.   Indeed, it was open to the Government to explore all possible ways to ensure   compliance with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, including through some form of political   process or by interpreting the Russian Constitution in harmony with the Convention.   Articles 10 and 14 (freedom of expression and prohibition of discrimination)   The Court found that no separate issue arose under these Articles.   Article 41 (just satisfaction)   The court found that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just   satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants, and dismissed   their claim for just satisfaction.   The judgment is available only in English.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.   Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on   www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here:   www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Tweitter @ECHR_press.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Jean Conte (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of   Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European   Convention on Human Rights.   4