003-4842346-5910103

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 239 (2014)   12.08.2014)   Court finds violation of the right to vote in ten follow-up prisoner voting cases   but awards no compensation or legal costs   In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Firth and Others v. the United Kingdom (application   no. 47784/09 and nine others), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held, by five   votes to two, that there had been:   a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) to the European Convention on   Human Rights.   The case concerned ten prisoners who, as an automatic consequence of their convictions and   detention pursuant to sentences of imprisonment, were unable to vote in elections to the European   Parliament on 4 June 2009. The Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 3 of   Protocol No. 1 because the case was identical to another prisoner voting case (Greens and M.T. v.   the United Kingdom, application nos. 60041/08 and 60054/08) in which a breach of the right to vote   had been found and the relevant legislation had not yet been amended. It rejected the applicants’   claim for compensation and legal costs.   Principal facts   The ten applicants are British nationals who were incarcerated in the United Kingdom pursuant to   sentences of imprisonment on the date of the elections to the European Parliament on 4 June 2009.   Under the applicable electoral legislation, they were automatically precluded from voting in that   election on account of their detention.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, the applicants complained of a breach of their right to vote.   The applications were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on various dates between   and 28 August 2009.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Ineta Ziemele (Latvia), President,   Päivi Hirvelä (Finland),   George Nicolaou (Cyprus),   Ledi Bianku (Albania),   Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgaria),   Paul Mahoney (the United Kingdom),   Krzysztof Wojtyczek (Poland),   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   and also Françoise Elens-Passos, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections)   The Court noted that in Greens and M.T. it had found the statutory ban on prisoners voting in the   elections to the European Parliament of 4 June 2009 to be, by reason of its blanket character,   incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. It remarked that it had, in that judgment, indicated   that some legislative amendment would be required to make the electoral law compatible with the   Convention.   In the present judgment, the Court recognised the recent steps taken in the United Kingdom with   the publication of a draft bill and the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee appointed to   examine the bill. Given, however, that the legislation remained unamended, the Court concluded   that there had been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.   Article 41 (just satisfaction)   As in previous judgments concerning prisoners’ right to vote (including Hirst (No. 2) v. the United   Kingdom, Greens and M.T. and Scoppola (No. 3) v. Italy), the Court held that the finding of a violation   constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. It   therefore declined to award any compensation.   The Court also rejected the applicants’ claim for legal costs. It referred to its remarks in Greens and   M.T., paragraph 120, where it had indicated that it would be unlikely to award costs in future follow-   up cases. It explained that the present applicants, in lodging their applications, had only been   required to cite Article 3 of Protocol 1, allege that they were detained pursuant to a sentence of   imprisonment of the date of the election on question and confirm that they had been otherwise   eligible to vote in that election. It found that the lodging of such an application was straightforward   and did not require legal assistance. It therefore concluded that the legal costs claimed had not been   reasonably and necessarily incurred.   Separate opinions   Judges Nicolaou and Wojtyczek each expressed a dissenting opinion. These opinions are annexed to   the judgment.   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 Twitter   @ECHRpress.   Press contacts   [email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)   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.   3