|
On 24 June, the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in the case of Adamsons v. Latvia.
Referring to Article 3 of Protocol No 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the applicant complained that Latvian authorities had infringed his rights to stand for the Saeima elections by striking his name from the candidates list for the deputies to the 8th Saeima.
Invoking Article 14 of the Convention, the applicant complained to the Court that he considered himself to be a victim of discrimination under Article 3 of Protocol No 1 of the Convention.
The court held, by six votes to one, that there has been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No 1 of the Convention. The Court established that the case in question is fundamentally different from other cases against Latvia, which concern restrictions to active electoral rights, especially in the case of Zdanoka v. Latvia. The Court noted in its judgment that Section 5 (5) of the Parliamentary Election Law, under which the applicant, a former officer of the KGB, was disqualified from standing for the Saeima elections, has not been defined clearly enough, especially having regard to the wide-ranging functions of the former KGB. The Court considered that the concept in question was too broad and that this could lead to restrictions of rights.
The court noted that in its judgment of 15 June 2006, the Constitutional Court had indicated that a possibility be envisaged by the legislative body to allow a case-by-case approach to the restrictions under Section 5 (5) of the Parliamentary Election Law, taking the merits and achievements of each separate individual into consideration. In this regard the Court held that, given the time period since the adoption of the restrictions, the significance of such an individualised approach has only increased.
The Court noted that the applicant, during his work in the newly re-established Republic of Latvia, had held a number of important positions: he was the Commander of the Border Guard Forces within the Armed Forces of Latvia and later - the Minister of the Interior, and that during the time of his service, he had not perpetrated any anti-democratic activities nor promulgated anti-democratic ideas, which could characterize him as an individual with loyalty to the former Soviet regime. Moreover, the applicant was declared a former KGB agent only in 2002 – after a notable ten-year military and political career. Consequently, the Court concluded that Latvian authorities had exceeded the limits of their judicial discretion with regard to restrictions of the applicant's electoral rights. The Court also did not consider it necessary to examine the remaining part of the applicant's complaint with regard of Article 14.
The Court, in considering that damage has been inflicted upon the applicant's reputation, awarded the applicant 10,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary injury. The applicant himself had claimed 115,200 LVL in non-pecuniary damages.
Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may 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. The panel may refer the case to the Grand Chamber or reject the request.
Full text of the judgment in French: http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=3669/03&sessionid=9729145&skin=hudoc-en
The Court's press release in English: http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=3&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=&sessionid=9728481&skin=hudoc-pr-en
(end of text)
Facts in the case of Adamsons v. Latvia
|
