26 October 2007
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 11157/04
by Sergey Borisovich ANCHUGOV
against Russia
lodged on 16 February 2004
STATEMENT OF FACTS
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Sergey Borisovich Anchugov, is a Russian national who was born in 1971 and is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment in penitentiary establishment YuK-25/1 of Orenbourg.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 20 December 1999 the Supreme Court of Russia in the final instance convicted the applicant to fifteen years’ imprisonment.
On 7 December 2003 the elections to the State Duma (the lower Chamber of the Russian parliament) took place. However, since the applicant was a convicted prisoner, he could not vote at the elections.
B. Relevant domestic law
Article 32 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, ratified on 12 December 1993, provides as follows:
“1. Citizens of the Russian Federation shall have the right to participate in the administration of the affairs of the state both directly and through their representatives.
2. Citizens of the Russian Federation shall have the right to elect and to be elected to bodies of state governance and to organs of local self-government, as well as take part in a referendum.
3. Citizens who have been found by a court of law to be under special disability, and also citizens placed in detention under a court verdict, shall not have the right to elect or to be elected. ...”
C. Relevant international materials
For relevant international materials see Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], no. 74025/01, §§ 26-39, ECHR 2005-....
COMPLAINTS
Relying on Article 10 § 1 of the Convention and Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 thereto the applicant complained about the alleged violation of his right to freedom of expression and, in particular, his right to free expression of the opinion in the choice of the legislature.
In view of the above complaints he further complained under Article 14 of the Convention that he is discriminated against as a convicted prisoner.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Does the restriction on the applicant’s right to vote imposed by Article 32 § 3 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation disclose a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1?
2. In particular, does this restriction pursue a legitimate aim? Is the restriction proportionate or is a blanket ban on convicted prisoners, irrespective of the length or type of detention, a disproportionate or arbitrary measure (see Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], no. 74025/01, §§ 73-85, ECHR 2005-...)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy