Boškoski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (dec.)

Information Note on the Court’s case-law 67

August-September 2004

Boškoski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (dec.) - 11676/04

Decision 2.9.2004 [Section III]

Article 3 of Protocol No. 1

Choice of the legislature

Denial of the possibility to stand as candidate in presidential elections: inadmissible

The applicant applied to be listed as an independent candidate for the presidential elections of 2004. The State Electoral Commission (SEC) rejected his application on grounds that he had not continuously resided in the country for at least ten of the fifteen years prior to the elections, as required under the Constitution. The SEC found that whilst some of the periods during which he had fixed his residence in Croatia could be considered as “domestic” under Article 132 of the Constitution, the period between 1991 and 1999 was to be computed as “foreign”. Thus, the applicant had only resided in the country for seven years and nine months out of the fifteen required. The applicant challenged the rejection of his candidacy before the Supreme Court, arguing that the said Article 132 had been incorrectly and restrictively applied in the calculation of his length of residence in “the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”. The Supreme Court dismissed the claim, finding that the SEC had correctly assessed the overall length of domestic residence. The Constitutional Court likewise rejected the applicant’s petition as the right to stand for elections was not among the individual rights which could be challenged before this court.

Inadmissible under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1: The application of this provision, which guaranteed the “choice of the legislature”, to presidential elections was not excludedas such. However, in “the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” the office of President of the Republic did not have power to initiate or adopt legislation, nor was it furnished with power of censure over the main institutions responsible for passing legislation. As the President merely enjoyed limited discretion to provisionally suspend the promulgation of statutes, such an office could not be construed as the “legislature” within the meaning of this provision: incompatible ratione materiae.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy