Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 94
February 2007
Doyle v. the United Kingdom (dec.) - 30158/06
Decision 6.2.2007 [Section IV]
Article 3 of Protocol No. 1
Vote
Overseas resident denied the right to vote in national elections of his country of origin after having lived abroad for more than 15 years:inadmissible
The applicant, a British national, moved to Belgium in 1983 where he has resided ever since. In 2006 he enquired about registering on the electoral role in the United Kingdom. The Department for Constitutional Affairs stated that on the basis of the Representation of the People Act 2002 only nationals resident overseas for less than 15 years could register to vote in United Kingdom general and European elections. He could be reinstated on the electoral role if he returned to live in the United Kingdom and he was entitled to vote in the European elections in Belgium as a citizen of the European Union. The applicant complained under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 about his inability to vote in United Kingdom elections stating that he should not be denied his right to vote in national elections of his country of nationality, unless and until he is registered to vote in the elections of his country of residence.
Inadmissible: The right to vote is implicit; however, the rights bestowed are not absolute as Contracting States have a wide margin of appreciation. Residence requirements have previously been found to be justified by the following factors: firstly, the assumption that a non-resident citizen is less directly or less continually concerned with his country’s day-to-day problems and has less knowledge of them; secondly, the fact that it is impracticable for the parliamentary candidates to present the different electoral issues to citizens abroad and that non-resident citizens have no influence on the selection of candidates or on the formulation of their electoral programmes; thirdly, the close connection between the right to vote in parliamentary elections and the fact of being directly affected by the acts of the political bodies so elected; and, fourthly, the legitimate concern the legislature may have to limit the influence of citizens living abroad in elections on issues which, while admittedly fundamental, primarily affect persons living in the country. Even where it may be possible that the applicant has not severed ties with his country of origin and that some of the factors indicated above are therefore inapplicable to this case, the law cannot always take account of every individual case but must lay down a general rule. As to the residence restriction in this case, the impugned measure has been the subject of parliamentary scrutiny. There was a debate on the time-limit in both Houses of Parliament before the legislation was adopted. Imposing a period of fifteen years as the cut-off point for eligibility to vote from overseas does not appear to be either disproportionate or irreconcilable with the underlying purposes of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. Over such a time period, the applicant may reasonably be regarded as having weakened the link between himself and the United Kingdom and he cannot argue that he is affected by the acts of political institutions to the same extent as resident citizens. In European Union countries, persons in the position of the applicant may generally vote in European Parliament elections. It is also open to the applicant, whether or not he so wishes, to seek to obtain the vote in the country of residence, if necessary by applying for citizenship. Furthermore, if he returns to live in the United Kingdom, his eligibility to vote as a British citizen will revive. In the circumstances, the Court does not perceive any effective disenfranchisement of the applicant or impairment of the very essence of the right to vote: manifestly ill-founded.
© 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