Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 129
April 2010
Frodl v. Austria - 20201/04
Judgment 8.4.2010 [Section I]
Article 3 of Protocol No. 1
Stand for election
Exclusion of certain categories of convicted prisoners from voting in elections: violation
Facts – The applicant was serving a life sentence for murder. In his application to the European Court, he complained that he had been prevented by section 22 of the National Assembly Election Act from registering to vote in local elections. Section 22, which has since been replaced, provided that prisoners serving a term of imprisonment of more than one year for offences committed with intent forfeited the right to vote.
Law – Article 3 of Protocol No. 1: The Court reiterated that disenfranchisement could only be envisaged for a narrowly defined group of offenders serving lengthy terms of imprisonment; there should be a direct link between the facts on which a conviction was based and the sanction of disenfranchisement; and that such a measure should preferably be imposed not by operation of law but by the decision of a judge following judicial proceedings (see Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], no. 74025/01, 6 October 2005, Information Note no. 79). The provisions on the disenfranchisement of prisoners in the applicant’s case had pursued the aims of preventing crime by punishing the conduct of convicted prisoners and of enhancing civic responsibility and respect for the rule of law. The Court found no reason to regard those aims as untenable or incompatible per se with the Convention. The provision for disenfranchisement set out in section 22 of the National Assembly Election Act was more detailed than the provisions that had been applicable in Hirst. It did not apply automatically to all prisoners but only to those given a prison sentence of more than one year for offences committed with intent. Nevertheless, it did not meet all the criteria established in Hirst. Under the Hirst test, it was essential for the decision on disenfranchisement to be taken by a judge, taking into account the particular circumstances, and for there to be a link between the offence and issues relating to elections and democratic institutions. The essential purpose of these criteria was to establish disenfranchisement as an exception even in the case of convicted prisoners, ensuring that it was accompanied by specific reasoning given in an individual decision explaining why in the circumstances of the specific case disenfranchisement was necessary. The principle of proportionality required a discernible and sufficient link between the sanction and the conduct and circumstances of the individual concerned. However, no such link existed under the statutory provisions under which the applicant had been disenfranchised.
Conclusion: violation (six votes to one).
Article 41: No claim made in respect of damage.
© 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