Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 120
June 2009
Herritarren Zerrenda v. Spain - 43518/04
Judgment 30.6.2009 [Section V]
Article 3 of Protocol No. 1
Free expression of opinion of people
Stand for election
Cancellation of candidacy of electoral group to European Parliament on grounds that the group was carrying on activities of parties that had been declared illegal owing to their links with a terrorist organisation: no violation
Facts: In 2004 the central electoral commission registered the candidacy of the applicant electoral grouping for the elections to the European Parliament in June 2004. State Counsel, representing the Spanish Government, submitted an application to the Supreme Court for judicial review in an electoral matter, seeking to have the candidacy barred. State Counsel accused the grouping of pursuing the activities of the political parties Batasuna and Herri Batasuna, which had been declared illegal and dissolved in March 2003. The public prosecutor’s office also submitted an application to the Supreme Court seeking to have the applicant’s candidacy barred. The Supreme Court granted the applications and barred the applicant from standing for election on the ground that its purpose was to continue the activities of the parties that had been declared illegal and dissolved. The applicant then lodged an amparo appeal with the Constitutional Court, which dismissed it. The elections to the European Parliament were held and the applicant, which had called on the electorate to vote for it in spite of its barred candidacy, obtained 113,000 votes in Spain. The votes were considered null and void. Relying on Article 10 of the Convention and Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant complained that it had been barred from standing as a candidate in the elections to the European Parliament and that it had been deprived of the possibility of standing for election and representing the electorate; this had hindered the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature. The applicant also alleged a violation of Article 13 on account of the judicial review procedure before the Supreme Court.
Law: For the same reasons as in Etxeberría and Others (see above in relation to Article 3 of Protocol No. 1), the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 13 and that no separate issue arose under Article 10.
See also Herri Batasuna and Batasuna v. Spain, nos. 25803/04 and 25817/04, in relation to Article 11, and Etxeberria, Barrena Arza, Nafarroako Autodeterminazio Bilgunea and Aiarako and Others v. Spain, nos. 35579/03, 35613/03, 35626/03 and 35634/03, above.
© 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