Information Note on the Court’s case-law 267
October 2022
Kara-Murza v. Russia - 2513/14
Judgment 4.10.2022 [Section III]
Article 3 of Protocol No. 1
Stand for election
Disproportionate annulment of dual national’s registration to stand for election by automatic application of blanket ban on multiple nationals, without individual assessment: violation
Facts – The applicant, a journalist and opposition politician, has both Russian and British nationality. In 2013 he was nominated as a candidate by an opposition political party (the Republican Party of Russia – People’s Freedom Party) for election to the Yaroslavl Regional Duma (a regional legislature) and was registered by the Electoral Commission of that region. His registration was subsequently annulled by the Regional Court on the basis that the relevant domestic legislation prohibited multiple nationals from standing for election. The applicant’s appeals thereto were dismissed.
Law – Article 3 of Protocol No.1: The annulment of the applicant’s registration amounted to an interference with his right to stand for election which met the requirement of lawfulness. Even though the Court might have been prepared to accept that the interference had been aimed at protecting the constitutional order and ensuring compliance with electoral legislation, it was not necessary to decide this question, because in any event the interference had been disproportionate to those alleged aims.
The Court reasserted, as it found in the case of Tănase v. Moldova [GC], that there was a consensus among Contracting States that the holding of more than one nationality should not be a ground for ineligibility for an individual to sit as a member of parliament. However, different approaches might be justified where special historical or political considerations existed which rendered a more restrictive practice necessary. In the present case no such considerations had been put forward by the Government explaining the necessity of the impugned measure.
The ban prohibiting the applicant to stand for election was a particularly restrictive measure, notwithstanding the wide margin of appreciation available to the national authorities in this area. It was formulated in absolute terms and provided for no exceptions for any multiple nationalities or particular circumstances. In that connection, the Court was not satisfied that the interference with the applicant’s right had been justified by the absence of close ties between the United Kingdom and Russia because the ban applied to candidates with any foreign State citizenship or even to those holding a residence permit issued by any foreign state. The ban also affected a large number of Russian nationals.
There was a need to “individualise” the restriction of electoral rights and to take account of the actual conduct of individuals rather than a perceived threat posed by a group of persons. Such individualisation might be achieved by measures taken in the particular circumstances of a case based on specific information, such as sanctions for illegal conduct or conduct which threatened national interests and making access to confidential documents subject to security clearance. This approach was to be preferred to a blanket assumption that all multiple nationals posed a threat to national security and independence. However, the impugned ban had been applied to the applicant automatically.
Conclusion: violation (six votes to one).
Article 41: no claim made in respect of damage.
(See also Tănase v. Moldova [GC], 7/08, 27 April 2010, Legal Summary)
© 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