Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 125
December 2009
Seyidzade v. Azerbaijan - 37700/05
Judgment 3.12.2009 [Section I]
Article 3 of Protocol No. 1
Stand for election
Refusal to register a former clergyman as candidate for parliamentary elections: violation
Facts – The applicant applied to the district electoral commission for registration as a candidate in the parliamentary elections in November 2005 and lodged an undertaking to terminate any professional activities incompatible with the office of a Member of Parliament. The commission allegedly approved his candidacy. He then resigned from his positions with the Caucasus Muslims Board and Baku Islamic University. Subsequently, however, the electoral commission revoked his registration as a candidate on the grounds that he had continued his activities as a professional clergyman. It did not provide any further details. The applicant lodged a complaint with the Central Electoral Commission but this was rejected as unsubstantiated. The domestic courts upheld that decision, stating that the Constitution banned clergymen from being elected to Parliament and that the applicant’s resignation from the above positions had not excluded his engaging in “professional religious activities” in terms of the Election Code.
Law – Article 3 of Protocol No. 1: When read literally, the relevant provisions of domestic law appeared to be mutually inconsistent as to whether clergymen were deprived of the right to stand for election, or were only subject to disqualification if they simultaneously held incompatible positions. The domestic legislation providing for the impugned restriction was not foreseeable as to its effects and left considerable room for speculation as to the definition of the categories of persons affected by it. The provisions had not been sufficiently precise to enable the applicant to regulate his conduct and foresee which specific types of activity would entail a restriction of his passive electoral rights. The lack of any definition of the terms “clergyman” and “professional religious activity” allowed an excessively wide discretion to the electoral authorities and left much room for arbitrariness in applying the restriction. Like the electoral commissions, the courts had failed to offer any explanation as to what other specific activity conducted by the applicant precluded him from standing for election or to indicate the definition and evidence they had relied on in finding him to be a “clergyman” within the meaning of the relevant provisions. The Government had not submitted any examples of domestic practice or judicial rulings that showed a comprehensive and consistent interpretation of the impugned provisions. The application of the law in respect of the applicant had resulted in a situation where the very essence of the rights guaranteed by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 had been impaired.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 7,500 in respect of non-pecuniary 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