Information Note on the Court’s case-law 202
December 2016
Uspaskich v. Lithuania - 14737/08
Judgment 20.12.2016 [Section IV]
Article 3 of Protocol No. 1
Stand for election
House arrest of candidate politician during parliamentary elections: no violation
Facts – In 2006 the Lithuanian authorities opened a criminal investigation on suspicion of financial fraud by the Labour party. The applicant, the founder and chairman of the party, fled to Russia. In 2007, he was confirmed as a candidate for that party in parliamentary elections. He returned to Lithuania and was arrested and placed under house arrest. Whilst he made it to the second round, he was ultimately not elected to parliament.
The applicant complained under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 that he had been unable to effectively take part in parliamentary elections due to his house arrest.
Law – Article 3 of Protocol No. 1: The applicant was entitled under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to stand for election in fair and democratic conditions, regardless of whether ultimately, he won or lost. When he was named as a candidate in the parliamentary elections, the applicant must have been clearly aware that he was a suspect in a criminal investigation. He must also have known that a court order for his arrest and detention had been issued. Accordingly, he could not have reasonably expected to take part in those elections without any constraints, on equal terms with any other candidate, who was not an object of criminal proceedings.
Following the applicant’s return to Lithuania, he was placed under house arrest. It was not unreasonable to say that he was therefore permitted to run his electoral campaign from his home. Taking into account that he was a well-known politician and that the members of his political party took part in meetings with the voters in person, the restriction was not particularly burdensome on his right to participate in the elections to the extent that it would have been decisive for the ultimate result.
As to the applicant’s ability to challenge the remand measure in the context of his complaint under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, the existence of a domestic system for effective examination of individual complaints and appeals in matters concerning electoral rights was one of the essential guarantees of free and fair elections. Such a system ensured an effective exercise of individual rights to vote and to stand for election, maintained general confidence in the State’s administration of the electoral process and constituted an important device at the State’s disposal in achieving the fulfilment of its positive obligation under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to hold democratic elections. The applicant had made full use of the system of examination of individual election-related complaints and appeals provided for by Lithuanian law. There was nothing to indicate that in assessing the reasonableness of the remand measure of house arrest, the domestic authorities had acted arbitrarily.
The applicant had held a number of posts during his political career and the Government’s argument that he sought each time to take part in elections to a different elected body and then moved on once he lost immunity in order to avoid prosecution did not appear to be without basis. The applicant’s political party had shielded him from prosecution by systematically presenting him as a candidate in municipal, parliamentary and European Parliament elections, all of which meant that at least for a certain time he could enjoy immunity from prosecution.
There were no irregularities capable of thwarting the applicant’s rights to stand for election effectively.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
(See Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, 18705/06, 8 April 2010, Information Note 129)
© 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