Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  POLACCO AND GAROFALO v. ITALY

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  POLACCO ET GAROFALO c. ITALIE

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EKMR, 28.02.1979 - 7730/76

  X. v. the UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 15.09.1997 - 23450/94

  The Commission recalls that according to its previous case-law a residence requirement is not per se arbitrary, and may be justified on the grounds of (1) the assumption that a non-resident citizen is less directly or continuously concerned with, and has less knowledge of its day-to-day problems; (2) the impracticability for and sometimes undesirability (in some cases impossibility) of (Parliamentary) candidates presenting the different electoral issues to citizens abroad so as to secure a free expression of opinion ; (3) the influence of resident citizens on the selection of candidates and on the formulation of their electoral programmes, and (4) the correlation between one's right to vote in (Parliamentary) elections and being directly affected by acts of the political bodies so elected (see. No. 7730/76, Dec. 28.2.79, D.R. 15, p. 137; No. 7566/76, Dec. 11.12.76, D.R. 9, p. 121).
• EKMR, 14.03.1984 - 9627/81

  FERRARI-BRAVO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EKMR, 15.09.1997 - 23450/94

  On the contrary, the Commission recalls its previous case-law according to which "particular attention must be attached to the representation of a minority, in cases where electors generally decide in the light of criteria such as membership of an ethnic group or a denomination" (cf. No. 9627/81, Dec. 12.7.83, D.R. 33, pp. 97, 131).
• EKMR, 11.12.1976 - 7566/76

  X. v. the UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 15.09.1997 - 23450/94

  The Commission recalls that according to its previous case-law a residence requirement is not per se arbitrary, and may be justified on the grounds of (1) the assumption that a non-resident citizen is less directly or continuously concerned with, and has less knowledge of its day-to-day problems; (2) the impracticability for and sometimes undesirability (in some cases impossibility) of (Parliamentary) candidates presenting the different electoral issues to citizens abroad so as to secure a free expression of opinion ; (3) the influence of resident citizens on the selection of candidates and on the formulation of their electoral programmes, and (4) the correlation between one's right to vote in (Parliamentary) elections and being directly affected by acts of the political bodies so elected (see. No. 7730/76, Dec. 28.2.79, D.R. 15, p. 137; No. 7566/76, Dec. 11.12.76, D.R. 9, p. 121).

• EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 27996/06

  SEJDIC ET FINCI c. BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE

  [32] Polacco and Garofalo v. Italy, no, 23450/94, Commission decision of 15 September 1997, (DR) 90, p. 5.
• EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 28881/07

  ORAN c. TURQUIE

  En ce qui concerne les restrictions à l'exercice du droit de vote à l'étranger fondées sur le critère de la résidence de l'électeur, les organes de la Convention ont admis dans le passé que plusieurs raisons peuvent les justifier: premièrement, la présomption qu'un citoyen non résident est moins directement ou moins continuellement concerné par les problèmes quotidiens de son pays et les connaît moins bien ; deuxièmement, les citoyens résidant à l'étranger ont moins d'influence sur la sélection des candidats ou sur l'établissement de leurs programmes électoraux ; troisièmement, le lien étroit entre le droit de vote aux élections législatives et le fait que l'on est directement touché par les actes des organes politiques ainsi élus ; et, quatrièmement, le souci légitime que peut avoir le législateur de limiter l'influence des citoyens résidant à l'étranger sur des élections se rapportant à des questions qui, tout en étant assurément fondamentales, touchent au premier chef les personnes qui résident dans le pays (Hilbe c. Liechtenstein (déc.), no 31981/96, CEDH 1999-VI, X et association Y c. Italie, no 8987/80, décision de la Commission du 6 mai 1981, Décisions et rapports (DR) 24, p. 192, et Polacco et Garofalo c. Italie, no 23450/94, décision de la Commission du 15 septembre 1997, DR 90-B, p. 5).
• EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 42202/07

  SITAROPOULOS AND OTHERS v. GREECE

  Moreover, as repeated by the Court on several occasions, having to satisfy a residence requirement in order to have or exercise the right to vote in parliamentary elections is not an unreasonable or arbitrary restriction of the right to vote and is therefore not incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. (see Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], no. 74025/01, § 62, ECHR 2005-IX; Melnychenko v. Ukraine, no. 17707/02, § 56, ECHR 2004-X; Hilbe v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 31981/96, ECHR 1999-VI; Polacco and Garofalo v. Italy, no. 23450/94, Commission decision of 15 September 1997, Decisions and Reports (DR) 90-A; Luksch v. Germany, application no. 35385/97, Commission decision of 21 May 1997, DR 89-B, p. 175; X and Association Y v. Italy, application no. 8987/80, Commission decision of 6 May 1981, DR 24, p. 192; and X v. the United Kingdom, application no. 7730/76, Commission decision of 28 February 1979, DR 15, p. 137).

 
• EGMR, 17.06.2004 - 58278/00

  ZDANOKA c. LETTONIE

  [7] Polacco et Garofalo c. Italie, no 23450/94, déc.
• EGMR, 19.10.2004 - 17707/02

  MELNITCHENKO c. UKRAINE

  The Court considers that a residence requirement for voting may be justified on the following grounds: (1) the assumption that a non-resident citizen is less directly or continuously concerned with, and has less knowledge of, a country's day-to-day problems; (2) the impracticality and sometimes undesirability (in some cases impossibility) of parliamentary candidates presenting the different electoral issues to citizens living abroad so as to secure the free expression of opinion; (3) the influence of resident citizens on the selection of candidates and on the formulation of their electoral programmes; and (4) the correlation between one's right to vote in parliamentary elections and being directly affected by the acts of the political bodies so elected (see Polacco and Garofalo v. Italy, no. 23450/94, Commission decision of 15 September 1997, Decisions and Reports 90-A, referring to previous Commission case-law).
• EGMR, 11.01.2005 - 66289/01

  PY v. FRANCE

  The former Commission and the Court have taken the view that having to satisfy a residence or length-of-residence requirement in order to have or exercise the right to vote in elections is not, in principle, an arbitrary restriction of the right to vote and is therefore not incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (see Hilbe v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 31981/96, ECHR 1999-VI, and Polacco and Garofalo v. Italy, no. 23450/94, Commission decision of 15 September 1997, DR 90-A, p. 5).
• EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 39973/07

  EREL AND DAMDELEN v. CYPRUS

  In this connection, the Court recalls that in relation to the cases concerning the right to vote, that is, the so-called "active" aspect of the rights under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, the former Commission and the Court have taken the view that having to satisfy a residence or length-of-residence requirement in order to have or exercise the right to vote in elections is not, in principle, an arbitrary restriction of the right to vote and is therefore not incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for example, Py, cited above; Hilbe v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 31981/96, ECHR 1999-VI; (see Polacco and Garofalo v. Italy, no. 23450/94, Commission decision of 15 September 1997, Decisions and Reports (DR); see also, X v. the United Kingdom, application no. 7730/76, Commission decision of 28 February 1979, Decisions and Reports (DR) 15, p. 137; and Luksch v. Germany, application no. 35385/97, Commission decision of 21 May 1997, DR 89-B, p. 175).
• EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 28882/07

  TIMURHAN c. TURQUIE

  Plus récemment, la Cour a considéré que devoir satisfaire à une condition de résidence ou de durée de résidence afin de pouvoir jouir du droit de voter au cours d'une élection ou exercer celui-ci ne constitue pas en principe une restriction arbitraire à ce droit et n'est donc pas incompatible avec l'article 3 du Protocole no 1 (Sitaropoulos et Giakoumopoulos [GC], précité, § 69 ; voir aussi X et association Y c. Italie, no 8987/80, décision de la Commission du 6 mai 1981, Décisions et rapports (DR) 24, p. 192, Polacco et Garofalo c. Italie, no 23450/94, décision de la Commission du 15 septembre 1997, DR 90-B, p. 5, Hilbe c. Liechtenstein (déc.), no 31981/96, CEDH 1999-VI, Doyle c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 30158/06, 6 février 2007, et Shindler, précité, § 105).
• EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 30158/06

  DOYLE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The former Commission and the Court have taken the view that having to satisfy a residence or length-of-residence requirement in order to have or exercise the right to vote in elections is not, in principle, an arbitrary restriction of the right to vote and is therefore not incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (see Hilbe v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 31981/96, ECHR 1999-VI, where the applicant, a Liechtenstein citizen, resident in Switzerland for four years had been unable to vote in Liechtenstein; Polacco and Garofalo v. Italy, no. 23450/94, Commission decision of 15 September 1997, DR 90-A, p. 5; X and Association Y v. Italy, application no. 8987/80, Commission decision of 6 May 1981, Decisions and Reports (DR) 24, p. 192; X v. the United Kingdom, application no. 7730/76, Commission decision of 28 February 1979, DR 15, p. 137; and Luksch v. Germany, application no. 35385/97, Commission decision of 21 May 1997, DR 89-B, p. 175).