Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Prisoners' right to vote

Prisoners' right to vote

Ratings: (0)|Views: 605|Likes:
Published by jailhouselawyer
It is unclear why Gladkov v. Russia (no. 15162/05) has taken the ECtHR so long to list it for a hearing given that it involves a blanket ban on voting as was the case with Hirst No2.

It is also unclear why and upon what authority the ECtHR gave the UK a delay in complying with Greens until 6 months after Scoppola was decided.

Given that Greens is a pilot judgment procedure to highlight the UK's systemic failure in not complying with Hirst No2, and lay down what is required to comply and to set a 6 month time limit on compliance, it beggars belief that the ECtHR extended the time limit in the UK's favour.

The UK's submissions in Scoppola were rejected by the ECtHR, therefore the extended time limit cannot be justified. It has been claimed that the extension also applied to Hirst No2. However, the UK has already had over 6 years extended time to comply with Hirst No2.

When does justice delayed is justice denied kick in?

It appears that the ECtHR is sacrificing human rights, democracy and rule of law to appease the human rights violating States of Russia and the UK.
It is unclear why Gladkov v. Russia (no. 15162/05) has taken the ECtHR so long to list it for a hearing given that it involves a blanket ban on voting as was the case with Hirst No2.

It is also unclear why and upon what authority the ECtHR gave the UK a delay in complying with Greens until 6 months after Scoppola was decided.

Given that Greens is a pilot judgment procedure to highlight the UK's systemic failure in not complying with Hirst No2, and lay down what is required to comply and to set a 6 month time limit on compliance, it beggars belief that the ECtHR extended the time limit in the UK's favour.

The UK's submissions in Scoppola were rejected by the ECtHR, therefore the extended time limit cannot be justified. It has been claimed that the extension also applied to Hirst No2. However, the UK has already had over 6 years extended time to comply with Hirst No2.

When does justice delayed is justice denied kick in?

It appears that the ECtHR is sacrificing human rights, democracy and rule of law to appease the human rights violating States of Russia and the UK.

More info:

Published by: jailhouselawyer on Jun 09, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/19/2012

pdf

text

original

 
Factsheet - Prisoners' right to voteMay 2012This Factsheet does not bind the Court and is not exhaustive
Prisoners’ right to vote
Pending caseGladkov v. Russia (no. 15162/05)
Communicated on 19.10.2009
 
Scoppola v. Italy No. 3 (no. 126/05) Grand Chamber final
1
22.05.2012Concerned Mr Scoppola’s complaint that the ban on public office imposed on him as aresult of his life sentence for murder had amounted to a permanent forfeiture of hisright to vote.No violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections)of the EuropeanConvention on Human Rights.The Court notably found that under Italian law only prisoners convicted of certainoffences against the State or the judicial system, or sentenced to at least three years’ imprisonment, lost the right to vote. There was, therefore, no general, automatic,indiscriminate measure of the kind that led the Court to find a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention in the
Hirst No. 2 v. the UK 
 
(no. 74025/01)
 
 judgment of October 2005 (see below).Accordingly, the Court confirmed
Hirst No. 2
, again holding
that general, automaticand indiscriminate disenfranchisement of all serving prisoners, irrespective of the nature or gravity of their offences, is incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections).
However, it accepted the argument madeby the United Kingdom Government, who had been given leave to make submissionsas a third party, that each State has a
wide discretion as to how it regulates theban
, both as regards the types of offence that should result in the loss of the vote andas to whether disenfranchisement should be ordered by a judge in an individual caseor should result from general application of a law.Press release: implications of Grand Chamber judgment Scoppola No. 3 for Greens andM.T. v. the UK.
Greens and M.T. v. the UK (nos. 60041/08 & 60054/08) – Chamber judgmentfinal
23.11.2010
Concerned the continued failure to amend the legislation imposing a blanket ban onvoting in national and European elections for convicted prisoners in detention in the UK.Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections)Just satisfaction: finding of a violation sufficient; EUR 5,000 for costs and expenses
21
 
Grand Chamber judgments are final (Article 44 of the Convention). All final judgments are transmitted to theCommittee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of their implementation. Further informationabout the implementation process can be found here:www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution
2
 
The Court held, however, that in any future cases it would most likely consider that it was not necessary or
 
Factsheet -Prisoners' right to vote2The Court found that the violation was due to the UK’s failure to implement the Court’sGrand Chamber judgment in
Hirst No. 2
.
Enforcement 
Having received
2,500 similar applications
, the Court decided to adopt its
pilot judgment procedure
3
and gave the UK Government six months from the date when
Greens and M.T.
became final to introduce legislative proposals to bring the disputedlaw/s in line with the Convention. The Court also decided that it will not examine anycomparable cases pending new legislation and proposes to strike out all such registeredcases once legislation has been introduced.As this judgment became final on 11 April 2011, the deadline for the UK authorities tosubmit an Action plan was 11 October 2011. On 30 August 2011, this deadline wasextended to six months after judgment delivery in the case of 
Scoppola no. 3
(above). The delivery of 
Scoppola No. 3
, which is final immediately, means thatthe six monthperiod referred to in
Greens and M.T.
begins to run on 22.05.2012.
Concerning the decision on disenfranchisement being taken by a judge
In the case of Frodl v. Austria (no. 20201/04, Chamber judgment of 8.4.2010), theCourt found a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, notably because the decision ondisenfranchisement had not been taken by a judge. The applicant was a prisonerserving a life sentence for murder in Austria who, under the National AssemblyElection Act – which provided that a prisoner serving a term of imprisonment for morethan one year for an offence committed with intent was not allowed to vote – hadbeen disenfranchised.
 
However, according to the Grand Chamber in
Scoppola No. 3 v. Italy 
, while theintervention of a judge was clearly likely, in principle, to guarantee the proportionalityof restrictions on prisoners’ voting rights, such restrictions would not necessarily beautomatic, general and indiscriminate simply because they had not been ordered by a judge.
Hirst No. 2 v. the United Kingdom (no. 74025/01) – Grand Chamber judgment
6.10.2005
Concerned blanket ban on convicted prisoners’ right to vote
The Court found that the applicant, imprisoned in 1980 (released in 1994), had beensubject – under Section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 – during thattime and due to his status as a convicted prisoner to an automatic and indiscriminaterestriction on his right to vote.Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections)Just satisfaction: 23,200 euros (EUR) for costs and expensesThe Court noted in particular that “when sentencing, the criminal courts made noreference to disenfranchisement and it was not apparent that there was a direct linkbetween the facts of a case and the loss of the right to vote”.
Enforcement 
On 7.4.2006, the UK authorities presented an
action plan
for the enforcement of the judgment to the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers (CM). The authorities
reasonable to incur such legal costs and would make no such award.
3
The pilot judgment procedure was developed as a technique of identifying the structural problems underlyingrepetitive cases against many countries and imposing an obligation on States to address those problems.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->