Scoppola v. Italy No. 3 (no. 126/05) Grand Chamber final
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
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
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
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
The Court held, however, that in any future cases it would most likely consider that it was not necessary or