THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

6. The firstapplicant was born in 1971 and lives in Chelyabinsk. The second applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Moscow.

A. The applicants’ criminal history

1. The first applicant

7. On 10 January 1995 the first applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence and remanded in custody.

8. By a judgment of 23 June 1998 the applicant was convicted at first instanceon a charge of murder and several counts of theft and fraud and sentenced to death. On 20 December 1999 his conviction was upheld on appeal, but the death sentence was commuted tofifteen years’ imprisonment.

9. On the date of his latest correspondence with the Court, the first applicantwas serving a sentence of imprisonment in penitentiary facility YuK-25/1 in Orenburg.

2. The second applicant

10. On 20 January 1995 the second applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence and remanded in custody.

11. On 27 November 1995 the second applicant was convicted at first instance and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. The sentence was upheld on appeal on 19 June 1996.

12. In another set of criminal proceedings, on 13 November 1998 the second applicant was convicted of murder, aggravated robbery, participation in an organised criminal group and resistance to police officers and sentenced to death. On 15 February 2000 his conviction was upheld on appeal, but the death sentence was commuted to fifteen years’ imprisonment, of which fourteen were to be served in prison and the last year in a correctional facility.

13. On 23 April 2008 the second applicant was released from prison on parole.

B. The applicants’ attempts to participate in elections

14. The first and second applicants were kept in pre-trial detention centres from 10 January 1995 to 20 December 1999 and from 20 January 1995 to 22 March 2000 respectively. During those periods the first applicant voted twice in parliamentary elections and the second applicant voted several times in parliamentary and presidential elections and in regional elections of an executive official.

15. On an unspecified date the first applicant was transferred to a penitentiary facility to serve his prison sentence. Since that date he has been debarred,as a convicted prisoner, from participating in any elections pursuant to Article 32 § 3 of the Russian Constitution (“the Constitution”).

16. On 22 March 2000 the second applicant was transferredto a prison to continue serving his sentence. From that date, and until his release from prison on 23 April 2008, the second applicant was debarred from voting in elections under the provisions of the aforementioned Article.

17. In particular, the applicants were ineligible to vote in the elections of members of the State Duma – the lower chamber of the Russian parliament – held on 7 December 2003 and 2 December 2007 and in the presidential elections of 26 March 2000, 14 March 2004 and 2 March 2008. The second applicant was also unable to vote in additional parliamentary elections held in the electoral constituencyof his home address on 5 December 2004.

C. The applicants’ applications to the Constitutional Court

18. Both applicantschallenged, at various times, the aforementioned constitutional provision before the Russian Constitutional Court (“the Constitutional Court”) stating that it violated a number of their constitutional rights.

19. In letters of 15 March and 6 April 2004, sent to the first and second applicants respectively, the Secretariat of the Constitutional Court replied that the applicants’ complaints fell outside the Constitutional Court’s competence and therefore had no prospects of success.

20. The second applicant appealed against thatdecision to the President of the Constitutional Court.

21. By a decision of 27 May 2004 the Constitutional Court declined to accept the second applicant’s complaint for examination, stating that it had no jurisdiction to check whethercertain constitutional provisions were compatible with others.

22. On 19 July 2004 the Secretariat of the Constitutional Court forwarded the court’s decision to the second applicant. In a letter of 5 August 2004 a regional office of the Department of Execution of Sentences sent the Secretariat’s letter of 19 July 2004 to the second applicant’s prison. According to the second applicant, this correspondence, including the decision of 19 July 2004, was delivered to him on 1 September 2004.

D. Proceedings against election commissions

23. The second applicant then repeatedly brought court proceedings against election commissions at various levels complaining oftheir refusals to allow him to vote in parliamentary and presidential elections. His complaints were rejected either on formal grounds or on the merits. Final decisions were taken by the appellate courts on 1 December 2007 and 3 April, 5 May, 4 June and 29 September 2008. The domestic courts mainly referred to Article 32 § 3 of the Constitution and the fact that the second applicant was a convicted prisoner, and stated that the domestic law debarredhim from voting in elections. In its decision of 1 December 2007 the Lipetsk Regional Court also held as follows:

“In the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights dated 6 October 2005 in the case of Hirst v. the United Kingdom the applicant’s disenfranchisement on account of his serving a sentence of imprisonment was found to be in breach of Article 3 of Protocol No 1 to the Convention.

The European Court noted in that judgment that prisoners in general continued to enjoy all the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Convention save for the right to liberty, where lawfully imposed detention expressly falls within the scope of Article 5 of the Convention.

It was also pointed out that a blanket statutory disenfranchisement of all convicted prisoners in prisons (of the United Kingdom) applies automatically to such prisoners, irrespective of the length of their sentence and irrespective of the nature or gravity of their offence and their individual circumstances. Such a general, automatic and indiscriminate restriction on a vitally important Convention right must be seen as falling outside any acceptable margin of appreciation, however wide that margin might be, and as being incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.

... The Russian Federation accepts ... as binding the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights regarding questions of interpretation and application of the Convention and its Protocols in situations of alleged violations of those legal instruments by the Russian Federation where the alleged violation has taken place after their entry into force in respect of the Russian Federation.

However, the aforementioned judgment of the European Court does not allow a conclusion to be reached as to the unreasonableness of restrictions on electoral rights established in the legislation of the Russian Federation in respect of individuals serving a sentence of imprisonment after their conviction by a court.

Apart from the foregoing, the said judgment of the European Court provides that any restrictions on other rights of prisoners (save for the right to liberty) must be justified, although such justification may well be found in considerations of security, in particular the prevention of crime and disorder, which inevitably flow from the circumstances of imprisonment.

Also, it is noted that Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, which enshrines the individual’s capacity to influence the composition of the law-making power, does not therefore exclude that restrictions on electoral rights could be imposed on an individual who has, for example, seriously abused a public position or whose conduct threatened to undermine the rule of law or democratic foundations. The severe measure of disenfranchisement must not, however, be resorted to lightly and the principle of proportionality requires a discernible and sufficient link between the sanction and the conduct and circumstances of the individual concerned.

Therefore, without ruling out the very possibility of restricting electoral rights of convicted prisoners, the European Court attaches decisive weight to the proportionality and reasonableness of establishing this measure in law.

The criteria which the European Court has considered as decisive when determining a question of proportionality of, and justification for, limiting electoral rights of convicted prisoners – the nature and seriousness of their offence and their individual circumstances – were taken into account when [the second applicant’s] punishment was chosen, in accordance with provisions of the [Russian] legislation which were not analysed in the aforementioned judgment.

According to [a relevant provision] of the Russian Penitentiary Code, it is individuals convicted of particularly serious offences, or of particularly serious repeat offences, and sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding five years ...who serve their sentence in prison.

It should also be noted that, in accordance with Article 10 § 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966, the penitentiary system must comprise treatment of prisoners the essential aim of which must be their reformation and social rehabilitation.

[A relevant provision] of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure also lists the reform of a convicted prisoner as one of the aims of punishment,together with the prevention of further crimes.

Therefore, taking into account the aforementioned criteria, [it can be concluded that] the temporary (for the period of imprisonment) restriction of the electoral rights established in the legislation of the Russian Federation in respect of individuals serving a sentence of imprisonment is, from its inception, reasonable, justified and in the public interest, being a preventive measure aimed at reforming convicted prisoners and deterring them from committing crimes and breaching public order in the future, including in the period when elections are held.

The same [reasoning] applies to the restriction of [the second applicant’s] electoral rights.”

E. Other proceedings

24. The second applicant also attempted to bring proceedings complaining of the refusal of the head of a local election commission to give him copies of certain documents.

25. On 27 December 2007 the Lipetsk Regional Court returned the second applicant’s claim, stating that it should be lodged with a lower court.

26. On 4 June 2008 the Supreme Court upheld the above decision on appeal.

F. The applicants’ applications to the European Court

27. In his first letter to the Court dated 16 February 2004, and dispatched, as is clear from the postmark, on 17 February 2004, the first applicant described the circumstances of his case and complained about his disenfranchisement and inability to vote in a number of elections held in Russia. He later reproduced this in an application form of 30 April 2004, which was received by the Court on 23 June 2004.

28. The second applicant complained about his disenfranchisement and inability to vote in elections in an application form which he dated 29 December 2004 and which, as is clear from the postmark, he sent on 27 February 2005. The Court received the application form on 30 March 2005.

29. Subsequently, the applicants updated their applications referring to new elections in which they were still ineligible to vote.

Date: 2015-01-11; view: 918