FIRST SECTION

CASE OF MILLBANK AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

(Application nos. 44473/14, 58659/14, 70874/14, 71699/14, 73574/14, 73638/14, 73771/14, 73783/14, 73909/14, 73911/14, 74403/14, 74409/14, 75735/14, 75846/14, 2294/15, 18149/15, 24868/15, 26031/15, 26045/15, 28688/15, 32681/15 and 32685/15)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

30 June 2016

This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Millbank and Others v. the United Kingdom,

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 Robert Spano, President,
 Paul Mahoney,
 Pauliine Koskelo, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 2 June 2016,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in applications against the United Kingdom lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2.  The applications were communicated to the United Kingdom Government (“the Government”).

THE FACTS

3.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

4.  The applicants, who are convicted prisoners, complained about their ineligibility to vote in elections.

THE LAW

I.  JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

5.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

II.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF PROTOCOL No. 1

6.  The applicants complained about their ineligibility to vote in elections. They relied on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, which reads as follows:

“The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.”

7.  The Court refers to the principles established in its case‑law regarding ineligibility to vote in elections (see, for instance, Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], no. 74025/01, ECHR 2005‑IX; Greens and M.T. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 60041/08 and 60054/08, ECHR 2010 (extracts); McLean and Cole v. the United Kingdom (dec.), nos. 12626/13 and 2522/12, 11 June 2013; and Firth and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 47784/09, 47806/09, 47812/09, 47818/09, 47829/09, 49001/09, 49007/09, 49018/09, 49033/09 and 49036/09, 12 August 2014).

8.  In the leading cases of Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) and Greens and M.T. v. the United Kingdom, both cited above, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

9.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the statutory ban on prisoners voting in elections is, by reason of its blanket character, incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.

10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.

III.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

11.  Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

12.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Firth and Others v. the United Kingdom, cited above, §§ 19-22), the Court concludes that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.  Decides to join the applications;

2.  Declares the applications admissible;

3.  Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the ineligibility to vote in elections;

4.  Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 June 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Hasan Bakırcı Robert Spano
Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1

(ineligibility to vote in elections)