issued by the Registrar of the Court

ECHR 143 (2013)

07.05.2013

Right to vote of British national who has lived outside UK for

over 30 years not violated by UK election laws

In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Shindler v. the United Kingdom

(application no. 19840/09), which is not final¹, the European Court of Human Rights

held, unanimously, that there had been:

no violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) of the European

Convention on Human Rights.

The case concerned whether the right to vote of a British national not resident in the

United Kingdom since 1982 had been violated by election laws preventing those resident

outside of the United Kingdom for more than 15 years from voting.

The Court, taking into account the room for manoeuvre (‘margin of appreciation’) to be

left to the United Kingdom Government in regulating its parliamentary elections, decided

that the election law in question had not gone too far in restricting the right to

Mr Shindler’s right to free elections.

The Court has also notified in writing today a committee judgment in the case of

Erdoğan Çoban v. Turkey (no. 18375/09)², which is final.

Principal facts

The applicant, Harry Shindler, is a British national who was born in 1921 and lives in

Ascoli Piceno, Italy. He left the United Kingdom in 1982 following his retirement and

moved to Italy with his wife, an Italian national.

Under primary legislation, British citizens residing overseas for less than 15 years are

permitted to vote in parliamentary elections in the United Kingdom. Mr Shindler does not

meet the 15-year criterion and is therefore not entitled to vote. In particular, he was

unable to vote in the general election of 5 May 2010.

Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court

Relying on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, Mr Shindler complained that no time-limit should

be imposed on the right of EU citizens resident abroad to vote in their country of origin

while they retained the nationality of that country. Mr Shindler maintained that he had

retained very strong ties with the UK as a retired serviceman of the British Army

1 Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month

period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the

Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further

examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral

request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.

Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for

supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:

www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution

In this case, the applicant complained in particular about the excessive length of criminal proceedings

brought against him for aiding and abetting an illegal organisation, the DHKP-C.

Violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time)

Violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy)

receiving a pension from the State paid into a British bank account on which he paid tax

and had family members in the UK. He argued that the fifteen year time limit had the

effect of disenfranchising him completely and that it was not a proportionate limitation of

his right.

The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 26 March 2009.

Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:

Ineta Ziemele (Latvia), President,

David Thór Björgvinsson (Iceland),

George Nicolaou (Cyprus),

Ledi Bianku (Albania),

Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgaria),

Vincent A. de Gaetano (Malta),

Paul Mahoney (the United Kingdom),

and also Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar.

Decision of the Court

Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections)

Neither Mr Shindler nor the government had expressly identified the legitimate aim of

the restriction on non-resident voting in this case. However, the Court was satisfied that

it pursued the legitimate aim of confining the parliamentary franchise to those citizens

with a close connection to the United Kingdom and who would therefore be most directly

affected by its laws.

The Court noted that if Mr Shindler returned to live in the United Kingdom, his right to

vote as a resident would be restored. In those circumstances it could not be said that the

restriction impaired the very essence of Mr Shindler’s rights under Article 3 of Protocol

No. 1. Consequently, the Court considered that the central question in the case was

whether the election laws in question were a proportionate limitation on the right to vote

which struck a fair balance between the competing interests.

The Court reviewed the activities of Council of Europe bodies and found that they had

demonstrated a growing awareness at European level of the problems posed by

migration in terms of political participation in countries of origin and residence. However,

there was a disparity in approaches, and the Court therefore emphasised the importance

of leaving Governments room for manoeuvre (‘margin of appreciation’) in this area. It

also noted that Parliament had sought to weigh the competing interests in the case on

several occasions and had debated the question of non-residents’ voting rights in some

detail. The evolution of its views could be seen in amendments to the period on non-

residence since the introduction of overseas voting in 1985.

The Court found that allowing non-residents to vote for 15 years after leaving the

country was not an unsubstantial period of time. Having regard to the significant burden

which would be imposed if the United Kingdom were required to ascertain in every

application to vote by a non-resident whether the individual had a sufficiently close

connection to the country, the Court was satisfied that the general measure in this case

promoted legal certainty and avoided problems of arbitrariness and inconsistency

inherent in weighing interests on a case-by-case basis.

The Court concluded, having regard to the margin of appreciation available to the United

Kingdom in regulating its parliamentary elections, that the restriction imposed on

Mr Shindler’s right to vote was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. Therefore

there had been no violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention in

Mr Shindler’s case.

Separate opinions

Judge Kalaydjieva expressed a concurring opinion, annexed to the judgment.

The judgment is available only in English.

This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.

Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on

www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here:

www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter @ECHR_Press.

Press contacts

[email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08

Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)

Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)

Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)

Jean Conte (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)

The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of

Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European

Convention on Human Rights.