Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-x5cpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-25T11:15:34.578Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Paksas v. Lithuania

European Court of Human Rights.  06 January 2011 .

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Get access

Abstract

Human rights — Elections — Electoral rights — Right to vote — Right to stand in parliamentary elections — Applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of Protocol No 1 to European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether admissible — Whether complaint under Article 3 of Protocol No 1 admissible in so far as it concerned applicant’s removal from office or his ineligibility to stand for election as President of Lithuania — Whether complaint under Article 3 of Protocol No 1 admissible in so far as it concerned applicant’s inability to stand for election to Seimas — Whether Article 3 of Protocol No 1 applicable to election of members of Seimas — Whether failure to exhaust domestic remedies — Whether compliant with six-month time limit — Whether Article 17 of European Convention applicable — Examination on merits — Importance of Article 3 of Protocol No 1 in Convention system — Fundamental principle of effective democracy — Right to vote — Right to stand for election — Whether absolute rights — Margin of appreciation of States — Whether restrictions on electoral rights impairing essence of right or its effectiveness — Whether restrictions pursuing legitimate aim — Whether proportionate — Whether Lithuania violating Article 3 of Protocol No 1 on account of applicant’s inability to stand for election to Seimas

Human rights — Fair hearing — Applicant’s complaints under Articles 6 and 7 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 and Article 4 of Protocol No 7 — Whether admissible — Whether Article 6(1) of European Convention applicable in either its civil or criminal aspect to Lithuanian Constitutional Court proceedings in issue — Whether this part of application compatible ratione materiae with Convention provisions

Human rights — Remedy — Applicant’s complaint under Article 13 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, taken in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No 1 — Whether admissible — Whether Article 13 of European Convention requiring provision of a remedy allowing constitutional precedent with statutory force to be challenged — Damage — Just satisfaction — Article 41 of European Convention

Keywords

Type
Case Report
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)