CASE OF B.K. v. SWITZERLAND
CASE OF POZDNYAKOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of *Pozdnyakov and Others v. Ukraine*:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that Ukraine had discriminated against three internally displaced persons (IDPs) by denying them the full right to participate in parliamentary elections. The applicants, originally from Donetsk, had moved to Cherkasy and were registered as IDPs. While they were allowed to vote for party lists in the 2019 parliamentary elections, they were denied the opportunity to vote for individual candidates in their constituency due to their IDP status and registration. The Court ruled that this partial denial of voting rights constituted discrimination, violating Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter:** The case concerned the alleged discriminatory refusal to allow the applicants to participate fully in local and parliamentary elections at their place of residence in Cherkasy, where they were registered as IDPs.
* **Background:** The applicants, displaced from Donetsk due to the conflict in eastern Ukraine, were registered as IDPs in Cherkasy. They were unable to vote in local elections in 2015 and were later denied the ability to vote for candidates in single-seat constituencies in the 2019 parliamentary elections.
* **Applicants’ Complaints:** The applicants argued that the denial of the right to vote at their place of residence, where they were registered as IDPs, violated Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12.
* **Court’s Assessment:**
* The Court joined the three applications.
* The Court declared the complaints regarding the parliamentary elections admissible, finding that the applicants had exhausted domestic remedies and lodged their applications within the required time limit.
* The Court found a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, taken in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, holding that the authorities had discriminated against the applicants by failing to consider their particular situation as IDPs, thus depriving them of full participation in the parliamentary elections.
* **Just Satisfaction:** The Court awarded each applicant EUR 4,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, as well as amounts to cover costs and expenses incurred in domestic proceedings and before the Court.
**3. Main Provisions for Practical Use:**
* **Discrimination Against IDPs in Elections:** The core finding is that denying IDPs the full right to participate in elections, specifically the right to vote for candidates in single-seat constituencies, constitutes discrimination.
* **Link to Previous Case Law:** The Court explicitly refers to its findings in the *Selygenenko and Others v. Ukraine* case, emphasizing the similarity in the legal status of the applicants and the legal framework. This highlights the consistent application of the principle that Ukraine must take into account the specific situation of IDPs in electoral processes.
* **Application of Article 14 and Article 3 of Protocol No. 1:** The judgment clarifies the interplay between Article 14 of the Convention and Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 in the context of electoral rights, reinforcing the principle that any restrictions on the right to vote must be non-discriminatory.
**** This decision has implications for Ukraine, as it underscores the need to ensure that electoral laws and practices do not discriminate against IDPs and that they are afforded the opportunity to participate fully in elections, including voting for candidates in single-seat constituencies.
