Information Note on the Court’s case-law 65

June 2004

Aziz v. Cyprus - 69949/01

Judgment 22.6.2004 [Section II]

Article 3 of Protocol No. 1

Vote

Impossibility for Turkish Cypriot to vote in parliamentary elections: violation

Facts : The applicant, who is a member of the Turkish-Cypriot community, requested to be registered in the electoral roll with a view to voting in parliamentary elections. The M inistry of the Interior refused the applicant’s request, explaining that under the Constitution members of his community could not be registered on the Greek-Cypriot electoral role. The applicant applied to the Supreme Court against the refusal. The Suprem e Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under the Cypriot Constitution and relevant electoral legislation, members of the Turkish Community residing in the Republic of Cyprus could not vote in parliamentary elections and that it could not intervene to f ill a legislative gap which existed in this respect.

Law : Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 – Although States have a wide margin of appreciation in this sphere and considerable latitude in establishing rules governing parliamentary elections, such rules should not be such as to exclude some persons from participating in the political life of the country, in particular, in the choice of the legislature. As a result of the anomalous situation in the country since 1963 and the gap in legislation, the applicant, as a member of the Turkish-Cypriot community residing in the Government-controlled area of Cyprus, had been deprived of any opportunity to express his opinion in the choice of the members of the House of Representatives. In such circumstances, the very essen ce of his right to vote had been denied.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 14 – As the difference in treatment in the present case resulted from the very fact that the applicant was a Turkish Cypriot, as well as from the constitutional provisio ns regulating voting rights between members of the Turkish-Cypriot and Greek-Cypriot communities, which had become impossible to implement, there was a clear inequality of treatment in the enjoyment of the right in question. Accordingly, there had been a v iolation of this provision.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 41 – The Court made an award in respect of costs and expenses.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes