Information Note on the Court’s case-law 31

June 2001

Federación Nacionalista Canaria v. Spain (dec.) - 56618/00

Decision 7.6.2001 [Section IV]

Article 3 of Protocol No. 1

Choice of the legislature

Minimum percentage of votes required to obtain seat in Parliament: inadmissible

The applicant is a federation of political parties which in June 1999 put forward candidates for election by proportional representatio n to the parliament of the Autonomous Community of the Canary Islands. It challenged the election results, but with no success: although it had obtained more than 28.10 % of the vote in the Lanzarote constituency, it was not awarded any seats in the region al parliament; nor was it awarded any seats in respect of the Autonomous Community’s other constituencies, even though it had obtained more than 4.80 % of the vote. It appealed to the Canary Islands High Court of Justice, alleging that there had been irreg ularities in the election and claiming some 100 additional votes which it maintained had not been counted. In September 1999 the court dismissed its appeal, declining jurisdiction to rule on its allegations concerning the thresholds prescribed by domestic law for representation in regional parliaments, rejecting some of the allegations of irregularities and holding that the other allegations were not sufficiently serious for the election to be declared void. In October 1999 the Constitutional Court dismisse d an amparo appeal by the applicant. It declared constitutional the statutory requirement that a party had to obtain a certain percentage of all votes cast if its candidates were to be entitled to a share of the seats, which were allocated according to est ablished models. Before the Court the applicant complained that the thresholds prescribed by law for representation in the regional parliament were disproportionate and only benefited the mainstream political parties.

Inadmissible under Article 3 of Protoc ol No. 1 taken in conjunction with Article 14: The Spanish Constitution vested legislative power in the national parliament and the parliaments of the Spanish Autonomous Communities played a role in the exercise of that power; such regional assemblies were therefore part of the “legislature” within the meaning of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. The Court had already described the State as the ultimate guarantor of pluralism; in political terms, that responsibility entailed, inter alia , holding free elections a t reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions ensuring “the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature”. Such expression was inconceivable without the participation of a plurality of political parties represen ting the different shades of opinion to be found within a country’s population. Political parties relayed that range of opinion, not only within political institutions but also – with the help of the media – at all levels of social life, thereby making an irreplaceable contribution to political debate, which was at the very core of the Court’s established conception of a democratic society. In the case before the Court, the Constitutional Court had examined the reasons for the existence of thresholds for re presentation in parliament and had found that they were designed to avoid the excessive fragmentation of parliaments; it had based its findings on constitutional concerns such as the need to ensure that the electorate was adequately represented from a geog raphical and demographic standpoint. For its part, the Court found that a system requiring a minimum of 6 % of all valid votes cast throughout the Autonomous Community provided a certain degree of protection for smaller political groups. The law governing elections did not appear arbitrary, disproportionate or capable of undermining “the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.” Moreover, a system whereby a relatively high proportion of votes was required for representa tion in parliament did not exceed the wide margin of appreciation afforded to States in the matter: manifestly ill-founded.

© 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