Communicated on 14 September 2016

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 48099/08 Shalva RAMISHVILI against Georgia lodged on 30 September 2008

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Shalva Ramishvili , is a Georgian national, who was born in 1971 and lives in Tbilisi. He is represented before the Court by Ms T. Khidasheli , a lawyer practising in Tbilisi.

A. The circumstances of the case

2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

3. On 29 March 2006 the applicant was convicted of conspiracy to commit extortion and sentenced to four years ’ imprisonment. The sentence was upheld on appeal on 30 June 2006. Pursuant to Article 5 § 2 of the Electoral Code and Article 28 § 2 of the Constitution the applicant was debarred, as a convicted prisoner, from participating in any elections.

4. On 25 July 2007 the applicant challenged the constitutionality of the ban under Article 5 § 2 of the Electoral Code. He submitted, among others, that he would be unable to participate in the forthcoming parliamentary elections of 2008. The applicant requested the Constitutional Court of Georgia to interpret Article 28 § 2 of the Constitution stipulating the ban on prisoners ’ voting rights in light of the European Court ’ s case-law on the matter.

5. On 31 March 2008 the Constitutional Court of Georgia declared the application inadmissible reasoning that the imperative wording of Article 28 of the Constitution did not allow for an expansive interpretation. As a result, the applicant was unable to vote in the parliamentary elections of 21 May 2008.

B. Relevant domestic law

6. Article 28 § 2 of the Constitution, as it stood at the material time, provided that “citizens ... who are convicted by a court and detained in a penitentiary institution shall have no right to participate in elections and referenda.”

7. Article 5 § 2 of the Electoral Code, as it stood at the material time, contained an identical provision.

COMPLAINT

8. The applicant complains under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that as a convicted prisoner he was subject to a blanket ban on voting and was unable to participate in the parliamentary elections of 21 May 2008.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a breach of the applicant ’ s right under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to vote in free elections which ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature (see, among others, Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], no. 74025/01, § 82, ECHR 2005 ‑ IX )?