Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 172

March 2014

Mihaela Mihai Neagu v. Romania (dec.) - 66345/09

Decision 6.3.2014 [Section III]

Article 3 of Protocol No. 1

Stand for election

Eligibility requirement of 100,000 signatures for independent candidates in European elections: inadmissible

Facts – Wishing to stand for the elections to the European Parliament on 7 June 2009, the applicant submitted her candidature to the central electo ral office, accompanied by signatures of support from 15,000 persons registered on the electoral rolls. In April 2009 the office dismissed her candidature on the ground that she did not have enough signatures as Law no. 33 of 16 January 2007 on the organis ation of elections to the European Parliament required independent candidates to submit 100,000 signatures of support. The applicant challenged that decision before the county court, which found against her after finding that the central electoral office’s decision complied with the statutory provisions. The applicant appealed on points of law to the appeal court. She reiterated the arguments put forward at first instance and raised a plea of unconstitutionality with regard to the section of the law requiri ng 100,000 signatures of support for independent candidates. On 12 May 2009 the Constitutional Court examined the plea and ruled that the impugned section was not contrary to the Constitution. By a final judgment of 3 June 2009, the appeal court, relying o n the Constitutional Court’s decision, dismissed the appeal on points of law submitted by the applicant and confirmed that the decision to reject her candidature had been lawful.

Law – Article 3 of Protocol No. 1: The Court had to determine whether the eli gibility requirement for standing for election, criticised by the applicant, had pursued a legitimate aim and whether there was a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim pursued.

The aim of the measure in question was to make a reasonable selection from among the candidates, in order to ensure their representative character in the European Parliament and to eliminate possible frivolous candidatures. Like the Constitutional Court, the Court considered that this was t he result of a choice made by the legislature, and grounded on political and institutional criteria.

With regard to the proportionality between the means employed and the aim pursued, the 100,000 signatures required in order to submit a valid independent c andidature for one of the thirty-three seats assigned to Romania in the European Parliament represented about 0.55% of the total number of citizens registered on the electoral rolls. The obligation to have collected a high number of signatures in order to be able to submit a candidature could deprive independent candidates of the possibility to represent part of the electorate. However, that circumstance alone was not decisive and it had to be analysed in the particular circumstances of the case.

The percen tage of signatures required in relation to the number of registered electors was lower than the maximum 1% threshold recommended by the Venice Commission . Thus, the impugned eligibility requirement could not be considered excessive. Indeed, two independent candidates collected the required number of signatures for the elections held in June 2009, and one of them obtained a number of votes higher than the electoral coefficient.

European U nion law gave member States a wide measure of discretion with regard to the electoral procedures for the European Parliament. Some member States required a certain number of signatures of support in order to lodge a candidature, while others restricted the right to stand in the European elections to parties or similar organisations.

Furthermore, it was essentially through the national courts that European Union law provided a remedy to individuals against a member State for a breach of EU law. In the instan t case, electoral law no. 33/2007 transposed into domestic legislation EU law concerning the election of members of the European Parliament, and the applicant had had an effective remedy before the domestic courts and the Constitutional Court in order to c hallenge the central electoral office’s decision. During those proceedings, the applicant had been able to set out her complaints concerning the alleged unfairness and unlawfulness of the electoral process. In the absence of arbitrariness, the Court could not call into question the findings reached by those courts. Lastly, the electoral dispute had been brought before several levels of jurisdiction, and had been settled at final instance before the elections were held. Accordingly, the applicant could not a llege that this remedy had lacked the effectiveness required by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. Equally, given the role and status of political parties as representative bodies, the requirement concerning the number of signatures needed to stand as an indepen dent candidate was justified and had not been discriminatory.

In the light of the principles established by its case-law, and in view of the considerable latitude left by European Union law to the Member States in establishing the criteria governing eligib ility to stand for election, the Court considered that the number of signatures required to submit an independent candidature had not entailed a breach of the right relied upon by the applicant.

Conclusion : inadmissible (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