E.C. and Bakirdzi v. Hungary (communicated cases) (European Court of Human Rights)

Last Updated on June 20, 2019 by LawEuro

Information Note on the Court’s case-law 220
July 2018

E.C. and Bakirdzi v. Hungary (communicated cases) – 49636/14 and 65678/14

Article 3 of Protocol No. 1
Choice of the legislature
Free expression of the opinion of the people

National minority voters entitled to vote for one-choice minority list and excluded from the national proportional list parliamentary elections: communicated

Article 14
Discrimination

National minority voters entitled to vote for one-choice minority list and excluded from the national proportional list parliamentary elections: communicated

There are thirteen recognised national minorities in Hungary. The first applicant (E.C.) belongs to the Armenian minority and the second applicant (Ms Bakirdzi) to the Greek minority. As members of recognised national minorities, they both requested registration as national minority voters in the electoral roll before the 2014 parliamentary elections. Members of national minorities who registered for “minority elections” could only vote for a candidate on the national minority list in a single-mandate constituency. For the national minority lists only one choice was available on the ballot paper. Minority voters were excluded from voting in the national, proportional list elections. Pursuant to the Election Act, the national minority lists enjoyed a preferential threshold. The threshold was obtained by dividing the total number of national votes cast by 93, then dividing by 4 (22,022 votes in the 2014 elections).

All thirteen recognised national minorities registered lists for the elections, with a total of ninety-nine candidates. However, none of the minorities obtained enough votes to win a minority seat. As a result, they were each to be represented by a spokesperson in parliament, with no right to vote and their competence limited to discussing minority issues.

The applicants allege that their exclusion from participating in the national, proportional list parliamentary elections and the practice of a minority list with a single choice interfered with the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature. They further complain that, since the ballot papers for the minority elections contained only one choice, the secrecy of the vote was violated.

Cases communicated under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, taken separately and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention.