{"id":22123,"date":"2024-01-18T12:47:45","date_gmt":"2024-01-18T12:47:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=22123"},"modified":"2024-01-18T12:47:45","modified_gmt":"2024-01-18T12:47:45","slug":"case-of-ursei-v-romania-9233-21","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=22123","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF URSEI v. ROMANIA – 9233\/21"},"content":{"rendered":"

European Court of Human Rights
\nFOURTH SECTION
\nCASE OF URSEI v. ROMANIA<\/strong>
\n(Application no. 9233\/21)
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n18 January 2024<\/p>\n

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n

In the case of Ursei v. Romania,<\/strong><\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
\nFaris Vehabovi\u0107, President,
\nAnja Seibert-Fohr,
\nAnne Louise Bormann, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n

Having deliberated in private on 14 December 2023,<\/p>\n

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n

PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. The case originated in an application against Romania lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on 17 March 2021.<\/p>\n

2. The Romanian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were given notice of the application.<\/p>\n

THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n

3. The applicant, Mr Francisc Ursei, was born in 1976. He complained about his inability, as a convicted prisoner, to vote in the legislative elections of 6 December 2020, despite his right to vote not being restricted by court order for the sole reason that, on the date of the elections, he was serving his prison sentence in the Arad Prison which was situated outside the electoral constituency of his place of residence (that is, Timi\u015foara, Timi\u015f county).<\/p>\n

THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n

I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF ProtOCOL NO. 1 of the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n

4. The applicant complained about his inability to vote in elections and relied on Article\u00a03 of Protocol No.\u00a01.<\/p>\n

5. The Court refers to the principles established in its case\u2011law regarding the inability to vote in elections (see, for instance, \u017ddanoka v. Latvia [GC], no.\u00a058278\/00, \u00a7\u00a7 102-15, ECHR 2006-IV, with further references, and Mironescu v. Romania, no. 17504\/18, \u00a7\u00a7 35-37, 30 November 2021).<\/p>\n

6. In the leading case of Mironescu (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 52-53), the Court has already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.<\/p>\n

7. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the inability of the applicant to vote in elections, because on the date of the elections, he was serving a sentence in a prison situated outside the electoral constituency of his place of residence, is incompatible with Article\u00a03 of Protocol No.\u00a01.<\/p>\n

8. The complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article\u00a03 of Protocol No.\u00a01.<\/p>\n

II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n

9. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Mironescu, cited above, \u00a7 57), the Court concludes that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for any non\u2011pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.<\/p>\n

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. Declares the application admissible;<\/p>\n

2. Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 3 of Protocol No.\u00a01 to the Convention concerning the restriction on prisoner\u2019s voting rights based on the place of his residence;<\/p>\n

3. Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.<\/p>\n

Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 January 2024, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n

Viktoriya Maradudina \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Faris Vehabovi\u0107
\nActing Deputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0President<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

European Court of Human Rights FOURTH SECTION CASE OF URSEI v. ROMANIA (Application no. 9233\/21) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 18 January 2024 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Ursei v. Romania, The…<\/p>\n

Read more →<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-22123","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-available-in-english"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22123","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=22123"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22123\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":22124,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22123\/revisions\/22124"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=22123"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=22123"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=22123"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}