FIRST SECTION
\nCASE OF MILLER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
\n(Application no. 70571\/14 and 6 others -see appended list)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n11 April 2019<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Miller and Others v. the United Kingdom,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Ale\u0161Pejchal, President, Having deliberated in private on 21 March 2019,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in applications against the United Kingdom lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Notice of the applications was given to the United Kingdom Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) on 21 September 2018.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.<\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants were all incarcerated at the relevant time following criminal convictions for a variety of offences. They were automatically prevented from voting, pursuant to primary legislation, in one or more of the following elections: the elections to the European Parliament on 22\u00a0May 2014; the elections to the Scottish Parliament on 5 May 2016; and the parliamentary election on 8 June 2017 (for further details see the appended table).<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0The relevant domestic law and practice is set out in the Court\u2019s judgments in Hirst v. the United Kingdom(no. 2) [GC], no.\u00a074025\/01, ECHR 2005\u2011IX; and Greens and M.T. v. the United Kingdom, nos.\u00a060041\/08 and 60054\/08, ECHR 2010 (extracts).<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0Further developments since the Greens and M.T. judgment are set out in the Court\u2019s decision in McLean and Cole v. the United Kingdom (dec.), nos.\u00a012626\/13 and 2522\/12, 11 June 2013; in Firth and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 47784\/09 and 9 others, 12\u00a0August 2014; in McHugh v.\u00a0the\u00a0United Kingdom, no. 51987\/08 and 1,014 others, 10 February 2015; and in the Court\u2019s decision in Millbank and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos.\u00a044473\/14 and 21 others, 30 June 2016).<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0In 2018 the respondent Government adopted a number of administrative measures, including a change in policy and guidance in relation to prisoners released on temporary licence and on home detention curfew. On 6 December 2018 the Committee of Ministers at its 1331st\u00a0meeting adopted Resolution CM\/ResDH(2018)467 declaring that it was satisfied with the measures adopted by the respondent Government and deciding to close the examination of the Hirst (No.2) group of cases.<\/p>\n COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complain under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that as convicted prisoners in detention they had been subject to a blanket ban on voting in elections and had accordingly been prevented from voting in elections (see paragraph 4 above).<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE\u00a03 OF PROTOCOL No.\u00a01<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained about their ineligibility to vote in elections. They relied on Article\u00a03 of Protocol No.\u00a01, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cThe High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.\u201d<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0The Court refers to the principles established in its case\u2011law regarding ineligibility to vote in elections (see paragraphs 5 and 6 above).<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0In the leading cases of Hirst (no. 2), cited above, and Greens and\u00a0M.T., cited above, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0Having 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 that at the date of the index elections (all of which preceded the package of measures adopted by the respondent Government in 2018) the statutory ban on prisoners voting in elections was, by reason of its blanket character, incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a03 of Protocol No.\u00a01.<\/p>\n III.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0Article\u00a041 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n \u201cIf the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.\u201d<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Firth and Others, cited above), the Court concludes that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Declares the applications admissible;<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Holdsthat these applications disclose a breach of Article\u00a03 of Protocol No.\u00a01 concerning the ineligibility to vote in elections;<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 April 2019, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n LivTigerstedt\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ale\u0161Pejchal _________<\/p>\n APPENDIX Date of introduction<\/strong><\/td>\n Date of birth<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n 27\/10\/2014<\/td>\n 09\/10\/1984<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 22\u00a0May 2014<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 13\/11\/2014<\/td>\n 11\/09\/1964<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 22\u00a0May 2014<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 12\/05\/2016<\/td>\n 29\/12\/1969<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 5\u00a0May 2016<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 26\/05\/2016<\/td>\n 19\/07\/1960<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 5\u00a0May 2016<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 25\/05\/2016<\/td>\n 06\/06\/1945<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 5\u00a0May 2016<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 09\/08\/2017<\/td>\n 21\/12\/1973<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 8\u00a0June 2017<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 29\/11\/2017<\/td>\n 10\/04\/1966<\/td>\n London<\/td>\n 8\u00a0June 2017<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
\nJovan Ilievski,
\nGilberto Felici, judges,
\nand LivTigerstedt, ActingDeputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n
\nList of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1
\n(ineligibility to vote in elections)<\/p>\n\n\n
\n No.<\/strong><\/td>\n Application no.<\/strong><\/p>\n Applicant\u2019s name<\/strong><\/p>\n Representative\u2019s name and location<\/strong><\/td>\n Election Details<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n \n 1.<\/td>\n 70571\/14<\/p>\n Christopher Miller<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n European Parliament<\/p>\n \n 2.<\/td>\n 72616\/14<\/p>\n James Cullinane<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n European Parliament<\/p>\n \n 3.<\/td>\n 28334\/16<\/p>\n Brian Dick<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Scottish Parliament<\/p>\n \n 4.<\/td>\n 31138\/16<\/p>\n Joseph Millbank<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Scottish Parliament<\/p>\n \n 5.<\/td>\n 31413\/16<\/p>\n John Marshall<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Scottish Parliament<\/p>\n \n 6.<\/td>\n 59442\/17<\/p>\n Marcia Petra Julia Walker<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n General Election<\/p>\n \n 7.<\/td>\n 81835\/17<\/p>\n Michael Christopher Hora<\/strong><\/p>\n Leigh Day Solicitors<\/p>\n General Election<\/p>\n