BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> DUNN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 566/10 - Admissibility Decision [2014] ECHR 507 (13 May 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2014/507.html Cite as: [2014] ECHR 507 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 566/10
Richard DUNN against the United Kingdom
and 130 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 13 May 2014 as a Chamber composed of:
Ineta Ziemele,
President,
Päivi Hirvelä,
George Nicolaou,
Ledi Bianku,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva,
Paul Mahoney,
Krzysztof Wojtyczek, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on various dates (see Appendix),
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. They were represented before the Court by Taylor & Kelly, a firm of solicitors based in Coatbridge.
A. The circumstances of the case
2. The applicants are convicted prisoners.
1. The Dunn applicants
3. Mr Dunn and 18 other applicants lodged their applications between 9 December 2009 and 26 March 2010. They complained that they were prevented from voting in the following elections: elections to the Scottish Parliament on 3 May 2007; elections to the European Parliament on 4 June 2009; and local government elections. They also noted in their application forms that “elections to the UK Parliament are forthcoming”. Following the lodging of their application forms, no further correspondence was received in respect of the applications.
2. The Bonnar applicants
4. Mr Bonnar and 110 other applicants lodged their applications between 17 November 2010 and 12 April 2011. They complained that they were prevented from voting in the following elections: elections to the Scottish Parliament on 3 May 2007; elections to the European Parliament on 4 June 2009; the parliamentary election on 6 May 2010; and local government elections. They also noted in their application forms that “elections to the Scottish Parliament are forthcoming”. Following the lodging of their application forms, no further correspondence was received in respect of the applications.
3. Mr Hamza
5. Mr Hamza lodged his application on 27 January 2010. On 18 August 2008 the Electoral Registration Officer had refused to register him on the electoral roll. The decision had been upheld by Aberdeen Sheriff Court on 10 November 2008. Mr Hamza complained about the refusal to register him on the electoral roll for domestic elections and the “forthcoming elections to the European Parliament”.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
6. For details of the relevant domestic law and practice see the Court’s decision in McLean and Cole v. the United Kingdom (dec.), nos. 12626/13 and 2522/12, §§ 5-12, 11 June 2013.
COMPLAINTS
7. The applicants (with the exception of Mr Hamza) complained under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that they were subject to a blanket ban on voting in elections and had been prevented from voting in a number of elections (see paragraphs 3-4 above).
8. Mr Hamza complained about the refusal to register him on the electoral roll for domestic and EU elections (see paragraph 5 above).
9. Finally, the applicants complained of a violation of Articles 6 and 13 on the grounds that they were refused legal aid to pursue domestic proceedings in respect of their complaints and that they had no effective remedy to address their complaints under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.
THE LAW
A. Joinder of the applications
10. Given their similar factual and legal background, the Court decides that the applications should be joined pursuant to Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court.
B. Complaints under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 by the Dunn applicants and the Bonner applicants
11. In McLean and Cole, cited above, § 24, the Court held that in order for a complaint concerning the right to vote at a particular election to be admissible, it had to be lodged within six months of the election in question.
12. The dates of lodging of the applications in respect of the Dunn applicants were after 9 December 2009. The Dunn applicants’ complaints about the elections to the Scottish Parliament on 3 May 2007 and the European Parliament on 4 June 2009 have therefore been lodged outside the time-period allowed by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and must be declared inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 § 4.
13. The dates of lodging of the applications in respect of the Bonnar applicants were after 17 November 2010. The Bonnar applicants’ complaints about the elections to the Scottish Parliament in May 2007, the European Parliament in June 2009 and the United Kingdom Parliament on 6 May 2010 have therefore been lodged outside the time-period allowed by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and must be declared inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 § 4.
14. In McLean and Cole, cited above, § 30, the Court concluded that local government bodies in the United Kingdom did not form part of the “legislature” within the meaning of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. The Dunn and Bonnar applicants’ complaints about their exclusion from local government elections are accordingly incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and its Protocols and inadmissible under Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4.
15. At the time the Dunn applicants lodged their applications, elections to the United Kingdom Parliament were scheduled to take place on 6 May 2010. Although the Dunn applicants referred in their application forms to the “forthcoming” elections to the United Kingdom Parliament, they did not articulate clear complaints as regards any potential exclusion from those elections (see paragraph 3 above). Similarly, at the time the Bonnar applicants lodged their applications, elections to the Scottish Parliament were scheduled to take place on 5 May 2011. Although the Bonnar applicants referred in their application forms to the “forthcoming” elections to the Scottish Parliament, they did not articulate clear complaints as regards any potential exclusion from those elections (see paragraph 4 above). In these circumstances it is questionable whether any valid complaints about the elections in question have actually been made by the Dunn and Bonnar applicants.
16. In any event, in their application forms the present applicants gave no details of the dates of their conviction or the lengths of their sentences. It was therefore far from evident that they were expected to be in post-conviction detention on the date of the future elections in question. Even if these details had been provided, other relevant events might have occurred between the lodging of the applications and the date of the election. Such events include release from detention, for example, in accordance with early release provisions or following a successful appeal against conviction or sentence. In more extreme cases, transfer to a psychiatric hospital or even death might intervene to prevent an applicant from suffering any adverse effect from the ban on voting currently applied to prisoners. Although some of the applicants may well have remained in detention and therefore found themselves excluded from voting in the elections concerned, none of the applicants contacted the Court following the date of the election to confirm that this was the case.
17. Satisfaction of the admissibility criteria in Articles 34 and 35 is a prerequisite for consideration of the substantive complaints lodged by applicants. This reflects the subsidiary nature of the Convention system. In its decision of 11 June 2013 in McLean and Cole, cited above, § 21, the Court expressly stated that “[a]s the legislation precluding the participation of prisoners in the franchise applies only to prisoners in detention following conviction, any applicant not in post-conviction detention on the date of the relevant election suffered no adverse effect as a result of the legislation”. It warned that if the first applicant in that case was not in post-conviction detention on the dates of the impugned elections, his complaints would be inadmissible on the basis that he could not claim to be a victim of any violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. The applicants in the present case have had ample time even since that decision to supplement their applications by confirming that they were in post-conviction detention on the date of the elections which were “forthcoming” at the time of the lodging of their application forms. However, no such supplementary information has been received.
18. In conclusion, even if the Dunn and Bonnar applicants are to be taken as having properly complained about elections that had not yet taken place by the date on which they lodged their application forms, they have failed to adduce the necessary facts to substantiate their complaints. The complaints must therefore be rejected as manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Articles 34 and 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
C. Complaints under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 by Mr Hamza
19. Mr Hamza complained about the refusal to register his name on the electoral roll in 2008 and about his ineligibility to vote in domestic and European Parliamentary elections. Since he lodged his application in January 2010 it is plain that complaints about the 2008 refusal, any previous domestic elections and the June 2009 election were lodged outside the six-month time-limit.
20. In so far as he can be taken to have complained about his exclusion from voting in elections which had not yet occurred by the date on which he lodged his application, his complaint is inadmissible for the general reasons given at paragraphs 16-18 above.
D. Other complaints
21. The applicants also complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about their access to legal aid and the availability of effective remedies. Having regard to its findings in Greens and M.T. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 60041/08 and 60054/08, §§ 39-40, ECHR 2010 (extracts), and McLean and Cole, cited above, §§ 39-40, and in the light of all the material in its possession, the Court finds that these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
22. It follows that the complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court by a majority
Joins the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Françoise Elens-Passos Ineta
Ziemele
Registrar President
|
No |
Application No |
Lodged on |
Applicant Date of birth Place of residence |
|
1. |
7408/09 |
27/01/2010 |
Mohammad HAMZA 19/05/1980 Peterhead
|
The Dunn applicants
|
No |
Application No |
Lodged on |
Applicant Date of birth Place of residence |
|
2. |
566/10 |
09/12/2009 |
Richard DUNN 12/10/1979 Tullibody
|
|
3. |
578/10 |
09/12/2009 |
Thomas LEE 25/06/1968 Kilmarnock
|
|
4. |
587/10 |
09/12/2009 |
Christopher WARD 17/02/1982 Tullibody
|
|
5. |
596/10 |
09/12/2009 |
Robin JENKINS 20/05/1954 Peterhead
|
|
6. |
626/10 |
09/12/2009 |
Colin SWANSON 25/04/1964 Perth
|
|
7. |
638/10 |
09/12/2009 |
Francis MC VEY 05/04/1935 Dumfries
|
|
8. |
2005/10 |
30/12/2009 |
James THOMSON 11/04/1951 Edinburgh
|
|
9. |
3448/10 |
14/01/2010 |
John KENNEDY 18/01/1970 Dumfries
|
|
10. |
7829/10 |
25/01/2010 |
Alistair FINDLAY 20/05/1959 Dumfries
|
|
11. |
10264/10 |
11/02/2010 |
Darren NICOLL 13/11/1984 Perth
|
|
12. |
15009/10 |
05/03/2010 |
John RUTH 21/07/1983 Peterhead
|
|
13. |
15010/10 |
05/03/2010 |
Kenneth SMITH 04/12/1963 Dumfries
|
|
14. |
15035/10 |
05/03/2010 |
Angus SINCLAIR 07/06/1945 Peterhead
|
|
15. |
15204/10 |
03/03/2010 |
Brian TURNBULL 15/08/1965 Peterhead
|
|
16. |
15223/10 |
03/03/2010 |
George TOWNSLEY 17/09/1954 Dumfries
|
|
17. |
15246/10 |
03/03/2010 |
Alexander David MC CLURE 30/11/1975 Dumfries
|
|
18. |
15860/10 |
11/03/2010 |
Brian HUNTER 20/05/1957 Peterhead
|
|
19. |
16838/10 |
18/03/2010 |
Emile SZULA 27/05/1953 Forfar
|
|
20. |
18022/10 |
26/03/2010 |
Patrick John NICOL 14/08/1981 Dundee
|
The Bonnar applicants
