Tweet
ARMENIAN MP CANDIDATE WINS IN THE EUROPEAN COURT
A1+
[03:22 pm] 10 June, 2008
At the end of May the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously
that there had been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No.1 (right
to free elections) against 46-year-old Gagik Sarukhanyan, who was
disqualified from standing in the 2003 general parliamentary elections
in Armenia on the grounds that he had falsified his declaration of
property when registering as a candidate.
The European Court of Human Rights considered that requiring candidates
to submit truthful information on their property status had pursued
the legitimate aim of enabling the electorate to make an informed
choice when voting. However, the Court found that the applicant had
not intentionally concealed the fact that he had joint ownership of
the flat declared in his application. Indeed, the omission in that
declaration had been the result of misleading privatization rules
and practices in Armenia at that time. The Court further noted
that the information which the applicant had been found to have
intentionally concealed, namely a small share in a flat measuring 64.7
sq. m., could not seriously be considered of major importance or as
misleading voters. The Court therefore concluded that the applicant~Rs
disqualification as a candidate in the general elections had been
disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and held unanimously
that there had been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right
to free elections) to the Convention.
Mr. Sarukhanyan was awarded 3,000 euros (EUR) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,850 for costs and expenses.
A1+
[03:22 pm] 10 June, 2008
At the end of May the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously
that there had been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No.1 (right
to free elections) against 46-year-old Gagik Sarukhanyan, who was
disqualified from standing in the 2003 general parliamentary elections
in Armenia on the grounds that he had falsified his declaration of
property when registering as a candidate.
The European Court of Human Rights considered that requiring candidates
to submit truthful information on their property status had pursued
the legitimate aim of enabling the electorate to make an informed
choice when voting. However, the Court found that the applicant had
not intentionally concealed the fact that he had joint ownership of
the flat declared in his application. Indeed, the omission in that
declaration had been the result of misleading privatization rules
and practices in Armenia at that time. The Court further noted
that the information which the applicant had been found to have
intentionally concealed, namely a small share in a flat measuring 64.7
sq. m., could not seriously be considered of major importance or as
misleading voters. The Court therefore concluded that the applicant~Rs
disqualification as a candidate in the general elections had been
disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and held unanimously
that there had been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right
to free elections) to the Convention.
Mr. Sarukhanyan was awarded 3,000 euros (EUR) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,850 for costs and expenses.