European Court of Human Rights
7 May 2013
Facts
The applicant, a British national, left the United Kingdom (UK) in 1982 following his retirement and moved to Italy with his wife. After 15 years residence overseas, he was no longer entitled to vote in parliamentary elections in the UK.
Complaint
The applicant argued that the 15-year time-limit on non-resident voting rights was not proportionate and violated his right to vote under Article 3 of Protocol No 1. He noted that he had retained very strong ties with the UK and was affected by matters such as pensions, banking, financial regulations, taxation and health, which were all the subject of political decisions there.
Court’s ruling
The restriction on non-resident voting pursued the legitimate aim limiting voting to those citizens with a close connection to the UK and who would therefore be most directly affected by its laws. The restriction did not impair the very essence of the right to vote as non-residents were permitted to vote in national elections for 15 years following their emigration and the right was in any event restored if the person concerned returned to live in the UK.
The Court reviewed the activities of various Council of Europe bodies and found that they demonstrated a growing awareness at European level of the problems posed by migration in terms of political participation in countries of origin and residence. However, none of the material formed a basis for concluding that, as the law currently stood, states were under an obligation to grant non-residents unrestricted access to voting rights. Likewise, although there was a clear trend in the laws and practices of member states in this sphere in favour of allowing voting by non-residents, and a significant majority in favour of an unrestricted right, it could not be said that the stage had been reached where a common approach could be identified.
The fact that the applicant might personally have preserved a high level of contact with the UK, have detailed knowledge of its day-to-day problems and be affected by some of them did not render the imposition of the 15-year rule disproportionate as, while they require close scrutiny, general measures which do not allow for discretion in their application may nonetheless be compatible with the Convention. Having regard to the significant burden which would be imposed if the respondent state were required to ascertain in every application to vote by a non-resident whether the individual had a sufficiently close connection to the country, the Court was satisfied that the general measure in this case served to promote legal certainty and to avoid the problems of arbitrariness and inconsistency inherent in weighing interests on a case-by-case basis. It was also relevant that the parliament had sought to weigh the competing interests in the case on several occasions and had debated the question of non-residents’ voting rights. Thus, the Court found no violation.