Restrictions on the right to contest elections and legislative mandates

Facts

The author of the communication is a Latvian national who wanted to contest elections to bring forward the concerns of homelessness caused by evictions as a part of the Latvia Tenants’ Association. However, according to article 9 of the Latvian Parliamentary Elections Law, the prerequisites to contest in elections were twofold: (1) the need for inclusion in the list of candidates of a legally registered political party or (2) having a legally registered association of political parties. The author, however, was reluctant to join a political party fearing that such a membership would prevent him from raising the concerns faced by the tenants because he was previously expelled from a political party for engaging in acts without the permission of that party. As a result, the author applied to the Constitutional Courts of Latvia claiming that the party-list system prescribed in article 9 of the Latvian Parliamentary Elections Law was in contradiction with article 9 of the Constitution of Latvia, which stated that any citizen who enjoys full citizenship rights and is more than 21 years old could be elected to the parliament. His application was rejected because he had not first made any efforts to become a candidate for election to the parliament.

Later, the author applied to the Central Election Commission to be included in the list of candidates, however, this application was also rejected as only political parties could submit lists of candidates to the Commission. It was additionally stated by the author that it was impossible for him to form a political party given the deadline for registration was nearing. He therefore appealed his rejection by the election commission before the Regional Administrative Court. The Regional Court dismissed the author’s appeal. As a result, he then submitted a constitutional complaint to review the decision of the Regional Court. The Constitutional Court held that there was no legal basis to the author’s argument that the rights guaranteed by article 9 of the Constitution could not be restricted in any way. The European Court of Human Rights rendered the author’s application inadmissible as the criteria under articles 34 and 35 of its convention were not fulfilled.

The author filed the present communication claiming violation of article 25 of the Covenant on the grounds that restrictions imposed to contest elections lack legitimacy and are disproportionate.

Admissibility

The Committee noted that the State party’s claim that the author should have objected to his exclusion from the political party that he was a part of had nothing to do with the substance of his claims and therefore it was not an effective remedy. It also rejected the State party’s argument that the author’s claim was inadmissible ratione materiae and held that the communication was admissible.

Merits

The Committee observed that the author had not established that the restrictions imposed on him in seeking to stand as an independent candidate in parliamentary elections, through the requirements of the electoral system in place at the time, were not in compliance with the provisions contained in article 25 of the Covenant. In particular, those requirements were established in pursuit of the legitimate aim of proportionate parliamentary representation based on the synergy and competition of political parties. The requirements also provided an option for independent non-party members to run through the lists of candidates proposed by the political parties or their associations, and any corresponding restrictions in the context of the electoral system were objective, proportionate and reasonable. Hence, in view of the Committee, there was no violation of article 25 of the Covenant by the State party.