ECHR checks Choice of EUParliament MEPs: ByElection Unnecessary if Big Cost+Abstention+Short Mandate

*Strasbourg/Angelo Marcopolo/- The PanEuropean Court of Human Rights, (part of the Strasbourg-based, 47 Member States strong CoE), confirmed its Legal Competence to Judge MEPs' Elections to EU Parliament, and decided that a By-Election for a Few Seats is Not Necessary if its Cost is Excessive, and Risks for Abstention too Big, compared to a Shorter than usual Period of Time for the Duration of the concerned MEPs' mandate : In such cases, Member States could Legitimately Elect their European Representative(s) f.ex. through a Vote inside their National Parliament, EuroJudges found.

By a Timely Coincidence, this ECHR Judgement, on an Application lodged in France, was Published Today at the Eve of the Final Round of a By-Election to the French National Assembly, (the Last to occur before a Crucial Presidential Election scheduled in less than a Year : on April-May 2017), for Strasbourg City's main Constituency ("No 1", which extends to the area where are located the European Institutions, the Down-Town Center and some Western Popular Suburbs), where the Abstention observed at the 1st Round has already reached Excessive Proportions, (almost 78 % !), while the way that quasi-Monopolistic Local mainstream Media treated these Votes, added to the Refusal of any Public Debate by the Governing Socialist Party's Candidate, (who is also Deputy-Mayor of the City), with the Challenger from mainstream Opposition Republican Party, obviously Risk to provoke an even Worse Abstention at the 2nd Round scheduled for next Sunday, (See, f.ex.: http://www.eurofora.net/newsflashes/news/strasbourgmpelectionreservesforrightnoleft.html ).

ECHR practicaly Agreed with at least one Argument of the Applicant, (President of a "Humanist Party", who had participated 3 Times in EU Parliament's Elections as Candidate in the Past : "on 1999, 2004 and 2009", according to the Judgement), that even a Pending Case concerning Facts Previous to the Latest EU Parliament's Election, (here that of 2014), may have Not Only a purely "Historical" Interest, as the French Government claimed, (asking to "Strike that Case Out of the List", because it would be "No Longer Justified to Continue" its "Examination", according to Article 37 of the PanEuropean Convention on HR), but it also "Affects the Relations between the EU, the CoE, and a Member State of Both, while the EU aspires to become a (new) CoE's Member", as he noted.

The Present Case concerned EU's Transition from the Treaty of Nice to the Lisbon Treaty, starting from 2010,, as far as the Augmentation of the Number of MEPs allocated to some Member State was concerned, which occured After the May 2009 EU Parliament Elections, obliging several Countries, including France, to choose between Various Ways of Designation of their Supplementary MEPs for the Remaining Period of Time until the Next, May 2014 EU Elections : F.ex. an Direct Election by EU Citizens, or by Reference to the Results of the Latest EU Election of 2009, or by a procedure  inside the National Parliament.

France had Chosen this 3rd Possibility, (which is also used for the Choice of MEPs send to CoE's PanEuropean Parfliamentary Assembly in Strasbourg : PACE), but the Applicant Complained that this "Excluded" him from his Right, as EU and French Citizen, to Participate in that Special, Exceptional Electoral process for Access to EU Parliament, which had taken place on 2011.

First of all, Strasbourg's PanEuropean Court clearly Confirmed the General Principle that it was Legaly Competent in order to Judge on Cases concerning also "the Elections of EU Parliament's Members".

This is Based mainly on the Human "Right to Free Elections", (recognized by the Protocol 1 to the PanEuropean Convention of Human Rights, already as early as since 1952), which Obliges all CoE's currently  47 Member States 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". (I.e., f.ex., Respecting Free Speech and/or Public Meetings by all willing Candidates, Citizens' Right to be sufficiently Informed, Public Debates, Media Pluralism, etc). 

These are Basic Requirements for any Democratic Election, routinely screened both by CoE's Parliamentary assembly and the ECHR. But, moreover, in Theory, there are also Other Human Rights which might be concerned in such cases, as, f.ex., for "Non Discrimination", "Fair Trial", etc.

Nevertheless, "the Rights Guaranteed by that Article are Not Absolute", ECHR's Judgement reminds, noting that "Membe States have a Margin of Appreciation in this regard", submited to Strasbourg EuroJudges' Monitoring, as far as it concerns the "Pursuit of a Legitimate Aim" and "the Proportionality of Measures" eventualy taken by a National Government in order to impose some "Restrictions", which, however, "Must Not Hinder the <<Free Expression of the Opinion of the People, in the Choice of the Legislature>>", and should pursue a Target "Compatible with the Rule of Law and the General Aims of the (PanEuropean) Convention" on Human Rights.

In a Judgement adopted "Unanimously" on May 2016 by an ECHR's Chamber composed by 7 EuroJudges under the Presidency of German EuroJudge Mrs Angelika Nussberger, the PanEuropean Court found that the French Government's above mentioned Choice, Not to organise a Direct By-Election for those supplemnetary "Representatives to EU Parliament", on December 2011, was, in Fact, Legaly Justified, because "this Choice was made regarding the Problems" of "Risk of Low Participation, and High Cost, for Only 2 (MEPs') Seats", "out of 74 Seats reserved for French MEPs", and "was a Transitory Measure, which din't durate but just for one Half of the Legislature (i.e. 2,5 Years out of 5)", and "Ended with the (EU) Elections of 2014".

In consequence, "that Measure did Not Restrict the (Human) Right ... Guaranteed" by the PanEuropean Convention for Citizens' participation to "Free Elections", (Comp. Supra), "to the point to Affect its Substance and to make it InEffective, Neither was it otherwise DisProportionate in relation with the Legitimate Aim pursued" by the French Government, as  ECHR's Judgement concludes.

Therefore, in a Judgement published Today in the Case "Dupré versus France", the PanEuropean Court of Human Rights Concluded that, by confining the Right to Stand for Election to EU Parliament, in these Exceptional Circumstances, (Comp. Supra), the French Government had pursued a Legitimate Aim, (to Avoid Excessively Costly By-Elections, which Risked to suffer from Big Abstention, only for 2 MEPs, and just for 2,5 Years : Comp. Supra), by a Measure which was "Proportional". So that ECHR could "Reject" that Application as "Inadmissible", because "Manifestly ill-Founded", (according to Article 35, §3, a of the Convention).