Aziz v. Cyprus
From DADEL
Case Summary
Aziz v. Cyprus
European Court of Human Rights
Application no. 69949/01
Judgment of 22 September 2004
The Applicant alleged that he was prevented from exercising his voting rights on the grounds of national origin and/or association with a national minority, and that this amounts to violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention.
Contents |
Facts
The Cypriot Constitution provides for two separate electoral lists, one for the Greek-Cypriot community and one for the Turkish-Cypriot community. From 1963 till present, the participation of the Turkish-Cypriot members of Parliament has been suspended. After the occupation of northern Cyprus by Turkish troops in 1974, individuals belonging to the two groups have been living separately.
The applicant is Turkish and is one of the small numbers of Turkish Cypriots residing in the part of the territory of Cyprus under the control of the Cyprus Republic. On 30 January 2001 he applied to the Minister of the Interior, requesting to be registered in the electoral roll so that he could vote in the parliamentary elections of 27 May 2001. His application was rejected on the ground that by virtue of Article 63 of the Constitution, members of the Turkish-Cypriot community could not be registered in the Greek-Cypriot electoral roll. On 27 April 2001 the applicant lodged an application with the Supreme Court against the decision of the Ministry of the Interior. The Supreme Court dismissed his application.
Admissibility
The Application was found admissible.
Merits
The Court reaffirmed its precedents in holding that a difference of treatment is discriminatory, for the purposes of Article 14 of the Convention, if it “has no objective and reasonable justification”, meaning either it does not pursue a legitimate aim or the means chosen are not proportional to the ends sought. The Court also reasoned that although Article 14 complements the other provisions of the Convention and the protocols, meaning that where there is a breach of another Article there is usually no need to examine the case for a separate Article 14 breach, where a clear inequality of treatment in the enjoyment of a right is a fundamental aspect of the case, it may be proper to examine Article 14’s applicability.
Consequently, the Court held that the Applicant’s Article 14 complaint was not a mere restatement of his complaint under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. The different in treatment here resulted from the very fact that he belonged to the Turkish Cypriot minority community. By virtue of his heritage, the Applicant had no opportunity to participate in electing members of the legislature in the country of his nationality and residence. This constitutes a fundamental violation of his human rights.
Decision
The Court found a violation of Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. It held that the Cypriot Government must implement measures to fulfil its obligation to secure the right to vote in compliance with this judgment. This legislative reform and the present judgment constitute sufficient just satisfaction.