Misplaced Pages

Tănase v. Moldova: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:21, 4 November 2015 editCredema (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers4,217 editsm Facts: 'ECtHR' to 'European Court of Human Rights'← Previous edit Revision as of 10:38, 24 November 2016 edit undo82.203.24.241 (talk) FactsNext edit →
Line 2: Line 2:


==Facts== ==Facts==
In 2008, Moldovan electoral law was changed, forbidding persons with ] to hold seats in the parliament. This has affected Mr. ], representative of the ]. Having been elected in 2009, he was forced to refuse Romanian citizenship to take his seat. In 2008, Moldovan electoral law was changed to forbid persons with ] to hold seats in the parliament. That affected Mr. ], of the ]. Having been elected in 2009, he was forced to refuse Romanian citizenship to take his seat.


He launched a complaint before the European Court of Human Rights. Romania was admitted as a third party.<ref></ref> He launched a complaint before the European Court of Human Rights. Romania was admitted as a third party.<ref></ref>

Revision as of 10:38, 24 November 2016

Tănase v. Moldova (application No. 7/08) was a case decided by the European Court of Human Rights in 2010.

Facts

In 2008, Moldovan electoral law was changed to forbid persons with multiple citizenship to hold seats in the parliament. That affected Mr. Alexandru Tănase, of the Liberal Democratic Party of Moldova. Having been elected in 2009, he was forced to refuse Romanian citizenship to take his seat.

He launched a complaint before the European Court of Human Rights. Romania was admitted as a third party.

Judgments

In 2008, a Chamber of the Court decided that the provisions of Moldovan law violated Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The judgment was appealed by Moldova.

In 2010, the Grand Chamber unanimously found the ineligibility of persons with dual citizenship to violate Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. It left open, whether the prohibition on multiple nationals taking seats in Parliament pursued a legitimate aim.

The Court found the provisions of Law no. 273 preventing elected MPs with multiple nationalities from taking seats in Parliament to be disproportionate and in violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.

See also

References

  1. ECtHR Grand Chamber judgment - Para. 7
  2. ECtHR Grand Chamber judgment - Para. 170
  3. ECtHR Grand Chamber judgment - Para. 180

Further reading

Categories: