| Revision as of 10:40, 24 November 2016 edit82.203.24.241 (talk) →Facts← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:42, 24 November 2016 edit undo82.203.24.241 (talk) →JudgmentsNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| 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 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 |
In 2010, the Grand Chamber unanimously found the ineligibility of persons with dual citizenship to violate Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. It was unanswered whether forbidding those with multiple nationalities from taking seats in Parliament pursued a legitimate aim.<ref></ref> | ||
| It found the |
It found the ;aw to be disproportionate and in violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.<ref></ref> | ||
| ==See also== | ==See also== | ||
Revision as of 10:42, 24 November 2016
Tănase v. Moldova (application No. 7/08) was a case decided by the European Court of Human Rights in 2010.
Background
In 2008, Moldovan electoral law was changed to forbid persons with multiple citizenship from sitting in the parliament. That affected Alexandru Tănase, from 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 Court. 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 was unanswered whether forbidding those with multiple nationalities from taking seats in Parliament pursued a legitimate aim.
It found the ;aw to be disproportionate and in violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.
See also
References
- ECtHR Grand Chamber judgment - Para. 7
- ECtHR Grand Chamber judgment - Para. 170
- ECtHR Grand Chamber judgment - Para. 180
Further reading
- Timmer A. Tănase v. Moldova: multiple readings of a case concerning multiple nationality Human Rights Centre of the Faculty of Law of Ghent University, 2010
- M. Hamilton (August 2011). "Transition and political loyalties". In Antoine Buyse; Michael Hamilton (eds.). Transitional Jurisprudence and the ECHR: Justice, Politics and Rights. Cambridge University Press. pp. 157–158. ISBN 978-1-139-50111-8.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: year (link) for comparison with similar cases. - ECtHR Chamber judgment
- ECtHR Grand Chamber judgment