| Revision as of 01:18, 11 November 2023 editGoldsztajn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers18,566 edits summarise case for ledeTag: Visual edit← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:28, 11 November 2023 edit undoGoldsztajn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers18,566 edits →Further reading: update linksTag: Visual editNext edit → | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| {{reflist}} | {{reflist}} | ||
| == |
==External links reading== | ||
| * | |||
| * Timmer A. Human Rights Centre of the Faculty of Law of Ghent University, 2010 | |||
| * | |||
| * {{cite book|editor1=Antoine Buyse|editor2=Michael Hamilton|title=Transitional Jurisprudence and the ECHR: Justice, Politics and Rights|date=August 2011|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-1-139-50111-8|pages=157–158|author=M. Hamilton|chapter=Transition and political loyalties}} for comparison with similar cases. | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| {{DEFAULTSORT:Tanase V. Moldova}} | {{DEFAULTSORT:Tanase V. Moldova}} | ||
Revision as of 01:28, 11 November 2023
Tănase v. Moldova was a 2010 European Court of Human Rights case which determined that the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibited states making dual cititzenship holders ineligible to sit in a national parliament.
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 law 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