| Revision as of 20:28, 9 July 2010 editFuseau (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users3,853 edits →Facts← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:39, 11 July 2010 edit undoFuseau (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users3,853 editsmNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| '''Tănase v. Moldova''' (application No. 7/08) was a case |
'''Tănase v. Moldova''' (application No. 7/08) was a case decided by the ] in 2010. | ||
| ==Facts== | ==Facts== | ||
| In 2008, Moldovan electoral law was changed, forbidding persons with multiple citizenship to hold seats in the parliament. This has affected Mr. ], representative of the ]. Being elected in 2009, he was forced to refuse from Romanian citizenship to take his seat. | In 2008, Moldovan electoral law was changed, forbidding persons with multiple citizenship to hold seats in the parliament. This has affected Mr. ], representative of the ]. Being elected in 2009, he was forced to refuse from Romanian citizenship to take his seat. | ||
| He launched a complaint before the |
He launched a complaint before the ECtHR. Romania was admitted as a third party.<ref></ref> | ||
| ==Judgments== | ==Judgments== | ||
Revision as of 23:39, 11 July 2010
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, forbidding persons with multiple citizenship to hold seats in the parliament. This has affected Mr. Alexandru Tănase, representative of the Liberal Democratic Party. Being elected in 2009, he was forced to refuse from Romanian citizenship to take his seat.
He launched a complaint before the ECtHR. 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
References
- ECtHR Grand Chamber judgment - Para. 7
- ECtHR Grand Chamber judgment - Para. 170
- ECtHR Grand Chamber judgment - Para. 180