| Revision as of 23:39, 11 July 2010 editFuseau (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users3,853 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:48, 6 August 2010 edit undoIronholds (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers79,705 edits Adding {{primarysources}} tag to the article. (KSL)Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{primarysources|date=August 2010}} | |||
| '''Tănase v. Moldova''' (application No. 7/08) was a case decided by the ] in 2010. | '''Tănase v. Moldova''' (application No. 7/08) was a case decided by the ] in 2010. | ||
| ==Facts== | ==Facts== | ||
Revision as of 18:48, 6 August 2010
 | This article relies excessively on references to primary sources. Please improve this article by adding secondary or tertiary sources. Find sources: "Tănase v. Moldova" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (August 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
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