This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Goldsztajn (talk | contribs) at 13:11, 11 November 2023 (→Background: add text + reference). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 13:11, 11 November 2023 by Goldsztajn (talk | contribs) (→Background: add text + reference)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Tănase v. Moldova | |
|---|---|
| Decided 27 April 2010 | |
| Full case name | Case of Tănase v. Moldova |
| ECLI | ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:0427JUD000000708 |
| Chamber | Grand Chamber |
| Court composition | |
| President Peer Lorenzen | |
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 Moldova from making dual cititzenship holders ineligible to sit in the national parliament.
Background
In May 2008, Moldovan electoral law was amended to forbid persons with multiple citizenship from sitting in the parliament. The change did not forbid those with multiple citizenship from running for election, but if successful, they could only take their seat if they renounced their other citizenships. According to Radio Free Europe, 10 percent of candidates in the 2009 Moldovan parliamentary election held dual nationality.
One of those affected Alexandru Tănase, from the Liberal Democratic Party of Moldova. Having been elected in 2009, he was forced to renounce his Romanian citizenship if he wished 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
Footnotes
- Dzehtsiarou 2016, p. 33.
- Hamilton 2011, p. 157.
- Rudan 2013, p. 124.
- Radio Free Europe 2009.
- Hamilton 2011, p. 158.
- GCO 2010.
Sources
- Dzehtsiarou, Kanstantsin (2016). European consensus and the legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139644471. ISBN 978-1-107-04103-5.
- Hamilton, Michael (2011). "Transition, political loyalties and the order of the state". In Buyse, Antoine; Hamilton, Michael (eds.). Transitional jurisprudence and the European Convention on Human Rights: justice, politics and rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 151–184. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511758515.008. ISBN 978-1-107-00301-9.
- O'Connell, Rory (2020). Law, democracy and the European Court of Human Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781139547246. ISBN 978-1-107-03507-2.
- "Moldovan Parliament Candidate Hopes To Keep Romanian Passport". Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. 2009-02-16. Retrieved 2023-11-11.
- Rudan, Delia (2013). "Nationality and political rights". In Annoni, Alessandra; Forlati, Serena (eds.). The changing role of nationality in international law. London: Routledge. pp. 117–134. ISBN 978-0-415-53545-8.
- "Moldova: Dual citizens cannot be excluded from public offices. A summary of recent court decisions concerning Moldovan-Romanian dual citizenship". globalcit.eu. Global Citizenship Observatory. 5 July 2010. Retrieved 11 November 2023.