Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T19:05:40.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Podkolzina v. Latvia. App. No. 46726/99

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

David D. Caron  and
Frank Hoffmeister
Frank Hoffmeister
Affiliation:
European Commission
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Podkolzinav. Latvia. App. No. 46726/99. At <http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Judgments.htm>. European Court of Human Rights, April 9, 2002.

In Podkolzina v. Latvia, the European Court of Human Rights held that Latvia violated the applicant's right to stand as a candidate for parliamentary elections, as set out in Article 3 of Protocol No. I to the European Convention on Human Rights in striking the applicant off the list of registered candidates due to allegedly inadequate language skills. The Court ordered Latvia to pay 9,000 for nonpecuniary damages and for costs and expenses.

The applicant, a member of the Russian-speaking minority in Latvia, acquired an official language certificate in January 1997. The certificate was issued by a regional board of the State Language Centre, composed of five examiners. On the basis of written and oral examinations that were evaluated in accordance with criteria and levels of competence defined by legal regulations, the five-member board certified that Podkolzina's command of the Latvian language corresponded to the “third level.”

Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 97 , Issue 3 , July 2003 , pp. 664 - 669
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 App. No. 46726/99 (Eur. Ct. H.R. April 9,2002) [hereinafter Judgment]. The judgments and other materials of the European Court of Human Rights are available online at the Court’s Web site, <http://www.echr.coe.int>.

2 Protocol [No. 1 ] to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Mar. 20, 1952, ETS No. 9, 213 UNTS 262.

3 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Nov. 4, 1950, ETS No. 5, 213 UNTS 222.

4 The relevant sections of the Parliamentary Elections Act are set forth in paragraph 18 of the Court’s judgment. Other relevant provisions of Latvian law are set forth in paragraphs 17 and 19–24. Latvia’s Translation and Terminology Centre maintains a bilingual Latvian/English Web site—<http://www.ttc.lv> in Latvian and <http://www.ttc.lv/?id=2> in English—which provides many linguistic materials pertaining to Latvian law, including translations into English (at <http://www.ttc.lv/?id=19>) of Latvia’s constitution and of many statutes and regulations (all roughly current, reflecting the changes discussed in this case report).

5 Mathieu-Mohin v. Belgium, 13 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) at para. 52 (1987); Gitonas v. Greece, 1997–IVEur. Ct. H.R. 1233, para. 39; Ahmed v. United Kingdom, 1998–VI Eur. Ct. H.R. 2384, para. 75.

6 Article 3 states: “The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.”

7 Judgment, supra note 1, para. 33.

8 Id., para. 34.

9 Id., para. 35.

10 Id., paras. 36–38.

11 1997–IVEur. Ct. H.R. 1233.

12 1998–VI Eur. Ct. H.R. 2384.

13 Gitonas v. Greece, para. 44.

14 Ahmed v. United Kingdom, paras. 75–76.

15 Dec. 19, 1966, 999 UNTS 171.

16 Views of the Human Rights Committee Under Article 5, Paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the Covenant Concerning Communication No. 884/1999, UN Doc. CCPR/C/72/D/884/1999 (2001).

17 For the Council of Europe, the main concern was using stringent language requirements as a qualification for citizenship. Sec Report on the Application by Latvia for Membership in the Council of Europe, Council of Europe Doc. 7169 (1994).

18 Consolidated Treatyon European Union, Oct. 2,1997,1997 O.J. (C 340) 145. Article 49(1) provides: “Any European State which respects the principles set out in Article 6(1) may apply to become a member of the Union.” Article 6(1) provides: “The Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, principles that are common to the Member States.”

19 Agenda 2000—Commission Opinion on Latvia’s Application for Membership of the European Union, sec. 1.3, European Commission Doc/97/14 (1997) (general evaluation of political criteria for EU membership), available at <http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/dwn/opinions/latvia/la-op-en.pdf>.

20 Id. (emphasis added).

21 Sven Arnswald, Eu Enlargement and the Baltic States 172 (2000).

22 Available online at <http://www.ttc.lv/New/lv/tulkojumi/E0120.doc>.

23 European Commission, 2000 Regular Report on Latvia’s Progress Towards Accession, sec. 1.3 (2000) (general evaluation of political criteria for EU membership). The European Commission’s reports relevant to Latvia’s candidacy for EU membership are available online at <http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/latvia/index.htm>.

24 For an overview of the OSCE mission’s recommendations to Latvia between 1993 and 1999, see <http://www.osce.org/hcnm/documents/recommendations/latvia/index.php3>.

25 See the European Commission’s Regular Reports on Latvia’s Progress Towards Accession of’1999 (at 18), 2000 (at 23), and 2001 (at 27).

26 Vadim Poleshchuk, European Centre for Minority Issues, Legal Aspects of National Integration in Estonia and Latvia 5 (ECMI Report No. 33, 2002).

27 See the third sentence of Article 101 (as amended on April 30, 2002). Note that the first sentence of Article 4 (as amended on October 15,1998) already states that Latvian is the official language of the republic. Furthermore, the parliamentary oath says that members will, inter alia, strive to strengthen Latvian as the only official language of the republic (which it is, pursuant to Article 18 of the Constitution, as amended on April 30,2002). An English translation of the Latvian Constitution, as amended on April 30, 2002, is available online at <http://www.saeima.lv/Likumdosana_eng/likumdosana_satversme.html>.

28 Caroline Taube, Case Note, Podkolzina v. Latvia, 1 INT’L CONST. L. (forthcoming 2003) (on file with author).

29 European Commission, 2002 Regular Report on Latvia’s Progress Towards Accession 34, 141 (2002).

30 Copenhagen European Council, Dec. 12–13,2002, Presidency Conclusions, para. 3 (2002), at <http://ue.eu.int/en/Info/eurocouncil/index.htm>.

31 Hoffmeister, Frank, Changing Requirements for Membership, in Handbook on European Enlargement: A Commentary on the Enlargement Process 90, 95 (Ott, Andrea & Inglis, Kirstyn eds., 2002)Google Scholar.

32 In contrast, in the case of Turkey, the European Commission observed:

Turkey’s failure to execute judgements of the European Court of Human Rights . . . remains a serious problem. There are, for example, 90 cases where Turkey did not ensure fully the payment of just satisfaction ordered by the Court and 18 cases, related to the exercise of freedom of expression, where the authorities did not erase the consequences of criminal conviction violating the [European Convention on Human Rights].

European Commission, 2002 Regular Report on Turkey’s Progress Towards Accession 26 (2002).