MILLBANK AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 44473/14 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (First Section Committee)) [2016] ECHR 595 (30 June 2016)

MILLBANK AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 44473/14 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (First Section Committee)) [2016] ECHR 595 (30 June 2016)

The statutory blanket ban on prisoners voting in elections in the United Kingdom is, by reason of its blanket character, incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] ECHR 595
Parties
Applicants: Joseph Millbank and Others; Respondent: United Kingdom
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
30 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Application Under Article 34 ECHR / Judgment After Communication to Respondent
Outcome
Applications joined and declared admissible; violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 found; finding of violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage.
Legal Topics
Prisoner Voting Rights, Right to Free Elections, Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 ECHR
Human Rights Law Constitutional Law Prisoner Voting Rights Right to Free Elections Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 ECHR

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Millbank and Others

Applicants

United Kingdom

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Article 34 ECHR / Judgment After Communication to Respondent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the blanket statutory ban on prisoner voting in the United Kingdom violates Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory blanket ban on prisoners voting in elections in the United Kingdom is, by reason of its blanket character, incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention.

Court Disposition

Applications joined and declared admissible; violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 found; finding of violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage.

Orders

  • Applications joined
  • Applications declared admissible