CASE OF MUGEMANGANGO v. BELGIUM
Hearing: Mugemangango v. Belgium (no. 310/15) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2019-12-04 00:00:00)
Application no.: 310/15
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2020-07-10 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2020:0710JUD000031015
Respondent state: BEL
Articles of the Convention: 13;13+P1-3;41;P1-3
Represented by: PÉTRÉ M. ; STEIN O. ; FLACHET I. 
Issue: Section 31 of the Special Law on institutional reform
Strasbourg case-law cited: Abdalov and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 28508/11 and 33773/18, § 108, 11 July 2019;Amuur v. France, 25 June 1996, § 50, Reports 1996-III;Babenko v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 43476/98, 4 May 1999;Berlusconi v. Italy (striking out) (dec.) [GC], no. 58428/13, 27 November 2018;Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, §§ 148-49, ECHR 2014;Cernea v. Romania, no. 43609/10, § 40, 27 February 2018;Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, § 152, Reports 1996 V;Cheminade v. France (dec.), no. 31599/96, ECHR 1999-II;Čonka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, § 83, ECHR 2002-I;Davydov and Others v. Russia, no. 75947/11, 30 May 2017;De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, 23 February 2017;Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, § 63, 25 September 2018;G.K. v. Belgium, no. 58302/10, 21 May 2019;Gahramanli and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 36503/11, 8 October 2015;Georgian Labour Party v. Georgia, no. 9103/04, § 108, ECHR 2008;Grosaru v. Romania, no. 78039/01, ECHR 2010;Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], no. 74025/01, § 61, ECHR 2005-IX;I.Z. v. Greece, no. 18997/91, Commission decision of 28 February 1994, Decisions and Reports 76-A, p. 65;İlhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 97, ECHR 2000-VII;Karácsony and Others v. Hungary [GC], nos. 42461/13 and 44357/13, §§ 138-47, 17 May 2016;Kart v. Turkey [GC], no. 8917/05, ECHR 2009 (extracts);Kerimova v. Azerbaijan, no. 20799/06, 30 September 2010;Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, § 268, 15 December 2016;Kovach v. Ukraine, no. 39424/02, §§ 54-55, ECHR 2008;Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000 XI;Magyar Kétfarkú Kutya Párt v. Hungary [GC], no. 201/17, § 99, 20 January 2020;Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, 2 March 1987, §§ 47-54, Series A no. 113;Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, § 98, ECHR 2009,;Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, § 111, 20 October 2016;N.D. and N.T. v. Spain [GC], nos. 8675/15 and 8697/15, § 240, 13 February 2020;Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 18705/06, §§ 77-81 et seq., 8 April 2010;Paunović and Milivojević v. Serbia, no. 41683/06, 24 May 2016;Petkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 77568/01 and 2 others, § 63, 11 June 2009;Pierre-Bloch v. France, 21 October 1997, §§ 51 and 53-59, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VI;Podkolzina v. Latvia, no. 46726/99, ECHR 2002-II;Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal [GC], nos. 55391/13 and 2 others, § 149, 6 November 2018;Riza and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 48555/10 and 48377/10, 13 October 2015;Sitaropoulos and Giakoumopoulos v. Greece [GC], no. 42202/07, §§ 63-66, ECHR 2012;Tănase v. Moldova [GC], no. 7/08, ECHR 2010;Ždanoka v. Latvia [GC], no. 58278/00, ECHR 2006-IV
External sources: Venice Commission Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters;OSCE Report on Belgium of 19 October 2007;UN Human Rights Committee General Comment no. 25 (57) of 27 August 1996
Conclusion: Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Stand for election);Violation of Article 13+P1-3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general};Stand for election);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Separate opinion: TRUE