20 May Refusal to make the change of nationality in the electoral roll for judges has led to violations of the right to privacy

In the case of Tasev v. North Macedonia (application no. 9825/13, 16.05.2019) the European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

The case concerned the authorities’ refusal to grant Mr Tasev’s request to have his ethnicity entry in the electoral roll for judges changed. In September 2012 a vacancy notice was published for five posts on the State Judicial Council (SJC). Shortly afterwards Mr Tasev lodged a request with the Ministry of Justice for his ethnicity entry in the electoral roll to be changed from Bulgarian to Macedonian. The Ministry of Justice refused his request, arguing in particular that the change was intended to secure the attainment of an electoral right concerning the election of members of the SJC. They added that change of ethnicity entry sought exclusively for the attainment of such a right after the announcement for the election would put other judges in a “disadvantageous position”.

The Court held in particular that the domestic authorities’ interpretation of a domestic provision had not been foreseeable for Mr Tasev. The Court also noted that section 17 of the State Judicial Council Act specified the procedural rules under which judges could seek to rectify the records of their details, including their ethnicity. In the Court’s view, there had been nothing in that provision that could be interpreted as preventing judges running for election from seeking to rectify their personal details in the electoral roll, subsequent to the announcement of such an election. The domestic authorities had thus cited and applied an interpretation of that provision which could not be said to have been predictable. Accordingly, the legal basis for the refusal had not been 3 foreseeable. Since the interference had not been “in accordance with the law”, there had been a violation of Article 8.

The Court further held, unanimously, that Mr Tasev’s complaint under Article 6 (right to a fair trial) about not having been acquainted with evidence had to be rejected as inadmissible. It found that documents submitted as evidence by the Ministry of Justice in the domestic proceedings had been of no importance for the outcome of the case. Accordingly, Mr Tasev had not suffered a significant disadvantage because the courts had failed to communicate that evidence to him.

References from the official website of the European Court of Human Rights