Cselekvőképességet korlátozó gondnokság és választójog - Egyezményellenes (ECHR) az Alkotmány 70. § (5) bekezdése

Ma két Magyarországot elmarasztaló ítélet is született a Emberi Jogok Európai Bíróságán . A nagyobb horderejű az Alajos Kiss v. Hungary ügy (az Engel v. Hungary-ről a sajtó is beszámolt ). A Sajó Andrással felálló kettes szekció egy cselekvőképességet korlátozó gondnokság alatt álló személy beadványát találta alaposnak, és mondta ki, hogy a választójog (Alkotmány 70. § (5) bekezdése szerinti) egyéni mérlegelést kizáró korlátozása ellentétes az Egyezményhez fűzött Első Kiegészítő Jegyzőkönyv 3. §-val:

“7. In 1991 the applicant was diagnosed with manic depression. On 27 May 2005 he was placed under partial guardianship. Although this measure was based on the Civil Code which deals with the pecuniary and certain personal relations of citizens (see paragraph 12 below), it nevertheless also attracted the application of Article 70(5) of the Constitution (see paragraph 11 below) to the applicant, excluding him from the right to vote. In the underlying court decision it was noted that he took care of himself adequately but sometimes wasted money in an irresponsible fashion and was occasionally aggressive. The applicant did not appeal against this decision.

A magyar kormány álláspontja szerint:

26. The exclusion from the right to vote of persons under guardianship pursued the same legitimate aim. These persons, although adults, lacked the capacity to manage their affairs, including the exercise of their right to vote, owing to their mental state, unsound mind or pathological addiction. When assessing whether to place the applicant under guardianship, the District Court factored into its decision the applicant's resultant exclusion from the right to vote, pursuant to the constitutional rule disenfranchising those citizens who were incapable of assessing the consequences of their decisions or of making conscious or judicious decisions.

27. Furthermore, in the Government's view, the prohibition complained of was in compliance with the Venice Commission's Opinion no. 190/2002 (see paragraph 16 above) and cannot therefore be considered disproportionate, all the more so since the applicant's right to vote would be statutorily restored if his placement under guardianship was rescinded at one of the periodical judicial reviews of his condition, or if a motion of the applicant to the same end succeeded in view of his improved mental status.

Az EJEB szerint:

39. The Court notes that the restriction in question does not distinguish between those under total and those under partial guardianship (see paragraph 11 above), and is removed once guardianship is terminated (see the Government's submission in paragraph 27 above, not disputed by the applicant). However, it observes the applicant's assertion in paragraph 29 above, not refuted by the Government, that 0.75% of the Hungarian population of voting age is concerned by disenfranchisement on account of being under guardianship in a manner which is indiscriminate. It finds this to be a significant figure, and it cannot be claimed that the bar is negligible in its effects.

41. The Court accepts that this is an area in which, generally, a wide margin of appreciation should be granted to the national legislature in determining whether restrictions on the right to vote can be justified in modern times and, if so, how a fair balance is to be struck. In particular, it should be for the legislature to decide as to what procedure should be tailored to assessing the fitness to vote of mentally disabled persons. The Court observes that there is no evidence that the Hungarian legislature has ever sought to weigh the competing interests or to assess the proportionality of the restriction as it stands.

42. The Court cannot accept, however, that an absolute bar on voting by any person under partial guardianship, irrespective of his or her actual faculties, falls within an acceptable margin of appreciation. Indeed, while the Court reiterates that this margin of appreciation is wide, it is not all-embracing (Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], op. cit., § 82). In addition, if a restriction on fundamental rights applies to a particularly vulnerable group in society, who have suffered considerable discrimination in the past, such as the mentally disabled, then the State's margin of appreciation is substantially narrower and it must have very weighty reasons for the restrictions in question (cf. also the example of those suffering different treatment on the ground of their gender - Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 78, Series A no. 94, race - D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 182, ECHR 2007‑..., or sexual orientation - E.B. v. France [GC], no. 43546/02, § 94, ECHR 2008‑...). The reason for this approach, which questions certain classifications per se, is that such groups were historically subject to prejudice with lasting consequences, resulting in their social exclusion. Such prejudice may entail legislative stereotyping which prohibits the individualised evaluation of their capacities and needs (cf. Shtukaturov v. Russia, no. 44009/05, § 95, 27 March 2008).

43. The applicant in the present case lost his right to vote as the result of the imposition of an automatic, blanket restriction on the franchise of those under partial guardianship. He may therefore claim to be a victim of the measure. The Court cannot speculate as to whether the applicant would still have been deprived of the right to vote even if a more limited restriction on the rights of the mentally disabled had been imposed in compliance with the requirements of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (see mutatis mutandis Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2), op.cit, §§ 48 to 52).

44. The Court further considers that the treatment as a single class of those with intellectual or mental disabilities is a questionable classification, and the curtailment of their rights must be subject to strict scrutiny. This approach is reflected in other instruments of international law, referred to above (paragraphs 14-17). The Court therefore concludes that an indiscriminate removal of voting rights, without an individualised judicial evaluation and solely based on a mental disability necessitating partial guardianship, cannot be considered compatible with the legitimate grounds for restricting the right to vote.” (kiemelések tőlem)

A 2009. évi CXX. törvénnyel elfogadott "új Ptk" követi az Alkotmány rendelkezéseit. A 2:22. § szerint

(2) A cselekvőképességében korlátozott személy - a választójog kivételével - cselekvőképes mindazon ügycsoportokban, amelyekre nézve a bíróság a cselekvőképességét nem korlátozta.

Az IRM új Ptk-ra felkészítő kiadványa szerint "indokolt lenne, hogy az elkövetkező években sor kerüljön az alaptörvény 70. §-a (5) bekezdésének módosítására, amelynek nyomán […] az alaptörvény csak abban az esetben zárná ki választójoga gyakorlásából a korlátozó gondnokság alá helyezett személyt, ha a bíróság a korlátozás szempontjából releváns ügycsoport meghatározásakor kifejezetten így rendelkezett".

Az EJEB mai ítélete is alátámasztja az alkotmánymódosítás időszerűségét.

S ha már az Alkotmány 70. § (5) bekezdésénél vagyunk: „nincs választójoga annak, a közügyek gyakorlásától eltiltás hatálya alatt áll, szabadságvesztés büntetését vagy büntetőeljárásban elrendelt intézeti kényszergyógykezelését tölti”. (Akit a téma bővebben érdekel, annak ajánlom Vig Dávid (ELTE-ÁJK, konzulens dr. Kerezsi Klára) kiemelkedően színvonalas OTDK dolgozatát a témában).

A fentebb idézett Hirst ügy mellett, legutóbb 2010. április 8-án marasztalt el az EJEB egy tagállamot (Frodl v Austria ügy) az elítéltek választójogának „automatikus” megfosztása miatt:

25. As regards the status of the right to vote of convicted prisoners who are detained, the Court reiterates that prisoners in general continue to enjoy all the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Convention save for the right to liberty, where lawfully imposed detention expressly falls within the scope of Article 5 of the Convention. It is inconceivable, therefore, that a prisoner should forfeit his Convention rights merely because of his status as a person detained following conviction. Nor is there any place under the Convention system, where tolerance and broadmindedness are the acknowledged hallmarks of democratic society, for automatic disenfranchisement based purely on what might offend public opinion (see Hirst, cited above, § 70).

26. This standard of tolerance does not prevent a democratic society from taking steps to protect itself against activities intended to destroy the rights or freedoms set forth in the Convention. Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, which enshrines the individual's capacity to influence the composition of the legislature, does not therefore exclude the possibility of restrictions on electoral rights being imposed on an individual who has, for example, seriously abused a public position or whose conduct has threatened to undermine the rule of law or democratic foundations (see, for example, X v. the Netherlands, cited above, and, mutatis mutandis, Glimmerveen and Hagenbeek v. the Netherlands, nos. 8348/78 and 8406/78, Commission decision of 11 October 1979, Decisions and Reports 18, where the Commission declared inadmissible two applications concerning the refusal to allow the applicants, who were the leaders of a proscribed organisation with racist and xenophobic traits, to stand for election). The severe measure of disenfranchisement must not, however, be resorted to lightly and the principle of proportionality requires a discernible and sufficient link between the sanction and the conduct and circumstances of the individual concerned.

28. The Court observes at the outset that the present case has certain similarities with the case of Hirst (cited above). In that case the Court found a breach of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 on account of Mr Hirst's disenfranchisement as a prisoner following his conviction for manslaughter. While the Court accepted in principle that the member States had a wide margin of appreciation and left it to them to decide which restrictions on the right of prisoners to vote could legitimately be imposed, it nevertheless set out several criteria which had to be respected by member States in imposing such restrictions (see Hirst, cited above, §§ 61 and 82). Disenfranchisement may only be envisaged for a rather narrowly defined group of offenders serving a lengthy term of imprisonment; there should be a direct link between the facts on which a conviction is based and the sanction of disenfranchisement; and such a measure should preferably be imposed not by operation of a law but by the decision of a judge following judicial proceedings (ibid., §§ 77-78). In finding a breach of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, the Court put much emphasis on the fact that the disenfranchisement operating under United Kingdom law was a “blunt instrument”, imposing a blanket restriction on all convicted prisoners in prison and doing so in a way which was indiscriminate, applying to all prisoners, irrespective of the length of their sentence and irrespective of the nature or gravity of their offence and their individual circumstances (ibid., § 82).

31. As regards the proportionality of the measures, the Government argued that the Austrian provisions on disenfranchisement were more narrowly defined than the rules applicable in the Hirst case and, moreover, that section 44(2) of the Criminal Code granted the sentencing judge far-reaching discretion in deciding whether or not disenfranchisement should be imposed as an additional sanction on the accused.

33. As regards the conditions for disenfranchisement set out in section 22 of the National Assembly Election Act, the Court finds that the provision in question is more detailed than the ones applicable in Hirst (cited above). It does not apply automatically to all prisoners irrespective of the length of their sentence and irrespective of the nature or gravity of their offence, but restricts disenfranchisement to a more narrowly defined group of persons since it applies only in the case of a prison sentence exceeding one year and only to convictions for offences committed with intent.

34. Nevertheless, the Court agrees with the applicant that section 22 of the National Assembly Election Act does not meet all the criteria established in Hirst (cited above, § 82). Under the Hirst test, besides ruling out automatic and blanket restrictions it is an essential element that the decision on disenfranchisement should be taken by a judge, taking into account the particular circumstances, and that there must be a link between the offence committed and issues relating to elections and democratic institutions (ibid., § 82).

35. The essential purpose of these criteria is to establish disenfranchisement as an exception even in the case of convicted prisoners, ensuring that such a measure is accompanied by specific reasoning given in an individual decision explaining why in the circumstances of the specific case disenfranchisement was necessary, taking the above elements into account. The principle of proportionality requires a discernible and sufficient link between the sanction and the conduct and circumstances of the individual concerned (ibid., § 71). However, no such link exists under the provisions of law which led to the applicant's disenfranchisement.

36. The Court therefore concludes that there has been a breach of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 in the present case.