Case no 6573/74
The applicant (finally) complains that he is deprived for life of the right to vote as a consequence of a conviction for uncitizenlike behaviour. (...)
In the present case, the Commission notes that the matter at issue (right to vote) is covered by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 . Article 14 can thus be taken into account, in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No .1
The Commission consequently finds it appropriate to refer to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (Judgment of 23 July 1968-in the case "relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in Education in Belgium") which laid down criteria for consideration of differences in treatment : objective and reasonable justification of a measure and reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised .
The Commission has analysed the intention of the laws depriving, in several countries, convicted disloyal citizens of certain political rights, including the right to vote. The purpose ot such laws is to prevent persons, who have grossly misused in wartime their right to participate in public life, from misusing their political rights in the future. Crimes against public safety or against the foundations of a democratic society should thus be avoided by such measures.
The Commission considers that this ratio legis meets the criteria laid down by the Court in the above mentioned judgment. Therefore, the difference in treatment imposed on the applicant in voting does not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 14 of the Convention.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded in the meaning of Article 27. paragraph (2) of the Convention.