Paksus v. Lithuania | 2011

Constitution changed after ex-president was banned for life from standing for parliament

...the decision to bar a senior official who has proved unfit for office from ever being a member of parliament in future is above all a matter for voters...

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, January 2011 - Photo: Wikimedia Commons

Background

Former president Rolandas Paksas was removed from office in 2004 by impeachment, a parliamentary procedure which allows for the head of state to be ejected if they violate the country’s constitution.

Lithuania’s constitutional court found, among other things, that Paksas had illegally granted citizenship to a foreign businessman to reward him for supporting his election campaign. He had also disclosed a state secret to the same person warning him that he was under investigation by the authorities.

Despite his removal from office, Paksas decided to stand in new presidential elections.

But before those elections were held, parliament changed the law to stop any official who had been removed from office from being elected president until at least five years had passed. Paksas was forbidden to stand.

Lithuania’s constitutional court said the disqualification was allowed under the country’s constitution, but not the five-year time-limit – considering instead that the ban should be permanent.

Parliament also changed the law on parliamentary elections to bar any official who had been removed from office through impeachment proceedings from becoming a member.

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

The European court ruled that Lithuania breached Rolandas Paksas’s rights due to the “permanent and irreversible” nature of his ban from standing for parliamentary election.

Follow-up

In April 2022, Lithuania’s parliament passed a constitutional amendment ensuring that any person removed from office would not face a “permanent and irreversible” ban from running in both parliamentary and presidential elections but would instead be able to stand after a period of “at least ten years”.

Given the amount of time that has passed since he was removed from office, these changes mean Rolandas Paksas now has the right to stand as a candidate in future parliamentary elections.

Themes:

Соответствующие примеры

An election candidate’s unfair disqualification leads to new rules on property declarations

Election authorities prevented Gagik Sarukhanyan from standing for parliament because he had failed to declare property he owned. The European court found that this had violated Gagik’s electoral rights, because he had had good reason to believe his declaration was correct. Armenia responded by removing the requirement for election candidates to declare such information before registration.

Read more