Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Foreword
- Preface
- Contents
- List of Abbreviations
- PART ONE THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
- PART TWO THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
- 11 Protocol 16 to the ECHR: A Convenient Tool for Judicial Dialogue and Better Domestic Implementation of the Convention?
- 12 The EU's Parliamentary Representation in the Light of the Strasbourg Court's Sejdić and Zornić Standards: Is there Tendency for a New Parliamentary Order in the EU?
12 - The EU's Parliamentary Representation in the Light of the Strasbourg Court's Sejdić and Zornić Standards: Is there Tendency for a New Parliamentary Order in the EU?
from PART TWO - THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 December 2017
- Frontmatter
- Foreword
- Preface
- Contents
- List of Abbreviations
- PART ONE THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
- PART TWO THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
- 11 Protocol 16 to the ECHR: A Convenient Tool for Judicial Dialogue and Better Domestic Implementation of the Convention?
- 12 The EU's Parliamentary Representation in the Light of the Strasbourg Court's Sejdić and Zornić Standards: Is there Tendency for a New Parliamentary Order in the EU?
Summary
INTRODUCTION
The electoral system of the European Union (EU) has yet a lot to demonstrate: it is not merely a multifaceted system of divergent values but also a unique system of law that has the ability to produce several democratic ramifications at the level of the right to vote under the European Convention on Human Rights’ (the Convention, ECHR) standards. Th is chapter, therefore, discusses the electoral system of the EU from the perspective of the conceptual standards deriving from the European Court of Human Rights’ (Strasbourg Court, ECtHR) seminal cases Sejdić & Finci and Zornić. With the note that the EU is not a contracting party to the Convention, this chapter merely tries to delineate some fundamental and abstract collisions which the current system of elections in the EU may face with the Convention law.
As a primary note, it is worth considering Schleicher. He argues that ‘[t]he reason why EU leaders have repeatedly increased the powers of the European Parliament (EP) is clear. Giving power to a directly-elected body was considered a way to cure the “democratic deficit,” or the perceived inability of European citizens to influence EU decision-making.’ The democratic deficit in the EU is not simply a reflection of the ‘common sense’ (political) maturity of the governments of the EU member states. It is also a consequence of the constitutional model concerning the electoral system in the EU which both the Treaties and the EU legislation designate. Tackling this issue from the perspective of the Strasbourg Court's case-law and standards on voting rights and prohibition on discrimination would provide guidance on how to reduce the democratic deficit from the perspective of human rights.
To note, the EP elections are another set of electoral democracy within the EU and its Member States. Turning out to vote in the EP elections is a separate democratic demonstration of EU citizens independently from the elections in their home countries. From the perspective of the democratic deficit, turn out in these elections is a part of the challenges that the EU and Member States must address.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- European Judicial Systems as a Challenge for Democracy , pp. 211 - 232Publisher: IntersentiaPrint publication year: 2015
- 1
- Cited by