The case of Guðmundur Gunnarsson and Magnús Davíð Norðdahl v. Iceland (applications nos. 24159/22 and 25751/22, judgment of 16 April 2024) originated from an appeal lodged by the two Icelandic citizens, who had stood as candidates in the north-western constituency. Following a recount of the ballots in that constituency, the allocation of seats was altered, resulting in their failure to be elected. The applicants alleged several procedural irregularities: the absence of a legal basis for the recount, improper storage of the ballot papers, the failure to inform political parties about the recount, and unexplained discrepancies in the vote tallies.

The Electoral Commission’s Credentials Committee acknowledged certain irregularities, particularly concerning the storage of ballots, but refrained from taking a definitive stance on the remaining allegations. It submitted three divergent recommendations to the Althingi (Parliament), which ultimately voted to confirm the election of all 63 Members of Parliament and rejected the proposal to call new elections.

The ECHR found a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, observing that the Althingi exercised virtually unfettered discretion and lacked adequate guarantees of impartiality. Some MPs involved in the decision had a direct personal interest in the outcome, and no internal mechanisms were in place to manage such conflicts of interest. Although the procedure was formally transparent and reasoned, the absence of neutrality and institutional safeguards undermined its legitimacy. The Court also held that there had been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, due to the lack of an effective and impartial domestic remedy.

This case illustrates the institutional vulnerabilities that may arise even in well-established democracies. The judgment underscores the need for clear procedural rules and robust safeguards to ensure impartiality in post-electoral processes. The lack of an independent review mechanism not only undermines public confidence in the electoral system but also threatens the fundamental principle of free expression of the will of the people. The ruling serves as a warning to strengthen procedural protections for political rights.

 

(Comment by Edin Skrebo)