Georgios Papadopoulos v. Cyprus, No. 21454/21, ECtHR (First Section), 9 October 2025

Failure of the Cypriot authorities to take action to fill a legislative gap concerning a vacant parliamentary seat. 

Art. 3, Prot. 1  ECHR

1. Georgios Papadopoulos, the Solidarity Movement candidate, was the first of those not elected in the 2016 Cypriot parliamentary elections. The seat allocated to the party was initially assigned to the leader of the movement, who was also elected to the European Parliament but decided not to take up her national parliamentary mandate before the start of the legislative term. Cypriot law did not expressly regulate the possibility of renouncing a seat before the start of the term of office. In the absence of a clear legal basis, the authorities repeatedly appointed the appellant as a substitute. However, the Electoral Court overturned these decisions in 2017, 2018 and 2020 on the grounds that there was no constitutional or legislative basis for such a substitution. Consequently, the seat remained vacant for a significant period of time, and the issue remained unresolved for almost the entire legislative term.

2. At the outset, the ECtHR noted that the regularity of the 2016 elections and the initial seat allocation had never been contested. The violation complained of concerned only the subsequent phase relating to the occupation of a seat that had already been validly allocated. The Court found a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 due to the total absence of a legal mechanism for regulating a foreseeable situation, such as the renunciation of a seat before the start of the parliamentary term, such as the appointment of a replacement candidate or supplementary election. This legislative gap led to institutional deadlock and frustrated the will of the people, as expressed in the 2016 elections. According to the Court, interference with the rights guaranteed by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 could not be considered 'prescribed by law', since the authorities failed to provide a solution in accordance with the principles of the rule of law. The unanimous conclusion was that there had been a violation of the right to free elections.