Hora v. The United Kingdom No. 1048/20 (Second Section), 9 February 2026

Ineligibility of prisoner serving an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment.

1. The case concerned a British prisoner who had been convicted in 2007 of rape and sexual assault and, having previously been convicted of rape, was sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment for public protection. The minimum term of his sentence expired in 2011, but he remained in detention because the Parole Board did not recommend his release on public protection grounds. Under section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which disenfranchises convicted prisoners in detention, he was unable to vote in the general election of 12 December 2019. He applied to the European Court of Human Rights, complaining of a violation of his right to free elections, without having brought any domestic proceedings. That provision had already been found incompatible with the Convention in Hirst (No. 2) in 2005 and in numerous later cases concerning elections up to 2017. The United Kingdom had not amended the legislation but had adopted administrative measures, on the basis of which the Committee of Ministers closed its examination of the Hirst group of cases in 2018.

2. The Court found, unanimously, no violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Having reaffirmed the legitimacy of the aims pursued by the disenfranchisement of convicted prisoners, namely preventing crime and enhancing civic responsibility and respect for the rule of law, it first clarified the scope of its review. The fact that no new legislation had been enacted did not prevent it from giving weight to the 2018 Resolution of the Committee of Ministers. Once the institutional dialogue between the Court, the Committee of Ministers and the respondent State had run its course, it fell to the Court to examine, having regard to the wide margin of appreciation, not the compatibility of section 3 in the abstract, but its application in the applicant's particular circumstances. As to proportionality, the gravity of the offences, the applicant's recidivism, the risk he posed to the public and the severity of an indeterminate sentence meant that his disenfranchisement was not disproportionate to the aims pursued. The expiry of the minimum term was immaterial, since the restriction was tied to his continued detention and his right to vote would be restored upon release. Finally, the Court observed that, had the domestic courts been able to carry out a proportionality review, it would have had the benefit of their views.