The United Kingdom has been given a deadline by the European Court of Human Rights to introduce legislative proposals allowing prisoners to vote. The deadline was issued in the recent judgment of Greens and M.T. v. The United Kingdom and it comes as a result of the failure of the UK to implement legislation that is consistent with the Convention.
In 2005 in Hirst v UK (No 2) the Court held that UK legislation which prevents prisoners from voting breaches the right to vote under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 of the ECHR. In the recent case of Greens the Court found that it was "a cause for regret and concern" that the same breach of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 occurred. The Court has now given the UK six months from the date at which Greens becomes final to introduce legislative proposals.
In Greens the Court applied its pilot judgment procedure, intended "to induce the respondent State to resolve large numbers of individual cases arising from the same structural problem at the domestic level". The Court had received approximately 2,500 applications in which a similar complaint had been made.
The Court noted that failure to amend incompatible legislation "represents a threat to the future effectiveness of Convention machinery". With regards to the backlog of cases, the Court found that no individual examination of each individual case was justified - the only relevant remedy was a change in the law. They will recommence consideration of the applications if the relevant UK law is not changed.
As part of its role in monitoring compliance with ECtHR judgments, the Council of Europe issued a recent draft resolution warning the UK that the State 'must put to an end the practice of delaying full implementation of Strasbourg Court judgments with respect to politically sensitive issues, such as prisoners' voting rights'. Following the Interlaken Declaration and Action Plan of February 2010, the Council emphasised that priority must be given to full and expeditious compliance with the Court's judgments.