The applicants stood in the 2002 parliamentary elections for the Grand National Assembly but their party, DEHAP, did not achieve the 10% of votes necessary to be eligible for seats in parliament.
In fact, that year some 45% of active voters weren't represented in parliament due to the threshold (Chamber judgment, Para.
However, they noted that "it would be desirable for the threshold complained of to be lowered and/or for corrective counterbalances to be introduced to ensure optimal representation of the various political tendencies" (Chamber judgment, Para.
"Zdanoka v Latvia and Yumak and Sadak v Turkey are easy targets for those who would argue that the standards set by the Court under Article 3 are simply too low.
However, they are certainly the types of cases which Judge Levits had in mind when he observed that the Court faces a 'dilemma' when examining applications under Article 3: 'on the one hand...it is the Court's task to protect the electoral rights of individuals; but, on the other hand, it should not overstep the limits of its explicit and implicit legitimacy and try to rule instead of the people on the constitutional order which this people creates for itself' "[1]