The article describes the practice of interpretation of Article 3 of Protocol № 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms «The right to free elections» by the European Court of Human Rights. Special attention is paid to the case of Hirst v. UK (6 October 2003), in which the ECHR noted that imprisonment upon conviction entails the loss of any other right, including the election. Analyzed a similar ordinance that states the violation of Article 3 of Protocol number 1 in the case of Frodl v. Austria (8 April 2010), Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia (4 July 2013), Alajos Kiss v. Hungary (20 May 2010) and others. Profile cases analyzed Sitaropoulos et Giakoumopoulos v. Grèce (15 Mars 2012), in which the Grand Chamber of the ECHR found no violation of th e right to free elections. ECtHR case law on the interpretation of Article 3 of Protocol № 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms «The right to free elections» is very colorful, and to some extent, contradictory. Understanding the right to free elections in the practice of the ECHR passed certain evolution, because of the ambiguity and feature each particular situation, and the need to protect one of the core values of modern democracy – human rights elect and be elected.
Keywords: European Court of Human Rights, the right to free elections