## Facts

- A political party received about 170,000 votes in the 1996 parliamentary elections but won no seats because it failed to meet a statutory 5% nationwide vote threshold.
- The challenged provisions were parts of Act No. 247/1995 Coll. governing elections to the Czech Parliament (including the “barrier clause” and related allocation rules).
- The petitioner filed a constitutional challenge in the Constitutional Court’s plenum seeking annulment of the relevant provisions.
- The petitioner argued the threshold and its effect on seat allocation violated constitutional guarantees of universal, equal, and direct suffrage by secret ballot under proportional representation, as well as equal opportunity for political parties and candidates.
- The government/parliament defended the threshold as a legitimate feature of the electoral system intended to prevent excessive fragmentation and protect effective parliamentary governance.

## Issues

1. Whether a 5% nationwide electoral threshold in a proportional representation system violates constitutional guarantees of equal suffrage and equal opportunity for political parties.
2. Whether reallocating seats among qualifying parties after excluding parties below the threshold constitutes an impermissible, discretionary “administrative” distortion of voter choice.
3. What limits constitutional principles impose on legislative design of proportional representation mechanisms, including the level of permissible deviation from strict proportionality and procedural requirements in the proceedings.

## Decision

- The court upheld the constitutionality of the 5% threshold and the challenged statutory provisions.
- The court held that proportional representation permits limited, legislatively chosen “integrative” mechanisms aimed at ensuring a functional legislature and stable government formation.
- The court rejected the claim that seat redistribution triggered by the threshold was “administrative,” reasoning it follows automatically from preannounced electoral rules and voters’ choices made with foreseeable consequences.
- The court stated that court proceedings connected to election-rights disputes must respect constitutional guarantees of public and oral hearings where a party claims omission would infringe its rights.

## Legal Principles

- Proportional representation is not constitutionally required to be mathematically exact; limited deviations may be permitted to protect representative democracy’s capacity to function.
- Electoral thresholds may be constitutional if they pursue a legitimate aim (avoiding excessive party fragmentation and preserving governability) and do not impair the democratic substance of elections.
- Limits on equal suffrage must satisfy proportionality and a “minimum interference” requirement: the restriction should be no more than necessary to achieve the legitimate aim.
- Seat allocation effects produced by an electoral threshold are not discretionary administrative acts when they operate automatically under rules established in advance and known to voters.
- Election-related constitutional adjudication must comply with constitutional requirements of public, oral proceedings when necessary to protect parties’ procedural rights.

## Conclusion

The court sustained a 5% electoral threshold as a proportionate legislative tool within proportional representation to prevent fragmentation and support effective parliamentary governance, while emphasizing that such limits must remain minimal, preserve the democratic substance of elections, and be applied through procedures consistent with public and oral hearing guarantees.


Five Percent Electoral Threshold Case, Pl. ÚS 25/96 (Czech Const. Ct. 1997)