The right to stand for election may also be subject to a condition that the candidate does not or has not previously held a specific office or performed specific functions.
This condition generally relates to offices or functions that are, by their nature, deemed incompatible with the ability to ever stand for election. Restrictions concerning prohibitions to hold two offices at once generally fall under incompatibility rather than ineligibility. International human rights law permits such restrictions, provided that they are laid down by law and are proportionate to the serious aim of protection of the democratic order.
The Latvian law prohibits certain categories of persons from standing for both parliamentary and local elections. This includes employees of the state security service or intelligence or counter-intelligence services of foreign states, or who have been in staff positions in a state security service or intelligence or counter-intelligence service of the USSR or the Latvian SSR, as well as some categories of persons who worked in certain parties such as the CPSU or labour and other organisations such as the International Front of the Working People of the Latvian SSR after 13 January 1991.
The European Court of Human Rights, in the case of Ždanoka v. Latvia, confirmed that the rejection of the candidate’s application on the basis of her activities as a member of a party which had attempted to bring about a coup d’état in 1991 was justified, and that the legislator retains the margin of appreciation to decide the measures which should be taken to strengthen public trust in newly-established democratic institutions. However, whilst the Court took this decision in view of the historical and political context surrounding the establishment of democracy in Latvia, it also noted that the Latvian parliament had a duty to constantly review the statutory restriction, aiming to remove such a restriction as soon as possible. These findings were confirmed in the case of Ādamsons v. Latvia, where the Court once again emphasised that over the years mere general suspicion about a group was no longer sufficient, and that any restrictions for former holders of certain offices had to be justified anew on the basis of additional arguments and evidence, taking into account the actual conduct of the person in question.