Compendium of Standards, Good Practices and Recommendations aspect than of the “active” aspect.153 Although the Court has not considered restrictions on candidature from serving members of the armed forces, it has upheld comparable restrictions on civil servants and local government officers, which have the purpose of ensuring political impartiality and ensuring that there is a distinction between elected representatives and officials.154 The active aspect and the requirement to hold free elections by secret ballot are also relevant in terms of arrangements made to ensure that armed forces members are able to exercise the right to vote, regardless of military service. Most participating States that responded to the ODIHR questionnaire enable service personnel to exercise their right to vote in civilian polling stations. There are some circumstances of active deployment (such as deployment in hard-to-reach locations and overseas) where the ability to exercise the right to vote in military units is a concern, however. Thus, in Austria, for example, the armed forces ensure that personnel on duty on election day are given the necessary time to vote in a civilian polling station, or by postal ballot. The Council of Ministers of the Council of Europe recommended in 2010 that: “Any restrictions on the electoral rights of members of the armed forces which are no longer necessary and proportionate in pursuit of a legitimate aim should be removed. Member states may impose restrictions on membership in the armed forces during a member’s candidacy or, following election, during the term of office.”155 of 16 March 2006), para. 115; and Melnitchenko v. Ukraine (Application no. 17707/02, judgment of 19 October 2004), para. 57. 153 European Court of Human Rights, Etxeberria and Others v. Spain (Application Nos. 35579/03, 35613/03, 35626/03 and 35634/03, judgment of 30 June 2009), para. 50; and Davydov and Others v. Russia (Application no. 75947/11, judgment of 30 May 2017), para. 286. 154 European Court of Human Rights, Ahmed and others v. the United Kingdom (Application no. 22954/93, judgment of 2 September 1998); and Briķe v. Latvia (Application no. 47135/99, decision of 29 June 2000). 155 Council of Europe, Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)4, op. cit., note 26, paras. 38 and 39. 83