444 Results
Quotes
Quotes based on international documents, law, and treaties- "Free media are a conditio sine qua non for providing voters with diverse information concerning elections and referendums. Thus, it is important that freedom of the press is constitutionally and legally guaranteed and not undermined in practice. "
- "Even in countries where the media work without undue restrictions, an unbiased coverage of election campaigns is not automatically guaranteed. Democratic elections depend largely on the ability and the willingness of the media to work in an impartial and professional manner during election campaigns. The failure of the media to provide impartial information about the election campaign and the candidates is one of the most frequent shortcomings arising during elections (CDL-AD(2002)023rev, para. 19). "
- "Since election-related opinion polls may have an effect on the vote itself, the publication and broadcasting coverage of opinions polls results should be regulated, providing, for example, that the source and other relevant information are included. Usually it is also forbidden to publish the results of opinion polls and projections immediately before and on election day (before the closure of the polling stations). If not already provided for, the introduction of such a deadline is generally welcomed. "
- " Administrative authorities must observe their duty of neutrality (see 1.2.2.a.), which is one of the means of ensuring that voters can form an opinion freely. "
- "Freedom of voters to express their wishes also implies: i. that the executive must organise referendums provided for by the legislative system; this is particularly important when it is not subject to the executive’s initiative; "
- "Freedom of voters to express their wishes also implies: ii. compliance with the procedural rules; in particular, referendums must be held within the time-limit prescribed by law; "
- "As regards, in particular, the choice of electoral system, the Court reiterates that the Contracting States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in this sphere. In that regard, Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 goes no further than prescribing “free” elections held at “reasonable intervals”, “by secret ballot” and “under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people”. Subject to that reservation, it does not create any “obligation to introduce a specific system” such as proportional representation or majority voting with one or two ballots (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt, cited above, § 54). "
- "The Court recalls that in its above-mentioned Vogt judgment (pp. 25–26, § 52) it articulated as follows the basic principles laid down in its judgments concerning Article 10: (i) Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and each individual’s self-fulfilment. Subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10, it is applicable not only to “information” or “ideas” that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb; such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no “democratic society”. Freedom of expression, as enshrined in Article 10, is subject to a number of exceptions which, however, must be narrowly interpreted and the necessity for any exceptions must be convincingly established. (ii) The adjective “necessary”, within the meaning of Article 10 § 2 implies the existence of a “pressing social need”. The Contracting States have a certain margin of appreciation in assessing whether such a need exists, but it goes hand in hand with a European supervision, embracing both the law and the decisions applying it, even those given by independent courts. The Court is therefore empowered to give the final ruling on whether a “restriction” is reconcilable with freedom of expression as protected by Article 10. "
- "The Court reiterates that free elections are inconceivable without the free circulation of political opinions and information (see, for example, United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey, 30 January 1998, § 44, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I). Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 will not attain its goal (which is to establish and maintain the foundations of an effective and meaningful democracy governed by the rule of law – see Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], no. 74025/01, § 58, ECHR 2005-IX) if candidates cannot disseminate their ideas during the electoral campaign. In Yumak and Sadak v. Turkey [GC] (no. 10226/03, § 106, 8 July 2008) the Court emphasised the role of the State as “ultimate guarantor of pluralism” and stated that in performing that role the State is under an obligation to adopt positive measures to “organise” democratic elections “under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature”. "
- "Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 enshrines a fundamental principle of an effective political democracy. It implies the subjective rights to vote and to stand for election (see Paksas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 34932/04, § 96, 6 January 2011). This provision also expressly refers to “conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature”. In the 1987 case of Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium (judgment of 2 March 1987, § 54, Series A no. 113), the Court noted that this part of Article 3 “implies essentially - apart from freedom of expression ... - the principle of equality of treatment ...”. Thus, already at that time the Court recognised that “freedom of expression” was an important part of the “free expression of the opinion”. The interrelation between free elections and freedom of expression was also emphasised in Bowman v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, § 42), where the Court held that “it is particularly important in the period preceding an election that opinions and information of all kinds are permitted to circulate freely”. Lastly, in Yumak and Sadak v. Turkey [GC], cited above, the Court held that the State was under an obligation to adopt positive measures to organise elections “under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature”. "
- "State authorities must observe their duty of neutrality. In particular, this concerns: i. media."
- "In conformity with freedom of expression, legal provision should be made to ensure that there is a minimum access to privately owned audiovisual media, with regard to the election campaign and to advertising, for all participants in elections. "
- "The question of funding, and in particular of the need for it to be transparent, will be considered later. Spending by political parties, particularly on advertising, may likewise be limited in order to guarantee equality of opportunity. "
- "Freedom of voters to form an opinion partly overlaps with equality of opportunity. It requires the state – and public authorities generally – to honour their duty of evenhandedness, particularly where the use of the mass media, billposting, the right to demonstrate on public thoroughfares and the funding of parties and candidates are concerned. "
- "The holding of democratic elections and hence the very existence of democracy are impossible without respect for human rights, particularly the freedom of expression and of the press and the freedom of assembly and association for political purposes, including the creation of political parties. Respect for these freedoms is vital particularly during election campaigns. Restrictions on these fundamental rights must comply with the European Convention on Human Rights and, more generally, with the requirement that they have a basis in law, are in the general interest and respect the principle of proportionality. "
- "The fact is that many countries have legal limitations on free speech, which, if restrictively interpreted, may just be acceptable – but may generate abuses in countries with no liberal, democratic tradition. In theory, they are intended to prevent “abuses” of free speech by ensuring, for example, that candidates and public authorities are not vilified, and even protecting the constitutional system. In practice, however, they may lead to the censoring of any statements which are critical of government or call for constitutional change, although this is the very essence of democratic debate. For example, European standards are violated by an electoral law which prohibits insulting or defamatory references to officials or other candidates in campaign documents, makes it an offence to circulate libellous information on candidates, and makes candidates themselves liable for certain offences committed by their supporters. The insistence that materials intended for use in election campaigns must be submitted to electoral commissions, indicating the organisation which ordered and produced them, the number of copies and the date of publication, constitutes an unacceptable form of censorship, particularly if electoral commissions are required to take action against illegal or inaccurate publications. This is even more true if the rules prohibiting improper use of the media during electoral campaigns are rather vague. "
- "According to a well-established principle of the Court’s case-law, there can be no democracy without pluralism. The Court considers one of the principal characteristics of democracy to be the possibility it offers for debate through dialogue, without recourse to violence, of issues raised by various tides of political opinion, even when they are troubling or disturbing. Democracy thrives on freedom of expression. It is for that reason that freedom of expression as enshrined in Article 10 is applicable, subject to paragraph 2, not only to “information” or “ideas” that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb (see, among many other authorities, Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 49, Series A no. 24, and Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 37, Series A no. 298). The fact that their activities form part of a collective exercise of freedom of expression in itself entitles political parties to seek the protection of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. (see United Communist Party of Turkey and Others, cited above, §§ 42 and 43). "
- "Free elections and the freedom of expression, particularly the freedom of political debate, form the foundation of any democratic system. Those two rights are interdependent and mutually reinforcing: for example, as the Court has found in the past, freedom of expression is one of the “conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature” (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt, cited above, § 54). That is why it is particularly important in the period preceding an election that opinions and information of all kinds are permitted to circulate freely (see The Communist Party of Russia and Others v. Russia, no. 29400/05, § 107, 19 June 2012). "
- "In certain circumstances the two rights may come into conflict and it may be considered necessary, in the period preceding or during an election, to place certain restrictions, of a type which would not usually be acceptable, on freedom of expression, in order to secure the “free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature”. The Court recognises that, in striking the balance between these two rights, the Contracting States have a margin of appreciation, as they do generally with regard to the organisation of their electoral systems (see Bowman, § 43, cited above). "
- "[Consider] signing and ratifying or acceding to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other core international human rights treaties. "
- "Tak[e] all necessary measures to eliminate laws, regulations and practices that discriminate, directly or indirectly, against citizens in their right to participate in public affairs on grounds of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, or on the basis of disability. "
- "Tak[e] proactive measures to eliminate all barriers in law and in practice that prevent or hinder citizens, in particular women, persons belonging to marginalized groups or minorities, persons with disabilities and persons in vulnerable situations, from participating fully in effectively in political and public affairs, including, inter alia, reviewing and repealing measures that unreasonably restrict the right to participate in public affairs, and considering adopting, on the basis of reliable data on participation, temporary special measure, including legislative acts, aimed at increasing the participation of underrepresented groups in all aspects of political and public life; "
- "The Committee notes that it is for the State party to show that the restriction on the author’s freedom of speech was necessary in the present case. Even if a State party may introduce a permit system aiming to strike a balance between an individual’s freedom of speech and the general interest in maintaining public order in a certain area, such a system must not operate in a way that is incompatible with article 19 of the Covenant. In the present case, the author made a public address on issues of public interest. On the evidence of the material before the Committee, there was no suggestion that the author’s address was either threatening, unduly disruptive or otherwise likely to jeopardise public order in the mall; indeed, police officers present, rather than seeking to curtail the author’s address, allowed him to proceed while videotaping him. The author delivered his speech without a permit. For this, he was fined and, when he failed to pay the fine, he was held in custody for five days. The Committee considers that the State party’s reaction in response to the author’s conduct was disproportionate and amounted to a restriction of the author’s freedom of speech which was not compatible with article 19, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. It follows that there was a violation of article 19, paragraph 2, of the Covenant. "
- "Limitations on contributions can be means to minimize the possibility of corruption or the purchasing of political influence."
- "Regulations may limit the overall monetary contribution an individual or a legal entity may make to a candidate/party (quantitative restrictions). Additionally, regulations may prohibit contributions from certain sources, such as foreign persons or organizations, legal entities, state bodies or public enterprises, or anonymous donations (qualitative restrictions)."
- "Limits (on contributions and spending) should be clearly defined in the law and be realistic to ensure that all electoral contestants are able to run an effective campaign, recognizing the cost of modern elections. It is good practice for limits to be indexed against inflation, rather than set as absolute amounts. "
- "Legislation can also regulate whether candidates and parties are entitled to spend their own private funds, and set a limit."
- "Democracy requires, in particular, the holding, at regular intervals, of free, fair and transparent elections, based on the respect and exercise, without any hindrance or discrimination, of the right to freedom and physical integrity for every voter and every candidate, the rights to freedom of opinion and expression, especially through the press and other communications media, freedom of assembly and demonstration, and freedom of association."
- "Limitations on contributions can be means to minimize the possibility of corruption or the purchasing of political influence."
- "Regulations may limit the overall monetary contribution an individual or a legal entity may make to a candidate/party (quantitative restrictions). Additionally, regulations may prohibit contributions from certain sources, such as foreign persons or organizations, legal entities, state bodies or public enterprises, or anonymous donations (qualitative restrictions)."
- "Limits (on contributions and spending) should be clearly defined in the law and be realistic to ensure that all electoral contestants are able to run an effective campaign, recognizing the cost of modern elections. It is good practice for limits to be indexed against inflation, rather than set as absolute amounts. "
- "Legislation can also regulate whether candidates and parties are entitled to spend their own private funds, and set a limit."
- "Third parties should be free to fundraise and express views on political issues as a means of free expression, and their activity should not be unconditionally prohibited. However, it is important that some form of regulation be extended to third parties that are involved in the campaign, to ensure transparency and accountability."
- "Democracy requires, in particular, the holding, at regular intervals, of free, fair and transparent elections, based on the respect and exercise, without any hindrance or discrimination, of the right to freedom and physical integrity for every voter and every candidate, the rights to freedom of opinion and expression, especially through the press and other communications media, freedom of assembly and demonstration, and freedom of association."
- "Against this background, the responsibility of social media platforms within the framework of current political / campaign finance regimes to ensure transparency and accountability of ad placement, expenditure and attribution in order to better inform citizens of the context in which electoral choices are being made, gains critical importance."
- "Two essential elements of the internet are its instantaneity and its interactivity, which significantly affect the time frame established for the realisation of the electoral campaign. It would be interesting to reconsider the concept of soliciting votes, a process which is divided between periods of pre-campaign (or permanent campaign) and campaign. Similarly, the expediency of distinguishing between financing of campaigns and financing of political parties appears questionable."
- "It is also necessary to address the issue of the ban of political campaigns during the day before the election, whose nature clashes with that of the internet as an asynchronous medium, in which content is permanent and accessible to everyone at all times, without political parties needing to take any action whatsoever: political events, messages, videos, propaganda, etc. from the entire campaign are available to the citizen, including the day before the election."
- "The principles of freedom of expression implying a robust public debate must be translated into the digital environment, in particular during electoral periods."
- "During electoral campaigns, a competent impartial electoral management body (EMB) or judicial body should be empowered to require private companies to remove clearly defined third-party content from the internet, based on electoral laws and in line with international standards."
- "During electoral periods, the open internet and net neutrality need to be protected."
- "Therefore, the Venice Commission has issued two recommendations which remain highly relevant and need to be implemented: - Revising rules and regulations on political advertising, in terms of access to the media (updating broadcasting quotas, limits and reporting categories, introducing new measures covering internet-based media, platforms and other services, addressing the implications of micro targeting) and in terms of spending (broadening of scope of communication channels covered by the relevant legislation, addressing the monitoring capacities of national authorities. "
- "Therefore, the Venice Commission has issued two recommendations which remain highly relevant and need to be implemented: - Ensuring accountability of internet intermediaries, in terms of transparency and access to data enhancing transparency of spending, specifically for political advertising. In particular, internet intermediaries should provide access to data on paid political advertising, so as to avoid facilitating illegal (foreign) involvement in elections, and to identify the categories of target audiences."
- "Measures such as the adoption of corporate digital ethics codes and of self-regulatory mechanisms to solve conflicts between companies and users would also allow greater regulatory flexibility for the benefit of the interests of users and companies, while depressurising the relationship with the government and promoting co-responsibility of online behaviours."
- "Member States should: (…) d. ensure that the various forms of hate crime, including acts of violence, hate speech and public incitement to hatred and violence, are prohibited under national law, and take measures to prevent and combat cases of hate crime and hate speech, in particular by carrying out effective investigations with the aim of ending impunity."
- "The European Parliament, (…) 3. Is deeply concerned that the closing down of civil society space in developing countries is being carried out in increasingly complex and sophisticated ways, which are harder to tackle and imposed through legislation, taxation, funding limitations, increased bureaucracy, reporting and banking requirements, the criminalisation and stigmatisation of CSO representatives, defamation, all forms of harassment, online repression and internet access limitations, censorship, arbitrary detention, gender-based violence, torture and assassination, in particular in conflict-stricken states; insists on the necessity of tackling governmental and non-governmental tactics of marginalising critical voices."
- "States have a positive obligation to foster a favourable environment for freedom of expression, offline and online, in which everyone can exercise their right to freedom of expression and participate in public debate effectively, irrespective of whether their views are received favourably by the State or others. Such an environment encompasses the rights to privacy and data protection, and the right to access information on issues of public interest held by public bodies that is necessary for the exercise of the right to freedom of expression."
- "National legislative and policy frameworks should safeguard the editorial independence and operational autonomy of all media to ensure that they can carry out their key tasks in a democratic society. These frameworks should be designed and implemented in a manner which prevents States, or any powerful political, economic, religious or other groups from acquiring dominance over and exerting pressure on the media."
- "The media should have the freedom and resources at all times to fulfil their task of providing accurate and reliable reporting on matters of public interest, in particular concerning vital democratic processes and activities, such as elections, referendums and public consultations on matters of general interest."
- "Diversity of media content can only be properly gauged when there are high levels of transparency about editorial and commercial content: media and other actors should adhere to the highest standards of transparency regarding the source of their content and always indicate clearly when content is provided by political sources or involves advertising or other forms of commercial communications, such as sponsoring and product placement. This also applies to hybrid forms of content, including branded content, native advertising, advertorials and infotainment."
- "States should adopt specific measures to protect the editorial independence and operational autonomy of public service media by limiting the influence of the State. The supervisory and management boards of public service media should be able to operate in a fully independent manner and the rules governing their composition and appointment procedures should be transparent and contain adequate checks and balances to ensure their independence."