Summary
Parties and candidates must be able to communicate their opinions to the electorate.
Obligations
Election Parts
Issues
Criteria
Quotes
- The States party to the Convention commit themselves to: g) facilitate formation of political parties and their free legal activity, to regulate in terms of legislation financing of political parties and the election process, to assure that the law and governmental policy provide for separation between the party and state, for conducting election campaigns in the atmosphere of freedom and fairness that allow parties and candidates to exercise a free expression of their views and assessments, election programmes (platforms), and allow voters to get acquainted with them, to discuss them and to vote for or against them freely, nor being afraid of penalty or any prosecution whatsoever.
- 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”.
- 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).
- Political parties and candidates should be able to freely express their campaign messages.
- The terms "genuine" and "meaningful" are standards used to evaluate other essential components in the campaign period, including: (1) the freedom and capacity candidates have to convey their programs to the voters.
- 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.
- Candidates must have the freedom to convey their programs to the voters without disruption of campaign meetings, and without geographic infringement imposed by government through ‘no-go areas.’
- The legal framework should ensure that each political party and candidate enjoys the right to freedom of expression and freedom of association, and has access to the electorate, and that all stakeholder in the election process have an equal chance of success.
- In order that elections shall be fair, States should take the necessary measures to ensure that parties and candidates enjoy reasonable opportunities to present their electoral platform.
- 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.