Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 2
January 1999
Cheminade v. France (dec.) - 31599/96
Decision 26.1.1999
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1
Possessions
Verification of electoral expenses in presidential campaign: inadmissible
The applicant, who had collected the required 500 signatures from elected representatives, entered as a candidate in the 1995 presidential elections in France. The Constitutional Council accepted his candidature and paid him an advance of one million francs on the amount repayable on his election expenses. The applicant obtained 0.28% of the votes cast. He submitted his campaign accounts, showing that his election expenses amounted to just over FRF 4 700 000. The applicable legislation stipulates that a sum equal to 8% of the maximum refundable amount shall be reimbursed, as a lump sum, to each candidate who fails to obtain more than 5% of the total number of votes cast during the first round. This reimbursement cannot, however, exceed the total amount of the candidate’s expenses. The Constitutional Council rejected the candidate’s election expenses on the grounds that 21 of the loans granted to him had been concluded after the statutory time-limit for collecting funds and did not mention interest rates, which meant that they could be regarded as donations. The applicant therefore did not obtain the reimbursement of his expenses and was ordered to refund the one million francs paid to him in advance by the State. The Treasury had an attachment order drawn up with a view to the sale of his movable property and issued two orders for the attachment of sums in his bank accounts. He complains of the unfairness of the proceedings, discriminatory infringement of his freedom of expression and infringement of his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.
Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1: Proceedings under election law do not fall within the scope of this provision and, in the instant case, the aim of the proceedings complained of was to verify the lawfulness of the applicant’s election expenses. The right to stand for election is a political not a civil right and disputes concerning election expenses regulations fall outside the scope of this article. The possible pecuniary repercussions of proceedings concerning the conditions under which a political right can be exercised do not confer a civil character on such proceedings: incompatible ratione materiae.
Inadmissible under Articles 10 and 14: The applicant was given every opportunity to set forth his ideas to his fellow citizens and was able to avail himself of the freedom of expression to which he was entitled. There was no infringement of this freedom as, on the contrary, the French state takes positive measures to enable all citizens who wish to stand for election to the presidency to do so: the relevant legislation stipulates that election expenses shall be met from public funds, even in the case of candidates who obtain less than 5% of the vote. In refusing to reimburse the applicant’s election expenses, the Constitutional Court did not seek to penalise the applicant but to verify compliance with the rules concerning the financing of election campaigns. There was therefore no interference in the applicant’s right to freedom of expression: manifestly ill-founded.
Inadmissible under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: The law which provides for the financing of election expenses from public funds cannot be interpreted as making the applicant a creditor of the state, as its provisions are perfectly clear: expenses are only reimbursed to candidates whose election expenses are approved by the Constitutional Council. Proceedings in which the state, as a creditor, seeks to obtain reimbursement of a sum which has been wrongly received do not constitute interference in the debtor’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his/her possessions, as a debt does not constitute a "possession". The same line of reasoning can be applied to reimbursement by the applicant of the personal loan he took out and the various other loans granted to him: incompatible ratione materiae.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy