AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 31699/96
by Kennedy J. LINDSAY et al.
against the United Kingdom
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 17 January 1997, the following members being present:
Mrs. J. LIDDY, President
MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
E. BUSUTTIL
A. WEITZEL
L. LOUCAIDES
B. MARXER
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
M. VILA AMIGÓ
Mrs. M. HION
Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 14 April 1996 by
Kennedy J. LINDSAY et al. against the United Kingdom and registered on
3 June 1996 under file No. 31699/96;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are six British subjects. They all live in
Northern Ireland. Further details are set out in the Annex attached
to the present decision. Before the Commission they all are
represented by the first applicant. The facts of the present
application, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as
follows.
On 30 May 1996 elections were held in Northern Ireland for the
purpose of providing delegates from among whom participants in all-
party negotiations in Northern Ireland could be drawn.
The legal basis for these elections was provided by the Northern
Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc.) Act 1996 ("the Act"). The
elections were held on the basis of lists submitted by a "nominating
representative" on behalf of the participating parties. The
participating parties were listed in a schedule drawn up by the
Government and which formed part of the Act. The schedule included
parties which had secured significant support at parliamentary
elections or elections to the European Parliament, or which had been
closely involved in consultations with the Government on the political
process. A prerequisite for participation in these elections was an
established commitment by a party to exclusively peaceful methods.
The schedule gave rise to a certain amount of controversy, as the
concept of choosing parties was not considered democratic by the press.
The Government subsequently amended the initial list by adding to it
several independent candidates and the British Ulster Unionist Party,
with which the first applicant is associated.
Section 3 of the Act provides as follows:
"(1) The delegates returned in accordance with Schedule 1
shall constitute a forum for the discussion of issues
relevant to promoting dialogue and understanding within
Northern Ireland.
(2) The functions of the forum shall be deliberative only.
(3) Accordingly the forum shall not have any legislative,
executive or administrative functions, or any power to
determine the conduct, course or outcome of the
negotiations mentioned in Section 1."
The forum will function until the end of May 1997. The Secretary
of State may, however, by order provide for it to continue or to come
into force again until a time not later than the end of May 1998.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain that due to the Government's list of
parties which are allowed to take part in the elections, part of the
electorate have their vote devalued or even made worthless, because the
parties representing their views have been excluded from the list.
They consider that this exclusion results in a violation of the
principle of universal suffrage and the right of each voter to equal
respect and dignity. Therefore they allege a violation of Article 3
of the Convention. They also complain that parties excluded from
participation in the elections are deprived of the possibility of
sending election-related political literature free of charge by means
of the state owned postal service, and are debarred from expressing
their political views in special radio and television programmes. The
applicants consider that this constitutes a violation of Article 10 of
the Convention. The applicants also consider that exclusion of certain
political parties from taking part in the elections constitutes a
violation of Article 11 of the Convention.
The applicants contend that the insistence of the Government on
commitment of the participating parties to the "six principles of
democracy and non-violence set out in the Mitchell report" is
discriminatory. They claim that the contents of this document are
controversial and reference to it shows the Government's strong
political motivation in the arrangements for the elections. Therefore
the applicants allege that Article 14 of the Convention is violated.
Finally the applicants argue that the body elected will function
as a legislature and that the above-mentioned list of parties and other
alleged procedural irregularities will result in breach of Article 3
of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
THE LAW
1. The applicants claim to represent "more than one million people
in Northern Ireland who are qualified to vote in [these elections]".
The Commission recalls that Convention does not provide for any
"actio popularis" (see, for example, No. 6742/74, Dec. 10.7.75, D.R. 3,
p. 98). Alleged violations of the Convention can be examined only so
far as they could possibly affect the individual rights of the
applicants.
It follows that, insofar as the applicants claim to act on behalf
of other electors, this part of the application is incompatible ratione
personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of
Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
2. The applicants allege a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1
(P1-3) to the Convention in connection with the elections to the forum
set up under the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Act
1996. Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-3) provides as follows:
"The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections
at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, 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 (P1-3) applies only to elections to
bodies which fall to be regarded as the legislature; the word
"legislature" has to be interpreted in the light of the constitutional
structure of the State in question (see Eur. Court HR, Mathieu-Mohin
and Clarfayt v. Belgium judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 113, p.
23, para. 53).
In the present case, the forum which was set up by the Act has
no legislative powers. Its function is expressed to be purely
deliberative - that is, it is a body in which discussions take place,
but which has no power to promulgate any form of binding norm or
decision at all. The Commission finds nothing in any of the
applicants' submissions which could indicate that in reality the forum
has specific legislative powers. In particular, even if, as a result
of negotiations in that forum, draft proposals are eventually submitted
to the parliaments of Ireland and the United Kingdom, any resultant
legislation will be the fruit of those bodies' deliberations and the
exercise of their functions, and not of any legislative powers of the
forum.
It follows that this part of the application is incompatible
ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the
meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
3. The applicants also allege violations of Articles 10, 11 and 14
(Art. 10, 11, 14) of the Convention, in that the exclusion of certain
parties from the elections to the forum prevents those parties from
benefitting from the postal regime applicable to parties which do
participate, in that the exclusion is tantamount to suspension of those
parties, and in that the exclusion of certain parties was
discriminatory.
The Commission considers that the bulk of the applicants'
complaints depend on the premise that the elections to the forum are
full elections to a legislative body. The Commission has found at
para. 1 above that the forum is not such a legislative body.
In any event in accordance with Article 25 (Art. 25) of the
Convention, the Commission may only receive applications from persons
claiming to be victims of alleged violations of the Convention.
In the present case, none of the applicants is a party excluded
from the elections, and the only link with any such party to which
reference has been made is the "association" of the first applicant
with the British Ulster Unionist Party, which was eventually included
in the list of participants in the elections. The Commission has not
been given any information which could indicate that any of the
applicants has been subjected to discriminatory treatment in the
enjoyment of his Convention rights, or at all.
Accordingly, the Commission finds that none of the applicants may
claim to be a victim of a violation of Articles 10, 11 and 14
(Art. 10, 11, 14) of the Convention.
It follows that this part of the application is incompatible
ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention, within the
meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
4. Finally, the applicants allege a violation of Article 3 (Art. 3)
of the Convention.
The Commission finds no appearance of a violation of this
provision.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-
founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY
Secretary President
to the First Chamber of the First Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy