Information Note on the Court’s case-law 22
September 2000
Malarde v. France (dec.) - 46813/99
Decision 5.9.2000 [Section III]
Article 3 of Protocol No. 1
Choice of the legislature
Candidate in elections to the Regional Council claiming not to have had sufficient time to express his views: inadmissible
Article 35
Article 35-1
Exhaustion of domestic remedies
Candidate in elections complaining of a breach of his right to freedom of expression but having brought proceedings only in the context of the election: inadmissible
The applicant was the head of a list of candidates for election as members of the Brittany Regional Council in March 1998. His list obtained 1.82 % of the vote. Considering that the sole regional public television channel, France 3, had shown favouritism to the heads of the lists presented by the two main national parties by allocating them far more screen time than him, the applicant applied to the administrative court for an order setting aside the elections and for compensation from France 3 for the damage sustained by his list, which, as it had not obtained 5 % of the vote, had not been reimbursed any of its campaign expenses. The Conseil d’État, the court with jurisdiction for disputes concerning regional elections, dismissed that application on 30 December 1998 on the ground that although the channel had failed to comply with its statutory obligations as it had afforded the applicant less screen time than the candidates of the other two parties, nonetheless, in view of the difference in the number of votes received by the parties, that failure had not affected the validity of the results. The Higher Audiovisual Authority informed the applicant in March 1999 that it did not intend to impose any penalty on France 3.
Inadmissible under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, taken alone or together with Article 14 – in France, the legislative function was exercised by Parliament and the powers of the regional councils were limited to regulating, through deliberations, the economic, social, health, cultural and scientific affairs of the region. Accordingly and in any event, Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, which only applies to the election of the legislative body, was inapplicable in the case before the Court. Consequently, Article 14 could not be relied on in conjunction with that provision either: incompatible ratione materiae.
Inadmissible under Article 10, taken alone or together with Article 14 – the proceedings brought by the applicant concerned elections. However, in order to exhaust domestic remedies with regard to the complaint under Article 10, taken alone or together with Article 14, the applicant should have issued proceedings in the administrative courts against France 3 on the ground that it had infringed his right to freedom of expression and had discriminated against him in the enjoyment of that right: non-exhaustion.
© 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