McGuinness v. the United Kingdom (dec.)

Information Note on the Court’s case-law 7

June 1999

McGuinness v. the United Kingdom (dec.) - 39511/98

Decision 8.6.1999 [Section III]

Article 10

Article 10-1

Freedom of expression

Oath of allegiance to the monarch required from elected representatives to the House of Commons: inadmissible

The applicant was elected Member of Parliament (MP) for a constituency in Northern Ireland. He belonged to Sinn Féin, an Irish republican political party. In line with his party’s policy, he refused to take the oath of allegiance to the monarch, required of MPs before taking their seats. The Speaker of the House of Commons then decided that those who refused to comply with the oath requirement would as a consequence not be granted access to the services and facilities of the House of Commons. The applicant was accordingly prevented from taking his seat and barred from using the services and facilities afforded to MPs. His application for leave to appeal was turned down by the High Court of Justice of Northern Ireland and the discussions with the Speaker were to no avail.

Inadmissible under Article 10: Freedom of expression is of paramount importance for the elected representatives of the people, whose role is to represent their electorate, draw attention to their constituents’ concerns and defend their interests. On the other hand, the expression “the protection of the rights of others” should be interpreted as extending to the protection of the constitutional principles forming the basis of a democracy. In the present case, the requirement that elected representatives to the House of Commons take an oath of allegiance to the monarch could be viewed as an affirmation of loyalty to the constitutional principles which support the UK constitutional system - a constitutional monarchy - and as such could be construed as a reasonable condition. Moreover, the applicant voluntarily renounced his right to take his seat in the House of Commons in accordance with his political beliefs. Although he was denied access to services and facilities in the precincts of the House, nothing prevented him from expressing the views of his constituents and party in other contexts, including meetings outside the House of Commons with the participation of government ministers and MPs: manifestly ill-founded.

© 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