AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 40436/98
by New Horizons and others
against Cyprus
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 10 September 1998, the following members being present:
MMM.P. PELLONPÄÄ, President
N. BRATZA
E. BUSUTTIL
A. WEITZEL
C.L. ROZAKIS
MrsJ. LIDDY
MML. LOUCAIDES
B. MARXER
B. CONFORTI
I. BÉKÉS
G. RESS
A. PERENIČ
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
M. VILA AMIGÓ
MrsM. HION
MrR. NICOLINI
MrsM.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 23 February 1998 by New Horizons and others against Cyprus and registered on 25 March 1998 under file No. 40436/98;
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 first applicant is a political party which was formed in February 1996 in Nicosia. The remaining applicants, whose names appear in the Appendix, are members of its executive office and members of the party. In the proceedings before the Commission, the applicants are represented by Mr. Ch. Clerides, a lawyer practising in Nicosia.
A.Particular circumstances of the case
The applicant party, shortly after its formation, participated in the parliamentary elections of May 1996 fielding candidates for all seats in the House of Representatives. Most of the remaining applicants were among the party's candidates in these elections. The applicant party obtained around 1.7% of the vote. If it had obtained 200 votes more it would have gained a seat in the House.
The applicant party has since participated in local elections supporting independent candidates. In February 1998 it was invited by the newly elected President of the Republic to participate in a coalition government. It has observer status in the National Council, a consultative body composed of the leaders of the political parties.
On 3 July 1997 the Council of Ministers decided that the economic assistance granted by the Government to the political parties would remain as it was up to that date, i.e. 600,000 Cyprus pounds per year. It also approved an additional grant of 400,000 Cyprus pounds especially for the year 1997. According to the relevant decision of the Council of Ministers, this additional amount would be divided as the leaders of the political parties would agree, including the leaders of the political parties which were not represented in the House of Representatives. The Council of Ministers authorised the Minister of Finance to find and make available the necessary funds.
On 10 July 1997 the Minister of Finance introduced the Bill on Additional Economic Assistance to the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives considered the Bill following the urgent procedure and, after amending some parts, it adopted it on the last session of the parliamentary year. The amendment adopted by the House of Representatives was to the effect that only parties represented in Parliament had a right to the additional grant.
On 19 July 1997 the President of the applicant party, who is also an applicant, sent a letter to the President of the Republic complaining that the above-mentioned decision of the House of Representatives went against the Bill on Additional Economic Assistance and the introductory report of the Minister of Finance. It was clear that the Bill provided that the additional grant would be divided among all political parties, including those not represented in Parliament. The House of Representatives, by amending the Bill and deciding that the amount would be divided only among the parties represented in Parliament, altered the initial aim of the grant.
Furthermore, the President of the applicant party alleged in his letter that this amendment was against Article 167 para. 6 of the Constitution, which provided that the House of Representatives cannot approve an increase of expense or a change of its initial purpose. In addition, he alleged that the parties that were not represented in Parliament were entitled to a share of the sum of 600,000 Cyprus pounds that had already been distributed to the parties represented in Parliament, in order to cover the expenses of the parliamentary elections of 1996.
Finally, the President of the applicant party in his letter made reference to the constitutional right of the President of the Republic to send a law back to the House of Representatives for re-examination or to request the Supreme Court's opinion on whether a law was against the Constitution. He concluded that, if the law was published in the Official Gazette, the applicant party reserved the right to use "its rights under the Constitution".
This letter was notified to the President of the House of Representatives, to the Attorney-General of the Republic, to the Minister of Finance, to the leaders of all the other political parties, to the General Director of the House of Representatives and to the Secretary of the Council of Ministers.
On 22 July 1997 the President of the Republic informed by letter the President of the applicant party that he had already signed the law in question on 17 July 1997, i.e. before receiving his letter of complaint. He also informed him that, before deciding whether he should request the Supreme Court's opinion on the constitutionality of the law, he would consult the Attorney-General.
On 25 July 1997 the Law on Additional Economic Assistance was published in the Official Gazette.
On 18 December 1997 the Minister of Finance informed the President of the applicant party that it had been the Government's intention that the law in question should also cover parties that were not represented in Parliament. However, the House of Representatives amended the law without seeking the Government's consent. Consequently, there was nothing that the Government could do at that stage to change the decision of the House of Representatives. It was up to the applicant party to take any measures it considered necessary to defend its rights.
On 23 January 1998 the law on the budget for 1998 was published in the Official Gazette. According to it, a party must have secured at least 3% of the votes in the last parliamentary election to be eligible for Government aid.
The applicants have not taken any other measures against the decision of the House of Representatives because none appeal or remedy is available.
B.Relevant domestic law and practice
According to the electoral system in Cyprus, a party or candidate must obtain at least 1.7% of the votes to win a seat in Parliament.
For a long period of time before the creation of the applicant party, the State gave economic assistance to all political parties whether represented in the House of Representatives or not.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 taken on its own and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention that they have been deprived without any valid reason of economic assistance by the State, although such assistance is given to all other political parties. As a result, they have become indebted because the applicant party can only rely on the contributions of its members and friends.
Moreover, according to the applicants, lack of economic assistance by the State creates conditions which fail to ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people since the financially stronger parties can spend millions of pounds adulterating and\or formulating public opinion.
THE LAW
1.The applicants complain under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 taken on its own and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention that they have been deprived without any valid reason of economic assistance by the State, although such assistance is given to all other political parties.
The Commission notes that the applicants complain of two distinct measures first, a law distributing the additional grant of 400,000 Cyprus pounds for the year 1997 among parties that were at the time represented in Parliament and secondly, a subsequent law making future State financial assistance dependent on a party having secured at least 3% of the vote in the last parliamentary election.
As regards the first complaint, the Commission recalls that the law in question was signed by the President of the Republic before 22 July 1997. It was published in the Official Gazette on 25 July 1997. The application was lodged on 23 February 1998.
As a result, even assuming that it was not possible for the applicants to challenge this law domestically, the Commission considers that this part of the application has not been lodged with the six-month time-limit provided for under Article 26 of the Convention. It follows that it must be rejected in accordance with Article 27 para. 3 of the Convention.
2.As regards the applicants' second complaint concerning the law making future State financial assistance dependent on a party having secured at least 3% of the vote in the last parliamentary election the Commission recalls that neither the Convention nor its Protocols guarantee a right for political parties and their members to receive financial assistance from the State.
However, according to the Convention organs' case-law, Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, which provides that "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" implies a subjective right to stand for election (Eur. Court HR, Gitonas and Others v. Greece judgment of 1 July 1997, Reports 1997-IV, p. 1233, para. 37). Moreover, according to the same case-law, the phrase "conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature" in Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 implies essentially the right of equality of treatment of all citizens in the exercise of their right to vote and their right to stand for election (Eur. Court HR, Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 113, p. 24, para. 54). Finally, Article 14 of the Convention provides that "the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."
The Commission, therefore, considers that, on the one hand, Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, taken on its own or together with Article 14 of the Convention, implies certain limits on the power of States to decide how existing funds for the financial assistance of political parties will be distributed.
On the other hand, the Commission has considered that electoral norms that seek to promote sufficiently representative currents of thought are legitimate (No. 11123/84, Dec. 9.12.87, D.R. 54, p. 52). For this reason, a rule whereby lists that did not secure at least 5% of the votes cast were disregarded in the apportionment of seats was found by the Commission to be compatible with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (ibid). By analogy, the Commission considers that limiting financial assistance to parties that have obtained a certain percentage of the votes in the last election can be seen as serving a similarly legitimate objective.
The Commission, of course, notes that, although in Cyprus parties are required to obtain 1.7% of the votes to gain a seat in Parliament, they are required to have obtained 3% of the votes in the last elections to obtain State financial assistance. However, the applicant party cannot complain of this state of affairs since it obtained less than 1.7% in the last parliamentary elections and is not, as a result, represented in Parliament.
Moreover, although the applicants allege that the applicant party is the only party not to receive State assistance in Cyprus, the Commission notes that they have not demonstrated that the aim of the rules concerning such assistance was to exclude them from the political process. Nor have they demonstrated that other parties which have obtained the same number of votes as the applicant party or less continue to receive State financial assistance.
In these circumstances, the Commission considers that, even assuming that it was not possible for the applicants to challenge the law on the budget of 1998 domestically, no appearance of a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 taken on its own or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention is disclosed. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded in accordance with Article 27 para. 2 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
M.F. BUQUICCHIO M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
SecretaryPresident
to the First Chamberof the First Chamber
A P P E N D I X
Nikos Koutsou, President of the applicant party
Stratos Panayides, Vice-President of the applicant party
Stelios Americanos, General Secretary of the applicant party
Giorghios Xanthouthakis, General Manager of the applicant party
Nikos Kouloundis, member of the applicant party
George Potamitis, member of the applicant party
Maria Rossides, member of the applicant party
Christos Constantinou, member of the applicant party
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy