Lexploria

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

Menu

LINDSAY ET AL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

LINDSAY ET AL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

LEXI