Communicated on 14 September 2017

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 36895/11 Krzysztof KUCHTA against Poland lodged on 19 April 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Krzysztof Kuchta , is a Polish national who was born in 1975 and lives in Rzeszów .

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant is a journalist. Prior to the local elections ( wybory samorzÄ… dowe ) of 21 November 2010 the applicant intended to create a voters ’ electoral committee ( Komitet Wyborczy Wyborców – hereinafter “the VEC”) with the aim of proposing candidates for local councils. It appears that the applicant disagreed with the actions of 71-year-old Tadeusz Ferenc , who had been the mayor of Rzeszów since 2002. Mr Ferenc was re ‑ elected in the 2010 elections and has remained mayor to date.

On 4 October 2010 the applicant lodged a notification of creation of a voters ’ electoral committee called “Here Comes Rysiek to Tadek ” ( Przychodzi Rysiek do Tadka ).

On 6 October 2010 the Rzeszów Electoral Commissioner ( Komisarz Wyborczy ) decided that the applicant should change the name of the VEC. The decision stated as follows:

“The provisions of the Local Elections Act concerning names of electoral committees are to ensure that [the name of the committee] allows voters to identify it. The name of the committee usually refers to the name of a town or a candidate whom the VEC is supporting or whose programme it is endorsing. The terms most often used in names are: responsibility, independent, revival, development, consent, future.

The abbreviation of the name of the committee, in addition to fulfilling statutory requirements, must unequivocally allow voters to identify the committee because it will appear on electoral advertising and on the ballot paper.

The name of the electoral committee “Here Comes Rysiek to Tadek voters ’ electoral committee” and the abbreviation “Here Comes Rysiek to Tadek VEC” do not fulfil those requirements.

If the mistake is not corrected within the given time-limit the Rzeszów Electoral Commissioner will refuse to accept the notification of formation of the VEC.”

On 11 October 2010 the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision. He contested the legal basis of the Commissioner ’ s interpretation of the legal requirements for the names of VECs. The applicant submitted that the law prohibited the use of names of existing political parties; however, the name did not need to allow the identification of a committee by voters. He pointed to other examples of local committees with names like “Young Falcon”, “Without you I got no chance”, “On a Jazz Note” and “Perspective”.

On 15 October 2010 the Rzeszó w Electoral Commissioner refused to accept the notification of formation of the VEC. In general, the commissioner stated that the applicant had failed to change the name of the VEC in spite of his request of 6 October 2010.

On 18 October 2010 the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision. He submitted that his right to participate in elections had been violated and that the refusal to register the VEC had been arbitrary. The applicant considered that the commissioner ’ s interpretation had not had a basis in domestic law and underlined the particular context of elections in a democracy, which justified stronger forms of expression.

On 20 October 2010 the Rzeszów Regional Court dismissed the appeal. The decision contained no reasons.

The applicant applied to the court, asking it to prepare written reasons for its decision; on 25 October 2010 the Rzeszów Regional Court rejected the application as not provided for by law.

B. Relevant domestic law

Section 64f of the Elections to Municipal Councils, District Councils and Regional Assemblies Act ( Ordynacj a wyborcz a do rad gmin , rad powiatów i sejmików województw ) (“the Local Elections Act”) provides in so far as relevant:

“1. At least five citizens who have full voting rights may create a voters ’ electoral committee by giving written notification of the creation of the committee, giving their names, surnames, addresses and PESEL identification numbers.

2. A voters ’ electoral committee elects:

1) a representative ...

2) a financial representative ...

4. After having collected twenty signatures of citizens with full voting rights who support the creation of the committee, the committee ’ s representative notifies the relevant electoral commissioner of the creation of the committee ...”

Section 64g( 4) provides, in so far as relevant:

“The name of the voters ’ electoral committee, in addition to the words “voters ’ electoral committee” shall include a description which allows it to be distinguished from other committees.”

Se ction 64g( a) provides as follows:

“4. An abbreviation of the name of the voters ’ electoral committee may include the words “voters ’ electoral committee” or the abbreviation “VEC” and a description as provided in section 64g(4), or its abbreviation, which is different to other names and abbreviations of other committees.

5. An abbreviation of the electoral committee may consist of a maximum of forty characters, including spaces.”

Section 64g( b) provided as follows, in so far as relevant:

“1. The name, abbreviation and graphic symbol of an electoral committee are legally protected as personal rights.

2. ... An abbreviation of the name of the voters ’ electoral committee must be different from the name or abbreviation of any political party or organisation which is registered in a relevant court ’ s register.”

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention of the authorities ’ arbitrary refusal to register his electoral committee. He submits that the interference was not in accordance with the law as the only requirement of the domestic law for the names of VECs was that the name should be different from the names of other committees or political parties. Contrary to the commissioner ’ s view the law did make it obligatory that the name enabled voters to identify a committee. The applicant gives the following examples of VECs registered in different parts of Poland: “Berks and Dwarfs” ( Gamonie i Krasnoludki ), “Pink Piglets” ( Różowe Świnki ), “Black Hawk” ( Czarny Jastrząb ). Moreover, the Regional Court was not required to prepare written reasons for its decision and the appeal against the Commissioner ’ s decision had to be lodged within three days.

The applicant complains that he was prevented from actively participating in the local elections and the surrounding debate. The refusal to register the committee breached his right to express opinions critical of the mayor of Rzeszów .

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to freedom of expression contrary to Article 10 of the Convention? In particular, regard being had to the refusal to register the Voters Electoral Committee on the grounds of its name, and the lack of reasons given in the court ’ s decision, was the alleged interference with the applicant ’ s freedom of expression prescribe d by law in terms of Article 10 § 2?