Information Note on the Court’s case-law 90

October 2006

Parti nationaliste basque – Organisation régionale d’Iparralde v. France (dec.) - 71251/01

Decision 5.10.2006 [Section I]

Article 11

Article 11-1

Freedom of association

Political party prohibited from receiving funds from a foreign legal entity representing its main source of funding: admissible

Article 10

Article 10-1

Freedom of expression

Poli tical party prohibited from receiving funds from a foreign legal entity representing its main source of funding: admissible

The applicant party is the French “branch” of the EAJ-PNB, a political party under Spanish law whose aim is to defend and promote Ba sque nationalism. In order to be allowed to receive funds, in particular from the EAJ-PNB, the applicant party formed a funding association in accordance with the 1988 Law on financial transparency in political life. In 1998 it applied to the National Comm ission on Election Campaign Accounts and Political Funding (the CCFP) to obtain approval for the association. The Commission refused the request, arguing that the above-mentioned Law prohibited the funding of a political party by a foreign legal entity and that in view of the unlawful nature of the funding, which made up most of the applicant party’s resources, the party could not have a funding association approved under the legislation. The CCFP also dismissed a subsequent request by the applicant party t o reconsider its decision. The party then applied to the Conseil d’Etat to have the decision set aside. In its ruling, the Conseil d’Etat referred in particular to the ban on any foreign legal entity funding a French political party. In response to the gro und of appeal submitted by the applicant to the effect that the applicable law was incompatible with Article 10 of the Convention, the Conseil d’Etat ruled that the legislature, in prohibiting foreign States and foreign legal entities from providing fundin g to French political parties, had sought to prevent the creation of links of dependency which might be prejudicial to national sovereignty; that aim was consistent with the “prevention of disorder” within the meaning of Article 10(2) of the Convention.

Admissible under Articles 10 and 11 taken separately and in combination: While the applicant party had omitted to refer to Article 11 of the Convention at the domestic level, it had relied expressly on Article 10. The two provisions were closely linked, in particular in the case of political parties, as the protection of opinions and the freedom to express them for the purposes of Article 10 were among the objectives of the freedom of assembly and association enshrined in Article 11. In addition, the applic ant party had contended before the Conseil d’Etat , among other arguments, that the ban on the funding of French political parties by a political party from a European Union Member State constituted a serious impediment to the development of a democratic so ciety. The party had also clearly highlighted the fact that the funding from the Spanish Basque nationalist party was crucial to its operation, and had argued that the ban in question was in breach of Community law. Finally, on a more general note, the iss ue of the funding of the applicant party’s political activities had been central to the domestic proceedings. Accordingly, respect for the rights guaranteed by Article 11 had been at issue – if only implicitly – at the domestic level; the legal arguments a dvanced by the applicant party at that stage had included a complaint linked to those rights and the applicant had relied, at least in substance, on the complaint it raised before the Court. As the respondent State had therefore had the opportunity of prov iding redress for the violation alleged before the Court, their objection based on failure to exhaust domestic remedies had to be dismissed.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click her e for the Case-Law Information Notes