Information Note on the Court’s case-law 22

September 2000

Malarde v. France (dec.) - 46813/99

Decision 5.9.2000 [Section III]

Article 3 of Protocol No. 1

Choice of the legislature

Candidate in elections to the Regional Council claiming not to have had sufficient time to express his views: inadmissible

Article 35

Article 35-1

Exhaustion of domestic remedies

Candidate in elections complaining of a breach of h is right to freedom of expression but having brought proceedings only in the context of the election: inadmissible

The applicant was the head of a list of candidates for election as members of the Brittany Regional Council in March 1998. His list obtained 1.82 % of the vote. Considering that the sole regional public television channel, France 3, had shown favouritism to the heads of the lists presented by the two main national parties by allocating them far more screen time than him, the applicant applied t o the administrative court for an order setting aside the elections and for compensation from France 3 for the damage sustained by his list, which, as it had not obtained 5 % of the vote, had not been reimbursed any of its campaign expenses. The Conseil d’ État , the court with jurisdiction for disputes concerning regional elections, dismissed that application on 30 December 1998 on the ground that although the channel had failed to comply with its statutory obligations as it had afforded the applicant less s creen time than the candidates of the other two parties, nonetheless, in view of the difference in the number of votes received by the parties, that failure had not affected the validity of the results. The Higher Audiovisual Authority informed the applica nt in March 1999 that it did not intend to impose any penalty on France 3.

Inadmissible under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, taken alone or together with Article 14 – in France, the legislative function was exercised by Parliament and the powers of the regio nal councils were limited to regulating, through deliberations, the economic, social, health, cultural and scientific affairs of the region. Accordingly and in any event, Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, which only applies to the election of the legislative bo dy, was inapplicable in the case before the Court. Consequently, Article 14 could not be relied on in conjunction with that provision either: incompatible ratione materiae .

Inadmissible under Article 10, taken alone or together with Article 14 – the proceedings brought by the applicant concerned elections. However, in order to exhaust domestic remedies with regard to the complaint under Article 10, taken alone or together with Article 14 , the applicant should have issued proceedings in the administrative courts against France 3 on the ground that it had infringed his right to freedom of expression and had discriminated against him in the enjoyment of that right: non-exhaustion.

© 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