JOINT CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGES PETTITI, Lopes rocha AND CASADEVALl

( Translation )

1. We voted with the majority and entirely agree with the Court’s decision.

2. We are, however, unable to concur in its finding in paragraph 47 of the judgment that section 75 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 operated, for all practical purposes, as a total barrier to Mrs Bowman’s publishing “information with a view to influencing the voters of Halifax in favour of an anti-abortion candidate”.

It is implicit in that statement that the Court considered from its construction of the leaflet published by the applicant that she had contravened the statute prohibiting expenditure incurred “with a view to promoting or procuring the election of a candidate”.

3. Section 75 does not prohibit the publication of facts or comment for the information of the general public.

4. In our opinion, the first four lines of paragraph 47 should have said no more than that the leaflet was “intended to inform the voters of Halifax of the probable intentions of the candidates with regard to the abortion issue”.

PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE VALTICOS

( Translation )

I cannot accept that the fact that the British electoral system restricts the expenditure “unauthorised” persons may incur in promoting or prejudicing the chances of a particular candidate in the period leading up to an election amounts to a breach of the Convention. While, admittedly, a theoretical weakness of that provision – which is intended to prevent powerful individuals or bodies undermining the fairness of elections or unduly influencing voters’ opinions – is that it precludes payment of even small amounts, the fact is that in the present case the amount concerned was very large since it was enough for one and a half million leaflets.

There is something slightly ridiculous in seeking to give the British Government lessons in how to hold elections and run a democracy; above all, it is wrong to seek the repeal of a provision aimed at precluding a person, other than a member of political parties, from influencing the way people vote and – as Mr Martínez rightly noted in his dissenting opinion annexed to the Commission’s report – at preventing candidates with substantial financial resources ultimately gaining an advantage over other less well-off candidates.

Accordingly, I am unable to concur in the judgment as regards the finding of a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.