The restriction on local government officers and other against some political activities were not an infringement of their human rights and fell within the requirements for free expression and for free elections
‘The Court recalls that in its above-mentioned Vogt judgment (pp. 25-26, – 52) it articulated as follows the basic principles laid down in its judgments concerning Article 10:
(i) Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and each individual’s self-fulfilment. Subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10, it is applicable not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb; such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no ‘democratic society’. Freedom of expression, as enshrined in Article 10, is subject to a number of exceptions which, however, must be narrowly interpreted and the necessity for any exceptions must be convincingly established.
(ii) The adjective ‘necessary’, within the meaning of Article 10 – 2 implies the existence of a ‘pressing social need’. The Contracting States have a certain margin of appreciation in assessing whether such a need exists, but it goes hand in hand with a European supervision, embracing both the law and the decisions applying it, even those given by independent courts. The Court is therefore empowered to give the final ruling on whether a ‘restriction’ is reconcilable with freedom of expression as protected by Article 10.
(iii) The Court’s task, in exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, is not to take the place of the competent national authorities but rather to review under Article 10 the decisions they delivered pursuant to their power of appreciation. This does not mean that the supervision is limited to ascertaining whether the respondent State exercised its discretion reasonably, carefully or in good faith; what the Court has to do is to look at the interference complained of in the light of the case as a whole and determine whether it is ‘proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued’ and whether the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify it are ‘relevant and sufficient’. In so doing, the Court has to satisfy itself that the national authorities applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 and, moreover, that they based their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts.’
Citations:
Times 02-Oct-1998, 22954/93, [1998] ECHR 78
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 10, Local Government Officers (Political Restrictions) Regulations 1990
Citing:
Approved – Vogt v Germany ECHR 1-Nov-1995
The German courts construed a teacher’s duty of loyalty as absolute and owed equally by every civil servant, regardless of his or her function and rank under national law. Every civil servant, whatever his or her own opinion on the matter, must . .
Cited by:
Cited – Lord Carlile and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 16-Mar-2012
The claimant had invited an Iranian dissident to speak in Parliament, and now challenged the decision of the Home Secretary to refuse her a visa on the basis that her exclusion was not conducive to the public good. She was a member of an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Local Government, Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165668