Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v Belgium
Article 3 of Protocol No 1 guarantees individual rights to vote and stand for election, but states have a wide margin of appreciation in choosing their electoral systems.
Facts
Two French speaking politicians, elected to the Belgian parliament for a constituency in the Flemish region, complained that, under the Belgian constitutional arrangements, they could not take part in the Flemish Council, which legislated for the region, because they had taken the parliamentary oath in French. They argued that this breached the right to free elections under article 3 of Protocol No 1, read with article 14.
Legal principle
The European Court of Human Rights held that there had been no violation. The court said that article 3 of Protocol No 1 implies subjective rights, the right to vote and the right to stand for election to the legislature, but that these rights are not absolute and states may impose conditions on them, provided that they do not curtail the rights to such an extent as to impair their very essence and deprive them of their effectiveness, that they are imposed in pursuit of a legitimate aim, and that the means employed are not disproportionate. States have a wide margin of appreciation in choosing their electoral system, and the Belgian arrangements, which reflected the country's linguistic divisions, were within it.
Related cases on discrimination, property, education and elections (article 14 and the Protocols)
- Ali v Head Teacher and Governors of Lord Grey School [2006] UKHL 14, [2006] 2 AC 363
- Belgian Linguistic Case (No 2) (1979) 1 EHRR 252
- Burden v United Kingdom (2008) 47 EHRR 38
- DH v Czech Republic (2008) 47 EHRR 3
- Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2) (2006) 42 EHRR 41
- JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v United Kingdom (2008) 46 EHRR 45
- James v United Kingdom (1986) 8 EHRR 123
- Moohan v Lord Advocate [2014] UKSC 67, [2015] AC 901
Studying human rights law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
