European Court of Human Rights
2 September 1998
Facts
The applicants are British citizens who were employed in various local authorities. Their complaints arose from the implementation of “Regulations”, which are legislative measures designed to limit the involvement of certain categories of local government officials in political activities which could impair their impartiality. These regulations applied to all persons holding a politically restricted post as defined in the legislation. For example, one of the applicants was obliged to withdraw his candidature for election as a result of these measures.
Complaint
The applicants complained that the Regulations constituted an unjustified interference with their rights to freedom of expression.
Court’s ruling
The Court found that there had been an interference with the applicants’ rights under Article 10, which was prescribed by law and followed the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of others and ensuring the effectiveness of political democracy at the local level. The Court noted that the Regulations addressed an identified pressing social need to strengthen the tradition of senior officers’ political neutrality. The Court therefore found that the adoption of restrictions to participation of senior officers in defined forms of political activity fell within the State’s margin of appreciation. The Court added that the restrictions imposed on the applicants did not lack proportionality because they were only applied to carefully defined categories of senior officers whose political impartiality was important. Also, the restrictions only concerned activities, speech or writing of a politically partisan nature which would link senior officers with a particular political line in the eyes of the public. The Court therefore concluded that there was no violation of Article 10.