Previous 6 / 6 Next

22. The Chamber agrees with the Minister of Justice that even though standing as a candidate in an election is not a candidate’s business or professional activity within the meaning of the Acts regulating economic and professional activity, it is nonetheless one of the main tools for a candidate’s political activity (e.g. standing as a candidate, political awareness-raising, communicating with voters and regional organisations or a political party). Therefore, in the opinion of the Chamber, political activities by a political party or a candidate on its list and by an independent candidate should also be interpreted as business or professional activity within the meaning of § 2(2) cl. 4) of the AdA. Thus, systematic interpretation of § 2(2) cl. 4) of the AdA and § 51 of the REA excludes marking a vehicle used in a politician’s professional activity with their name, contact details, trade mark, domain name and area of activity from the prohibition on political outdoor advertising. 23. On the basis of the foregoing, by interpreting § 51 of the REA and § 2(2) cl. 4) of the AdA in combination, the Chamber concludes that the prohibition on political outdoor advertising did not extend to the vehicle used by A. Talvik, and § 51 of the REA did not prohibit marking that vehicle with the information indicated in the PBGB precept. On the basis of the foregoing, § 51 of the REA is not a relevant provision in the instant case. 24. Since the Supreme Court can only decide ? within constitutional review court proceedings in the frame of specific constitutional review ? on the constitutionality of a provision which needs to be applied for adjudicating the case, the Supreme Court is unable to resolve the application by Tallinn Court of Appeal. Under § 15(1) cl. 6) of the Constitutional Review Court Procedure Act, the application by Tallinn Court of Appeal must be dismissed. Source URL: https://www.riigikohus.ee/en/constitutional-judgment-3-4-1-3-17

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Review of the Constitutionality of Section Five of the Riigikogu Election Act

Judgment

Alleged Acts: Section Five of the Riigikogu Election Act prohibit political outdoor advertising. In February of 2015, a motor vehicle went through the town square with a photograph of a candidate with the phrase “Elect Artur the Cat.”

Procedural history: Talvik, the candidate lodged a complaint asserting that Section Five violated the applicant’s property and freedom of expression rights as set forth under the Constitution. The Supreme Court en banc determined that Section Five does not contravene the Constitution.

Summary: The court stated the provision does not reduce the importance in money in election and does not increase political argumentation or reduce the influence of voters. Although the states must establish conditions necessary for exercising the right to vote and stand as a candidate, through voting measures, directly elections, and free exercise of political rights. However, the provision is ineffective in this regard because the vehicle was the candidate’s personal vehicle. Any marking on the vehicle was thus promotion of the candidate’s business and professional activity. Therefore, Section Five is not relevant for this case.

Conclusion: Section five does not extend to the vehicle advertising as applied to the plaintiff.

Legal Issue(s)

Campaign Finance

Region: Europe and Eurasia

Country: Estonia

Language of Decision

English

Court: Constitutional Court

Election Type: General

Date of decision: May 18, 2017

Geolocation

Latitude: 59.4490167

Longitude: 24.69960785

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

the_estonian_supreme_court-constitutional_judgment_3-4-1-3-17.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Review of the Constitutionality of Section Five of the Riigikogu Election Act

Primary Documents

Notifications