constituting outdoor advertising. The name Talvik and the person in the photograph could be unequivocally associated with the A. Talvik who was a candidate in the Riigikogu election. The fact that this constituted political outdoor advertising was also supported by the presence of the sticker “Vali kass Artur!” on the vehicle. 2. According to the precept, the advertisement with the text “talvik.ee” and the photograph/image of A. Talvik had to be removed from the vehicle on 19 February 2015 by 17:00 at the latest. The precept included a warning that a penalty payment or substitutive enforcement would be applied in the event of failure to comply with the precept or complying with it inadequately. A. Talvik complied with the precept. 3. On 10 March 2015, A. Talvik lodged an action with Tallinn Administrative Court for annulment of the PBGB precept of 19 February 2015 and asserted that § 51 of the REA, on which the precept was based, contravened § 32 and § 45 and § 60(2) of the Constitution. The prohibition on political outdoor advertising interfered disproportionately with the applicant’s right to property and the right to freedom of expression in combination with the right to stand as a candidate. Sections 32, 45 and 60(2) of the Constitution protected the applicant’s right to display his personal image and name on his property. 3.1. In 2015, the applicant stood as a candidate for the Riigikogu. Stickers on the vehicle informed voters about his candidacy. The applicant could not engage in widespread television, radio, internet and media campaigning, which was affordable for parliamentary political parties receiving support from the state budget. 3.2. The prohibition on political outdoor advertising is not a suitable means for attaining the goals sought by it. The measure at issue does not reduce the relative importance of money in election campaigning nor does it increase the role of political argumentation. It also fails to free public space of excessive outdoor advertising nor does it reduce improper influence on voters. Stickers with a candidate’s image and domain name displayed on a personal car cannot be considered excessive outdoor advertising. Ten years after adoption of the law, the prohibition on political outdoor advertising is no longer a suitable means to free public space of election advertising. The measure is also not necessary for attaining the goals sought by it nor is it proportional in the narrow sense as compared to the intensity of interference with the applicant’s rights. 4. The PBGB sought to have the action dismissed, asserting that the Supreme Court en banc in its judgment of 1 July 2010 in case No 3-4-1-33-09 had opened up the substance of § 51 of the REA and analysed its possible conflict with the Constitution. The Supreme Court en banc reached the conclusion that § 51 of the REA does not contravene the Constitution. Three justices wrote a dissenting opinion to the judgment, but these do not change the final opinion of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was of the opinion that the prohibition on political outdoor advertising was necessary for attaining the goals set by the legislator. According to the explanatory memorandum to the Riigikogu Election Act and the opinions expressed during the proceedings of the Draft Act, the goal of the provision in question is to reduce the role of money in achieving political power, to increase the role of substantive political argumentation, and to free public space of excessive outdoor advertising which may cause public resentment towards political advertising and politics as a whole. All these goals are driven by the duty of the state to establish conditions necessary for exercising the right to vote and the right to stand as a candidate in line with the principles of free, uniform, general, direct elections and secrecy of voting. However, the potential ineffectiveness of the prohibition on political outdoor advertising cannot be a basis for declaring it unconstitutional. 5. By judgment of 11 April 2016, Tallinn Administrative Court dismissed the action. 5.1. The Court found that on 18 February 2015, i.e. during the prohibition on political outdoor advertising, a car owned by A. Talvik displayed stickers with his personal photographic image and the text “talvik.ee”. Since political outdoor advertising is prohibited during active campaigning under § 51 of the REA, the applicant was in violation of the prohibition on political outdoor advertising.

Select target paragraph3