MÓŁKA v. POLAND DECISION 19 “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.” 1. The parties’ submissions The Government argued that Article 14 was not applicable to the present case. They referred to their previous submissions that the organs of local government could not be considered “legislatures” within the meaning of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and that, consequently, Article 14 could not be relied on in the present case. The applicant, invoking Article 14 in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, submitted that he had been deprived of his right to vote on account of his disability. He stressed that the only reason he had been unable to vote was the lack of appropriate facilities allowing him access to the polling station. He further maintained that in those circumstances the State had not pursued any legitimate aim in depriving disabled persons of the right to vote and that the margin of appreciation afforded to the State had been exceeded. 2. The Court’s assessment The Court reiterates that Article 14 complements the other substantive provisions of the Convention and its Protocols. It has no independent existence, since it has effect solely in relation to “the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms” safeguarded by those provisions. Although the application of Article 14 does not presuppose a breach of one or more of those provisions – and to this extent it is autonomous – there can be no room for its application unless the facts of the case fall within the ambit of one or more of the latter (see Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94, p. 35, § 71, and Inze v. Austria, judgment of 28 October 1987, Series A no. 126, p. 17, § 36). As the Court has concluded that Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention is not applicable, Article 14 cannot apply to the present case. It follows that this part of the application is likewise incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4. 5. In his observations of 26 July 2004 the applicant alleged for the first time a violation of Articles 13 and 17 of the Convention. However, the Court notes that the final decision in the applicant’s case was given by the Cracow Court of Appeal on 29 April 1999. It follows that the complaints under Articles 13 and 17 have been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.