Guide on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 – Right to free elections v. Bulgaria, 2012. While none of the three new conditions introduced in the electoral legislation raised a problem in itself, on account of their belated introduction the applicant had only had one month to comply. The Court took the view that the conditions of participation in elections imposed on political groups were part of the basic electoral rules. Those conditions should thus have the same stability in time as the other basic elements of the electoral system. The Court has also found that the provisions on the basis of which a former member of the clergy had had his candidature refused were too imprecise and therefore unforeseeable. Consequently, they gave the electoral bodies an excessive margin of appreciation and left too much room for arbitrariness in the application of that restriction (Seyidzade v. Azerbaijan, 2009). E. From the election campaign... 85. In order for the rights guaranteed by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to be effective, their protection cannot remain confined to the candidature itself. The election campaign thus also falls within the scope of the provision. 86. Already in a number of cases concerning Article 10 of the Convention, the Court had emphasised the close relationship between the right to free elections and freedom of expression. It has found that these rights, particularly freedom of political debate, together form the bedrock of any democratic system. The two rights are inter-related and operate to reinforce each other: for example, freedom of expression is one of the “conditions” necessary to “ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature”. For this reason, it is particularly important in the period preceding an election for opinions and information of all kinds to be permitted to circulate freely (Bowman v. the United Kingdom, 1998, § 42). 87. As these rights are inter-dependent, numerous cases concerning election campaigns are examined under Article 10. The Court, for example, found a violation of Article 10 on account of a fine imposed on a television channel for broadcasting an advertisement for a small political party, in breach of legislation prohibiting any political advertising on television (TV Vest AS and Rogaland Pensjonistparti v. Norway, 2008). However, it found no issue under Article 10 in a case where a warning had been issued by an electoral commission to a female politician for describing a rival candidate as a “thief” in her absence on live television in the run up to the election (Vitrenko and Others v. Ukraine, 2008). 88. However, cases concerning, in particular, the distribution of airtime during the pre-election campaigning period may raise issues under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. In a case concerning the equality of airtime granted to the various candidates, the Court stated that, while Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 enshrined the principle of equal treatment of all citizens in the exercise of their electoral rights, it did not guarantee, as such, any right for a political party to be granted airtime on radio or television during the pre-election campaign. However, an issue may indeed arise in exceptional circumstances, for example, if in the run up to an election one party were denied any kind of party political broadcast whilst other parties were granted slots for that purpose (Partija "Jaunie Demokrāti" and Partija "Mūsu Zeme" v. Latvia (dec.), 2007). 89. In Communist Party of Russia and Others v. Russia, 2012, the Court addressed the question whether the State had a positive obligation under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to ensure that coverage by regulated media was objective and compatible with the spirit of “free elections”, even in the absence of direct evidence of deliberate manipulation. It found that the existing system of electoral remedies was sufficient to satisfy the State’s positive obligation of a procedural nature. As to the substantive aspect of the obligation and the allegation that the State should have ensured neutrality of the audio-visual media, it took the view that certain steps had been taken to guarantee some visibility to opposition parties and candidates on TV and to secure the editorial independence and neutrality of the media. These arrangements had probably not secured de facto equality, but it could European Court of Human Rights 22/35 Last update: 30.04.2021