CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 17 janvier 1997

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 31699/96                       by Kennedy J. LINDSAY et al.                       against the United Kingdom          The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 17 January 1997, the following members being present:                Mrs.   J. LIDDY, President            MM.    M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  E. BUSUTTIL                  A. WEITZEL                  L. LOUCAIDES                  B. MARXER                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                  K. HERNDL                  M. VILA AMIGÓ            Mrs.   M. HION              Mrs.   M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber        Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;        Having regard to the application introduced on 14 April 1996 by Kennedy J. LINDSAY et al. against the United Kingdom and registered on 3 June 1996 under file No. 31699/96;        Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The applicants are six British subjects.   They all live in Northern Ireland.   Further details are set out in the Annex attached to the present decision.   Before the Commission they all are represented by the first applicant.   The facts of the present application, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.        On 30 May 1996 elections were held in Northern Ireland for the purpose of providing delegates from among whom participants in all- party negotiations in Northern Ireland could be drawn.        The legal basis for these elections was provided by the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc.) Act 1996 ("the Act").   The elections were held on the basis of lists submitted by a "nominating representative" on behalf of the participating parties.   The participating parties were listed in a schedule drawn up by the Government and which formed part of the Act.   The schedule included parties which had secured significant support at parliamentary elections or elections to the European Parliament, or which had been closely involved in consultations with the Government on the political process.   A prerequisite for participation in these elections was an established commitment by a party to exclusively peaceful methods.        The schedule gave rise to a certain amount of controversy, as the concept of choosing parties was not considered democratic by the press. The Government subsequently amended the initial list by adding to it several independent candidates and the British Ulster Unionist Party, with which the first applicant is associated.        Section 3 of the Act provides as follows:        "(1) The delegates returned in accordance with Schedule 1      shall constitute a forum for the discussion of issues      relevant to promoting dialogue and understanding within      Northern Ireland.        (2) The functions of the forum shall be deliberative only.        (3) Accordingly the forum shall not have any legislative,      executive or administrative functions, or any power to      determine the conduct, course or outcome of the      negotiations mentioned in Section 1."        The forum will function until the end of May 1997.   The Secretary of State may, however, by order provide for it to continue or to come into force again until a time not later than the end of May 1998.   COMPLAINTS        The applicants complain that due to the Government's list of parties which are allowed to take part in the elections, part of the electorate have their vote devalued or even made worthless, because the parties representing their views have been excluded from the list. They consider that this exclusion results in a violation of the principle of universal suffrage and the right of each voter to equal respect and dignity.   Therefore they allege a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.     They also complain that parties excluded from participation in the elections are deprived of the possibility of sending election-related political literature free of charge by means of the state owned postal service, and are debarred from expressing their political views in special radio and television programmes.   The applicants consider that this constitutes a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. The applicants also consider that exclusion of certain political parties from taking part in the elections constitutes a violation of Article 11 of the Convention.        The applicants contend that the insistence of the Government on commitment of the participating parties to the "six principles of democracy and non-violence set out in the Mitchell report" is discriminatory.   They claim that the contents of this document are controversial and reference to it shows the Government's strong political motivation in the arrangements for the elections.   Therefore the applicants allege that Article 14 of the Convention is violated.        Finally the applicants argue that the body elected will function as a legislature and that the above-mentioned list of parties and other alleged procedural irregularities will result in breach of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.   THE LAW   1.    The applicants claim to represent "more than one million people in Northern Ireland who are qualified to vote in [these elections]".        The Commission recalls that Convention does not provide for any "actio popularis" (see, for example, No. 6742/74, Dec. 10.7.75, D.R. 3, p. 98).   Alleged violations of the Convention can be examined only so far as they could possibly affect the individual rights of the applicants.        It follows that, insofar as the applicants claim to act on behalf of other electors, this part of the application is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   2.    The applicants allege a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-3) to the Convention in connection with the elections to the forum set up under the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Act 1996.   Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-3) provides as follows:        "The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections      at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which      will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in      the choice of the legislature."        Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-3) applies only to elections to bodies which fall to be regarded as the legislature; the word "legislature" has to be interpreted in the light of the constitutional structure of the State in question (see Eur. Court HR, Mathieu-Mohin and Clarfayt v. Belgium judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 113, p. 23, para. 53).        In the present case, the forum which was set up by the Act has no legislative powers.   Its function is expressed to be purely deliberative - that is, it is a body in which discussions take place, but which has no power to promulgate any form of binding norm or decision at all.   The Commission finds nothing in any of the applicants' submissions which could indicate that in reality the forum has specific legislative powers.   In particular, even if, as a result of negotiations in that forum, draft proposals are eventually submitted to the parliaments of Ireland and the United Kingdom, any resultant legislation will be the fruit of those bodies' deliberations and the exercise of their functions, and not of any legislative powers of the forum.        It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   3.    The applicants also allege violations of Articles 10, 11 and 14 (Art. 10, 11, 14) of the Convention, in that the exclusion of certain parties from the elections to the forum prevents those parties from benefitting from the postal regime applicable to parties which do participate, in that the exclusion is tantamount to suspension of those parties, and in that the exclusion of certain parties was discriminatory.        The Commission considers that the bulk of the applicants' complaints depend on the premise that the elections to the forum are full elections to a legislative body.   The Commission has found at para. 1 above that the forum is not such a legislative body.        In any event in accordance with Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention, the Commission may only receive applications from persons claiming to be victims of alleged violations of the Convention.        In the present case, none of the applicants is a party excluded from the elections, and the only link with any such party to which reference has been made is the "association" of the first applicant with the British Ulster Unionist Party, which was eventually included in the list of participants in the elections.   The Commission has not been given any information which could indicate that any of the applicants has been subjected to discriminatory treatment in the enjoyment of his Convention rights, or at all.        Accordingly, the Commission finds that none of the applicants may claim to be a victim of a violation of Articles 10, 11 and 14 (Art. 10, 11, 14) of the Convention.        It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   4.    Finally, the applicants allege a violation of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.        The Commission finds no appearance of a violation of this provision.        It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill- founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.        For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,        DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.      M.F. BUQUICCHIO                                 J. LIDDY      Secretary                                     President   to the First Chamber                         of the First Chamber