CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 mars 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }   Communicated on 8 March 2016   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 52095/13 Peter MARX against Germany lodged on 8 August 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE The applicant complains under Articles 10, 11, 13 and 14 of the Convention and Article 3 of Protocol no. 1 to the Convention about the domestic authorities’ refusal to register him as candidate for the election of the mayor of the city of Schwerin, the capital of the Land Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, in 2008. Under the domestic law of the Land Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, to be registered as candidate for local elections, a candidate needed to meet the civil-service law employment requirements, as a mayor was necessarily appointed civil servant on a temporary basis. One of these requirements was loyalty to the German Basic Law, which the applicant was found to be lacking due to the fact that, at the relevant time, he was a prominent member of the right-wing National Democratic Party of Germany ( Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands ).   QUESTIONS 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Did the rejection of the applicant’s registration as a candidate in the mayoral elections in Schwerin in 2008 due to his membership in the National Democratic Party of Germany ( Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands ) constitute an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression and of association, within the meaning of Articles 10 § 1 and 11 § 1 of the Convention?   If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2 and Article 11 § 2 of the Convention?