CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 mars 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 30 March 2026   FIRST SECTION Application no. 14685/25 SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY HARMONY against Latvia lodged on 12 May 2025 communicated on 12 March 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns restrictions on the use of the Russian language during an election campaign. The applicant is a political party. On 22 June 2023 Parliament adopted legislative amendments whereby any paid election campaign (including materials relating thereto) during a certain period – the pre-election period lasting for 120 days prior to the relevant election – could only be carried out in the official State language (Latvian), the Latgalian written language or the Livonian language. This applied to all municipal and parliamentary elections, but exceptions were made in respect of municipal elections and elections of the European Parliament which permitted to use campaign material translated into the official languages of the European Union (“the impugned provisions”). These amendments took effect on 1 January 2024, which was prior to the 2024 elections of the European Parliament and the 2025 municipal elections. The applicant brought proceedings before the Constitutional Court, which in its judgment of 13 February 2025 (case no.   2024-06-01) held that the impugned provisions were compatible with Article 100 of the Constitution (the right to freedom of expression). The applicant alleges a breach of Article 10 of the Convention on the grounds that political parties are not allowed to allocate election campaign-related financial resources to activities and materials in minority languages, notably, in Russian. They consider that it strikes at the very heart of the right to impart information and ideas. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression,   in particular the right to impart information and ideas, within the meaning of Article   10 §   1 of the Convention, on account of the impugned provisions?   2.     If so, was that interference prescribed by law, did it pursue a legitimate aim, and was it necessary in a democratic society within the meaning of Article   10 §   2 of the Convention?   3.     What is the scope of the margin of appreciation given to the Contracting States to regulate the use of language during election campaigns (see Şükran Aydın and Others v.   Turkey , nos.   49197/06 and 4 others, § 51, 22   January 2013; Mestan v.   Bulgaria , no.   24108/15, § 53, 2   May 2023; and, mutatis mutandis , Ždanoka v. Latvia (no. 2) , no. 42221/18, §   56, 25   July 2024; Bradshaw and Others v. the United Kingdom , no. 15653/22, §   125, 22   July 2025). Did the Latvian authorities overstep that margin in the present case?   4.     The parties are required to provide information on the scope and the manner of application of the impugned provisions during the pre-election campaign period, including on a range of applicable sanctions for non-compliance by a political party.   5.     Has the applicant been subject to sanctions or any other measures for non-compliance with the impugned provisions?