## Facts

- Four British nationals worked for English local authorities in senior or politically sensitive roles designated as “politically restricted posts” under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and implementing regulations.
- The statutory scheme applied to a small subset of local government officers (about 2%) and restricted specified political activities that could call into question an officer’s political impartiality.
- Prohibited activities included standing for elected office, holding office in a political party, canvassing, and certain public speaking or writing presented as party-representative activity.
- One applicant withdrew as a local election candidate; others resigned party positions or ceased regular political speaking to comply.
- The applicants alleged interference with freedom of expression (Article 10), freedom of association (Article 11), and the right to free elections (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1).

## Issues

1. Whether restricting specified political activities of certain local government officers violated Article 10 (freedom of expression).
2. Whether the same restrictions violated Article 11 (freedom of association).
3. Whether limits affecting the ability to stand for election violated Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections).

## Decision

- The court found an interference with Article 10 rights but held it was justified under Article 10(2); no violation (6–3).
- The court held no violation of Article 11 (6–3), relying substantially on the Article 10 analysis.
- The court held no violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (unanimous).

## Legal Principles

- Public servants retain Convention rights, but restrictions on their political activities may be justified where grounded in law and supported by sufficient reasons.
- A measure is “prescribed by law” when it has an accessible legal basis and is sufficiently foreseeable, even if it cannot define every potentially problematic instance with absolute precision; affected officers may seek guidance when uncertain.
- Protecting effective local democracy and maintaining actual and apparent political impartiality in public administration can be legitimate aims under Article 10(2).
- In assessing necessity and proportionality, relevant factors include: the existence of a demonstrated public concern about politicization and abuse risks, the limited scope of persons covered, the targeted nature of prohibited activities, continued ability to hold opinions and engage in private political life, and the possibility of resigning to run for office.
- Under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, states have a wide margin to regulate eligibility for office, including for certain civil servants, so long as the restrictions are not arbitrary or disproportionate.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the United Kingdom’s limits on certain political activities by a narrowly defined group of local government officers, finding the scheme lawful, aimed at protecting democratic governance through civil service neutrality, and proportionate under Articles 10 and 11, and compatible with the right to free elections under Protocol No. 1.


Ahmed v. United Kingdom, 29 Eur. H.R. Rep. 1 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 1998)