## Facts

- Belgium adopted transitional constitutional arrangements to manage governance across regions and linguistic communities, affecting how elected legislators also served in community and regional bodies.
- Membership in parliamentary linguistic groups and in community councils depended in part on the electoral district and the language in which an elected member took the parliamentary oath.
- The applicants, French-speaking members of the Belgian House of Representatives, were elected from the Brussels–Halle–Vilvoorde district and resided in the Halle–Vilvoorde area within the Flemish Region.
- Under the system, a representative elected in Brussels–Halle–Vilvoorde who took the oath in French sat in the French-language group in Parliament and in the French Community Council, which lacked territorial competence over Flemish municipalities such as Halle–Vilvoorde.
- If the representative took the oath in Dutch, the representative sat in the Dutch-language group and in the Flemish Community Council (competent for Halle–Vilvoorde), but did not sit in the French Community Council and faced limits in participation on matters reserved to French-community institutions.
- The applicants alleged that French-speaking voters in Halle–Vilvoorde could not, through their vote, secure representation both in bodies competent for their territory and in French-community institutions addressing matters tied to their language group.
- They claimed the arrangements diminished the equality and effectiveness of electoral choice for French-speakers compared with Dutch-speakers and constituted language discrimination.

## Issues

1. Whether Belgium’s oath-language and related institutional rules impaired the right to free elections under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 by limiting the effective expression of voters’ will in the choice of the legislature.
2. Whether any resulting disadvantage to French-speaking electors constituted discrimination on grounds of language contrary to Article 14, taken with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.

## Decision

- The Court held Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 implies individual rights, including the right to vote and to stand for election, though subject to implicit limitations.
- The Court found the Belgian arrangements did not curtail electoral rights to a level that impaired their essence or deprived them of effectiveness.
- The Court accepted Belgium’s aims of maintaining institutional balance among regions and linguistic communities and preventing conflict as legitimate in the context of a complex, multilingual state.
- The Court concluded the differentiation tied to territorial and linguistic criteria was objectively justified and proportionate.
- No violation was found of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, either alone or in conjunction with Article 14.

## Legal Principles

- Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, though phrased as a state obligation, entails subjective rights to vote and to stand for election.
- Restrictions on electoral rights may exist as implicit limitations, but they must not impair the very essence or effectiveness of the rights, must pursue a legitimate aim, and must be proportionate.
- States have a wide margin of appreciation in structuring electoral systems and constitutional arrangements, particularly where institutional design addresses regional and linguistic division.
- Article 14 applies only in relation to the enjoyment of another protected right; differential treatment must have objective and reasonable justification and be proportionate to a legitimate aim.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld Belgium’s transitional linguistic-territorial electoral arrangements, holding that the limits alleged by French-speaking voters in Halle–Vilvoorde did not negate the substance of electoral rights and that the differentiation inherent in the constitutional compromise was justified and proportionate, resulting in no violation of free-election or non-discrimination guarantees.


Mathieu-Mohin & Clerfayt v. Belg., App. No. 9267/81, 113 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1987)