CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 15 juin 2000

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 19 June 2000 Xuereb   v. Malta (dec.) - 52492/99 Decision 15.6.2000 [Section II] Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 Choice of the legislature Right to stand for election to local council: inadmissible The applicant stood as an independent candidate in local council elections. He was elected mayor. Both he and another independent candidate were later charged with having failed to submit a declaration of their election expenses, although none of the other 200 candidates, all of whom represented the governing or opposition parties, was charged, despite having also failed to submit the declaration. The applicant’s appeal was rejected on the ground that he and the other independent candidate had committed additional electoral offences. His appeal to the Constitutional Court was also rejected. The criminal proceedings remain pending. Inadmissible under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 6: There has not yet been a determination of the criminal charge against the applicant and his complaints of discrimination are in this respect incompatible ratione materiae . Inadmissible under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1: Local councils in Malta are entrusted with administrative functions;   their regulatory powers are defined by statute and they remain subordinate to the central Parliament. When operating and providing local services, they may only do what is expressly or impliedly authorised by statute or delegated legislation. By virtue of the subordinate nature of their powers and functions, they cannot be considered part of the legislature. Consequently, neither Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 nor Article 14 is applicable: incompatible ratione materiae .   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes