CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 21 septembre 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 No. 133 August-September 2010 Birk-Levy v. France (dec.) - 39426/06 Decision 21.9.2010 [Section V] Article 35 Article 35-3 Ratione materiae Prohibition on members’ use of Tahitian during French Polynesian Assembly debates: inadmissible   Facts – The applicant was a member of the Assembly of French Polynesia (“the Assembly”), to which she was elected on two consecutive occasions, in 2003 and 2005. A provision of the Assembly’s rules of procedure authorised the use of Tahitian or other Polynesian languages in debates. However, in a judgment of 29   March 2006 on an application for judicial review lodged by the High Commissioner of the Republic in French Polynesia, the Conseil d’Etat declared the provision void on the ground that it contravened the Institutional Act on the autonomous status of French Polynesia, which provides that French is the official language of French Polynesia and that its use is compulsory for public-law entities in particular. Relying on Articles   10, 11 and   14 of the Convention, the applicant complained that the Assembly’s representatives were prohibited from expressing themselves in Tahitian, and argued that the obligation to speak French in the assembly chamber amounted to discrimination both against her and against all Polynesians, who used Tahitian on an everyday basis. Law – Article 35 § 3: No provision of the Convention expressly guaranteed “linguistic freedom” as such, or the right of elected representatives to use the language of their choice when making statements and voting within an assembly. Each State indisputably had a legitimate interest in ensuring that its own institutional system functioned normally. Having regard to the principle of respect for national characteristics, the Court was not required to adopt a position on the choice of a national parliament’s working language. That decision, determined by historical and political considerations specific to each country, was in principle one which the State alone had the power to make. The Court noted that, following a lengthy historical and political process, French Polynesia had become an overseas community ( collectivité d’outre-mer ) governed by the French Constitution and thus enjoyed a certain autonomy, in particular having its own legislative assembly which was empowered to pass “territorial laws”, subject to “special judicial review” by the Conseil d’Etat . The Institutional Act on the autonomous status of French Polynesia provided that French was the official language and that its use was compulsory for public-law entities, for private-law entities when performing public services, and for the public in their dealings with administrative authorities and public services. Although the Institutional Act acknowledged the Tahitian language as “a fundamental element of cultural identity”, the Court considered, having regard to the principle of respect for States’ national characteristics in relation to their own institutional system, that the applicant’s assertion of a right to use the Tahitian language in the Assembly fell outside the scope of the Convention. Conclusion : inadmissible (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