APPLICATIONIREQUÊTE N° 11100/84 FRYSKE NASJONALE PARTIJ and others v/the NETHERLANDS FRYSKE NASJONALE PARTIJ et autres c/PAYS-BAS DECISION of 12 December 1985 on the admissibility of the application DÉCISION du 12 décembre 1985 sur la recevabilité de la requête Article 3 of the First Pi-otoeol : This provision guarantees in principle the right to vote and the right to stand as candidate in general elections. The latter right is not restricted by a requirement that candidates enrol in a particular language . Competence ratione materiae : The Convention does not, as such, guarantee linguistic freedom. In particular, it does not guarantee the right to use the language of one's choice in dealings with the authorities . Article 3 du Protocole additionnel : Cette disposition garantit en principe le droit de vote et celui de se porter candidat aux élections législatives. Ce dernier droit n'est pas limité par l'obligation d'enregistrer les candidatures dans une langue déterminée . Compétence ratione materiae : La Convention ne garantit pas, comme telle, la liberté linguistique . En particulier, elle ne garantit pas le droit de se servir de la langue de son choix dans les rapports avec l'administration. THE FACTS (Extracts) (français : voir p. 243) The facts of the case as they have been submitted by the applicants may be summarised as follows . The first applicant is a Frisian political party with registered office at Ljouwert (Leeuwarden), the Netherlands. 240 The second applicant is a member of the Provincial Legislature (Gedeputeerde Staten) of Friesland for the first applicant . She was born in 1931 and resides at Boarnburguni, the Netherlands . The third applicant was born in 1936, is a veterinary surgeon by profession and resides at Beetsterweach, the Netherlands . He was put forward as a candidate by the second applicant for the August 1983 elections of the First Chamber of the States General (Eerste Kainer der Staten-Generaal) . In the proceedings before the Commission the applicants are represented by Mr. T.Y. de Boer, a notary holding office at Damwâld, the Nett,erlands . On 28 July 1983, the second applicant, a member of the Provincial legisature and leader of the fsst applicant's political group thercin submitted â list of cancidates, inchtding the third applicant, for the election of the members of the First Chamber of the States General to the provincial governor (Commissaris der Koningin) of Friesland. On 2 August 1.983, the chairman of the central polling offier (centraal stembureau) cf the Electoral Registration Council for the election of the, members of the First Chamber, informed the second applicar,R that on the list of candidates submitted by her, the names and addresses of several candidates had not beeu listed in Dutch . The seeoad applicant was given the possibility to remedy this shoilcoming on 3, 4 or 5 August 1983 at the Minïstry of Home, Affairs (Ministerie van Binneolandse Zaken), 'rhe Hague . The second applicant protested against this in a Ietter, in Frisian, to the Chai r rnan of die Electoral Registration Council . It appears thaT, on 8 August 1983, it came to the rotice of the applicants , apparently via the radioand the press, that the candidates concerned had been struck off the fist . The second applicant thereupon appealed to the Council of SCUe's Division for Jurisdiction on 9 August 1983 . By telegram o1' 10 Augusi: 1983, the Pre,sident of the Council of State reqriested the second applicant to subrnit a translation into Dutch of her appeal before 12 August 1983. The second applicant replied on 11 August 1983 that she did not intend to submit such a translation, whilst drawing attention to the fact that tt,e Administrative Litigation Division of the Council of State (Afdeling voor geschillen van bestuur va:n de Raad van State) did accept letters in Frisian . i '241 On 15 August 1983, the President of the Council .of State'sDivision for Jurisdiction declared the second applicant's appeal inadmissible since she had failed to submit a translation into Dutch of her complaints .THELAW(Extract ) 2. The applicants have complained that by preventing them from taking part in parliamentary elections the Netherlands authorities violated Article 3 of Protocol No . 1 to the Convention, which reads : "The High Contracting parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the fr ee expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature . " The Commission recalls that this provision guarantees in principle the right to vote and the right to stand as a candidate at the election of the legislative bôdÿ (cf . No . 6850/74, Dec. 18.5.76, D.R. 5 p. 90). The Commission notes that the applicants were not as such prevented from standin`g as candidates, but that problems arose concerning the language in which their registration for election should take place .However,theCommissionfindsthatnothingpreventedtheapplicantsfro m subniitting a translation into Dutch of their request for registration of the name of the party and the list of candidates respectively . Moreover, neither Article 3 of Protocol No. I to the Convention, nor any other provision of the Convention guarantees the right to use a particular language for electoral purposes . Consequently, the Commission is of the opinion that the applicants may not claim that their right to stand as a candidate for election was limited by the requirement thafregistration could only take place in Dutch (cf. No. 10650/83, Dec . 17.5 .85, D.R. 42 p: 212) . It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as manifestly illfounded within the meaning of Article 27para . 2 of the Convention . 3. The applicants have further complained that the refusalto allow them to use the Frisian language for administrative and political purposes constituted a violation of Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention . According to Article 9 of the Convention everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion . Article 10 of the Convention-guarantees the right to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. - . . . . .242 However, the Commission recalls that these provisions do not guarantee "linguistic freedom" as such . In particular, they do not guarantee the right to use the language of on,,'s choice in administratYve matters (cf. No. 2333/64, Dec . 15-7 .65, Collection 16 pp. 58, 73). The Commission further notes that the applicants•have faile(i to demonstrate that they were also -prevented from~using the Frisian language for other purposes . This part of the application must therefore be rejected under Articze 27 para. 2 of the Convention as being inrompatilble ratione materiae withihe provisions af the Convention.