Supreme Court » News » Ban on outdoor political advertising is in conformity with constitution

Ban on outdoor political advertising is in conformity with constitution

09.07.2010

 

The Supreme Court has ruled that provisions banning outdoor political advertising and enforcing liability in cases of breaches of the ban are in conformity with the constitution of the Republic of Estonia and rejected the application of the Chancellor of Justice to have the ban overturned.

 

The ban was established by the general assembly of the Supreme Court with the aims of increasing voter activity, boosting the quality of democratic discussion, preventing voter manipulation and reducing the influence of money in the achievement of political power. All of these objectives stem from the idea of reinforcing democracy, which is one of the key principles of the organisation of the structure of the Estonian state. The ban is therefore supported by a significant constitutional principle.

 

The general assembly of the Supreme Court ruled that the ban does not restrict people’s rights to either vote or stand for election, the political freedom of expression associated with the latter right or the aspects of a party’s freedom to act that require the strongest protection. The ban does not take away people’s right to participate in elections or vote for their preferred candidate; it does not prevent anyone from standing for election themselves; it does not stop candidates, election coalitions or parties from promoting their views or stifle public debate on particular issues; and it does not hinder the advertising of political views or discussion of public life in any other way (such as election meetings, face-to-face contact with voters, in the print media, on television and radio, via direct mail, with indoor advertising or through new technology). The ban redirects political debate to channels where they have a greater probability of being more profound than the slogans and images present on outdoor advertising. Neither does the ban significantly restrict freedom of enterprise or ownership rights.

 

The general assembly noted that although the ban is in conformity with the constitution, this does not mean that the constitution requires the establishment of such a ban. The Riigikogu (the Estonian parliament) is free to revoke the ban, impose its own restrictions on the timing, location and size of outdoor political advertising and establish an upper limit on election spending which would both reduce the influence of money in achieving political power and ensure equal opportunities for candidates in the organisation of their election campaigns.

 

A number of Supreme Court judges disagreed with the ruling of the general assembly. Noting his difference of opinion in the decision was Justice Jüri Põld, whose views were supported by Justices Jüri Ilvest, Jaak Luik and Märt Rask. Also expressing their differences of opinion were Justices Tambet Tamp, Peeter Jerofejev and Julia Laffranque.

 

The Riigikogu banned outdoor political advertising during periods of active campaigning in June 2005. In autumn of the same year the Chancellor of Justice submitted a proposal to the Riigikogu to analyse the ban again and amend the regulation in force.
The Riigikogu repeatedly debated the ban between 2006 and 2008 but did not amend any of the laws regulating it. As a result, the Chancellor of Justice submitted a proposal to the Riigikogu on 9 June 2008 to bring the regulation into conformity with the constitution. The draft legislation initiated by the Constitutional Committee to render the disputed provisions void is still being discussed by the Riigikogu. Draft legislation which would require more detailed accounting of advertising costs and set an upper limit on election advertising also remains under discussion in the Riigikogu.
»Since the Riigikogu failed to satisfy the proposal made by the Chancellor of Justice in the more than 18 months since it was submitted, the Chancellor lodged an application with the Supreme Court on 18 December 2009 to render the legislation currently in force void.

 

 

Mari-Liis Lipstok

Executive Assistant to the Chief Justice

mari-liis.lipstok@riigikohus.ee