The European Court of Human Rights (the Court) recently held that the prohibition in s 75 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 on expenditure in excess of £5 by unauthorised persons on publications during the election period amounted to a restriction on freedom of expression.

The applicant in Bowman v United Kingdom (February 19, 1998, Case No 141/19961762/959) was the executive director of the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child (SPUC).In the period immediately before the Parliamentary elections in April 1992, she had arranged to have a large quantity of leaflets distributed in constituencies throughout the United Kingdom giving details of candidates' voting intentions on abortion.

She was charged with an offence under s 75 of the 1983 Act which provides that: "No expenses shall, with a view to promoting or procuring the election of a candidate at an election, be incurred by any person other than the candidate, his election agent and persons authorised in writing by the election agent .

.

.".

In its report of September 12, 1996, the Commission expressed the opinion that there had been a violation of Art 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) which provides that everyone has the right to freedom of expression (See Update (1996 NLJ December 13, 1996).

The majority of the court considered that s 75 of the 1983 Act operated, for all practical purposes, as a total barrier to Mrs Bowman's publishing information with a view to influencing the voters in favour of a n anti-abortion candidate.

The court was not satisfied that it was necessary to limit her expenditure to £5 in order to achieve the legitimate aim of securing equality between candidates, particularly in view of the fact that there were no similar restrictions placed upon the freedom of the press to support or oppose the election of any candidate.

The court concluded that the restriction in question was disproportionate to the aim pursued and consequently there had been a violation of Art 10 of the Convention.RECENT CASES REFERRED TO THE COURT BY THE COMMISSIONThe case of A v United Kingdom (Application No 25599/94) has been widely referred to in the media, although only limited information has been released about the case.

The case concerned the administration of physical punishment on a child by the child's stepfather.

The stepfather had been hitting A with a stick, and had previously been given a police caution after admitting using a cane against A.

The stepfather was acquitted on a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm in early 1994.

The application was brought by A and his natural father, alleging that Art 3 of the Convention had been violated, in that the law had failed to protect A.

Article 3 prohibits torture and inhumane or degrading treatment.

The applicants also alleged that there had been breaches of Art 8 (respect for family life), Art 13 (entitlement to an effective remedy) and Art 14 (discrimination), as the law did not provide the same protection for children as it did for adults.

In its report of September 18, the Commission found unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 and that there was no violation of Art 13.

It did not consider the arguments advanced under Arts 8 and 14.

The Commission further found that the natural father did not have the standing to bring a complaint, but that A did have such standing.CASES CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSIONThe Commission has in recent months considered several cases lodged by applicants from the United Kingdom.

In CC v United Kingdom (Application No 32819/96) the Commission has declared to be admissible two applications concerning the automatic exclusion of bail for persons who are detained on remand on suspicion of serious offences, when they have previously been convicted of a serious offence.

These applications are based on Art 5 (the right to liberty).

The issue of sex discrimination in the taxation system is under consideration in the case of MacGregor v United Kingdom (Application No 30584/96).

In this case the application concerns the refusal of a grant to a woman who gave up work to look after her incapacitated husband an additional tax allowance which is available to a man with an incapacitated wife.

Cases at a very early stage, where applications have been brought to the attention of the Government, include one relating to the impact of the state immunity doctrine on a civil claim brought by the applicant against the Kuwaiti Government in respect of injuries sustained in Kuwait (Application No 35763/97), and another brought by an employee against her employer, the United States Embassy (Application No 37112/97).Given recent debates relating to the balancing of the rights of journalists with privacy it is interesting to note that the Commission has also communicated to the Government an application concerning the absence of protection against the invasion of privacy by a TV journalist (Application No 35712/97).

A similar issue is being considered in a case brought by the Earl and Countess Spencer (Application Nos 28851/95 and 28852/95) .

These applications follow the highly public treatment by the media of the events surrounding the Countess's admission to a clinic for the treatment of eating disorders and alcoholism and the breakdown of their marriage.

The applicants' claim is that the legal system's failure to prevent the publication of these matters constitutes a breach of Art 8 of the Convention (respect of family and private life).The benefits to be gained from incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights jurisprudence and norms directly into the law of the United Kingdom can be appreciated when considering the issues which are repeatedly considered by the Commission in relation to cases from the United Kingdom.

These include applications relating to courts martial, and other issues relating to trials of military personnel and procedures taken against them.

Recently the Commission has declared admissible the case of Hood v United Kingdom (Application No 27267/95) in which an applicant was placed under close arrest.The Commission has also declared to be admissible a case relating to the legal recognition of a change of sex (Goodwin v United Kingdom (Application No 28957/95)).

A recurring issue also arose in the cases of Benjamin and Wilson v United Kingdom (Application No 28212/95) in which the Commission declared admissible an application relating to the continued detention of the applicants in a mental hospital who are allegedly denied the ability to have their circumstances reviewed by an independent court.

It is clear from the range of cases considered by the Commission to have merits that the impact of the eventual entry into force of the Human Rights Bill is likely to be a substantial and important one.The Commission has decided to hold oral hearings in the cases of TP and KM v United Kingdom (Application No 28945/95) and KL v United Kingdom (Application No 29392/95).

Both cases arise from claims brought against the social authorities following the decision to take children into care.

In particular the applications challenge the immunity that the authorities enjoy in respect of negligence and breach of statutory duty actions involving child care matters.

The first case is brought on the basis of an alleged breach of Art 8, and the second is founded primarily on Art 3.

Both applicants also rely on Art 6 (right to a fair trial) and Art 13.Admissions declared to be inadmissible include those brought by a woman wishing to adopt a Zulu child (Application No 31316/96) and another high-profile case concerning the banning of a number of black youths from a shopping centre (Application No 33689/96).

REPORTS ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSIONUnder Article 31 of the Convention if a friendly settlement is not reached, the Commission will draw up a report on the facts of a case and state its opinion as to whether the facts disclose a violation of the Convention.

The reports are confidential at this stage.

The Commission has recently adopted reports in relation to three cases involving the United Kingdom relating to the drawing of adverse inferences from an accused's refusal to answer police questions and failure to give evidence at trial.

In Hamill v United Kingdom (Application No 22656/93) the case related solely to the refusal of the applicant to give evidence in his defence.

In Murray v United Kingdom (Application No 22384/93) the Commission considered the accused's refusal to answer police questions and to give evidence in his defence, as well as the denial of access to a lawyer during the initial period of detention.

In Quinn v United Kingdom (Appl ication No 23496/94) the case related to the applicant's refusal to answer questions while in police custody, his denial to access to a lawyer during initial detention, and the admission at trial of statements made by witnesses who were not called upon to give evidence in the trial itself.

At the time of writing the Commission reports have not been released.

The Commission has also adopted a report in the case of Matthews v United Kingdom (Application No 24833/94) which deals with the exclusion of Gibraltar from elections to the European Parliament.OTHER DEVELOPMENTSAlong with its work dealing with individual cases brought under the ambit of the Convention, the Council of Europe continues to take a lead in the development of rights-based norms among its member states.

The most recent Human Rights Information Bulletin (H/INF (98) 1), covering the period July-October 1997 illustrates the range of matters that have been considered.

The Committee of Ministers has adopted several interesting recommendations and resolutions, including Recommendation R (97) 14 which invites Member States to set up independent national human rights institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights.

The Council suggested that such groups could be responsible in particular for educating and informing the public on these issues.

The Parliamentary Assembly also produced a recommendation on human rights education, calling on Member States "to fortify efforts in human rights education" (Recommendation 1346).

Another recommendation urges Member States to encourage and advise the media to help promote the awareness of cultural diversity (Recommendation R (97) 21).

THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITYThe link between EC and Convention law is most often tested in cases arising through competition law, an area where the EC Commission has the power to substantially affect companies' positions.

The point was tested in SCK FNK (Stichting Certifiicatie Kraanverhuurbedrif (SCK) and Federatie van Nederlandse Kraanverhuurbedrijven (FNK) v EC Commission joined cases T213/95 and T-18/96, judgment of Oct 22, 1997) where the Court of First Instance (CFI) was faced with claims founded on the contention that the EC Commission is required to comply with the Convention when enforcing competition law.In this case the two undertakings were both organisations operating in the Dutch market for mobile hire-cranes that had to wait nearly four years for the EC Commission to conclude a procedure against them.

The applicants' view was that the contested decision breached Art 6 of the Convention, which makes reference to the entitlement "to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time".

The CFI held that "it is a general principle of Community law that the EC Commission must act within a reasonable time in adopting decisions following administrative proceedings relating to competition policy" (emphasis added).

Because the matter then fell directly within the strictures of EC law, the CFI considered that there was no need for it to rule on the status of the Convention.

In giving judgment, however, the CFI cites precedents from Convention law to support its arguments that whether an appropriate time limit had been adhered to had to be assessed in the context of each procedure.

This is an unsatisfactory position, as it is not clear that the application of EC law and Convention law would result in the same conclusion.

In particular, the general principles of Community law must be interpreted in the light of the objectives of the Community, while the Convention rules are of a more abs olute nature.