Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium

Lucienne Mathieu-Mohin and Georges Clerfayt (plaintiffs) were French-speaking legislators living in the district of Halle-Vilvoorde in the Flemish region of Belgium (defendant). Belgium had three regions: Flemish, Walloon, and Brussels, and three language communities: Flemish, French, and German. Belgium’s senators and members of the House of Representatives served on councils that addressed the concerns of the regions and language communities where these languages were mainly spoken. Dutch was the main language spoken in the Flemish region; however, there was a significant population who spoke French. Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt were faced with a problem. Based on the rules pursuant to ongoing constitutional reforms, legislators were assigned to the community councils based on the language in which they took their parliamentary oaths. For Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt, this meant that if they took their oaths in French, they would become members of the French Community Council, which did not have authority over issues in Halle-Vivoorde because it belonged to the Flemish region, and they would become members of the French-language group in the Senate or the House. Likewise, if Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt took their oaths in Dutch, they would become members of the Flemish Community Council, which would prevent them from being able to vote on certain issues of concern to the French-speaking community, and they would become members of the Dutch-language groups in the Senate or the House. The significance of these language groups was particularly felt if special majorities were needed. The aim of this transitional system was to provide equilibrium and defuse disputes between regions and linguistic communities and establish decentralized leadership. Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt alleged that this system prevented Halle-Vilvoorde’s French-speaking residents from enjoying the same range of electoral rights as the residents who spoke Dutch, a situation in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights (the convention) and its protocol. Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt argued that this violated Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, which required free elections in conditions that guaranteed people’s free expression in their selection of a legislature, either alone or in combination with Article 14 of the convention, which prohibited discrimination on the basis of language and various other factors. Belgium argued that these conditions were not violative, because French-speaking residents could vote for French-speaking officials who chose to take their oaths in Dutch, thereby securing assignment to the Flemish Community Council.