Pre-election campaigning or public information? The Senate sets the boundaries

1. About the Case

The issue was whether the municipal council chairperson’s appearance in video footage posted on the municipality’s social media account during the pre-election period could be considered pre-election campaigning.

The Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau (KNAB) had concluded that the chair of the municipal council, using municipal resources, had promoted herself as a candidate for council member in the videos. The videos highlighted the municipality’s achievements and the development of educational infrastructure. KNAB considered that such communication during the pre-election period constituted an indirect call to vote for a specific person and political party; therefore, the petitioner was ordered to reimburse the municipality for the unlawfully spent funds in the amount of 1,105 euros.

The petitioner appealed the KNAB’s decision. The Administrative Regional Court granted her appeal, noting that the video materials did not mention the elections, a political party, or the status of a candidate for deputy, nor did they feature any party symbols. The court held that these materials constituted municipal public information campaigns rather than pre-election campaigning.

The Senate had to assess whether the regional court had correctly applied the provisions of the Pre-Election Campaign Law and whether it had sufficiently taken into account all circumstances that could indicate indirect pre-election campaigning.

2. The Court's Findings

The Senate emphasized that pre-election campaigning is not limited to a direct call to vote for a specific candidate or political party. It can also manifest itself indirectly—as a set of actions or statements that objectively promote the popularity of a specific person or political force in the eyes of voters.

The Senate noted that, when assessing potential pre-election campaigning, it is not sufficient to analyze only individual words or the formal content. The entire context must be evaluated: the content of the publication, the time and manner of its dissemination, the audience, the status of the persons involved, the resources used, the overall impression, and the objective result.

The Senate specifically emphasized that, to establish indirect campaigning, it is not necessary for the material to mention the election, a candidate, or a political party. It is sufficient that the content of the information or the context of its dissemination could objectively foster voters’ favor toward a specific person or political force.

The Senate also noted that the identity of the person providing the information is significant. If positive information about the work of a local government is provided by the chairperson of the local council during the pre-election period, the authority of her office and her public profile may influence how voters perceive this message.

The Senate explained that local governments are not prohibited from informing the public about their work during the pre-election period. However, such communication must be evaluated with particular care. If, based on its content, form, and overall impression, it objectively promotes a specific official or political force, it may be deemed pre-election campaigning.

The issue of the use of public resources is particularly important. Communication funded by a local government may create an unjustified advantage for an official running office, as resources intended to inform the public may simultaneously strengthen that person’s public image.

Therefore, the Senate found that the district court had not fully assessed all legally relevant circumstances. The district court’s judgment was overturned, and the case was remanded for a new trial.

3. Practical Significance

This ruling is significant for anyone involved in public communication during the pre-election period, especially local governments, state institutions, public officials, and political parties.

The ruling establishes that pre-election campaigning can also be indirect. This means that it is not enough for a publication to simply lack the words “vote for me,” a party logo, or a direct call to vote. The overall impression the message creates for the voter can be decisive.

In practice, this means that during the pre-election period, institutions and public officials must be particularly careful when publishing information about their work, achievements, or development projects. Even public information materials can pose legal risks if they simultaneously and objectively promote a specific candidate or political force.

The Senate’s ruling also reiterates that public resources must not be used in a way that gives any candidate an unfair advantage in the electoral competition. Therefore, before publishing such materials, it is essential to evaluate not only their content but also the timing, format, distribution channels, and potential impact on voters.

If you have questions about pre-election campaigning, the use of public resources, or whether an institution’s communications comply with regulatory requirements, our law firm can help you assess the situation and find a legally sound solution.