CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 avril 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s25B97BCD { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sE4444500 { height:37.1pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s7BE5FA79 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sE24C0691 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:10pt } .s5813D929 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:8.75pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s734752C4 { margin-left:13.34pt; padding-left:4.51pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8E8B00CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Communicated on 27 April 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no. 66556/11 Irina Stepanovna POPOVA against Russia and 1 other application (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants are two Russian nationals listed in the appendix. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The applicants intended to stand as candidates for election to regional legislatures and applied for registration in respective single-mandate electoral constituencies. It is unclear whether the first applicant was a member of any political party, whilst the second applicant was a member of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia ( Либерально-демократическая партия России ). The applicants submitted all documents necessary for registration to the respective Electoral Commission of their constituency (“the ConEC”). The latter accepted the applicants’ documents as valid and registered them as candidates. Some time later, the applicants’ registration was challenged by their rivals before the respective regional courts at the first level of jurisdiction. The courts found that the documents submitted by the applicants to the ConECs for their registration as candidates had not met the formal requirements of the applicable electoral legislation, and annulled the applicants’ registration. In particular, in the first applicant’s case, the regional court concluded that more than 10% of voter signatures collected in the support of the first applicant had been invalid. It based its conclusion on a relevant finding of a “working group” of the ConEC. The first applicant’s attempt to challenge before the court that finding as inaccurate and unreliable proved futile – the regional court refused to examine the evidence submitted by her, stating that the relevant electoral legislation “did not provide for such a procedure of verification of signatures”. The second applicant argued that the annulment of his registration had been unlawful as the shortcomings imputed to him had not been grounds for his disqualification under the relevant domestic law, which contained an exhaustive list of such grounds; the court, however, rejected those arguments. The applicants appealed against the first-instance judgments before the Supreme Court of Russia, the appellate instance for electoral disputes. They argued that the first-instance court’s approach had been overly formalistic and had infringed their right to stand for election. They insisted that the imputed shortcomings could have been easily be rectified if they had been informed of them by the ConECs at the appropriate time, and that their disqualification had been too harsh a measure. On various dates, following appeals by the applicants, the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the first-instance judgments, largely reiterating the regional courts’ reasonings. For the relevant dates and names of the bodies see the appendix. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention of a violation of their right to stand for election as a result of arbitrary annulment of their registration as candidates.   COMMON QUESTIONS 1.     Regard being had to the annulment of the applicants’ registration as candidates for election to the legislatures of their respective regions (hereinafter “the applicants’ disqualification”), has there been a breach of the applicants’ right under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention to stand as candidates in free elections which ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of legislature? In particular, (a)     What was the legal basis for the applicants’ disqualification? (b)     Did the applicants’ disqualification pursue a legitimate aim? (c)     Was the applicants’ disqualification proportionate to the aim pursued? In particular, were the applicant afforded sufficient safeguards to protect them against arbitrary decisions? Did the applicants’ have an ample opportunity to challenge effectively the findings that led to their disqualification? Also, regard being had to the applicants’ allegations of a formal and technical nature of the shortcomings imputed to them, could, and if so, did the applicants have an opportunity to rectify those shortcomings and to re-submit their applications for registration as candidates in the elections concerned? CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS Application no. 66556/11 1.     Regard being had to the applicant ’ s arguments that:   (a)     even assuming that a number of signatures collected in her support were invalid, the overall number of the valid signatures (335) exceeded the requisite minimum (316) provided for in the relevant law; (b)     she was not given an opportunity to challenge before the domestic courts the working group ’ s finding to the effect that two signatures were “unreliable” ( недостоверные ); (c)     five more signatures were declared “void” ( недействительные ) on the sole grounds that the collector had made a minor technical error in his address when signing the list with those signatures, although on all the other lists the address had been correctly written,   was the applicant ’ s disqualification a proportionate measure in the light of the principles set forth in Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?   Application no. 35736/12 1.     Regard being had to the applicant’s argument that the shortcomings imputed to him were not listed in section 76(7) of the Federal Law of 12   June 2002 on Fundamental Guarantees of Electoral Rights and Eligibility to Participate in a Referendum of the Citizens of the Russian Federation (“the Electoral Rights Act”), which established an exhaustive list of the grounds for annulment of a candidate’s registration, was the applicant’s disqualification “lawful”, within the Convention meaning?   2.     Regard being had to the applicant’s argument that the formal shortcomings regarding the way in which the information on the amount and sources of his income and his assets and on his place of work and professional occupation was presented, were insignificant and did not affect the accuracy and completeness of that information, was the applicant’s disqualification proportionate a measure in the light of the principles set forth in Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?   APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant’s name date of birth place of residence Legislature date of election Electoral constituency date of registration Domestic courts’ decisions Summary of reasons   66556/11 02/09/2011 Irina Stepanovna POPOVA 19/04/1952 Tambov (“the first applicant”) Tambov Regional Duma, 13/03/2011 Znamenskiy Constituency no. 3, 3/02/2011 Tambov Regional Court, judgment of 18/02/2011; Supreme Court of Russia, decision of 4/03/2011 (a)     random check of voters’ signatures revealed that more than 10 % of those were invalid;   (b)     the ConEC took a decision on the applicant’s registration as a candidate by 4 votes to 3, with 2 its members being absent   35736/12 16/05/2012 Aleksandr Mikhaylovich SYSOYEV 21/04/1958 Yessentuki (“the second applicant”) Stavropol Regional Duma, 4/12/2011 Constituency no. 5, 14/10/2011 Stavropolskiy Regional Court, judgment of 2/11/2011; Supreme Court of Russia, decision of 17/11/2011 (a)     information about the amount and sources of income summarised in incorrect field of the form;   (b)     incomplete title of professional occupation and place of work