CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 30 mai 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s76929361 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCF7129D5 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s8565C3AF { margin:8pt 28.35pt 3pt 17pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s659CE682 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sF13A94BC { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 34pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s3F015572 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 51pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .sB6D33163 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s24EF9A8D { margin-left:47.21pt; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s91F6AE57 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s7ACB8D74 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5244FA83 { width:16.27pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4C307D08 { width:0.93pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sAADB120E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sE1C80691 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:14pt } .s4B4B41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA80E62D1 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:11.5pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB206C230 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:68.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.75pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s67017A4B { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s64E792FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s1B50D646 { width:185.6pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sF68FE8B1 { height:46.5pt } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s958CF07F { height:91.55pt } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }       THIRD SECTION                 CASE OF DAVYDOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 75947/11)               JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   30 May 2017       FINAL   13/11/2017     This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   Contents PROCEDURE THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A.     General overview of the case B.     Organisation of the elections of 4 December 2011 C.     Nature of each applicant’s complaint 1.     The first applicant 2.     The second applicant 3.     The third applicant 4.     The fourth applicant 5.     The fifth applicant 6.     The sixth applicant 7.     The seventh and eighth applicants 8.     The ninth applicant 9.     The tenth applicant 10.     The eleventh applicant D.     Complaints to the City Electoral Commission and the judicial review thereof (second, third and fourth applicants) E.     Attempts to start a criminal investigation into the alleged falsification 1.     The first applicant (LA elections in precinct no. 646) 2.     Complaint by the second applicant (LA elections and Duma elections in precinct no. 652) 3.     The third and fourth applicants (LA and Duma elections in precincts nos. 651 and 654) 4.     The sixth applicant (LA elections in precinct no. 637) F.     Judicial review proceedings before the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court 1.     Applications to the Supreme Court for judicial review 2.     Proceedings before the Constitutional Court G.     Judicial review proceedings before the St Petersburg City Court 1.     The first five applicants (LA and Duma elections in the Kolpino district as a whole) 2.     The sixth applicant (LA elections in precinct no.   637) 3.     Complaint lodged by the St Petersburg branch of SR (LA elections in St Petersburg City as a whole) H.     Judicial review proceedings before the district courts 1.     The sixth applicant (LA elections in precinct no. 637) 2.     The seventh applicant complaint (LA elections in Kolpino district as a whole) 3.     The SR complaint about lawfulness of elections in electoral division no. 19 4.     The SR complaint about lawfulness of elections in two “closed” electoral precincts 5.     The SR complaint about the results in electoral division no.   17 6.     The SR complaint about the results of the elections in electoral division no.   15 7.     The SR complaint about the results in electoral division no.   33 I.     Information on recounts at electoral commissions 1.     Factual and statistical information submitted by the applicants 2.     Factual and statistical information submitted by the Government J.     Inquiry into the validity of documents submitted by the applicants II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.     General legislative framework governing the elections of December 2011 in St Petersburg B.     Regulation of specific questions 1.     Rights of observers and members of electoral commissions during federal elections 2.     Formal requirements as regards protocols and other documents drawn up by electoral commissions; making of copies 3.     Proceedings at the Territorial Electoral Commissions 4.     Recounts 5.     Appeals procedure C.     Criminal law provisions D.     Examples of relevant court practice submitted by the parties 1. Examples submitted by the applicants 2. Examples submitted by the Government III. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTS A. Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters B.     The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR) Election Observation Mission Final Report on the elections to the State Duma, 4 December 2011 (Warsaw, 12 January 2012) THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION A.     Procedural issues and admissibility 1.     Requests to withdraw applications 2.     The Government’s question as to representation 3.     The Government’s preliminary objection as to the Court’s competence ratione materiae 4.     The Government’s preliminary objection as to exhaustion of domestic remedies 5.     The Government’s preliminary objection as to the well-foundedness of the complaint and abuse of the right of petition 6.     Conclusion as to admissibility B.     Merits 1.     The parties’ submissions 2.     The Court’s assessment II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 34 OF THE CONVENTION III.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION A.     Damage B.     Costs and expenses C.     Default interest In the case of Davydov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Helena Jäderblom, President,   Branko Lubarda,   Luis López Guerra,   Helen Keller,   Dmitry Dedov,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Alena Poláčková, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 9 May 2017, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 75947/11) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by eleven Russian nationals (for personal details see Appendix). 2.     The applicants were represented by Ms K.   Moskalenko and Ms   Ye.   Napara, lawyers practising in Russia. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     The applicants alleged that the organisation and conduct of the election process in several polling stations in St Petersburg in December 2011 did not comply with the requirements of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and that they had had no effective domestic remedies against the violations alleged. 4.     On 18 March 2014 the application was communicated to the Government. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A.     General overview of the case 5.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 6.     All the applicants are Russian nationals living in St Petersburg. On 4   December 2011 they took part in elections which, on that date, took place simultaneously at city level and federal level: the election of deputies to the Legislative Assembly of St Petersburg (the legislative body of the City of St   Petersburg, a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, hereinafter referred to as “the LA”) and the election of deputies to the State Duma of the Russian Federation (the lower chamber of the Russian parliament, hereinafter referred to as “the Duma”). 7.     The applicants participated in the elections in different capacities: all of them were registered voters; in addition, some of them stood as candidates for the LA, while others were members of electoral commissions or observers. 8.     The applicants alleged that the electoral commissions had falsified the results of the elections by systematically assigning more votes to the ruling Yedinaya Rossiya (ER) party and its candidates, and stripping the opposition parties and candidates of their votes. The allegations raised by the first to seventh applicants concern the results of voting in the Kolpino district of St   Petersburg (electoral divisions ( избирательный округ ) nos.   18 and 19 of St   Petersburg). Other applicants complained about the results in other electoral divisions in St Petersburg (see Appendix). 9.     After the announcement of the preliminary election results, some applicants complained to the St Petersburg City Electoral Commission alleging falsification of the results. Some of the applicants lodged criminal complaints and sued the respective electoral commissions in courts. For more details about their contesting the results of the elections, see sections D to H below. B.     Organisation of the elections of 4 December 2011 10.     Elections at both levels (federal and city) were based on proportional representation by party list. That is, the electorate voted not for individual candidates but for lists of candidates proposed by political parties. The following parties took part in the elections: Yedinaya Rossiya (“ER”); Spraverdlivaya Rossiya (“SR”); Patrioty Rossii (“PR”); Pravoye Delo (“PD”); Kommunisticheskaya Partiya Rossiyskoy Federatsii (“the KPRF”); Liberalno-Demokraticheskaya Partiya Rossii (“the LDPR”); Yabloko. 11.     ER was the ruling party which already had an absolute majority in both legislatures. The other parties could be characterised as “opposition”, albeit to varying extents. 12.     The number of seats each party could obtain in the LA and in the Duma depended on the number of votes received. The chances for each individual candidate of being elected depended on what position he or she occupied on the list of his or her respective party. Those at the top had a higher chance of being elected. Even if a party obtained the number of votes required to pass the “minimum threshold” established by law to enter the LA or the Duma, a poor overall result for that party would deprive those in lower positions on the list of a mandate. Thus, the chances for each individual candidate of being elected depended not on the results of the voting at a particular polling station, but on the average result of his or her political party in general, throughout the whole territory concerned. 13.     Vote counting at the 2011 elections was organised at three levels. Voters cast their votes at the polling stations managed by the Precinct Electoral Commissions ( участковая избирательная комиссия ( УИК ) – hereinafter “the PECs”). The PECs also collected the votes of those casting their votes at home. Each precinct usually had between 2,000 and 3,000   registered voters. Generally, the lists of voters registered for federal and city elections were identical, and each voter coming to the polling station received two separate ballot papers – one for the LA elections and another for the Duma elections. 14.     On election night the PECs, after opening the ballot boxes (stationary and mobile), counted the votes and drew up results sheets (referred to as “protocols”). Separate protocols were drawn up for the LA and Duma elections. All members of the electoral commissions had to sign the protocols and were entitled to receive a copy of them (see paragraphs 178 ‑ 179 below for the formal requirements to copies of protocols). 15.     After that, one copy of the protocol was brought to the relevant Territorial Electoral Commission ( территориальная избирательная комиссия ( ТИК ) – hereinafter “the TECs”), which was responsible for preparing a consolidated table of results of the voting in the divisions under its jurisdiction. Each TEC covered several electoral divisions ( избирательные округа , sometimes also called территории (“territories”)); and each division covered several dozen precincts. To give examples relevant to the applicants’ complaints, TEC no.   3 covered electoral division no.   17 (comprised of thirty-two precincts), TEC no.   7 covered electoral division no.   15 (comprised of thirty-three precincts), TEC no.   21 covered electoral divisions nos.   18 (thirty-two precincts) and 19 (thirty-four precincts) and TEC no.   27 covered electoral division no.   33 (forty precincts). 16.     Each TEC then sent their own protocols to the St Petersburg City Electoral Commission ( Санкт-Петербургская избирательная комиссия ) (hereinafter “the City Electoral Commission”), which made a final calculation at the City level. The results were published on the website of the City Electoral Commission. The overall system of elections in Russia was supervised by the Central Electoral Commission ( Центральная избирательная комиссия ( ЦИК )) (hereinafter “the CEC”). 17.     The applicants complain of various kinds of manipulation during the elections. They all allege that the protocols containing the results in the precincts were replaced with new ones at the territorial commissions. These new protocols contained different figures, inflating the results for ER and diminishing the results for other parties, notably SR and Yabloko. C.     Nature of each applicant’s complaint 1.     The first applicant 18 .     Mr Davydov (the first applicant) was born in 1987 in Leningrad. He stood as a candidate for the LA for the SR party. His complaint concerns the results of elections to the LA in the Kolpino district of St   Petersburg (electoral division no. 19). (a)     The difference in results 19.     In Mr Davydov’s submission, the results of the elections as published on 5   December 2011 by the City Electoral Commission on its website did not correspond to the real figures obtained by the PECs as a result of the vote counting which had taken place on the evening of 4   December 2011. The official election results at city level (including Kolpino district) were approved by a decision of the City Electoral Commission on 12   December 2011. 20 .     In support of his allegation the applicant produced copies of the allegedly original protocols drawn up by PECs. The applicant, as a candidate and a member of SR, had collected those protocols from the members of the electoral commissions who represented SR or other opposition parties, as well as from the observers who had been dispatched to the polling stations by SR, the KPRF and Yabloko. Under the law, after the votes had been counted, members of the electoral commissions and observers were entitled to receive a “certified copy” of the protocol. The applicant also produced a list of the names of observers and members of the electoral commissions who had given him copies of the protocols. 21.     Mr Davydov produced information concerning thirty-five precincts, all belonging to electoral division no.   19. He produced copies of the “original protocols” and of the “final results” published on the website of the City Electoral Commission. Some of the final results are identical to those in the “original” protocols. For example, the “original” protocol issued by PEC   no. 640 contained results which were identical to the official final results. 22.     However, in the majority of the polling stations the number of votes cast in favour of ER was much lower than the figure which appeared in the official results. Polling station no.   639 could be taken as an example. According to the applicant’s copy of the protocol issued by PEC no.   639, 903 valid ballot papers were cast. The votes were distributed as follows: - ER   218; - LDPR   132; - KPRF   137; - SR   302; - PR   12; - Yabloko 89; - PD   13. 23.     According to the final results published by the City Electoral Commission, the same 903 valid ballot papers were distributed as follows: - ER   460; - LDPR   210; - KPRF   137; - SR   28; - PR   6; - Yabloko 55; - PD   7. 24.     In the applicant’s opinion, the difference between the published results and the “original” protocols showed that the votes had been redistributed in favour of ER and, to a certain extent, the LDPR. 25 .     The applicant submitted “original” protocols in respect of the following twenty-one precincts where the results of ER, recorded in the original tables, were lower than the results officially published by the City Electoral Commission: nos. 638, 639, 641, 642, 643, 644, 646, 648, 649, 651, 652, 653, 654, 657, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667 and 668. From the documents submitted by the applicant it appears that the form of the “original” reports differs from one PEC to another. All the “original” reports contained certain pre-printed parts to be filled in; however, not all of the information fields were filled in and not all signatures were always in place. Thus, some of the reports submitted by the applicant did not have a third page, which should contain the signatures of the members of the electoral commissions (for example, precinct no. 638). Some of the reports contained a third page with the signatures of the head of the relevant PEC and/or his or her deputy, but not the signatures of the other members, and did not contain the official stamp or indicate the time when they had been drawn up (for example, no.   639). Some reports had no third page, but the first page bore the words “authentic copy”, the signature of the head of the electoral commission and an official stamp (for example, no. 642). 26.     A number of the “original” protocols had all the necessary entries and signatures, indicated the date and time they had been drawn up, and bore an official stamp on the third page (for example, station no. 654, which reported that ER had received 261 votes whereas the official final results reported 748; the protocols from precincts nos. 657, 661, 665 and others show a similar pattern) or even on every page (for example, station no.   643, which listed ER as having obtained 253 votes, in contrast to the 498 votes it received according to the final results). 27.     Generally speaking, most of the “original” protocols are photocopies containing the handwritten inscription “authentic copy”, the PEC stamp and the handwritten signature of the head of the commission, his or deputy and, occasionally, the secretary. (b)     Overall effect of the changes 28.     According to the “original” protocols presented by the first applicant, in division no.   19 ER received 8,695 votes, whereas the City Electoral Commission reported a figure which was almost twice as high: 17,265 votes. The same “original” copies indicated that SR had obtained 10,031 votes, while the official result was only 4,538 votes. Votes for other parties (except for the LDPR) had also been redistributed in favour of ER. 2.     The second applicant 29 .     The second applicant (Ms Andronova) was born in 1953 in Leningrad. Her complaint concerned the right to vote in both the LA and the State Duma elections. She was a voter registered in electoral precinct no.   652 in Kolpino (electoral division no.   19). She was also a voting member of PEC no.   652. She was affiliated to SR. She voted for SR at both levels and monitored both elections – to the City LA and to the State Duma – at that polling station. 30.     The initial result achieved by SR in the LA elections in precinct no.   652, as reflected in the copy of the protocol which the second applicant received as a PEC member, was 299 votes; the official result was 19 votes. As to the Duma elections, SR received 315 votes according to the initial count and 115 votes according to the official results. 31.     Other parties also saw their votes redistributed in favour of ER. Thus, according to the protocols, the KPRF obtained 174 votes in the Duma elections and 164 in the LA elections; however, the City Electoral Commission reported 74 and 14 votes respectively. The official results of ER at that polling station were 574 in the Duma elections, while the initial figure stood at 274; and 599 votes in the LA elections, compared to 259 according to the initial protocols. 3.     The third applicant 32 .     The third applicant (Mr Andronov) was born in 1986 in Leningrad. His complaint concerned the right to vote in both the LA and the State Duma elections. He was a voter registered in electoral precinct no. 651 in Kolpino (electoral division no.   19), and was a voting member of the same PEC. He was affiliated to SR. The official results of SR at that station were 125 votes (Duma elections) and nine votes (LA elections), whereas according to the “original” protocols, SR received 345 and 328 votes respectively. The official results achieved by ER were 640 (Duma) and 807 (LA), compared to the initially recorded 310 (Duma) and 299 (LA). 4.     The fourth applicant 33 .     The fourth applicant (Ms Nikolayeva) was born in 1988 in Leningrad. Her complaint concerned the right to vote in both the LA and the State Duma elections. She was a voter registered in electoral precinct no. 654 in Kolpino (electoral division no.   19), and was a voting member of the same PEC. She was affiliated to SR. In that precinct in the Duma elections SR received 307 votes according to the “original” protocol and 157 according to the official published results; and 287 and 14 respectively in the LA elections. The official results of ER were 748 (LA) and 424 (Duma), compared to initial results of 261 (LA) and 274 (Duma). 5.     The fifth applicant 34 .     The fifth applicant (Mr Sizenov) was born in 1972 in Leningrad. His complaint concerned the right to vote in both the LA and the State Duma elections. He was a voter registered in electoral precinct no.   661 in Kolpino (electoral division no.   19) and was a voting member of the same PEC. He was affiliated to Yabloko. In that precinct in the Duma elections Yabloko received 90 votes originally and 40 votes officially, and in the LA elections 103 and 8 votes respectively. In the same vein, SR received 358 votes according to the “original” protocols and 138 according to the official results in the Duma elections, and 360 and 13 respectively in the LA elections. The official results of ER were 667 (Duma) and 861 (LA), with 296 (Duma) and 281 (LA) being recorded initially. 6.     The sixth applicant 35 .     The sixth applicant (Mr Belyakov) was born in 1948 in Leningrad. He was a voter registered in electoral precinct no. 637 in Kolpino (electoral division no.   18); his complaint only concerned the elections to the LA. According to him, as a result of the redistribution of votes, the result achieved by ER had increased from 380 to 804 votes, to the detriment of other parties. The sixth applicant had received the relevant protocols from Mr   M.,   who was the head of the local branch of the KPRF and had received the protocols from the KPRF observer at that polling station. 7.     The seventh and eighth applicants 36 .     The seventh applicant (Mr Yakushenko) was born in 1954 in the Leningrad Region. He was a voter registered in electoral precinct no.   623 in Kolpino (electoral division no.   18); his complaint concerned the elections to the LA. According to him, as a result of the redistribution of votes, ER’s result had increased from 731 to 798 votes, to the detriment of other parties. The seventh applicant also received the protocols from Mr M. 37 .     The eighth applicant (Mr Payalin) was born in 1968 in Leningrad. He stood as a candidate in the elections to the LA for SR. His complaint concerned the results in electoral division no. 22 of St Petersburg in the elections to the LA. In particular, he challenged the official figures for twenty-two electoral precincts (nos. 721, 722, 723, 724, 725, 726, 727, 728, 729, 731, 733, 734, 735, 736, 739, 740, 741, 742, 743, 744, 745 and 794). According to the initial calculation, in electoral division no. 22 SR had obtained 9,616 votes, whereas the official result stood at 6,415. He claimed that as a result of the falsification of the results SR had been deprived of a number of seats in the LA and he had not been elected. 38.     The seventh and eighth applicants later withdrew their complaints to the Court (see paragraphs 202 and 203 below). 8.     The ninth applicant 39 .     The ninth applicant (Mr Truskanov) was born in 1946 in Leningrad. He stood as a candidate in the elections to the LA for SR. His complaint concerned the results of the elections to the LA in electoral division no.   17 of St Petersburg. In particular, he challenged the official figures concerning the results in ten electoral precincts (nos. 486, 489, 495, 496, 497, 498, 500, 501, 508 and 509). According to the applicant’s calculations based on the initial protocols collected by him and by several other political parties concerned, in this electoral division SR had obtained 7,530 votes, while the official result indicated 5,765 votes. At the same time, ER’s results had changed from 5,677 to 12,598 votes. 40 .     The ninth applicant’s complaint has another limb. He claimed that in division no.   17 two “closed” electoral precincts, nos.   1852 and 1853, had been set up at a site with special security status – a heavy machinery plant. Observers, candidates and media were not allowed to access those “closed” precincts; ER’s results in those precincts were particularly high, if compared with other precincts where observers and candidates had been able to monitor the process of voting and counting. 9.     The tenth applicant 41 .     The tenth applicant (Ms Pushkareva) was born in 1957 in the Donetsk Region. She stood as a candidate in the elections to the LA for SR. Her complaint concerned the results of the elections to the LA in electoral division no. 33 of St Petersburg. In particular, she challenged the official figures concerning the results in 18 electoral precincts (nos. 1070, 1084, 1089, 1090, 1093, 1097, 1098, 1103, 1104, 1107, 1108, 1109, 1111, 1114, 1115, 1118, 1126 and 1127). Thus, according to the initial protocols obtained by the applicant as a candidate in this circuit, SR had obtained 9,794 votes, whereas the official result was announced as 7,131. 42 .     Furthermore, the tenth applicant indicated that the official results in electoral precincts nos. 1071, 1091, 1099 and 1113 had been declared void by the higher electoral commission. On 5 December 2011 TEC no.   27 decided, first, to conduct an independent recount in the four precincts owing to “complaints of breaches of the law and doubts about the correctness of the protocols”. The TEC then decided as follows: “Having conducted an independent recount in electoral precincts nos. 1071, 1091, 1099 and 1113 ... and having concluded that the violations of the law ... were such that the results could not be determined (the number of ballot papers found in the ballot boxes significantly exceeds the number of papers issued at the voting stations), TEC no. 27 decided ... to declare the results of the election void.” No new election had been organised, and as a result voters living in those four precincts had been deprived of their right to vote, and the applicant’s party (SR) had been deprived of a number of votes. 10.     The eleventh applicant 43 .     The eleventh applicant (Mr Shestakov) was born in 1982 in Leningrad. He stood as a candidate in the elections to the LA for SR. His complaint concerned the results in electoral division no.   15 of St Petersburg, only in respect of the elections to the LA. In particular, he challenged the official figures concerning the results in thirteen electoral precincts (nos.   554, 555, 557, 592, 593, 597, 598, 600, 601, 605, 606, 610 and 611). According to the initial copies of the protocols collected by the applicant from the observers and PEC members, SR had obtained 6,629 votes in this electoral division; the official result stood at 3,894 votes. 44.     In addition, the eleventh applicant also contested data appearing in some of the “original” protocols. In particular, he claimed that the protocols from sixteen PECs (nos. 549, 552, 553, 554, 444, 446, 558, 592, 594, 598, 601, 605, 606, 607, 608 and 611) did not reflect the actual results. 45.     He referred to the following breaches of procedure which had been reported by observers and some members of electoral commissions and which were, in his opinion, indicative of manipulation: - observers had been removed from polling stations under different pretexts, such as that they had been “filming the lists of registered voters and the process of voting” or “using dictaphones” (nos.   549 and 554); “displaying written materials bearing the symbol of one of the parties” (no. 549); or “making offensive comments in respect of the head of the electoral commission” (no.   552); - observers had been positioned so that they were unable to see the voting booths and the head of the PEC had refused to relocate the ballot boxes, the voting booths or the observers’ seating area, or to let the observers move to better positions (nos.   549, 552, 554, 592, 605, 608 and 611); - during the voting unidentified individuals had blocked the view of the booths or ballot boxes so as to prevent observers from seeing what was happening there (no.   549); - some people had voted without having received ballot papers from the electoral commission (no.   549), or had stuffed several ballot papers into the boxes at once (no.   553); observers reported that the number of people who had turned up to vote was, according to their calculations, much lower than the number of ballot papers deposited in the boxes (nos.   549 and 594); and compact wads of dozens of identical ballot papers filled in for ER had been found in certain boxes (nos.   598 and 608); - the observers had been ordered to stay a certain distance away from the tables where the ballot papers were counted, and could not therefore see what was happening and what was written on the papers (nos. 552 and 558); - some people who should normally have been among the registered voters had not found their names on the lists (nos. 558 and 607); - the “mobile ballot boxes” used for voting at home had not been shown to the observers (no. 558); - the members of the electoral commission who had taken the “mobile ballot boxes” to home voters had discovered that the people concerned had already voted in person at the voting station and had stated that they had never applied to vote at home (nos. 601 and 607). 46.     The observers had referred to other problems and anomalies in the voting and counting process (insufficient number of blank ballot papers, lists of registered voters not stapled together and sealed, inexplicable interruptions to the process of counting the votes, third parties entering the premises of the City Electoral Commission and talking to the head of the commission, agitation for ER, and so on). 47.     To confirm his allegations the eleventh applicant submitted copies of complaints lodged by individual observers and members of the electoral commissions at the electoral precincts concerned. D.     Complaints to the City Electoral Commission and the judicial review thereof (second, third and fourth applicants) 48 .     On 6 December 2011 the third and fourth applicants (Mr   Andronov and Ms Nikolayeva) lodged an administrative complaint with the City Electoral Commission indicating that the official results of the voting (in LA and Duma elections) in precincts nos. 651 and 654 of Kolpino district were wrong and did not correspond to those recorded in the protocols. 49 .     As regards polling station no. 651, the third applicant (Mr   Andronov) described the process of transporting the protocols to TEC no.   21. He indicated that the protocols had been taken by the PEC chairman to the TEC on 5 December 2011. However, when Mr   Andronov had spoken to the chairman on the telephone at about 7.15 p.m., the latter had informed him that the document had not yet been handed to the TEC and that he was waiting in the corridor to be called. Nevertheless, by that time information about precinct no.   651 had already appeared on the website of the City Electoral Commission. In other words, the City Electoral Commission had published the precinct results before TEC no.   21 had received the protocols from the chairman of the precinct commission. The figures published by the City Electoral Commission were different from the result recorded in the “original” protocol, with a higher number of votes for ER. The PEC chairman had later informed Mr   Andronov that he had handed in the protocols and had been given a receipt by the TEC; according to the third applicant, the receipt contained the original results, and not those which had been published later. A copy of that receipt had later been added to the file before the TEC. The third applicant had recorded all his conversations with the PEC chairman and submitted a CD with those recordings. He also indicated that he would be prepared to request a printout of his telephone call history during the period concerned from the mobile operator. 50.     As regards polling station no. 654, the fourth applicant (Ms   Nikolayeva) gave fewer details about the process of transporting the protocols and the tabulation of results at the TEC; she simply indicated that as a voting member of the precinct commission she had received a copy of the protocols, and that this copy did not correspond to the official results published by the City Electoral Commission. 51.     On 8 December 2011 the City Electoral Commission forwarded the third applicant’s complaint to the Kolpino District Prosecutor for further action. It appears that the fourth applicant’s complaint was also sent there. 52. On 12 December 2011 the City Electoral Commission officially approved the results of the elections in St Petersburg, including precincts nos.   651 and 654. 53 .     On 19 December 2011 the Kolpino District Prosecutor informed the third applicant that as the election results had been officially approved the complaint had to be lodged with the courts. 54.     On 28 December 2011 the City Electoral Commission informed the third applicant, by letter, that after the official approval of the election results, the results could only be contested in court. The fourth applicant did not receive any reply to her complaint. 55.     On 2 and 8 February 2012 the third and fourth applicants lodged complaints with the Oktyabrskiy District Court, challenging the refusal of the City Electoral Commission to examine their complaints. 56 .     On 9 and 15 February 2012 the Oktyabrskiy District Court rejected the applicants’ complaints. The relevant part of the court’s reasoning in both decisions reads as follows: “In the complaint [the applicant] pointed to a possible falsification of the results of the voting, which is a crime under Article 141-1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation [; however,] the City Electoral Commission of St Petersburg has no power to establish, investigate or ascertain circumstances, events or actions which may trigger criminal liability, [and therefore] the court considers that it was justified in forwarding the complaint to the Kolpino District Prosecutor’s office.” 57.     The two applicants appealed; on 16 April and 10 May 2012 the St   Petersburg City Court upheld the lower court’s decisions. 58 .     The second applicant (Ms Andronova) also complained to the City Electoral Commission about a discrepancy between the numbers of votes recorded by her at PEC no.   652 and those announced by the City Electoral Commission. On 9   December 2011 the City Electoral Commission informed her that her complaint had been forwarded to the St Petersburg City Prosecutor. 59 .     The second applicant also applied to the Oktyabrskiy District Court, contesting the City Electoral Commission’s refusal to examine her complaint. On 5   March 2012 her complaint was dismissed, on similar grounds (see   paragraph 56 above). The St Petersburg City Court upheld the decision on appeal on 2 May 2012. E.     Attempts to start a criminal investigation into the alleged falsification 1.     The first applicant (LA elections in precinct no. 646) 60 .     On 20 December 2011 the Kolpino District Prosecutor received a complaint alleging falsification of the results in precinct no. 646 (as challenged by the first applicant – see paragraphs 18 et seq. above). 61 .     On 18 January 2012 the Kolpino District Prosecutor decided not to open an investigation into this allegation. The investigator noted that, indeed, according to the “original” protocols produced by the unnamed claimant, the number of votes received by ER had been only one-third of the total officially reported. However, the investigator had received another protocol from the City Electoral Commission, in which the number of votes recorded was identical to that reported on the website. Having examined it, the investigator continued as follows: “... In this connection it is necessary to conduct a graphological examination of the signatures of the members of PEC no. 646 [on the protocols] submitted by the applicant and by the CEC. On the basis of the above [the investigator] has decided not to open a criminal case under Article 142.1 of the Criminal Code, as there is no evidence of a crime.” 62 .     It appears that at some point the decision of 18 January 2012 was quashed by a supervising prosecutor. On 21 February 2012 the same investigator again decided not to open a case. The new decision by the investigator read as follows: “... In this connection it is necessary to conduct a graphological examination of the signatures of the members of PEC no. 646 [on the protocols] submitted by the applicant and by the City Electoral Commission; without [such an examination] it is impossible to establish whether there is evidence of a crime as provided for by Article 142.1 of the Criminal Code. Such an examination was ordered on 15 February 2012, but so far it has not been completed. On the basis of the above ... [the investigator] decided not to open a criminal case under Article 142.1 of the Criminal Code, as there is no evidence of a crime.” 63 .     According to the applicants, in the following months that decision by the investigator was set aside and the case was reopened and then closed again at least once. The applicants did not have any more detailed information about all the reopenings and closures of the case. 2.     Complaint by the second applicant (LA elections and Duma elections in precinct no. 652) 64 .     On 5 December 2011 the second applicant (Ms Andronova) lodged a complaint with the St Petersburg Department of the Investigative Committee. She wrote that, as a voting member of PEC no.   652, she had seen the results of the election and had participated in the transfer of the signed protocol to TEC no.   21. In a telephone conversation the head of the TEC had confirmed that he had received the protocol. According to that document, SR had received 315 votes; however, the official results reported 115 votes. The second applicant attached a copy of the “original” protocol and the final results as published on the website of the City Electoral Commission, and asked the Investigative Committee to open a criminal investigation into the matter. In her opinion, the circumstances of the case were indicative of falsification of the results of the elections – a crime under the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (see paragraphs 29 et seq. above). 65.     It appears that the second applicant’s complaint was forwarded to the Kolpino District Prosecutor’s Office for consideration. 66 .     On 14 February 2012 the Kolpino District Prosecutor informed the second applicant that he had decided not to take any action in connection with her complaint. The prosecutor informed the second applicant, without giving any specific details or answering the allegations raised in the complaint, that having considered the situation, he had not detected any breaches of electoral law. She was entitled to challenge the official results of the elections before a court that had jurisdiction over the relevant electoral commissions. 3.     The third and fourth applicants (LA and Duma elections in precincts nos. 651 and 654) 67 .     On 6 December 2011 the third and fourth applicants lodged a complaint with the St Petersburg Department of the Investigative Committee, seeking the opening of a criminal investigation into the alleged falsification of the results of the elections in precincts nos. 651 and 654 (see paragraphs 32 and 33 above). The third applicant referred, in particular, to the conversation he had had with the chairman of PEC no.   651, and insisted that the results of the elections in that precinct had been published before the relevant protocols had been transported to TEC no. 21 (see paragraph 49 above). He also attached a transcript of that conversation. This complaint was forwarded to the Kolpino District Prosecutor. 68.     On 18 January 2012 a decision was taken not to open a criminal investigation. Documents submitted after the present case was communicated indicate that on 23 January 2012 the decision of 18 January 2012 was set aside by the Kolpino District Prosecutor. 69.     On 14 February 2012 the Kolpino District Prosecutor informed the third applicant that he had decided to take no action in respect of the complaint for want of any breach of legislation (in a letter identical to the letter of the same date sent to the second applicant – see paragraph 66 above). On the same day the Kolpino District Prosecutor informed the fourth applicant that her complaint was being examined. 70 .     On 12 June 2012 an investigator of the Kolpino District Investigative Committee ruled that a criminal investigation was not to be opened into allegations of fraud in precinct no.   654 in view of the absence of evidence of a crime (he referred to another claimant, not the fourth applicant). The decision was based principally on the Kolpino District Court judgmen