CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 mars 2014

.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 } .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 } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s50794FE3 { margin-left:42.72pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .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 } .s3A71F16B { width:17.6pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s1F93FF1F { margin-left:64.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }     Communicated on 18 March 2014   FIRST SECTION Applications nos 75947/11 Andrey Vladimirovich DAVYDOV and others against Russia lodged on 9 December 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS   A.     General overview of the case 1.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 2.     All the applicants are Russian nationals living in Saint-Petersburg. On 4   December 2011 they took part in the elections which, on that date, took place simultaneously at city level and federal level: the election of deputies to the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg (the legislative body of the City of Saint-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”). 3.     The applicants participated in the election in different capacities: all of them were registered voters; in addition, some of them stood as candidates to the Duma or to the Legislative Assembly, while others were members of the electoral commissions or observers. 4.     The applicants alleged that during those elections electoral commissions falsified the results of the voting by assigning more votes to the ruling Yedinaya Rossiya (United Russia) party and its candidates, and stripping the opposition parties and candidates of their votes. The applicants’ allegations mostly concern the results of voting in the Kolpino district of Saint-Petersburg [1] . 5.     After the announcement of the preliminary election results, the applicants complained to the Central Electoral Commission (CEC) and the City Electoral Commission about the alleged falsification of the results. Later, some of the applicants sued the respective electoral commissions in court and lodged complaints with the prosecutor’s office, but to no avail. For more details about the process of contesting the results of the elections, see sections “E” et seq. below. B.     Organisation of the elections of 4 December 2011 6.     Elections at both levels (federal and city) were organised on the basis of a system of proportional representation. That is, the electorate voted not for individual candidates, but for lists of candidates proposed by several political parties. The following parties took part in the elections: Yedinaya Rossiya Spraverdlivaya Rossiya (SR) Patrioty Rossii (PR) Pravoye Delo (PD) Kommunisticheskaya Partiya Rossiyskoy Federatsii (KPRF) Liberalno-Demokraticheskaya Partiya Rossii (LDPR) Yabloko . 7.     Yedinaya Rossiya (“United Russia”) was the governmental party which had already had an absolute majority in both legislatures and supported President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin. The other parties can be characterised as “opposition forces”, albeit to a varied extent; some (like LDPR) were historically relatively loyal to the government whereas others (like Yabloko ) were more anti-government. 8.     Depending on the number of votes received, each party could obtain a certain number of seats in the LA and in the Duma. The chances of each individual candidate of getting elected depended on what position he occupied on the list of his 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, the party’s overall poor result deprived those at “low positions” on the list of a mandate. Thus, the chances of each individual candidate of getting elected depended not on the results of the voting at a particular voting station, but on the average result of his political party in general, throughout the whole territory concerned. 9.     Vote counting at the 2011 elections was organised at three levels. Voters cast their votes at the voting stations managed by the District Electoral Commissions. The District Commissions also collected the votes of those casting their votes at home. Each electoral district usually had 2,000 to 3,000 registered voters. Generally, the lists of voters registered for federal and city elections were identical, and each voter coming to the voting station received two separate ballot papers – one for the LA elections and another for the Duma elections. 10.     On the evening of the elections the District Electoral Commissions, after having opened the ballot boxes (stationary and transportable), counted the votes and drew up “results tables” ( protocoly ) for the voting in the district. All members of the electoral commissions had to sign the results tables and were entitled to receive a copy of them. There were two tables: one for the LA elections and one for the Duma elections. 11.     After that the results tables were sent up to the respective Territorial Electoral Commission, which was responsible for preparing a consolidated table of results of the voting on the territory under its jurisdiction. 12.     Finally, each Territorial Commission sent their results tables to the City Electoral Commission, which made a final calculation at city level. The official final results were published on the website of the City Electoral Commission. C.     Nature of the “manipulation and fraud” alleged by the applicants 13.     The applicants refer to various sorts of manipulation during the elections, which varied from simple non-respect of the electoral legislation to direct fraud. 14.     First, the applicants alleged that the tables reflecting the actual results of the voting were often replaced with new ones which contained incorrect figures, invariably inflating the results of the ruling party or its candidates, or were simply disregarded by the upper commissions, which reported a higher result for United Russia. 15.     Second, some observers who witnessed the process of voting in the district electoral commissions reported various incidents which they qualified as direct electoral fraud, such as bundles of ballot papers being stuffed into the ballot boxes, for example. For more details, see the submissions of the eleventh applicant below. 16.     Third, the applicants complained of manipulation, which made the process of voting and calculation of votes deliberately opaque, thus creating the potential for fraud. For example, observers were occasionally prevented from performing their tasks and were even forcibly removed from the premises of the electoral commissions. D.     Specific violations in respect of each applicant and related domestic proceedings 1.     The first applicant 17.     Mr Davydov (the first applicant) was born in 1987 in Leningrad. He stood as candidate to the LA on behalf of Spraverdlivaya Rossiya (hereafter, “SR”). His complaint concerns the results of voting in the Kolpino district, Saint-Petersburg (electoral territory no. 19) [2] . (a)     The essence of the alleged falsification 18.     In Mr Davydov’s words, the official results of the elections published by the City Electoral Commission on 5 December 2011 on their website did not correspond to the real figures obtained by the District Electoral Commissions as a result of the vote counting which took place on the evening of 4   December 2011. The official results of the voting at city level (including the Kolpino district) were approved by decision of the City Electoral Commission of 12 December 2011. 19.     In support of his allegation the applicant produced copies of the results tables of the District Commissions. The applicant, as a candidate and a member of SR, collected those tables from members of the electoral commissions who represented SR or other opposition parties, as well as from the observers who were dispatched to the voting stations by SR, KPRF and Yabloko . Under the law, after the votes had been counted members of the electoral commission and observers were entitled to receive a “certified copy” of the results tables. 20.     The applicant produced a list of the names of observers and members of the electoral commissions who had given him copies of the results tables. (b)     Copies of results tables submitted by the applicants 21.     Mr Davydov produced information concerning thirty-five voting stations, all belonging to electoral territory no. 19. According to Mr   Davydov, as follows from the original results tables obtained by the members of the District Commissions on the night of the elections, SR received 10,031 votes in electoral territory no. 19. However, those tables were later replaced with new ones, according to which SR received only 4,538 votes, while the officially proclaimed result of United Russia grew to 17,265 votes from the 8,695 recorded in the original tables. Additional votes in favour of United Russia were taken not only from SR but also from other parties which participated in the elections at city level. 22.     Mr Davydov produced copies of “original results tables” and of the “final results” published on the website of the City Electoral Commission. Some of the final results do not reveal any difference from the original results tables. For example, the original results table of District Electoral Commission no. 640 fully corresponded to the official final results. 23.     However, in the majority of voting stations the number of votes cast in favour of United Russia was much lower than the figure which appeared in the official final results. Voting station no.   639 could be taken as an example. According to the copy of the results table of District Commission no. 639, 903 valid ballot papers were cast. The votes were distributed as follows: •   United Russia – 218; •   LDPR – 132; •   KPRF – 137; •   SR – 302; •   PR – 12; •   Yabloko – 89; •   PD – 13. 24.     According to the final results published by the City Commission, in District Commission no. 639 903 valid ballot papers were cast. The votes were distributed as follows: United Russia – 460; LDPR – 210; KPRF – 137; SR – 28; PR – 6; Yabloko – 55; PD – 7. 25.     In the applicant’s opinion, the difference between the final published results and the original results tables showed that the votes were re-distributed in favour of United Russia and, to a certain extent, LDPR. 26.     The applicant submitted original results tables in respect of the following voting stations where the results of United Russia, recorded in the original tables, were much lower than the final 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 results tables differs from one District Electoral Commission to another. All of the original results tables contain 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 tables submitted by the applicant do not have a third page, which should contain the signatures of the members of the electoral commissions (for example, table no. 638). Some of the tables contain a third page with the signatures of the head of the respective District Electoral Commission and/or his deputy but not the signatures of the other members of the Electoral Commission and do not contain the official stamp of the Commissions or indicate the time when they were drawn up (for example, no. 639). Some tables have no third page, but the first page bears the words “authentic copy”, the signature of the head of the electoral commission and an official stamp (for example, no. 642). 27.     A number of original results tables have all the necessary entries, signatures, indicate the date and time they were drawn up and bear an official stamp on the third page (for example, that of station no. 654, which reports that United Russia received 261 votes whereas the official final results reported 748; see also tables nos. 657, 661, 665 and others) or even on every page (for example, that of station no. 643, which lists United Russia as having obtained 253 votes, in contrast to the 498 votes it received according to the final results). 28.     Generally speaking, most of the “original results tables” are photocopies containing the handwritten inscription “authentic copy”, the official stamp of the District Electoral Commission and the handwritten signature of the head of the commission, his deputy and, occasionally, the secretary of the commission. (c)     Overall effect of the alleged falsification 29.     According to Mr Davydov, in the Kolpino district United Russia received 8,695 votes, whereas the City Electoral Commission reported a figure which was almost twice as high – 17,265 votes. By contrast, SR obtained 10,031 votes, while according to the official publication its result was only 5,493 votes. Votes for other parties (except for LDPR) had also been redistributed in favour of United Russia. 2.     The second applicant 30.     The second applicant (Ms Andronova) was born in 1953 in Leningrad. She was a voter registered in electoral district no. 652 in the Kolpino district. She was also a voting member of District Electoral Commission no. 652. She was affiliated with SR. She voted for SR at both levels and oversaw the two elections – to the LA of the City and to the State Duma – at that voting station. 31.     The real result of SR at the LA elections in district no. 652, reflected in the copy of the results table which the second applicant received as a member of the district electoral commission, was 299 votes; the official result was 19 votes.   As to the Duma elections, SR received 315 votes in reality and 115 votes according to the official results. The official results of United Russia at that voting station were 574 (Duma elections) and 599 (LA elections). 32.     Other parties also saw their votes redistributed in favour of United Russia. Thus, according to the results table, KPRF obtained 174 votes at the Duma elections and 164 at the LA elections; however, the City Electoral Commission reported about 75 and 14 votes respectively. The official results of United Russia at that voting station were 640 (Duma elections) and 807 (LA elections). 3.     The third applicant 33.     The third applicant (Mr Andronov) was born in 1986 in Leningrad. He was a voter registered in electoral district no. 651 in the Kolpino district, and a voting member of the District Electoral Commission. He was affiliated with SR. The official results of SR at that station were 125 votes (Duma elections) and 9 votes (LA elections), whereas according to the original results table SR received 345 and 328 votes correspondingly. The official results of United Russia were 807 (Duma) and 640 (LA). 4.     The fourth applicant 34.     The fourth applicant (Ms Nikolayeva) was born in 1988 in Leningrad. She was a voter registered in electoral district no. 654 in the Kolpino district, and a voting member of the District Electoral Commission. She was affiliated with SR. In that district at the Duma elections SR received 307 votes according to the original results table and 157 according to the official published results (287 and 14 accordingly at the LA elections). The official results of United Russia were 758 (LA) and 424 (Duma). 5.     The fifth applicant 35.     The fifth [3] applicant (Mr Sizenov) was born in 1972 in Leningrad. He was a voter registered in electoral district no. 661 in the Kolpino district and a voting member of the District Electoral Commission. He was affiliated with Yabloko . In that district at the Duma elections SR received 307 votes according to the original results table and 157 according to the official published results (287 and 14 accordingly at the LA elections). The official results of United Russia were 667 (Duma) and 861 (LA) [4] . 6.     The sixth applicant 36.     The sixth applicant (Mr Belyakov) was born in 1948 in Leningrad. He was a voter registered in electoral district no. 637 in the Kolpino district; his complaint only concerns the elections to the LA. According to him, as a result of the redistribution of votes, the result of United Russia grew from 380 to 804 votes, to the detriment of other parties. The sixth applicant received the results table from Mr   Moskovtsev,   who was the head of the local branch of KPRF and had received results tables from the observer at that voting station acting on behalf of KPRF. 7.     The seventh applicant 37.     The seventh applicant (Mr Yakushenko) was born in 1954 in the Leningrad Region. He was a voter registered in electoral district no. 623 in the Kolpino district; his complaint concerns elections to the LA. According to him, as a result of the redistribution of votes, the result of United Russia grew from 731 to 798 votes, to the detriment of other parties. The seventh applicant received the results table from Mr Moskovtsev. 8.     The eighth applicant 38.     The eighth applicant (Mr Payalin) was born in 1968 in Leningrad. He stood candidate at the elections to the LA on behalf of SR. His complaint concerns the results of voting in electoral territory no. 22 of Saint-Petersburg. In particular, he challenges the official figures concerning the results of voting in electoral districts nos. 721, 722, 723, 724, 725, 726, 727, 728, 729, 731, 733, 734, 735, 736, 739, 740, 741, 742, 743, 744, 745 and 794. He claims that as a result of the falsification of the results SR was deprived of a certain number of seats in the LA and he did not receive a mandate. 9.     The ninth applicant 39.     The ninth applicant (Mr Truskanov) was born in 1946 in Leningrad. He stood candidate at the elections to the LA on behalf of SR. His complaint concerns the results of voting in electoral territory no. 17 of Saint-Petersburg. In particular, he challenges the official figures concerning the results of voting in electoral districts nos. 486, 489, 495, 496, 497, 498, 500, 501, 508 and 509. 40.     The ninth applicant’s complaint has another limb. He claims that on territory no. 17 two “closed” electoral districts were formed on sites with special security status. [5] The observers, candidates and the press were not allowed to access those “closed” districts; the results of United Russia at those districts were particularly high, even if compared with the official results of United Russia in other districts where observers and candidates were able to monitor the process of voting and counting. 10.     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 on behalf of SR. Her complaint concerns the results of voting in electoral territory no. 33 of Saint-Petersburg. In particular, she challenges the official figures concerning the results of voting in electoral districts nos. 1070, 1084, 1089, 1090, 1093, 1097, 1098, 1103, 1104, 1107, 1108, 1109, 1111, 1114, 1115, 1118, 1126 and 1127. 42.     The tenth applicant indicates that the official results of the voting in electoral districts nos. 1071, 1091, 1099 and 1113 were cancelled by the higher electoral commission. However, no new voting was organised, and as a result voters living on the territory of those four districts were deprived of their right to vote and the applicant’s party (SR) was deprived of a certain number of votes. 11.     The eleventh applicant 43.     The eleventh applicant (Mr Shestakov) was born in 1982 in Leningrad. He stood candidate at the elections to the LA on behalf of SR. His complaint concerns the results of voting in electoral territory no. 15 of Saint-Petersburg. In particular, he challenges the official figures concerning the results of voting in electoral districts nos. 554, 555, 557, 592, 593, 597, 598, 600, 601, 605, 606, 610 and 611. 44.     In addition, the eleventh applicant also contests the data of the original results tables issued by some of the electoral commissions. In particular, he claims that the results tables of District Electoral Commissions nos. 549, 552, 553, 554, 444, 446, 558, 592, 594, 598, 601, 605, 606, 607, 608 and 611 do not reflect the actual results of the voting. 45.     In support of that allegation he refers to the following breaches of procedure which were reported by the observers and some members of the electoral commissions and which were, in his opinion, indicative of manipulation: (1)     The observers were removed from the voting station under different pretexts, such as “filming the lists of registered voters and the process of voting” or “using dictaphones” (nos. 549 and 554); “showing 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); (2)     The observers were positioned where they were unable to see the voting booths and the head of the District Electoral Commission refused to relocate the ballot boxes, the voting booths or the observers’ seating area or let the observers move to a better position (nos. 549, 552, 554, 592, 605, 608 and 611); (4)     During the voting unidentified persons blocked the view of the booths or ballot boxes so as to prevent observers from seeing what was happening there (no.   549); (5)     Certain people voted without having received ballot papers from the electoral commission (no. 549) or 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); compact wads of dozens of identical ballot papers filled in for United Russia were found in certain boxes (nos. 598 and 608); (6)     The observers were ordered to stay at a certain distance 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); (7)     Certain people who should normally have been amongst the registered voters did not find their names on the lists (nos. 558 and 607); (8)     “Transportable boxes” used for voting at home were not shown to the observers (no. 558); (9)     Those members of the electoral commission who took the “transportable boxes” to home voters discovered that the people concerned had already voted in person at the voting station and claimed that they had never requested to vote at home (nos. 601 and 607); 46.     The observers referred to other informalities 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 Electoral Commission and talking to the head of the commission, agitation for United Russia, and so on). 47.     To confirm his allegations the eleventh applicant submitted copies of the complaints lodged by individual observers and members of the electoral commissions at the electoral districts concerned. E.     Judicial review proceedings before the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the proceedings before the Constitutional Court 48.     On 12 December 2011 the first five applicants (Mr Davydov and four others [6] ) lodged a complaint with the Supreme Court of Russia seeking the invalidation of the decision of the CEC whereby the results of the elections had been officially approved. Their complaint concerned the results of the elections to the LA and to the Duma in the Kolpino district of Saint-Petersburg. According to the five applicants, the official results published by the CEC did not correspond to the real results of the voting. 49.     In their complaint the applicants explained who they were and in what capacity they had participated in the elections. In particular, the first applicant indicated that he had stood candidate at the elections on behalf of SR, and that the other applicants were either members of the electoral commission, observers, or simple voters. 50.     The applicants explained that the results of the elections officially published by the City Electoral Commission on its website and then reproduced by the CEC did not correspond to the results tables they had obtained from the electoral commissions, and that the overall difference between those tables and the final results was close to eight thousand votes. The applicants produced copies of original results tables and print-outs of the final results from the website of the City Commission and asked for those results to be annulled, along with the decision of the City Commission and the decision of the CEC approving them. 51.     On 23 December 2011 a Supreme Court judge refused to consider that complaint. The judge decided that the court had no competence to examine such a complaint since the alleged violations did not affect the rights of the voters. The judge observed that such violations may have affected the rights of the parties which had participated in the elections and had not obtained mandates as a result of such violations. 52.     The applicants appealed, but on 9 February 2012 the appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court of Russia, sitting as a court of appeal, noted that under the Duma Elections Act, section 92(4) and (5), the quashing of a decision of the CEC whereby the results of elections were approved was possible only where the violations complained of affected the interests of the political parties participating in the elections. [7] Section 77 of the Basic Guarantees Act contained a similar provision. The court of appeal held that the violations complained of affected the interests of the parties whose candidates had stood in those elections, but not the rights of the voters. 53.     Having obtained the Supreme Court’s decisions of 23 December 2011 and 9 February 2012, the first six applicants brought a complaint before the Constitutional Court of Russia. They complained about the interpretation given by the Supreme Court to the Code of Civil Procedure (the CCP), the Basic Guarantees Act and the Duma Elections Act. According to the Supreme Court, those acts did not give the voters standing to complain about the incorrect counting of the votes: only the political parties had that standing. In the applicants’ opinion, that interpretation contradicted the Constitution. 54.     On 22 April 2013 the Constitutional Court delivered a judgment on the applicants’ complaint (judgment no. 8- P /2013). It held that an individual voter had a legitimate interest that his vote in support of one or another political party or candidate was counted up correctly. Thus, the “active electoral right” was not limited to the right to come to an electoral district and cast a vote freely; it also included the process of counting votes and obtaining a correct final result which reflected the real will of the electorate. The voter should have the right to check the validity of the counting process. In addition, the interests of the parties participating in the elections and the voters could be different. The fact that the process of casting votes was secret did not preclude voters from complaining about incorrect recording of the results, since it affected that election process as a whole and could potentially undermine the legitimacy of the body elected as a result of it. Therefore, it did not matter for which party the particular voter voted at the elections. The Constitutional Court concluded that voters should have the right to complain about unlawfulness in the process of counting votes (point 2.1 of the judgment). 55.     As to the judicial avenue for such complaints, the Constitutional Court noted that although it was not the only legal mechanism, it existed in many European countries. Referring to PACE Resolution 1897 (2012), to the principles developed by the Venice Commission, and to the case X. v.   Germany , Commission Decision of 7 May 1979, no. 8227/78, the Constitutional Court noted that the law might create certain procedural barriers to such complaints: for example, establish short time-limits for complaining or fix a minimum number of voters needed in order to bring such complaints. The Constitutional Court also examined the provision of the CIS convention of 7 October 2002 (signed in Kishinev) on standards of democratic elections, electoral rights and freedoms. 56.     The Constitutional Court concluded that the judicial protection of electoral rights should be available to voters not only in connection with complaints about electoral campaigns and the process of voting, but also in respect of irregularities in the process of counting votes. At the same time, the exercise of the right to judicial protection must not perturb the stability of the functioning of the elected bodies. Therefore, in order to prevent abuse of rights, only substantial violations in the process of the counting of votes could lead to a re-consideration of the results of the elections. 57.     In point 2.4 of the judgment the Constitutional Court invited the federal legislature to secure the right to judicial review of the process of counting votes and determination of the final results of elections. The Constitutional Court added that the courts conducting such a review must be capable of declaring the results of elections on a particular electoral territory void. The exercise of the right to obtain judicial review of vote counting could be subject to rules and procedures established by a federal law. 58.     The Constitutional Court then examined provisions of the legislative acts referred to by the applicants (point 3.1 of the judgment). In the opinion of the Constitutional Court, those acts, if interpreted in compliance with the spirit of constitutional provisions, did not prevent voters from complaining about the process and results of the counting of votes by the electoral commissions, and allowed the courts, where the violations complained of prevented the correct determination of the will of the electorate, to annul the results of the elections. In point 3.3 of the judgment the Constitutional Court held that a regional branch of a political party participating in the elections had standing to bring a complaint about violations of the electoral law at the regional level. 59.     The Constitutional Court further held that voters should not be put in a situation of uncertainty as to the scope of their right of access to court and the procedure of exercising that right. It held that the federal legislature, having proclaimed that the courts were competent to examine complaints about breaches of the electoral law, must adopt special norms to ensure that voters could exercise the right of access to court. The law must also introduce rules to prevent competing political forces from abusing the right to bring judicial proceedings and employing them as a tool for political manipulation. The rules of the CCP and the other acts under examination by the Constitutional Court, as they were formulated at the time, implied that all participants in elections, irrespective of their status and the type and scale of the violation concerned, had equal right to bring complaints to court about any violation of their electoral rights. However, such a lack of differentiation was prejudicial to the stability of the democratic system and created an opportunity for abuse. The procedure for judicial review of irregularities in election procedures was unified at all levels of the electoral system; however, the interest of the voter in having his vote counted accurately was stronger at the level of the electoral district where he voted (as opposed to higher levels of the electoral system). 60.     In the concluding paragraphs of the judgment, the Constitutional Court noted that the courts of general jurisdiction often interpreted the CCP and other applicable acts differently, as if those acts gave the right to bring a complaint about inaccuracies in the counting of votes only to political parties, but not to voters themselves. In part, it was due to the wording of point 20 of Supreme Court Decree no. 5 of 31 March 2011, where the Supreme Court held that the courts could not accept for examination complaints about breaches of the electoral law where those breaches did not affect the rights of the complainant. 61.     The Constitutional Court concluded that such practice was related to the uncertainty of the underlying legislative provisions. Such practice was declared to be incompatible with the Constitution (point 4.3). The Constitutional Court ordered the federal legislature to enact a law which would define the procedure and conditions of voters’ exercise of their right to judicial review of the electoral process at the stages of vote counting and summing up the results. In the meantime the courts of general jurisdiction were ordered to accept for examination on the merits complaints by voters concerning the counting process at the level of the electoral districts where they had voted. F.     Judicial review proceedings before the Saint-Petersburg City Court 1.     The first five applicants (LA and Duma elections in the Kolpino district as a whole) 62.     On 12 December 2011 the first five applicants lodged a complaint with the Saint-Petersburg City Court seeking the annulment of the decision of the City Electoral Commission of 12   December 2011 whereby the results of the elections to the LA were officially approved. This complaint was very similar to the one lodged with the Supreme Court (see above). 63.     On 23 December 2011 the judge of the City Court refused to consider the complaint. 64.     First, the judge observed that the City Court had jurisdiction over complaints lodged against electoral commissions at city level. However, in the opinion of the judge, the applicants’ complaint was directed against the actions of the lower commissions – district commissions and territorial commissions. Consequently, the City Court had no jurisdiction to examine those claims. 65.     Second, the judge found that the applicants alleged that the officials of the electoral commissions were guilty of electoral fraud, which was a criminal act and could not be examined in civil proceedings. 66.     Third, the judge observed that in their complaint the applicants had not fulfilled certain formal requirements of the law. 67.     The judge invited the applicants to amend their complaint accordingly, attach the missing documents and resubmit it before 11   January 2012. 68.     On 30 December 2011 the applicants appealed. They indicated that they had not asked the court to bring anybody to criminal liability; the only object of their complaint was to obtain annulment of the decision of the City Electoral Commission whereby it had approved the official results of the elections published on its website on 5 December 2011. Under Article 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure and section 75(2) of the Basic Guarantees Act the City Court was competent to examine complaints about decisions of the City Electoral Commission. 69.     In parallel, on 10 and 11 January 2012 the applicants resubmitted their complaint, having made the modifications suggested by the City Court. 70.     On 12 and 13 January 2012 the City Court refused to consider the complaint. The judge of the City Court found that the applicants were trying to contest the results of the elections in the district of Kolpino, in electoral territories nos. 19 and 21. However, under section 74(2) of the Basic Guarantees Act this complaint fell within the jurisdiction of the corresponding District Courts. As to the role of the City Electoral Commission, the judge observed that its duty had been to summarise data received from the lower commissions. The court reiterated that the main subject of the applicants’ complaint was the data which had emanated from the territorial and district commissions; therefore, the applicants had to contest the actions of those commissions before the respective courts at the district level, and not before the City Court. 71.     The applicants appealed. They insisted that they had not challenged the decisions of the District Commissions. Quite the contrary, their case fully relied on the results tables issued by the District Commissions, which they had submitted in support of their complaint. As to the Territorial Commissions, the applicants only knew that the Territorial Commissions had received the tables from the District Commissions, but not what had happened to them later and how the Territorial Commissions had processed the data. The applicants had not participated in the process of calculating results at the level of the Territorial Commissions and did not know what figures the Territorial Commissions had sent to the City Commission. They had learned about the incorrect figures from the official publication of the City Commission of 5   December 2011, as approved by its decision of 12   December 2011. Consequently, it was the decision of the City Commission which the applicants contested. 72.     In their appeal the applicants reiterated that they were simply comparing the correct data contained in the results tables of the district commissions which they had received and the incorrect data published by the City Commission. They did not know and could not know at what level the correct figures had turned into incorrect ones. However, the City Court was equally unable, without examining the case on the merits, to infer that the applicants’ complaint concerned allegedly unlawful actions on the part of the Territorial Commissions. 73.     The applicants indicated, with reference to section 26 of the Duma Elections Act, that the City Commission’s role was not limited to a mechanical summing up of the data received from the lower commissions. Under section 26 the City Commission had a general duty to “coordinate the operations” of the lower commissions, ensure respect for electoral rights, guarantee that a uniform procedure was applied in the calculation of votes, and so on. It was also responsible for announcing and approving the final results of voting. Therefore, the applicants intentionally contested the decision of the City Commission, which contained incorrect data, and not the individual decisions of each District Commission (which contained correct data) or the Territorial Commissions (about which the applicants had no information). On the strength of the above, the applicants concluded that their complaint, as directed against the actions of the City Commission, was within the jurisdiction of the Saint-Petersburg City Court. 74.     On 7 February 2012 the City Court of Saint-Petersburg, sitting in a three-judge formation, examined the appeal and dismissed it, repeating the findings of the lower court as to the question of jurisdiction. It confirmed that the City Commission merely summarised data received from the lower commissions. The City Court also indicated that point 39 of Supreme Court Decree no. 5 of 31 March 2011 provided that if a complaint about a decision approving the results of voting referred to alleged violations of the electoral legislation on the part of the District Commissions, the object of the complaint was in fact the decision of the District Commissions, and such cases were to be examined by the relevant District Courts. 75.     According to the applicants, on 22 February 2012 the decision of the judge of 23 December 2011 was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court; the applicants were not informed about the decision of the Supreme Court but learned about it from the Supreme Court’s website some time later. [8] 2.     The sixth applicant (LA elections in district no. 637) 76.     The sixth applicant (Mr Belyakov) lodged a complaint with the Saint-Petersburg City Court against the decision of the City Electoral Commission approving the final results of the voting. His complaint was similar to those of the first five applicants, but concerned only his own electoral district (no. 637). He brought his complaint in the capacity of an individual voter. The applicant claimed that according to the results table he had received from a voting member of the electoral commission, KPRF and Yabloko had received 200 and 128 votes respectively; however, according to the official results those parties received only 14 and 4 votes. By contrast, the results of United Russia and SR grew from 380 to 804 and from 337 to 404 votes respectively. The applicant did not vote for either United Russia or SR. He believed that as a result of the falsification his vote had been effectively “stolen” and given to one of the two parties which had benefitted from the falsification. He asked the City Court to annul the decision of the CEC in the part concerning the district in question. 77.     The applicant produced a copy of the results table issued by District Commission no. 637. This copy bore the official stamp of the District Commission; it was signed by the head of the commission and eight members thereof. The document specified that during the voting there had been no incidents and that no complaints about the voting process had been received. 78.     In addition, the applicant submitted a copy of the results table issued by Territorial Commission no. 21, and a print-out from the screen of the webpage of the City Commission. The City Commission was indicated in the text of the complaint as “the interested party [9] ”. 79.     On 25 January 2012 the Saint-Petersburg City Court decided that it was impossible to consider the applicant’s complaint without certain additional clarifications and documents. It noted that the applicant challenged actions of the City Commission which did not take the form of a decision, record of results, or similar. Therefore, the court invited the applicant to explain what particular action of the City Commission he contested. The applicant was also invited to identify the decision of the City Commission approving the results of the voting in district no. 637, and submit a copy of that decision “with another copy for the interested party”. The applicant was invited to explain what particular breach of the electoral legislation he contested and who was responsible for that breach, and specify in what respect the City Commission had not acted in accordance with the law. 80.     On 3 February the sixth applicant, having supplemented his complaint, resubmitted it to the City Court. 81.     On 9 February 2012 the City Court refused to consider the complaint, having found that the applicant had failed to submit the clarifications and additional documents requested by the City Court in its decision of 25 January 2012. The court ruled as follows: “[In accordance with the law] the results table issued by the District Electoral Commission for voting at [a particular] voting station has to be drawn up in two original copies; [...] the District Commission sends copy no. 1 ... to the Territorial Commission which then forwards it to the Saint-Petersburg City Commission. The photocopy of the table of the results of the voting in District no. 637 submitted by the claimant did not indicate which original copy [had served to make the photocopy]; thus, there are no grounds to believe that the interested party [the City Commission] has a copy of that document. Whereas the claimant’s complaint is based on the argument that the [official] results of the voting in district no. 637 are different from those which are reflected in the results table of District Commission no. 637, and whereas the claimant relied on that item of evidence and produced it to the court, he was required [by law ...] to submit, for the [use of the] interested party, a second copy of the document he had at his disposal”. 82.     The applicant appealed. He argued that he had submitted a copy of the results table to the court. He had received that copy from a member of the District Electoral Commission who, in turn, had obtained it from the Commission after the counting of the votes. The City Commission (the interested party) had the original of the results table of the District Commission, so it was absurd to require him to submit anything more than he had already submitted to the court. 83.     On 5 March 2012 the Saint-Petersburg City Court, sitting as a court of appeal, upheld the lower court’s decision. It noted that the copy which the applicant had submitted did not indicate whether it was a copy of original table no. 1 or 2. As can be understood from the decision of the court of appeal, the applicant should have submitted to the lower court not a copy of the results table which he had received from a member of the electoral commission, but a copy of the original document, either no. 1 or no. 2 [10] , so that copy could be transmitted to the respondent (“the interested party”, that is, the City Commission) and that without such a document the applicant’s complaint could not be examined. 3.     Complaint lodged by the Saint-Petersburg branch of SR together with the eighth, ninth, tenth and eleventh applicants (LA elections in Saint-Petersburg City as a whole) 84.     On 19 December 2011 the Saint-Petersburg branch of SR, together with the eighth, ninth, tenth and eleventh applicants, lodged a complaint with the Saint-Petersburg City Court. The complaint concerned several electoral territories, in particular nos. 15, 17, 22 and 33 [11] . The claimants complained, in particular, about the differences between the official results and the results contained in the copies of the results tables received by the observers and members of the electoral commissions in those districts. They also indicated that the City Commission had failed to examine properly eighteen complaints lodged by SR and eighty-seven complaints lodged by other interested parties. 85.     On 27 February 2012 the Saint-Petersburg City Court dismissed the complaint. It found that all the administrative complaints to the City Electoral Commission had been properly discussed