CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 août 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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }     Communicated on 26 August 2014   FIRST SECTION Application no. 37602/11 Ibrahim AHMADZADE against Azerbaijan lodged on 1 June 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Ibrahim Ahmadzade, is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1975 and lives in Sumgayit. He is represented before the Court by Mr I. Aliyev, a lawyer practising in Baku. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant was self-nominated to stand as a candidate in the parliamentary elections of 7 November 2010 from the single-mandate Sumgayit Third Electoral Constituency No. 43. On 21 September 2010 the Constituency Electoral Commission (“the ConEC”) preliminarily accepted his nomination as a candidate and issued him with official signature sheets in order to collect a minimum of 450 voter signatures in support of the nomination, as required by law. Under the Electoral Code, the ConEC would decide whether to register the applicant as a candidate following the submission of all required registration documents, including the filled signature sheets. The applicant collected 500 voter signatures and submitted them to the ConEC, together with other relevant documents, in a timely manner. By a decision of 13 October 2010, the ConEC refused to register the applicant as a candidate. The ConEC found that, out of the 500 signatures submitted by the applicant, 138 were invalid for various reasons (all 138 being “false” signatures made by the same person in the name of other persons) and that, therefore, the total number of valid signatures was below the minimum of 450 required by law. The ConEC also found that the other documents submitted by the applicant did not comply with the requirements of Articles 58.1.3 (notification of changes in the information submitted at the nomination stage), 58.1.4 (information on the amount and sources of the nominee’s income), 58.1.6 (preliminary financial report on electoral expenses). In the meantime, the official pre-election campaigning period for all registered candidates started on 15 October 2010. The applicant lodged an appeal against the ConEC decision with the Central Electoral Commission (“the CEC”), arguing that he had submitted (or could have submitted on a short notice) all the information and documents required by Articles 58.1.3, 58.1.4 and 58.1.6 of the Electoral Code and that the ConEC’s conclusions concerning the validity of signatures had been arbitrary and unreasoned. By a decision of 19 October 2010, the CEC rejected the applicant’s appeal, having conducted its own examination of the signature lists and having found that 169 signatures were invalid. The decision was silent as to the documents required by Articles 58.1.3, 58.1.4 and 58.1.6 of the Electoral Code. The decision was taken in the applicant’s absence. The applicant appealed against the CEC decision, reiterating his complaints and arguing that the CEC had not ensured his attendance and had taken its decision in breach of a number of the applicant’s other procedural rights under the Electoral Code. He asked the Baku Court of Appeal to quash the CEC decision, order the CEC to register him and request the law-enforcement authorities to open criminal proceedings against members of the electoral commissions responsible for the arbitrary decisions against him. By a judgment of 29 October 2010, the Baku Court of Appeal partially upheld the applicant’s appeal. Having ordered a new expert handwriting examination, the court found that only 38 signatures were invalid and the remaining valid signatures (462) exceeded the minimum of 450 required by law. The court ordered the CEC to register the applicant. However, it dismissed the applicant’s appeal in the part concerning the criminal responsibility of electoral officials, finding that no criminal offence had been committed. The applicant lodged a further appeal with the Supreme Court in respect of the part of the Baku Court of Appeal’s judgment of 29 October 2010 partially dismissing his appeal. On 3 November 2010 the Supreme Court dismissed this appeal. In the meantime, on 2 November 2010 the CEC registered the applicant as a candidate, in compliance with the Baku Court of Appeal’s order, and issued him with the candidate’s registration card. On 4 November 2010 the applicant lodged a direct complaint with the Baku Court of Appeal (bypassing the electoral commissions), against the ConEC and CEC. He argued that, owing to the arbitrary decisions by both electoral commissions refusing to register him and the ensuing significant delay in registration, he was unable to conduct an effective pre-election campaign on equal conditions with other candidates, all of whom had been campaigning since 15 October 2010. He requested the court to order the postponement of the election in his constituency and payment of compensation to him by the electoral commissions. According to the applicant, this complaint was never examined. On 4 November 2010 the applicant also sent complaints to the Sumgayit City Prosecutor’s Office and the Prosecutor’s Office of the Binagadi District of Baku, complaining about the electoral officials’ actions, but to no avail. The last full day of the official pre-election campaigning period was effectively 5 November 2010, owing to the statutory ban on any campaigning during the 24-hour blackout period before voting day. The applicant lost the election. On 10 November 2010 the applicant lodged a complaint with the CEC, asking for invalidation of the election results and for a repeat election. He argued that the elections were unfair owing to the unlawful delay in registration of his candidacy, as a result of which he had been unable to have sufficient time for pre-election campaigning and to participate in the elections on equal conditions with the other candidates. He also argued that there had been a number of irregularities during the voting day. On 19 November 2010 the CEC rejected the applicant’s complaint, finding that the applicant had been able to freely conduct his pre-election campaigning from the moment of his registration and that he had failed substantiate his allegations concerning the voting-day irregularities. The applicant appealed. On 23 November 2010 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal, reiterating the CEC’s reasoning. On 1 December 2010 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s further appeal, reiterating the Baku Court of Appeal’s reasoning. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that, owing to the arbitrary decision refusing to register him as a candidate and the subsequent delayed registration following a number of appeals, he was unable to participate in the parliamentary elections under equal conditions with other candidates, because he had only a few days for conducting his pre-election campaign. 2.     Relying on Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with the above complaint, the applicant complains that the domestic proceedings were ineffective.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Has there been a breach of the applicant’s right under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to stand as a candidate in free elections which ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of legislature? Did the procedure for determination of the candidate’s eligibility contain sufficient safeguards to prevent arbitrary decisions, preventing arbitrary or unreasonable delays in registration? Did the delay in registration of the applicant’s candidacy in the present case result in the infringement of his right to stand for election in equal and fair conditions?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?   3.     The parties are requested to submit copies of all the complaints and appeals submitted by the applicant to the electoral commissions and domestic courts, as well as any other official documents relating to the domestic proceedings which are not already available in the file.