CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 juin 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sDFF2E1F4 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .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 } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; 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 } .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 } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .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 } .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 } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA7F61D3B { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } Communicated on 13 June 2020 Published on 29 June 2020   THIRD SECTION Application no. 66212/12 Maksim Vladimirovich DROZDOV against Russia lodged on 25 September 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Maksim Vladimirovich Drozdov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1975 and lives in Krasnodar. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 4   December 2011 elections to the State Duma (the lower chamber of the Russian Parliament) of the Russian Federation were held. General information about the organisation of elections, the parties and the system of vote counting, tabulation and reporting is outlined in Davydov and Others v. Russia (no.   75947/11, §§   10-16, 30   May 2017). On the day of the elections the applicant was an observer on behalf of the Yabloko party at voting station no.   2280 in Krasnodar. The voting was completed at 8 p.m. and the members of the territorial election commission started the counting of the votes which was over by 10.30 p.m. The chairperson announced the results. However, the commission did not issue the relevant protocols to the observers until 7 a.m. the next day, while the applicant had to leave the station at 4 a.m. Three days later the applicant obtained a copy of the election protocols from one of the other observers present at the station on the day of the elections. The data in the protocol did not correspond to the “official” election results reported by the election commission in respect of voting station no.   2280:   Protocol “Official” result Valid ballots 1100 1113 Votes cast for Spravedlivaya Rossiya 137 (12.45%) 137 (12.31%) Votes cast for LDPR 192 (17.45   %) 93 (8.36   %) Votes cast for Patrioty Rossiyi 7 (0.64   %) 2 (0.18   %) Votes cast for Yabloko 38 (3.45   %) 24 (2.16   %) Votes cast for Yedinaya Rossiya (ruling party) 503 (45.73   %) 638 (57.32   %) Votes cast for Pravoye Delo 5 (0.45   %) 1 (0.09   %) On an unspecified date the applicant brought a complaint challenging the veracity of the “official” election results before the Prikubanskiy District Court of Krasnodar. On 31   January 2012 the District Court examined the applicant’s complaint. The applicant explained that the territorial election commission had not provided him with a copy of the protocol. The court questioned the chairpersons of the territorial and regional election commissions, who submitted that the copy of the “original” protocol provided by the applicant lacked due legalisation and was not the right size (A4 instead of A3). The court noted that it could not rely on the copy of the document in the absence of an original and refused to take into consideration the copy of the protocol submitted by the applicant dismissing the applicant’s allegations as unsubstantiated. The applicant appealed. On 5   April 2012 the Krasnodar Regional Court upheld the judgment of 31   January 2012 on appeal. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the unfairness of the elections to the State Duma of 4   December 2011 in Prikubanskiy District. In particular, he alleges that the official results did not reflect the actual results of voting as reflected in the “original” protocol drawn up after the counting of ballots at voting station no.   2280.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a breach of the applicant’s right to free elections as set out in Article 3 of Protocol No. 1? In particular,   (a)     did the applicant put forward arguable allegations that there were serious irregularities in the process of vote counting, tabulation and recording of the election results in respect of voting station no.   2280 in Krasnodar?   (b)     If yes, did the applicant’s complaint receive an effective examination at the domestic level?