CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 septembre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s88830249 { width:100%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sD27F3E { width:5.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s8E8F6944 { width:13.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s64C9BD84 { width:21.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s72C2249F { width:10.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sFBE11292 { width:32.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD2BC34B3 { width:16.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sEDC08A65 { width:5.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s24B851EC { width:13.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1825B2E8 { width:21.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s95E771B1 { width:10.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s676820D4 { width:32.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE6CF84F6 { width:16.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Communicated on 8 September 2020 Published on 28 September 2020   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 12548/16 Rauf Ahmad oglu AGAYEV against Azerbaijan and 16 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applicants were nominated by various political parties or self ‑ nominated to stand as candidates in various electoral constituencies in the parliamentary elections of 1   November 2015. Their applications for registration as candidates were refused by the relevant constituency electoral commissions owing to findings that the applicants had submitted insufficient numbers of valid voter signatures in support of their nomination. The Electoral Code required a minimum of 450 supporting voter signatures. In each case, a certain number of supporting signatures submitted by each applicant was invalidated for a number of various reasons, including alleged withdrawals of supporting signatures by large groups of voters claiming that they had been deceived as to the real purpose of collection of signatures. The applicants appealed at the domestic level first to the Central Electoral Commission, and subsequently to higher courts, raising inter alia complaints about all or some of the following: alleged arbitrariness of the refusals to register them as candidates; alleged unlawfulness of invalidation of signatures for the reasons specified by the electoral commissions; alleged interference by the authorities by unlawfully pressuring voters to withdraw their supporting signatures; and an alleged failure by the electoral commissions to abide by a number of procedural safeguards provided by the Electoral Code..     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Common questions   1.     Has there been a breach of the applicants’ right under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to stand as candidates in free elections which ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature? Did the procedure for determination of candidates’ eligibility contain sufficient safeguards to prevent arbitrary decisions (see Tahirov v. Azerbaijan , no.   31953/11, 11 June 2015)?   2.     The parties are requested to submit copies of all documents by “working groups” and/or “expert groups” of respective constituency electoral commissions and of the Central Electoral Commission, which are not already in respective case files, concerning the results of the examination of the signature sheets submitted by the applicants (expert opinions, examination results records, examination tables, etc.).   3.     The parties are requested to submit detailed factual information, accompanied where relevant by supporting documents, concerning the applicants’ and/or their electoral representatives’ presence during the process of examination of their signature sheets by those working and/or expert groups, as well as their participation at those commissions’ meetings concerning the applicants’ registration. The parties are also requested to submit information concerning the methods of composition and functioning of those working and expert groups, the manner of selection and appointment of their members, as well as information as to those members’ qualifications.   Case-specific questions   1.     Application no. 13084/16 ( Jafarli ) : Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35   §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Applications nos. 12568/16 ( Mammadzada ), 12606/16 ( Huseynov ), 13084/16 ( Jafarli ), 18209/16 ( Zaki ), 18212/16 ( Abdurrazakov ), 18562/16 ( Bagirov ), 18564/16 ( Sadigov ), 18568/16 ( Bagirzada ), 27984/16 ( Hasanov ) and 27991/16 ( Imranova ) : Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   3.     Application no. 12552/16 ( Najafli ) : In addition to the other documents requested above, the parties are requested to submit a copy of the constituency electoral commission’s decision of 25 September 2015.   4.     Application no. 21007/16 ( Jangirov ) : In addition to the other documents requested above, the parties are requested to submit a copy of the constituency electoral commission’s decision of 8 October 2015.     APPENDIX   Nos. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Date of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Principal representative 1. 12548/16 Agayev v. Azerbaijan 23/02/2016 Rauf Ahmad oglu AGAYEV 1962 Khirdalan Azerbaijani Nemat KARIMLI 2. 12552/16 Najafli v. Azerbaijan 23/02/2016 Rashid Mikayil oglu NAJAFLI 1956 Agjabadi Azerbaijani Nemat KARIMLI 3. 12558/16 Mehti v. Azerbaijan 23/02/2016 Yusif Hajeyib oglu MEHTI 1952 Bilasuvar Azerbaijani Nemat KARIMLI 4. 12568/16 Mammadzada v. Azerbaijan 23/02/2016 Shohrat Asad oglu MAMMADZADA 1972 Gazakh Azerbaijani Khalid BAGIROV 5. 12606/16 Huseynov v. Azerbaijan 23/02/2016 Akif Isa oglu HUSEYNOV 1955 Ganja Azerbaijani Khalid BAGIROV 6. 12629/16 Yagublu v. Azerbaijan 22/02/2016 Nasiman Gara oglu YAGUBLU Baku Azerbaijani Nemat KARIMLI 7. 12634/16 Gafarli v. Azerbaijan 22/02/2016 Nadir Azim oglu GAFARLI 1948 Shabran Azerbaijani Nemat KARIMLI 8. 12645/16 Karimli v. Azerbaijan 23/02/2016 Ragif Mahi oglu KARIMLI 1951 Baku Azerbaijani Nemat KARIMLI 9. 13084/16 Jafarli v. Azerbaijan 24/02/2016 Fikrat Novruz oglu JAFARLI 1968 Baki Azerbaijani Khalid BAGIROV 10. 18209/16 Zaki v. Azerbaijan 25/03/2016 Mirzakulla Mirovla oglu ZAKI 1956 Bilasuvar Azerbaijani Khalid BAGIROV 11. 18212/16 Abdurrazakov v. Azerbaijan 25/03/2016 Nizami Yagub oglu ABDURRAZAKOV 1961 Oguz Azerbaijani Khalid BAGIROV 12. 18562/16 Bagirov v. Azerbaijan 24/03/2016 Khalid Zakir oglu BAGIROV 1976 Baku Azerbaijani N/A 13. 18564/16 Sadigov v. Azerbaijan 25/03/2016 Giyas Boyukaga oglu SADIGOV 1960 Baku Azerbaijani Khalid BAGIROV 14. 18568/16 Bagirzada v. Azerbaijan 25/03/2016 Aynur Gafar gizi BAGIRZADA 1976 Baku Azerbaijani Khalid BAGIROV 15. 21007/16 Jangirov v. Azerbaijan 11/04/2016 Khaliddin Baloglan oglu JANGIROV 1971 Baku Azerbaijani Samira AGAYEVA 16. 27984/16 Hasanov v. Azerbaijan 30/04/2016 Ulvi Fakhraddin oglu HASANOV 1987 Ganja Azerbaijani Javad JAVADOV 17. 27991/16 Imranova v. Azerbaijan 05/05/2016 Aytakin Kapitan gizi IMRANOVA 1957 Baku Azerbaijani Khalid BAGIROV