CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 juin 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 110 July 2008 Abil v. Azerbaijan (communicated case) - 16511/06   Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 Stand for election Cancellation of applicant’s candidacy for parliamentary elections on the basis of allegedly fabricated evidence: communicated The applicant was a registered independent candidate for the 2005 parliamentary elections. Shortly before the elections, at a meeting held in the applicant’s absence, the competent election commission applied to the Court of Appeal for an order cancelling the applicant’s registration because he had allegedly promised money to people in exchange for their votes. The applicant was refused access to the case file. Two days later, the Court of Appeal examined the case and, having heard eight witnesses, cancelled the applicant’s registration as a candidate. The applicant appealed claiming that the Court of Appeal’s judgment had been arbitrary. In particular, he argued that the witnesses who had purportedly testified against him were false, as they had not even had registered residence in his constituency and were in reality relatives of various officials of the local executive authorities. The Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. Communicated under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes