Published on 4 October 2021
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 15649/17
Sergey Pavlovich OBUKHOV
against Russia
lodged on 15 February 2017
communicated on 16 September 2021
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the decision of the Central Electoral Commission of Russia (“the CEC”) to disqualify the applicant, a former member of the Russian State Duma (“Duma”) from taking part in 2016 Duma elections as a candidate on the Communist Party’s list on account of a formal shortcoming which he was not given an opportunity to rectify.
The applicant omitted to enclose to his application for registration as a candidate dated 7 July 2016 documents related to his minor daughter. He claimed that he had no intent to conceal that information, because the CEC had already been aware of his daughter. According to the applicant, at the time he believed that the documents should not be submitted, because his daughter was expected to reach the age of majority on 15 July 2016, that is before the examination of his candidature by the CEC.
On 22 July 2016, within the time-limit provided by the domestic law for correction of formal shortcomings by candidates, the applicant filed the missing documents to the CEC. The latter refused to take them into account, having considered that candidates were only entitled to amend the documents which had already been submitted, but not to submit new documents. As a result, the applicant’s name was removed from the list of candidates by the CEC’s decision on 1 August 2016 and the applicant could not participate in the elections. The domestic courts upheld the applicant’s disqualification with the final decision given by the Supreme Court of Russia on 24 January 2017.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been a breach of the applicant’s right under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention to stand as a candidate in free elections which ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature? In particular, has there been an interference with the applicant’s right protected by that Article? If so, did it pursue a legitimate aim? If so, was it proportionate to that aim (see, mutatis mutandis, Sarukhanyan v. Armenia, no. 38978/03, §§ 41-51, 27 May 2008)? In particular, did the applicant have an opportunity to correct the shortcoming identified by the CEC? Was he afforded sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness in the proceedings before the CEC or domestic courts?
2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaint, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy