FIRST SECTION
Application no. 25355/11
Nobatali Gulam Oglu PALANGOV
against Azerbaijan
lodged on 12 April 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Nobatali Palangov, is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1952 and lives in Baku. He is represented before the Court by Mr H. Hasanov, a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was nominated by the electoral coalition of the Popular Front and Müsavat Parties to stand as one of its candidates in the parliamentary elections of 7 November 2010 and applied for registration as a candidate in the single-mandate Lerik Electoral Constituency No. 78.
As the Electoral Code required that each nomination as a candidate for parliamentary elections be supported by a minimum of 450 voters, on 6 October 2010 the applicant submitted to the Constituency Electoral Commission (“the ConEC”) eleven signature lists containing 512 voter signatures in support of his candidacy.
1. Refusal to register the applicant as a candidate
By a decision of 29 September 2010, made available to the applicant on 1 October 2010, the ConEC refused the applicant’s request for registration as a candidate.
According to the applicant, the documents of the “working group” established by the ConEC for the verification of authenticity of signatures (these documents are not available in the case file) provided that 116 out of the 512 signatures submitted by the applicant were considered invalid, resulting in the failure to attain the minimum number of valid voter signatures required by law. Specifically, the reasons provided were as follows: (a) 50 signatures were found to be invalid because they were collected on the applicant’s behalf by an active member of a municipality, in breach of Article 57.1 of the Electoral Code, which prohibited participation of municipal authorities in the process of collecting signatures in support of candidates; (b) 50 signatures were found to be invalid because they were collected on the applicant’s behalf by a member of one of the precinct electoral commissions in the applicant’s constituency, in breach of Article 17.6.4 of the Electoral Code, which prohibited members of electoral commissions from engaging in activities supporting (or perceived as supporting) any candidate; (c) ten signatures were invalided due to the incorrect personal information on voters entered in the signature lists; (d) four signatures belonged to individuals who had no right to vote; and (e) two signatures were invalid owing to incomplete entries in the signature lists.
Neither the applicant nor his representative was invited to the meetings of the ConEC or its “working group”.
2. Decision of the Central Electoral Commission
The applicant lodged a complaint with the Central Electoral Commission (“the CEC”) against the ConEC decision of 29 September 2010. He argued that: (a) the ConEC had misinterpreted Article 57.1 of the Electoral Code (which, according to the applicant, did not prohibit individual municipality members, as opposed to “municipal authorities”, from participating in signature collection), and (b) Article 17.6.4 of the Electoral Code could not be a basis for invalidation of signatures; instead, it was simply a basis for punishing the relevant member of the electoral commission who had breached its requirements. Moreover, the applicant complained that, contrary to the requirements of the Electoral Code, the ConEC had failed to ensure his or his representative’s presence at its meetings.
The CEC submitted the applicant’s signatures lists for verification to its own “working group”. According to the “working group” documents (several expert opinions and the minutes of the examination of signature lists) dated 10 and 12 October 2010, it was found that 137 out of the 512 signatures were invalid, for the following reasons: (a) 129 signatures were “repeat” signatures (the relevant expert opinion stated that these signatures “appeared” to have been executed by same persons in the name of other persons (“ehtimal ki, eyni şəxs tərəfindən icra olunmuşdur”)); (b) four signatures belonged to individuals whose personal information was entered incorrectly in the lists; and (c) four signatures belonged to individuals who had no right to vote. It was further found that no special electoral bank account had been opened in the applicant’s name, as required by law.
It is not clear when the above documents were made available to the applicant.
By a decision of 12 October 2010, sent to the applicant on 13 October 2010, the CEC, relying on the above findings, rejected the applicant’s appeal.
Neither the applicant nor his representative was invited to the meetings of the CEC or its “working group”.
3. Appeals lodged with the domestic courts
On 14 October 2010 the applicant lodged an appeal against the CEC decision with the Baku Court of Appeal. He reiterated his complaints made before the CEC concerning the ConEC decision and procedures. Moreover, he complained, inter alia, that the CEC had incorrectly found that he had no special bank account and that it had failed to ensure his presence at its meetings.
By a judgment of 18 October 2010, the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal, relying on the findings of both the ConEC and CEC and finding that the signature lists had been examined by the electoral commissions in accordance with the procedure specified by law and that the applicant’s complaints about the unlawfulness and arbitrariness of the procedure and the electoral commissions’ decisions were ill-founded.
On 21 October 2010 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court. He reiterated his complaints made before the electoral commissions and the Baku Court of Appeal.
By a decision of 25 October 2010, the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
COMPLAINTS
1. Relying on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains that his right to stand as a candidate in free elections and his right to an effective remedy were breached, because he was arbitrarily disqualified from running for election. In particular, the procedures for verification of voter signatures in support of his candidacy and for examination of his complaints lacked transparency and sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness, and the decisions of the electoral commissions and domestic courts were arbitrary and contrary to a number of requirements of the domestic electoral law.
2. The applicant also complains under Article 14 of the Convention, in conjunction with the above complaint, that his electoral rights were breached as a part of the deliberate and unlawful practical measures implemented by the Government aimed at restricting the political opposition’s participation in the elections and denying its candidates equal conditions with pro-Government candidates.
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 candidates’ eligibility contain sufficient safeguards to prevent arbitrary decisions?
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. Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his electoral rights on the ground of his political affiliation, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?
4. The parties are requested to submit detailed factual information concerning the methods of composition and functioning of the “working groups” at various electoral-commission levels (including the constituency electoral commission in the applicant’s constituency), the manner of selection and appointment of their members, as well as information as to whether their membership included any qualified experts and/or specialists (mütəxəssis) possessing expertise relevant to the tasks they were charged with. The parties are requested to inform the Court whether members of electoral commissions’ “working groups” had received any specialised training before their appointment and, if so, describe the types of trainings received.
5. The parties are requested to submit copies of all documents, opinions and results tables of the ConEC “working group”, related to the ConEC decision of 29 September 2010.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy