Information Note on the Court’s case-law 62

March 2004

Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs and Zhukov and Others (dec.) - 55066/00 and 55638/00

Decision 18.3.2004 [Section I]

Article 3 of Protocol No. 1

Stand for election

Registration of a political party’s list refused because of false representations by some of the candidates on the list, and subsequent impossibility for the party to stand for e lections: admissible

The three applicants in this case are the Russian Conservative Party, one of its candidates in the 1999 elections to the State Duma and a supporter of the party. Prior to the 1999 elections, the applicant party nominated 151 candidates and transferred to the Central Election Commission (CEC) an amount of money as election deposit. The CEC established that seventeen candidates on the list (including the one who had been placed as number two) had made false representations and refused to register the list. The applicant party contested this decision before the Supreme Court, which at two levels found that the CEC’s decision to strike the candidates in question off the list had been lawful but that the refusal to register the list in its en tirety had been unlawful (considering that Section 51 § 11 of the Elections Law had been wrongly interpreted by the CEC). Hence, the applicant party’s list was registered by the CEC. The Supreme Court judgments were subsequently quashed in supervisory revi ew proceedings and registration of the list was annulled. Later, in proceedings undertaken by a group of Russian legislators, the Constitutional Court struck down Section 51 § 11 of the Elections Law. It held that refusing registration of a list because of the withdrawal of one of the top three candidates (as was stated in Section 51 § 11) was a disproportionate encroachment on the right of citizens to vote for that party and on the right of the other candidates on the list to stand for elections. However, it ruled that despite the unconstitutionality of that provision, it would have no consequences in respect of the 1999 State Duma elections and it could not be relied on to seek a review of their results. In consequence, the applicant party’s applications f or review were dismissed. The applicant party also undertook proceedings against the CEC for the return of the election deposit. The applicant’s actions were dismissed. In this respect, the applicant party complained to the Court under Article 1 of Protoco l No. 1.

Admissible under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 13.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Ca se-Law Information Notes