Communicated on 28 September 2020 Published on 1 9 October 2020

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 23105/13 ROSSIYSKAYA OBYEDINENNAYA DEMOKRATICHESKAYA PARTIYA YABLOKO against Russia lodged on 2 April 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Rossiyskaya Obyedinennaya Demokraticheskaya Partiya Yabloko ( Yabloko Russian United Democratic Party), is a political party registered under the laws of the Russian Federation with the headquarters in Moscow (the “applicant party”). The applicant party is represented before the Court by Mr A. Palevich , a lawyer practising in St Petersburg.

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant party, may be summarised as follows.

On 4 December 2011 elections to the St Petersburg Legislative Assembly (legislature of St Petersburg, a constituency in the Russian Federation) were held. The applicant party took part in the elections.

General information about the organisation of elections, the parties and the system of vote counting, tabulation and reporting is outlined in Davydov and Others v. Russia (no. 75947/11, §§ 10-16, 30 May 2017).

On 5 December 2011 at 1.15 a.m. the precinct electoral commission completed the counting of the votes at polling station no. 610. The chairperson of the commission and all its members signed the protocol in which the elections results were documented and transmitted it to the territorial elections commission. The observer on behalf of the applicant party, who was present at the station, received a copy of the protocol.

On the same date A., a member of the precinct electoral commission, lodged a complaint with the territorial election commission alleging that the district election commission had not counted the voted correctly at polling station no. 610. The territorial commission ordered the recount of the votes at polling station no. 610. The recount resulted in the vote distribution as follows:

“original” protocol

recount

Applicant party

230 votes

39 votes

Yedinaya Rossiya (ruling party)

315 votes

668 votes

The applicant party challenged the lawfulness of the recount of the votes at polling station no. 610. In support of the complaint, the applicant party submitted a copy of the “original” protocol and two affidavits from the members of the district elections commission stating that, during the original count of the votes, none of the members of the commission had claimed that the vote count had been conducted in violation of the applicable rules.

On 5 July 2012 the Kirovskiy District Court of St Petersburg dismissed the applicant party ’ s complaint. The court dismissed the affidavits as inadmissible evidence. It refused to verify whether the territorial election commission had notified all the persons who had had a right to take part in the recount noting that the applicant party had failed to identify those persons.

On 3 October 2013 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the judgment of 5 July 2012 on appeal.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant party alleges a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in respect of the recount of the votes at polling station no. 610 during the elections to the St Petersburg Legislative Assembly held on 4 December 2011.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Regard being had to the case of Davydov and Others , in which the Court has found a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in respect of polling station no. 610 in St Petersburg (see Davydov and Others v. Russia , no. 75947/11, §§ 199-347, 30 May 2017), do the Government acknowledge that there has been a breach of the applicant party ’ s right to free elections as set out in the said Article? In particular,

(a) did the applicant party put forward arguable allegations that there were serious irregularities in the process of vote re-counting in respect of polling station no. 610 in St Petersburg in the course of the elections to St Petersburg Legislative Assembly held on 4 December 2011?

(b) If yes, did the complaint receive an effective examination at the domestic level?

2. In the event the above questions were answered in the affirmative, would it be justified for the Court to continue the examination of the applicant party ’ s complaint in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention?