FIRST SECTION

Application no. 20443/11 Tofig Rashid Oglu YAGUBLU against Azerbaijan and 10 other applications (see list appended)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants are Azerbaijani nationals. They are represented before the Court by various lawyers practising in Azerbaijan (see Appendix).

The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, are similar to those of the case of Aslan Ismayilov v. Azerbaijan (no. 20411/11, communicated on 30 August 2013). They may be briefly summarised as follows.

The applicants were either self-nominated or nominated by various opposition-oriented political parties to stand as candidates in the parliamentary elections of 7 November 2010 and applied for registration as candidates in various single-mandate electoral constituencies (see Appendix).

According to official election results, each applicant lost the election in his or her respective constituency.

On or after election day, e ach applicant lodged a complaint either directly with the Central Electoral Commission (“the CEC”) , or first with the respective Constituency Electoral Commission (“the ConEC”) and subsequently with the CEC after the respective ConEC dismissed their complaints. They complained about various irregularities and breaches of electoral law that had taken place in various polling stations in their respective electoral constituencies before or during election day, and sought invalidation of the election results in their respective constituencies owing to those irregularities. In particular, they complained of various instances of all or some of the following irregularities: “carousel” voting, ballot-stuffing, obstruction and/or intimidation of their observers and representatives in polling stations, campaigning by members of polling station commissions (PECs) in favour of pro-Government candidates, interference in the voting process by local public officials, breach of procedures for inking voters ’ fingers, voting by people not registered as voters in the constituency, multiple voting by same individuals, breach of vote counting procedures, false reporting of inflated voter turnout figures in PEC results records, inconsistencies in election results recorded in the PEC results records submitted to the ConEC and those recorded in copies of the same records given to the candidates, and so on.

In support of their complaints, each applicant submitted a number of affidavits signed by their observers and representatives in various polling stations, and in some cases a number of other documents, video recordings and photographs documenting the alleged irregularities.

On various dates (see Appendix), the relevant ConECs and the CEC dismissed the applicants ’ complaints in full or in part, as unsubstantiated. The applicants ’ participation in the examination of their complaints by the commissions was not ensured (except in applications nos. 36209/11 and 36230/11, where the applicants participated in the relevant CEC hearing).

The applicants lodged appeals against the respective CEC decisions with the Baku Court of Appeal, reiterating their complaints about the election irregularities, further complaining that the examination of their complaints by the CEC had been ineffective, and requesting the court to quash the respective CEC decision and to invalidate the election results in their respective constituencies.

In the meantime, on 22 November 2010 the CEC issued a final record on the general election results, confirming the final results of elections in all constituencies. In accordance with electoral law, this results record was sent to the Constitutional Court for approval.

On various dates (see Appendix), the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants ’ appeals in all cases, largely copying the reasoning of the respective CEC decisions.

The applicants lodged cassation appeals with the Supreme Court, reiterating their complaints made before the electoral commissio ns and the Baku Court of Appeal, and arguing that the examination of their complaints and appeals by the commissions and by the Baku Court of Appeal had been ineffective.

In the meantime, on 29 November 2010 the Plenum of the Constitutional Court examined the CEC ’ s final results record of 22 November 2010 and approved the election results in all constituencies. This decision was final and entered into force immediately.

On various dates (see Appendix), but in each case after 29 November 2010, the Supreme Court dismissed the applicants ’ appeals, largely reiterating the Baku Court of Appeal ’ s reasoning. Also, in all cases except applications nos. 29615/11, 31944/11 and 36821/11, the Supreme Court also noted in its respective decisions that, on 29 November 2010, the Constitutional Court had reviewed and approved the election results. As the Constitutional Court ’ s decision was the final act concluding the entire election process and, as such, could not be quashed, amended or reinterpreted by any other authority or court, the Supreme Court found that in any event it was no longer possible to grant the applicants ’ appeals challenging the election results in their constituencies and seeking their invalidation.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant s complain under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention that there had been a number breaches of the elect oral law and other irregularities before and during election day, which had infringed their right to stand as a candidate in free elections, and that the domestic authorities, including the elect oral commissions and courts, had failed to duly and effectively examine their complaints and to investigate such irregularities.

2. Relying on either Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention or Article 13 of the Convention, or both, t he applicants complain that they were deprived of their right to an effective remedy before the Supreme Court because the Constitutional Court had approved the country-wide election results despite the fact that their individual appeals, challenging the election results in their respective constituencies and lodged within the time-limits specified by law, were still pending before the Supreme Court.

3. The applicants in applications nos. 29604/11, 31944/11, 36070/11, 36209/11 and 36230/11 complain under Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention, in conjunction with the complaint under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, that, owing to the current method of composition of electoral commissions at all levels, the electoral commissions were not independent and impartial and, as a result, all their decisions heavily favoured the pro-Government candidates.

4. The applicants in applications nos. 20443/11, 24070/11, 29604/11, 29615/11, 31944/11, 36070/11, 36209/11, 36227/11, 36230/11 also complain under Article 14 of the Convention, in conjunction with the above complaints, that candidates nominated by opposition parties and independent candidates critical of the Government, like themselves, were discriminated against, by various means, by all State executive authorities, electoral commissions, courts and Government-controlled media throughout the entire electoral process.

COMMON QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a breach of the applicant s ’ right under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to participate in free elections which ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of legislature? Did the process of examination by the domestic authorities of the applicant s ’ complaints offer sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness? Did such examination comply with the requirements of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1? Moreover, given that the Constitutional Court had approved the results of elections while the appli cant s ’ individual appeal s before the Supreme Court w ere pending, was the applicant s ’ right to challenge the election results before the Supreme Court, as a final remedy guaranteed by domestic elec toral law, effective in practice?

2. Did the applicant s have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy before the electoral commissions and domestic courts (and, in particular, the Supreme Court) for their Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS

1. Applications nos. 29604/11, 31944/11, 36070/11, 36209/11 and 36230/11: What were the rules of composition of elect oral commissions for the parliamentary elections of 7 November 20 10 ? Were they compatible with the principles enshrined in Article 3 of Protocol No. 1? Did the method of composition of electoral commissions affect the applicants ’ rights under Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention?

2. Applications nos. 20443/11, 24070/11, 29604/11, 29615/11, 31944/11, 36070/11, 36209/11, 36227/11, 36230/11: Have the applicant s suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention 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?

APPENDIX

No.

Application

no.

Lodged on

Applicant name

date of birth

place of residence

Represented by

Electoral constituency and the nominating body

ConEC decision(s)

CEC decision

Domestic courts ’ decisions

20443/11

17/03/2011

Tofig YAGUBLU

1961Baku

Akif ALIZADE

Sabunchu First Electoral Constituency No. 26, nominated by the coalition of the Popular Front Party (PFPA) and M üsavat Party (PFPA- M üsavat coalition)

7/11/2010 and 10/11/2010

21/11/2010

Baku Court of Appeal judgment of 25/11 /2010; Supreme Court decision of 02 / 12 /2010

24070/11

08/04/2011

Sardar MAMMADOV

1957Baku

Fuad AÄžAYEV

Nasimi First Electoral Constituency No. 21, nominated by the Karabakh Election Bloc

11/11/2010

20/11/2010

Baku Court of Appeal judgment of 24/11 /2010; Supreme Court decision of 01 / 12 /2010

29604/11

02/05/2011

Bakhtiyar HAJIYEV

1982Ganja

Hafiz HASANOV

Yasamal Third Electoral Constituency No. 17, self-nominated

N/A

20/11/2010

Baku Court of Appeal judgment of 24/11 /2010; Supreme Court decision of 01 / 12 /2010

29615/11

05/05/2011

Ilgar HUSEYNLI

1967Masazir, Absheron District

Hafiz HASANOV

Imishli Electoral Constituency No. 79, self-nominated

N/A

20/11/2010

Baku Court of Appeal judgment of 24/11 /2010; Supreme Court decision of 01 / 12 /2010

31944/11

13/05/2011

Nariman YAHYAYEV

1952Mingechevir

Hafiz HASANOV

Mingechevir Electoral Constituency No. 47, nominated by the PFPA- M üsavat coalition

According to the applicant, complaint not examined by ConEC

19/11/2010

Baku Court of Appeal judgment of 23/11 /2010; Supreme Court decision of 30 / 11 /2010

36070/11

19/05/2011

Gozal BAYRAMOVA

1962Baku

Hafiz HASANOV

Narimanov First Electoral Constituency No. 19, nominated by the PFPA- M üsavat coalition

According to the applicant, complaint not examined by ConEC

18/11/2010

Baku Court of Appeal judgment of 24/11 /2010; Supreme Court decision of 01 / 12 /2010

36209/11

19/05/2011

Namat ALIYEV

1966Baku

Hafiz HASANOV

Barda City Electoral Constituency No. 93, nominated by the PFPA- M üsavat coalition

N/A

21/11/2010

Baku Court of Appeal judgment of 24/11 /2010; Supreme Court decision of 30 / 11 /2010

36227/11

26/05/2011

Salman IMANLI

1955Ganja

Hafiz HASANOV

Kapaz Secon Electoral Constituency No. 40, nominated by the Karabakh Election Bloc

N/A

21/11/2010

Baku Court of Appeal judgment of 25/11 /2010; Supreme Court decision of 01 / 12 /2010

36230/11

26/05/2011

Sahib KARIMOV

1974Bideyiz, Shaki District

Hafiz HASANOV

Shaki City Electoral Constituency No. 113, nominated by the PFPA- M üsavat coalition

12/11/2010

21/11/2010

Baku Court of Appeal judgment of 24/11 /2010; Supreme Court decision of 30 / 11 /2010

36821/11

27/05/2011

Arzu SAMADBAYLI

1962Baku

Intigam ALIYEV

Binagadi First Electoral Constituency No. 8, nominated by the PFPA- M üsavat coalition

13/11/2010

20/11/2010

Baku Court of Appeal judgment of 23/11 /2010; Supreme Court decision of 30 / 11 /2010

36898/11

31/05/2011

Hasan KARIMOV

1954Baku

Intigam ALIYEV

Sabail Electoral Constituency No. 29, nominated by the PFPA- M üsavat coalition

10/11/2010

20/11/2010

Baku Court of Appeal judgment of 23/11 /2010; Supreme Court decision of 01 / 12 /2010