SpasiPiter.ru

 

| VIOLENCE

| CITY DEFENDING ACTIONS

-

 

Free counters!

! || || || || || ||

- !

olga-andronova.livejournal.com
olga-andronova.blogspot.ru

" .
- "


| : 04.12.2011. 75947/11


EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

MEMORANDUM application no. 75947/11 Davydov and Others v. Russia

On 24 March 2014 the European Court of Human Rights informed the authorities of the Russian Federation of application no. 75947/11 Davydov and Others v. Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Pursuant to Rule 54 § 2 (b) of its Rules the Court invited the authorities of the Russian Federation to submit their observations and answer the following questions:

Questions about the procedures in which the applicants9 complaints have been examined

1. Did the applicants have "effective domestic remedies" to complain about the alleged breaches of their rights under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as required by Article 13 thereof?

  1. Where a voter or a candidate complains of a violation akin to that at the heart of the present case (fraud in the process of counting votes and recording the results), what remedies are available to them under the domestic law? The Government are invited to indicate (from the position of the Russian legislation as it stood at the relevant time):
  • what sort of complaint/claim/petition etc. (hereinafter - "complaint") must be lodged in such situations;
  • what sort of remedy or redress the complainant should seek in such proceedings;
  • to which body such a complaint must be addressed (an electoral commission, the Investigative Committee, a prosecutor, a court, etc.);
  • at what level it should be made (district, territory, City etc.),
  • who has standing to bring such complaints;
  • what powers the body entitled to examine such complaints has;
  • what the modalities of bringing such complaints (such as time-limits, court fees and other similar procedural conditions) are.
The Government are invited to refer to specific provisions of the Russian law which provide answers to or are relevant to each of the points raised above and provide an English translation of the relevant parts.

  1. In the particular circumstances of the present case, did the courts and other competent bodies (such as the Investigative Committee, the prosecutor's office, the electoral commissions etc.) examine and address all the essential issues raised by the applicants in their complaints?
  2. Did the procedure in which the applicants' grievances were examined, in particular the court procedure, guarantee their "effective examination"? In particular, did the courts examine all the relevant and essential sources of information which were at their disposal or could have been easily obtained?
Questions about the elections of December 2011

  1. What is the main reason (or reasons) for the difference between the figures contained in the "original results tables" received by the applicants from the members of the District Commissions and observers, and the official results published and approved by the CEC? The parties are requested to indicate, in respect of each voting station concerned, what the official explanation for the difference in figures was, that is, whether it was a recount at the level of the District Commission, a recount at the level of the Territorial Commission or something else.
  2. The Government are invited to submit the "correct" results tables (i.e. those which were used by the Territorial and City Commissions to calculate the aggregate results of the elections). Did the City Commission, Territorial Commission or District Commission keep copies of the "original" tables where recalculation took place? If so, the Government are invited to produce them. If not, what happened to those original tables?
  3. If the differences between the original tables and the official figures are explained by a recount, did the recounting procedure offer sufficient procedural guarantees to prevent fraud? In particular:
    1. What body or official decided that a recount was needed?
    2. What were the reasons for the recount - in general and in each specific case where a recount was ordered? The Government are invited to produce documents of the electoral commission describing those reasons and all supporting documents.
    3. In what form were decisions on recounting taken?
    4. Were the members of the electoral commissions and observers notified of the recount? Who specifically was notified and in what form (letters, e-mails, telephone calls etc.)? Is there any proof of notification of the members of the commissions and observers in the records of the Territorial Commissions and City Commission and how can that be verified?
    5. Were the members of the electoral commissions, observers and candidates given enough time to come and participate in the recount?
    6. Where a recount took place, at what time was it held and how much time did it take? Did it involve the physical recounting of ballot papers? In that case, were the ballot papers physically transported from the district electoral commissions to the territorial electoral commissions?
    7. Did the body responsible for the recount inform interested parties (such as candidates, members of the electoral commissions, observers) about the results of the recount and, if so, when and how was that done? Who, besides members of the territorial commissions, was present and observed the process of recounting? Did the interested parties receive the tables of results of the recount and copies of decisions ordering the recount and if so, when?
    8. How many ballot papers in total did the members of the territorial commissions have to process in order to recount the votes (for each electoral territory)? How many people were involved in the recount and how much time did it take?
  4. The parties are invited to explain how the members of the electoral commissions (District and Territorial) were appointed (including voting and non­voting members), which parties did they represent and how many members and observers were affiliated with other parties than United Russia (in absolute figures and in proportion).
  1. The Government are invited to produce the trial record of the proceedings initiated before the Kolpino District Court by Mr Yakushenko, in particular (a) the record of the oral testimony of witnesses called at the applicant's request, (b) the record of the oral testimony of Ms S., who was a member of Territorial Commission no. 21, (c) the written and oral observations in reply to the applicant's complaint by the Territorial Commission and City Commission, (d) the written and oral opinion of the prosecutor, (e) applications made by the parties during the proceedings, and (f) procedural decisions taken by the court.
    1. The applicants and the Government are invited to compare, based on the official statistics, patterns of voting at the elections to the LA and to the Duma. In particular, was there a difference in the results of voting for the same party depending on the level of elections? Can the same difference be observed if "suspect" districts are compared with "normal" ones (where the applicants accept that the official results reflect the actual result of the voting)? Is the same difference observed if only the data from the "original results tables" (those on which the applicants rely) is considered?
11 .In those districts where a recount was ordered, did that recount always lead to an increase in the result of United Russia? In how many cases did a recount lead to a loss of votes by United Russia (if compared with data from the copies of results tables which the observers and members of the District Commissions received after the original counting of votes on the night of the elections)?

12. As regards statistical information, the parties are encouraged to provide it in the form of charts, graphs and tables, with explanatory tables where necessary. The parties are also invited, when referring to a provision of the Russian law, to quote it in English, and to verify the accuracy of quotes made by the opposite party.

In order to get acquainted with the position of the Russian Federation authorities more effectively, the text is supplemented by the following table of contents of this Memorandum:

I. Statement of facts page 6
1. Examination of the applicants' complaints by the Saint- Petersburg City Court page 6
1.1. As regards the examination of the complaint of O.O. Andronova, A.V. Andronov, T.A. Nikolayeva, A.V. Davydov, A.G. Nikolayeva and Ye.P. Sizenov by the Saint-Petersburg City Court. page 6
1.2. As regards the examination of V.G. Belyakov's complaint page 8
1.3. As regards the judicial proceedings in the complaint of the regional branch of Spravedlivaya Rossiya. page 13

 

 

2. Examination of the applicants' complaints in the district courts of Saint-Petersburg. page 14
2.1. As regards the examination of V.G. Belyakov's complaint by the Kolpino District Court of Saint-Petersburg. page 14
2.2. As regards the examination of S.V. Yakushenko's complaint by the Kolpino District Court of Saint-Petersburg. page 18
2.3. As regards the examination of A.V. Andronov's complaint by the Oktyabrskiy District Court. page 20
2.4. As regards the examination of O.O. Andronova's complaint by the Oktyabrskiy District Court. page 21
2.5. As regards the examination of T.A. Nikolayeva's complaint by the Oktyabrskiy District Court. page 22
2.6. As regards the examination of the complaints of the regional branch of Spravedlivaya Rossiya. page 23
II. The Government's position as to inadmissibility of the application page 25
1. Inadmissibility of the application due to it is being lodged in an improper manner. page 25
2. Inadmissibility of the application for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. page 27
2.1. Recourse to remedies after the adoption of the Russian Federation Constitutional Court's Judgment of 22 April 2013 no. 8-P. page 31
3. Incompatibility of the application ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention. page 32
4. Inadmissibility due to the applicants' provision of improper materials as evidence. page 34
III. Answers to the questions posed by the European Court page 72
Answer to questions nos. 1, 2 page 72
Answer to questions nos. 3, 4 page 79
Answer to question no. 5 page 88
Answer to question no. 7 page 92
Answer to question no. 8 page 94
Answer to question no. 9 page 96
Answer to questions nos. 6, 10, 11 and 12 page 96
Answers to the questions set out in the footnotes of the statement of facts prepared by the Court's lawyers. page 97

 

 

I. Statement of facts

1. Examination of the applicants* complaints by the Saint-Petersburg City

Court

1.1. As regards the examination of the complaint of 0,0. Andronova. A.V. Andronov. T.A. Nikolaveva. A.V. Davydov, A.G. Nikolaveva and Ye.P. Sizenov by the Saint-Petersburg City Court.

  1. The aforementioned applicants (voting members of the District Electoral Commissions with a deciding vote 0.0. Andronova, A.V. Andronov, T.A. Nikolayeva, a voting member of the District Electoral Commission Ye.P. Sizenov with a consultative vote, as well as A.V. Davydov) lodged a complaint with the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation alleging the actions of the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission expressed in knowingly incorrect determination of the election results seeking the quashing of the decisions on the results of election to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation and the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg.
  2. By its ruling of 23 December 2011 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation returned the complaint as it had no jurisdiction over it and, as regards the request to quash the decision of the Central Electoral Commission of the Russian Federation on the results of the election of the deputies to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation of the sixth convocation, as it could not initiate proceedings in the complaint
  3. The applicants filed a private appeal against the above ruling. By its ruling of 9 February 2012 the Cassation Division of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dismissed the private appeal.
  4. The applicants in the said composition complained to the Saint- Petersburg City Court against the actions of the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission allegedly expressed in knowingly incorrect determination of the election results and sought the quashing of the decision on the results of the election to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation and the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg.
  5. On 20 December 2011 the Saint-Petersburg City Court received the complaint of 0.0. Andronova, A.V. Andronov, T.A. Nikolayeva, A.V. Davydov, A.G. Nikolayeva and Ye.P. Sizenov requesting to find the actions of the Saint- Petersburg Electoral Commission allegedly expressed in knowingly incorrect determination of the election results to be unlawful and violating the applicants' electoral rights and to quash the decision of the City Electoral Commission of Saint-Petersburg (hereinafter "City Commission") on the results of the election to
the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation and the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg of 8 December 2011.

  1. The Saint-Petersburg City Court initiated proceedings in the complaint and did not refuse to consider it (as stated in the statement of facts prepared by the Court's lawyers). On 23 December 2011 the judge of the Saint-Petersburg City Court ruled to return the complaint in the part of the requests challenging the actions of the Electoral Commission, as in accordance with Article 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation this court's jurisdiction included only cases on challenging of decisions (failure to make decisions), and not actions of an Electoral Commission of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation. Such a complaint could only be filed to a district court of Saint-Petersburg. The rest of the complaint was suspended.
  2. The revised complaints received on 10 January 2012 and 11 January 2012 were returned by the rulings of the judge of 12 January 2012 and 13 January 2012, as the applicants de facto requested to determine the results of the voting at voting stations, while the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission did not determine the results of the voting at voting stations; the requests to find the results of the voting at specific voting stations to be invalid were to be examined by a district court.
  3. The examination of the case on challenging the relevant decisions of the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission would also be improper, as these citizens were improper claimants for such requests (see the ruling of the Judicial Division for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 18 July 2012 no. 78-APG12/15).
  4. By its ruling of 22 February 2012 the Judicial Division for Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dismissed the private appeal of O.O. Andronova, A.V. Andronov, T.A. Nikolayeva, A.V. Davydov, A.G. Nikolayeva and Ye.P. Sizenov against the ruling of the judge of the Saint-Petersburg City Court of 23 December 2011 and upheld the ruling of 23 December 2011.
  5. By its appeal ruling of 26 January 2012 the Judicial Division for Civil Cases of the Saint-Petersburg City Court upheld the ruling of the judge of the Saint-Petersburg City Court of 13 January 2012 and dismissed the private appeal of T.A. Nikolayeva, A.V. Davydov, A.G. Nikolayeva and Ye.P. Sizenov.
  6. By its appeal ruling of 7 February 2012 the Judicial Division for Civil Cases of the Saint-Petersburg City Court upheld the ruling of the judge of the Saint-Petersburg City Court of 13 January 2012 and dismissed the private appeal of O.O. Andronova and A.V. Andronov.
  7. By its appeal ruling of 19 March 2012 the Judicial Division for Civil Cases of the Saint-Petersburg City Court upheld the ruling of the judge of the
Saint-Petersburg City Court of 12 January 2012 and dismissed the private appeal of O.O. Andronova, A.V. Andronov, T.A. Nikolayeva, A.V. Davydov, A.G. Nikolayeva and Ye.P. Sizenov.

1.2. As regards the examination of V.G. Belvakov's complaint

  1. V.G. Belyakov lodged a complaint with a court requesting to find unlawful the actions of the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission expressed in the wrong determination of the voting results at electoral district no. 637 at the election to the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg, to find invalid the decision on the determination of the results of election (the results protocol and consolidated table of the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission on the results of election of deputies to the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg of the fifth convocation for a single electoral territoiy of 12 December 2011) at electoral district no. 637 at the election to the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg, to quash the decision of the City Electoral Commission on the results of election to the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg of 12 December 2011 no. 131-2.
  2. In support of his complaint the applicant referred to the fact that the results of the election to the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg published on the website of the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission in the Internet contradicted the distribution of votes recorded in the results protocols of observers and members of the District Electoral Commission (hereinafter "DEC") no. 637 affiliated with Kommunisticheskaya Partiya Rossiyskoy Federatsii, in this connection he enclosed a copy of the results protocol of the District Electoral Commission of electoral district no. 637 to his application.
  3. In this copy of the results protocol of the District Electoral Commission indication of the counterpart number was missing from the "counterpart no.         " line.
  4. However, in accordance with Article 53 § 20 of the Law of Saint- Petersburg On the Election of Deputies to the Legislative Assembly of Saint- Petersburg., after taking all the necessary actions and counting the District Electoral Commission shall hold in a mandatory manner its final meeting at which complaints (applications) about violations of the Federal Law and the aforementioned Law of Saint-Petersburg committed during the voting and counting of votes shall be examined, following which the results protocol of the District Electoral Commission on the results of voting shall be signed and its copies shall be provided to the members of the District Electoral Commission present and to other persons referred to in Article 17 § 3 of the aforementioned Law of Saint- Petersburg. This results protocol shall be compiled in two counterparts and signed
by all present voting members of the District Electoral Commission with indication of the date and time (hours and minutes) of its signing.

  1. By virtue of Article 53 §21 of the aforementioned Law of Saint- Petersburg, if during the filling of a results protocol of a District Electoral Commission some voting members of the District Electoral Commission are absent, a note about this fact shall be made in this protocol with indication of the reasons for their absence.
  2. According to Article 53 §24 of the aforementioned Law of Saint- Petersburg, after the signing of the first counterpart of the results protocol of the District Electoral Commission by all present voting members of the District Electoral Commission and provision of certified copies thereof to the persons entitled to receive them it shall be immediately forwarded to the relevant Territorial Electoral Commission and shall not be returned to the District Electoral Commission. The first counterpart of the results protocol of the District Electoral Commission shall be accompanied by dissenting opinions of voting members of the District Electoral Commission, complaints (applications) about violations of the Federal Law, the Law of Saint-Petersburg received by the District Electoral Commission on the voting day and before the end of the counting of votes, as well as the decisions of the District Electoral Commission taken regarding these complaints (applications) and certificates and registers compiled by it.
  3. The second counterpart of the results protocol of the District Electoral Commission shall be given to observers and other persons referred to in Article 17 § 3 of the Law of Saint-Petersburg for familiarisation, and a certified copy thereof shall be made available for the general public in the place designated by the District Electoral Commission; then the second counterpart of the indicated results protocol, together with the statutory election documents, including ballots, voters list, as well as the stamp of the District Electoral Commission shall be transferred to the relevant Territorial Electoral Commission for storage (Article 53 § 25 of the Law of Saint-Petersburg).
  4. In accordance with Article 53 § 27 of the Law of Saint-Petersburg, if after the signing of the results protocol of the District Electoral Commission and forwarding of its first counterpart to the relevant Territorial Electoral Commission the District Electoral Commission which had sent the results protocol or the relevant Territorial Electoral Commission finds an inaccuracy therein during the
. preliminary review (clerical, typographical errors or an error in the summation of the data of the results protocol of the District Electoral Commission), the District Electoral Commission, which sent the results protocol, shall be entitled to consider at its meeting the issue of making adjustments to lines 1-13 of the results protocol. In such case, the District Electoral Commission shall compile a results protocol

with a note reading "Repeated". This results protocol shall be immediately forwarded to the relevant Territorial Electoral Commission.

  1. According to Article 54 of the Law of Saint-Petersburg, immediately after signing of the first counterparts of the results protocols of District Electoral Commissions by voting members of a District Electoral Commission and provision of certified copies thereof to the persons entitled to receive such copies, they shall be sent to the relevant Territorial Electoral Commission for the summation of the data contained in these results protocols and for the subsequent transfer of this data to the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission which shall establish the results of the voting as a whole in Saint-Petersburg and shall determine the results of election, and which organises the election. On the basis of the data of the results protocols of the District Electoral Commissions, the Territorial Electoral Commission, after conducting a preliminary review of correctness of these results protocols, shall establish the results of voting in the relevant part of the territory of Saint-Petersburg by summing all of the data contained therein not later than the third day after the voting day. Summation of the data contained in these results protocols shall be carried out directly by voting members of the Territorial Electoral Commission. The decision of the Territorial Electoral Commission on the voting results shall be documented by a results protocol.
  2. Using the data of the results protocols of District Electoral Commissions, the Territorial Electoral Commission shall compile a consolidated table and a results protocol which shall contain the following information: 1) the number of District Electoral Commissions in the relevant part of the territory of Saint-Petersburg; 2) the number of received results protocols of District Electoral Commissions used to compile this table; 3) the number of voting stations in which the voting results were declared invalid, and the total number of voters included in the voters lists for these voting stations at the end of voting; 4) the aggregate data for all lines of results protocols of District Electoral Commissions.
  3. In order to sign the results protocol, the Territorial Electoral Commission shall hold in a mandatory manner its final meeting at which complaints (applications) on violations committed during the voting, counting of votes, compiling of results protocols of District Electoral Commissions and determination of voting results received by this Electoral Commission shall be examined. After that, the Territorial Electoral Commission shall sign the results protocol and provide certified copies thereof to the persons referred to in Article 17 § 3 of this Law of Saint-Petersburg. This results protocol of the Territorial Electoral Commission shall be compiled in two counterparts and signed by all present voting members of the Territorial Electoral Commission with indication of the date and time (hours and minutes) of its signing.
  4. Each counterpart of the results protocol of the Territorial Electoral Commission shall be accompanied by: l)a consolidated table of the Territorial Electoral Commission, which shall include complete information contained in all results protocols of District Electoral Commissions received by the Territorial Electoral Commission; 2) certificates on the transfer of ballots by the Territorial Electoral Commission to District Electoral Commissions, as well as on the invalidation of unused ballots, which were kept in the Territorial Electoral Commission, with indication of the number of these ballots.
  5. The consolidated table and these certificates shall be signed by the chairman (deputy chairman) and the secretary of the Territorial Electoral Commission.
  6. The first counterpart of the results protocol of the Territorial Electoral Commission shall be accompanied by dissenting opinions of voting members of the Territorial Electoral Commission who compiled this results protocol, as well as complaints (applications) about violations of the Federal Law, the Law of Saint- Petersburg committed during the voting, counting of votes, determination of voting results received by this electoral commission in the period beginning on the voting day and ending on the day of compilation of the results protocol by the Territorial Electoral Commission, and the decisions of the Territorial Electoral Commission taken regarding these complaints (applications). Certified copies of the dissenting opinions, complaints (applications) and decisions of the Territorial Electoral Commission shall be enclosed to the second copy of the results protocol.
  7. After signing of the first counterpart of the results protocol of the Territorial Electoral Commission by all present voting members of the Territorial Electoral Commission and issuing of its certified copies and certified copies of the consolidated table of the Territorial Electoral Commission to the persons entitled to receive copies thereof, it shall be immediately forwarded to the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission together with the documents and results protocols of District Electoral Commissions.
  8. In view of the above rules, an indication of the number of the counterpart has to be present in any counterpart of a District Electoral Commission protocol; counterpart no. I of DEC protocol is sent to the Territorial Commission, and no counterpart of DEC protocol is sent to the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission.
  9. In view of the above, the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission could not have had a copy of DEC results protocol for the electoral district no. 637.
  10. Cases arising out of public legal relations (which include cases relating to the protection of electoral rights) are initiated on the basis of a complaint drawn up in accordance with the general rules, laid down in Articles 131 and 132 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation. The complaint is to be accompanied by, inter alia, documents proving the facts on which the complainant based his/her claims and copies of these documents for interested parties, if they did not have them.
  11. Given that the copy of the protocol, which the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission did not have, had not been submitted to the interested person, the judge in the ruling to suspend the complaint of 25 January 2012 invited (among remedying other defects) to submit the relevant document to the interested person, as the complainant's requests were based on this very copy of the DEC results protocol, and the court, when submitting the copy of the complaint to the interested persons, was also obligated to provide them with copies of documents which were the basis of the requests if the interested persons did not have such copies.
  12. The ruling of the judge of 25 January 2012 was not appealed against.
  13. On 3 February 2012 the applicant filed a revised complaint; he remedied a number of defects, but at the same time claimed that he did not consider it is necessary to submit a copy of the results protocol of DEC no. 637 as prescribed by the ruling to suspend the complaint, as he believed that the Saint- Petersburg Electoral Commission had the copy of the results protocol submitted by him. Due to the failure to comply with the judge's requests, by the ruling of 9 February 2012 the complaint was returned to V.G. Belyakov on the basis of Article 136 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.
  14. The applicant appealed against this ruling, and by its ruling of 5 March 2012 the Judicial Division for Civil Cases of the Saint-Petersburg City Court upheld it.
  15. The applicant did not re-lodge this complaint with the Saint- Petersburg City Court (after the complaint was returned to him by the ruling of 9 February 2012).
  16. The Court's statement of facts erroneously notes that the applicant enclosed a results table issued by the DEC to his complaint to the court The applicant did not present a table, but rather a photocopy of a counterpart of DEC protocol no, 637; also, the applicant did not submit a copy of the results table issued by the Territorial Commission no. 21 to the court; as erroneously stated in the statement of facts. The ruling of the Judicial Division of the Saint-Petersburg City Court of 5 March 2012 does not point to the need to provide a copy of the original document, either no. 1 or no. 2, to the lower court, but rather points to the need to provide a copy of the document referred to by the applicant in justification of his requests to the interested party, as the court had to provide a copy of this document to the interested party when preparing the case for trial
1.3. As regards the judicial proceedings in the complaint of the regional branch of Spravedlivava Rossiva.

1. The Applicants from the first to eleventh named in the Court's statement of facts, were not parties to the proceedings initiated in the complaint of the Regional Branch of Spravedlivaya Rossiya in Saint-Petersburg.

  1. On 19 December 2011 O.G. Dmitriyeva, the Chairman of the Board of the Regional Branch of Spravedlivaya Rossiya in Saint-Petersburg, lodged a complaint with the Saint-Petersburg City Court on behalf of the Regional Branch of Spravedlivaya Rossiya in Saint-Petersburg requesting to find invalid the protocol and the consolidated table on the results of election of deputies to the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg of the fifth convocation for a single electoral territory and to quash the decision of 12 December 2011 no. 131-2 of the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission On the Establishment of the Results of Election of Deputies to the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg of the Fifth Convocation.
  2. By the ruling of 20 December 2011 the judge of the Saint-Petersburg City Court suspended the complaint for revision of the requests and provision of the necessary documents.
  3. By its ruling of 11 January 2012 the Saint-Petersburg City Court initiated proceedings in the complaint and scheduled an open court hearing for 24 January 2012.
  4. At the hearing of 24 January 2012 the examination of the case was adjourned until 21 February 2012 at the request of the representatives of O.G. Dmitriyeva and V.A. Plakhotnik in order to request written evidence and to enable the parties to the proceedings to familiarise themselves with it.
  5. During the trial the applicant, the Regional Branch of Spravedlivaya Rossiya in Saint-Petersburg, repeatedly revised and updated its requests and asked the court: l)to find unlawful and quash the decision of the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission of 12 December 2011 no. 131-1 on taking note of the information and approving of the conclusion of the Working Group for Preliminary Review of Complaints that all applications received from 8.00 a.m. of 4 December 2011 till 10.00 a.m. of 12 December 2011 had been examined within the scope of competence of the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission, including their forwarding to the relevant authorities; 2) to find unlawful the protocol and the consolidated table on the results of election of deputies to the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg of the fifth convocation for a single electoral territory of 12 December 2011; 3) to quash the decision of the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission of 12 December 2011 no. 131-2 On the Establishment of the Results of Election of Deputies to the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg of
the Fifth Convocation.

  1. No requests related to contesting the lawfulness of the election to the State Duma of the Russian Federation were submitted or considered within the framework of this civil case.
  2. By its judgment of 27 February 2012 the Saint-Petersburg City Court dismissed the requests.
  3. When dismissing the requests, the court found that there were no circumstances prescribed by the law that could serve as grounds for satisfying the requests, as no evidence of violations of the electoral law that would prevent the actual will of voters from being determined had been provided either in the complaint or during the hearing.
  4. During the trial no violations of the Federal Law On the Basic Guarantees of the Electoral Rights and the Right to Participate in a Referendum of Citizens of the Russian Federation and the Law of Saint-Petersburg On the Election of Deputies to the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg were found.
  5. By its ruling of 23 May 2012 the Judicial Division for Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the judgment of the Saint-Petersburg City Court of 27 February 2012 and dismissed the appeal of the Regional Branch of Spravedlivaya Rossiya in Saint-Petersburg.
  6. In view of the above, the allegations of the applicants, named in the application, who did not participate in the examination of this civil case about "non-respect of the electoral legislation, manipulation and fraud" appear to be ill-
founded.

Z Examination of the applicants' complaints in the district courts of Saint-Petersburg.

2.1. As regards the examination of V.G. Belvakov's complaint bv the Kolpino District Court of Saint-Petersburg.

  1. On 25 January 2012 V.G. Belyakov applied to the Kolpino District Court of Saint-Petersburg and, with regard to his revisions, asked:                                                                                  . •
  • to find illegal the actions of Territorial Electoral Commission (hereinafter "TEC") no. 21 allegedly expressed in the wrong determination of the voting results at the electoral district no. 637 at the election to the Legislative Assembly of Saint- Petersburg;
  • to find invalid the decisions on the establishment of the voting results (protocol and consolidated table of TEC no. 21 on the voting results in part of the territory of Saint-Petersburg no. 18 on the election of deputies to the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg of the fifth convocation of 4 December 2011) at the
electoral district no. 637 at the election to the Legislative Assembly of Saint- Petersburg;

  • to order TEC no. 21 to make changes to the protocol and consolidated table of TEC no. 21 on the voting results in part no. 18 of the territory of Saint- Petersburg at the election of deputies to the Legislative Assembly of Saint- Petersburg of the fifth convocation of 4 December 2011 in accordance with the results protocol of DEC no. 637;
  • to order the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission to make appropriate changes to its documents on the election of deputies to the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg of the fifth convocation of 4 December 2011.
50. In support of these requests V.G. Belyakov indicated that in the process of election to the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg of 4 December 2011 he intended to exercise his active electoral right at the electoral district no. 637 in Kolpino and alleged a falsification of the voting results. In particular, he indicated that the results of election to the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg were published on the website of the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission. The comparison of data obtained from TEC no. 21 and provided by the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission was fundamentally contrary to the real distribution of votes set out in the results protocols of observers and members of DEC no. 637 affiliated with Kommunisticheskaya Partiya Rossiyskoy Federalsii. He indicated that results protocol of DEC no. 637, which he submitted, contained data which was not subsequently included in the final protocol of DEC no. 637 and in the official results of the voting resulting in a violation of his right to have his representative in the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg, as the number of members of the party for which he voted was reduced. He believed that the number of votes cast for political parties according to the results protocol of DEC no. 637: Liberalno-Demokraticheskaya Partiya Rossii (170), Kommunisticheskaya Partiya Rossiyskoy Federatsii (200), Yabloko (128) was decreased in accordance with the consolidated table of TEC no. 21 and similar data of the City Commission: Liberalno-Demokraticheskaya Partiya Rossii (101), Kommunisticheskaya Partiya Rossiyskoy Federatsii (14), Yabloko (4), while the number of votes cast for Yedinaya Rossiya was increased from 380 (data of DEC no. 637) to 804 (data of TEC no. 21 and the City Commission), and for Spravedlivaya Rossiya from 337 (data of DEC no. 637) to 404 (data of TEC no. 21 and the City Commission). Observers and members of DEC were not informed about any recount of ballots and compiling of new DEC results protocols, and therefore these activities did not take place.

  1. By its judgment of 24 May 2012 the Kolpino District Court dismissed the complaint. By its appeal ruling of 16 August 2012 the Judicial Division for Civil Cases of the Saint-Petersburg City Court upheld the above judgment.
  2. It follows from the civil case file, as well as from the judgment of the Kolpino District Court of Saint-Petersburg of 24 May 2012 and the appeal ruling of 16 August 2012 delivered in the case that the first instance court and the appeal court examined all the substantive issues raised by V.G. Belyakov in his complaint; at that the courts based their conclusions on the need to reject the applicant's request on the study and evaluation of all evidence available in the case file which was obtained in compliance with the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.
  3. Evidence obtained during the examination of the dispute on the merits was studied and evaluated; this evidence included copies of DEC results protocol for the electoral district no. 637 submitted by the applicant in support of his position, the results protocol of TEC no. 21 on the voting results in part no. 18 of the territory of Saint-Petersburg, the consolidated table of TEC no. 21 on the voting results in part no. 18 of the territory of Saint-Petersburg, which the court, in the light of the provisions of Article 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, did not accept as admissible evidence, as the documents submitted by the applicant did not contain all of the essential elements of this type of evidence and did not comply with the requirements of Articles 30 and 67 of Federal Law no. 67-FZ, Law of Saint-Petersburg On the Election of Deputies to the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg of 15 June 2005 no. 252-35.
  4. The court also studied and evaluated copies of the results protocols of District Electoral Commissions submitted by the interested parties, i.e., TEC no. 21 and the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission.
  5. Having assessed the evidence presented in the case in its entirety, the court concluded that the copies of the results protocols submitted by the applicant could not be a reliable confirmation of the circumstances on which he relied in support of his requests, and, as the applicant had not submitted and the court had not obtained any other evidence of any violations that would prevent the voting results from being determined with certainty which could form the basis for invalidation of the voting and election results, it came to the conclusion about the need to reject the applicant's requests which were based on the allegation about falsification of voting results.
  6. When taking its judgment, the court also took into account that by its Decision of 5 December 2011 no. 14-1/11 the Territorial Electoral Commission no. 21 quashed the decision of the District Electoral Commission no. 637 on the voting results at this electoral district; the electoral commission was ordered to conduct immediately a recount of the votes for this electoral district. This decision
was not appealed against by the applicant. The Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission submitted the counterpart no. 2 of the results protocol of the District Electoral Commission for the electoral district no. 637 with a note reading "Recount" the data of which fully corresponded to the data on the voting results for the electoral district indicated in the consolidated table of TEC no. 21, as entered into the State Automated System "Vybory". Moreover, this results protocol was compiled with observance of the requirements of Articles 67 and 68 of the Federal Law On the Basic Guarantees of the Electoral Rights and the Right to Participate in a Referendum of Citizens of the Russian Federation, Article 52 of Law of Saint- Petersburg On the Election of Deputies to the Legislative Assembly of Saint- Petersburg of 15 June 2005 no. 252-35.

  1. At the hearing of 24 May 2012 the applicant requested to summon witnesses: chairman of DEC no. 637 Ye.V. Maslyukova in order for her to give explanations about the fact of existence of two results protocols and which one of them was real, whether it was her signature in the results protocol or not, whether the stamp was DEC's; he also believed that since the signatures in the results protocol, submitted by the interested persons, were clearly false, the witness would confirm this. The applicant also requested to summon witness R.A. Gornov, an observer who was present at the counting of votes, who had received the results protocol which he submitted, and who would confirm that there was no recount and would confirm all the figures. He requested to call witness V.V. Korshakov, an observer affiliated with Yabloko, who would confirm that no complaints had been received and that there had been no grounds for a recount. Having considered these requests and taken into account the views of all participants of the hearing, the requests made, as well as the fact that, in accordance with Article 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the circumstances relevant to the case had to be supported by specific means of proof and could not be supported by any other evidence in accordance with the law, and that the case-file contained duly certified copies of the results protocols in respect of which there were no doubts, and that the results of voting (number of votes) could not be confirmed by the witness statements, the court rejected the request to summon the witnesses to the court, as reflected in the records of the hearing of 24 May 2012.
  2. The court of appeal agreed with the findings of the first-instance court which were based on the study and evaluation of the evidence available in the case file.
2.2. As regards the examination of S.V. Yakushenko's complaint by the Kolpino District Court of Saint-Petersburg.

  1. It follows from the materials of the civil case initiated in S.V. Yakushenko's complaint that the applicant requested the court to invalidate the officially announced results of voting at the election of 4 December 2011 in electoral territories nos. 18 and 19 in the part of the results of voting at the election of deputies to the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg, to order the Saint- Petersburg Electoral Commission to schedule new election to the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg in territories nos. 18 and 19. Subsequently, the applicant supplemented his requests and also asked to find illegal the recount, conducted by the Territorial Electoral Commission no. 21 with respect to the voting results at the electoral districts nos. 627, 629, 630, 633, 635, 637, 675, 678, 680, 681, 682, 638, 641, 646, 651, 652, 654, 657, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 668 at the election of deputies to the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg of 4 December 2011.
  2. In support of his requests S.V. Yakushenko alleged falsification of the voting results, as well as a violation of the recounting procedure expressed in the failure to notify the members of the Electoral Commission, observers, candidates and other persons, who had the right to be present at the recount, about it, as well as the failure to provide copies of the results protocols to observers, candidates and other interested parties.
  3. By its judgment of 16 July 2012 the Kolpino District Court dismissed the complaint. By its ruling of 18 October 2012 the Judicial Division of the Saint- Petersburg City Court upheld the judgment of the Kolpino District Court.
  4. It follows from the civil case file, as well as from the judgment of the Kolpino District Court of Saint-Petersburg of 16 July 2012 and the appeal ruling of 18 October 2012 delivered in the case that the first instance court and the appeal court examined all the substantive issues raised by S.V. Yakushenko in his complaint; at that the courts based their conclusions on the need to reject S.V. Yakushenko's request on the study and evaluation of all evidence available in the case file, which was obtained in compliance with the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.
  5. During the examination of the dispute on the merits the court studied and evaluated evidence, among which were uncertified copies of the results protocols of the District Electoral Commissions submitted by S.V. Yakushenko, copies of the results protocols of the District Electoral Commissions submitted by the Territorial Electoral Commission which contradicted the copies of the results protocols submitted by the applicant, as well as testimonies of witnesses questioned at the trial, who stated that none of them had given copies of the results protocols to S. V. Yakushenko. Having taken into account that the copies of the results protocols, produced by the applicant, did not comply with the requirements of Articles 30, 67 of the Federal Law On the Basic Guarantees of the Electoral Rights and the Right to Participate in a Referendum of Citizens of the Russian Federation, and, therefore, to the principle of admissibility of evidence established by the provisions of Article 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the court concluded that the copies of the results protocols, submitted by the applicant, could not be a reliable confirmation of the circumstances on which he relied in support of his requests, and, as the applicant had not submitted any other evidence of any violations that would prevent the voting results from being determined with certainty which could form the basis for invalidation of the voting and election results, it came to the conclusion about the need to reject the applicant's requests which were based on the allegation about falsification of voting results.
  6. When refusing to satisfy the applicant's request to find unlawful the recount of voting results, conducted by the Territorial Electoral Commission no. 21, the court also studied and evaluated all the evidence in the case file which demonstrated that there had been no violations during the recounting procedure, and therefore it concluded that there was no legal basis to satisfy the aforementioned requests of the applicant.
  7. The court of appeal agreed with the findings of the first-instance court which were based on the study and evaluation of the evidence available in the case file.
  8. The authorities of the Russian Federation additionally inform that on 28 December 2011 the Saint-Petersburg City Court received S.V. Yakushenko's complaint requesting to invalidate the officially announced results of voting at the election of 4 December 2011 at electoral territories nos. 18 and 19 in the part of the results of voting at the election of deputies to the Legislative Assembly of Saint- Petersburg, to order the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission to schedule new election of deputies to the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg in territories nos. 18 and 19.
  9. On 29 December 2011 the judge of the Saint-Petersburg City Court returned the complaint with reference to the fact the relevant requests fell under the jurisdiction of a district court.
  10. By its ruling of 26 January 2012 the Judicial Division for Civil Cases of the Saint-Petersburg City Court upheld the ruling of 29 December 2011 and dismissed S.V. Yakushenko's private appeal.
2.3. As regards the examination of A.V. Andronov's complaint by the Oktvabrskiy District Court.

  1. A.V. Andronov applied to the Oktyabrskiy District Court with a complaint alleging the omission of the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission expressed in the failure to examine on the merits his application of 6 December 2011 on violation of citizens' electoral rights due to publication of false results of the election to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation and the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg; his requests were formulated as follows:
  • to find unlawful the omission of the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission expressed in the failure to examine his application on the merits upon its initial receipt;
  • to find unlawful the actions of the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission on the establishment of results of election to the Legislative Assembly of Saint- Petersburg and the State Duma of the Russian Federation (in a part of Saint- Petersburg) without consideration of the applicant's complaint on the merits.
  1. The first-instance court found that on 6 December 2011 the applicant applied to the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission and indicated that following the election to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation of 4 December 2011 the members of DEC no. 651 compiled a results protocol, and that according to the data of the protocol the number of votes cast for Spravedlivaya Rossiya amounted to 345. However, according to the information posted in the Internet on the official website of the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission, the total amount of votes cast for Spravedlivaya Rossiya amounted to 125. Thus, the applicant believed that the amount of votes cast for Spravedlivaya Rossiya decreased by 220, which were transferred to Yedinaya Rossiya, and this led to an increase of the total number of votes cast in favour of the ruling party to 640 people, instead of 310 people who actually voted for it. In view of these violations, the applicant asked the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission to conduct a check and to take actions to restore the real balance of votes.
  2. On 8 December 2011 the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission informed the applicant that his application was forwarded to the Kolpino District Prosecutor's Office in Saint-Petersburg for consideration in accordance with the competence.
  3. The first-instance court examined in details the issue about the lawfulness of actions of the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission. The court found that the Electoral Commission acted in accordance with its competence established by the Federal Law On the Basic Guarantees of the Electoral Rights
and the Right to Participate in a Referendum of Citizens of the Russian Federation (in edition of 20 October 2011).

  1. When checking the lawfulness and reasonableness of the judgment delivered by the first-instance court, the court of appeal saw no reasons to quash it and pointed out that under Article 75(4) of the Federal Law On the Basic Guarantees of the Electoral Rights and the Right to Participate in a Referendum of Citizens of the Russian Federation commissions' decisions on voting results were to be appealed against in courts; in his application lodged with the Saint- Petersburg Electoral Commission A. V. Andronov challenged the decision on the voting results which the Electoral Commission was not entitled to examine.
  2. By its judgment of 15 February 2014 the Oktyabrskiy District Court refused to satisfy A.V. Andronov1 s requests.
  3. A.V. Andronov appealed against the judgment of the Oktyabrskiy District Court and requested to quash it.
  4. By its appeal ruling of 16 April 2012 the Judicial Division for Civil Cases of the Saint-Petersburg City Court upheld the judgment of the Oktyabrskiy District Court of 15 February 2012 and refused to satisfy A.V. Andronov's requests.
2.4. As regards the examination of P.O. Andronova's complaint by the Oktyabrskiy District Court.

  1. O.O. Andronova lodged a complaint alleging possible falsification of voting results at the electoral district no. 652 with the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission and requested to conduct a check and take appropriate actions.
  2. Having taken into account that the applicant raised the issue of a possible commission of a criminal act, the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission forwarded the said complaint of O.O. Andronova to the Kolpino District Prosecutor's Office in Saint-Petersburg for consideration and for taking appropriate actions if it is necessary.
  3. O.O. Andronova applied to the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Saint- Petersburg requesting to find unlawful the omission of the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission expressed, in her opinion, in the failure to examine her complaint on the merits.
  4. By its judgment of 5 March 2012 the Oktyabrskiy District Court refused to satisfy O.O. Andronova's requests.
  5. On 5 March 2012 O.O. Andronova appealed against the judgment of the Oktyabrskiy District Court.
  6. By its appeal ruling of 2 May 2012 the Judicial Division for Civil Cases of the Saint-Petersburg City Court upheld the judgment of the Oktyabrskiy District Court of 5 March 2012.
2.5. As regards the examination of T.A. Nikolayeva's complaint by the Oktyabrskiy District Court.

  1. T.A. Nikolayeva applied to the Oktyabrskiy District Court with a complaint alleging omission of the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission expressed in the failure to examine on the merits her application of 6 December 2011 on violation of citizens' electoral rights due to publication of false results of the election to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation and the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg; her requests were formulated as follows:
  • to find unlawful the omission of the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission expressed in the failure to examine her application on the merits upon its initial receipt;
  • to find unlawful the actions of the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission on the establishment of results of election to the Legislative Assembly of Saint- Petersburg and the State Duma of the Russian Federation (in a part of Saint- Petersburg) without consideration of the applicant's complaint on the merits.
  1. The first-instance court found that on 6 December 2011 the applicant applied to the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission and indicated that following the election to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation of 4 December 2011 the members of DEC no. 654 compiled a results protocol, and that according to the data of the protocol the number of votes cast for Spravedlivaya Rossiya amounted to 307. However, according to the information posted in the Internet on the official website of the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission, the total amount of votes cast for Spravedlivaya Rossiya amounted to 157. Thus, the applicant believed that the amount of votes cast for Spravedlivaya Rossiya decreased by 150, which were transferred to Yedinaya Rossiya, and this led to an increase of the total number of votes cast in favour of the ruling party to 424 people, instead of the 274 people who actually voted for it. In view of these violations, the applicant asked the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission to conduct a check and to take actions to restore the real balance of votes.
  2. On 8 December 2011 the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission informed the applicant that her application was forwarded to the Kolpino District Prosecutor's Office in Saint-Petersburg for consideration in accordance with the competence.
  3. The first-instance court examined in details the issue about the lawfulness of actions of the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission. The court found that the Electoral Commission acted in accordance with its competence established by the Federal Law On the Basic Guarantees of the Electoral Rights and the Right to Participate in a Referendum of Citizens of the Russian Federation (in edition of 20 October 2011).
  4. When checking the lawfulness and reasonableness of the judgment delivered by the first-instance court, the court of appeal saw no reasons to quash it and pointed out that under Article 75 (4) of the Federal Law On the Basic Guarantees of the Electoral Rights and the Right to Participate in a Referendum of Citizens of the Russian Federation commissions' decisions on voting results were to be appealed against in courts; in her application lodged with the Saint- Petersburg Electoral Commission T.A. Nikolayeva challenged the decision on the voting results which the Electoral Commission was not entitled to examine.
  5. By its judgment of 9 February 2012 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Saint-Petersburg dismissed the complaint. By its appeal ruling of 10 May 2012 the Saint-Petersburg City Court upheld the court's judgment.
2.6. As regards the examination of the complaints of the regional branch of Spravedlivava Rossiva.

  1. N.L. Payalin, G.B. Truskanov, L.V. Pushkareva and S.S. Shestakov, candidates for deputies to the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg of the fifth convocation on behalf of the regional branch of Spravedlivaya Rossiya in Saint- Petersburg, did not seek judicial protection of their rights and did not appeal against the results of voting at the election of deputies to the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg of the fifth convocation. These applicants' requests are based on the results of appealing against the voting results at the said election by the regional branch.
  2. The voting results at the electoral districts nos. 721, 722, 723, 724, 725, 726,^727, 728, 729, 731, 733, 734, 735, 736, 739, 740, 741, 742, 743, 744, 745, 794 .(territory no. 22) were appealed against by the regional branch of Spravedlivaya Rossiya in the Krasnogvardeyskiy District Court of Saint- Petersburg.
  3. By its judgment of 25 April 2012 the Krasnogvardeyskiy District Court of Saint-Petersburg refused to satisfy the regional branch's requests. By its appeal ^ruling the Saint-Petersburg City Court upheld the first-instance court's judgment; it entered into force on 4 July 2012.
  4. The regional branch of Spravedlivaya Rossiya applied to the Kirovskiy District Court of Saint-Petersburg requesting to quash the decisions of
the District Electoral Commissions on voting results at 10 electoral districts, namely nos. 486,489,495,496,497,498, 500, 501, 508,509 (territory no. 17).

  1. By its judgment of 2 June 2012 the Kirovskiy District Court of Saint- Petersburg refused to satisfy the regional branch's requests. By its appeal ruling the Saint-Petersburg City Court upheld the first-instance court's judgment; it entered into force on 27 August 2012.
  2. The regional branch of Spravedlivaya Rossiya also challenged in the Kirovskiy District Court of Saint-Petersburg the results of voting at the election of deputies to the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg of the fifth convocation at the electoral districts nos. 1852 and 1853, which were created at the places of voters' temporary stay, namely in the territory of the Kirov Plant. By its judgment of 16 August 2012 the Kirovskiy District Court of Saint-Petersburg refused to satisfy the regional branch's requests. By its appeal ruling the Saint-Petersburg City Court upheld the first-instance court's judgment; it entered into force on 17 October 2012.
  3. The regional branch of Spravedlivaya Rossiya applied to the Moskovskiy District Court of Saint-Petersburg requesting to quash the decisions of the District Electoral Commissions on voting results at 19 electoral districts, namely nos. 1070, 1084, 1089, 1090, 1093, 1097, 1098, 1103, 1104, 1107, 1108, 1109, 1111, 1114, 1115,1116[3], 1118, 1126, 1127 (territory no. 33).
  4. By its judgment of 22 May 2012 (case no. 2-2128/12) the court refused to satisfy the regional branch's requests. The judgment came into force on 26 June 2012 and was not appealed against.
  5. The regional branch of Spravedlivaya Rossiya applied to the Kirovskiy District Court of Saint-Petersburg requesting to quash the decisions of the District Electoral Commissions on voting results at the electoral districts nos. 554, 555, 557, 592, 593, 597, 598, 600, 601, 605, 606, 607, 608, 610, 611[4](territory no. 15).
  6. By its judgment of 15 May 2012 the court refused to satisfy the regional branch's requests. By its appeal ruling the Saint-Petersburg City Court upheld the first-instance court's judgment, which entered into force on 23 July 2012.
  7. It should be noted that the regional branch also appealed against the results of the election of deputies to the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg of the fifth convocation in the Saint-Petersburg City Court.
II. The Government's position as to inadmissibility of the application

1. Inadmissibility of the application due to it being lodged in an improper manner.

  1. The authorities of the Russian Federation believe that this application was filed in an improper manner. In view of the circumstances set out below, the respondent State did not have the possibility to clearly articulate its position on this issue; in this connection, the authorities of the Russian Federation ask the Court to draw attention to the following facts important for deciding on the issue of admissibility and to give its own assessment to them.
  2. The statement of facts prepared by the Court's Registry lists the following 11 persons as applicants: A.V. Davydov, O.O. Andronova, A.V. Andronov, T.A. Nikolayeva, Ye.P. Sizenov, V.G. Belyakov, S.V. Yakushenko, N.L. Payalin, G.B. Truskanov, L.V. Pushkareva and S.S. Shestakov.
  3. It follows from the case file that the application was originally lodged by the following applicants: A.V. Davydov, O.O. Andronova, A.V. Andronov, T.A. Nikolayeva, Ye.P. Sizenov and A.G. Nikolayeva, who subsequently withdrew her application (page 6 of the statement of facts prepared by the Court's lawyers; applicants' letters received by the Court on 4 April 2013 and 6 March 2013 respectively, as well as the letter of 19 April 2012).
  4. During the re-submission of the filled application forms the applicants were joined by the Republican Party of Russia represented by the party's co- chairman V.A. Ryzhkov, who also withdrew his application (applicants' letters received by the Court on 4 April 2013 and 6 March 2013, as well as the letter of 19 April 2012).
  5. Taking into account the above, we would like to ask the Court to inform the authorities of the Russian Federation of the intentions of A.G. Nikolayeva and V.A. Ryzhkov to withdraw their applications from the Court and to direct copies of supporting documents to the authorities of the Russian Federation.
  6. Afterwards, V.G. Belyakov, S.V. Yakushenko, N.L. Payalin, Q.B. Truskanov, L.V. Pushkareva and S.S. Shestakov joined the application.
  7. It follows from the Court's letter of 25 July 2014, which is accompanied by the letters of N.L. Payalin and S.V. Yakushenko, that these two applicants expressed their intention to withdraw the application and asked the Court to exclude them from the list of the applicants.
  8. In addition, it should be noted that Rule 45 § 3 of the Rules of Court provides that where applicants are represented in accordance with Rule 36, a power of attorney or written authority to act shall be supplied by their representative or representatives.
  9. In accordance with Rule 47 § 1 (h) and § 2 of the Rules of Court, any application under Article 34 of the Convention shall be accompanied by copies of any relevant documents enabling it to be shown that the admissibility criteria laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention have been satisfied.
  10. Paragraph 4 of the Practice Direction on the Institution of Proceedings, taken in conjunction with the meaning attributed to it by the Court's case-law (see, for example, Kaur v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 35864/11, 15 May 2012; Kemevuako v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 65938/09, 1 June 2010), sets out that if a power of attorney has not been submitted with the first letter, it must be despatched to the Court within eight weeks from the date of the Registry's letter, requesting the applicant to provide a duly drawn up power of attorney,
  11. In its decision in application no. 65938/09 Kemevuako v. the Netherlands the Court noted that transmissions by fax of the original of the application form and also of the authority form are, without the originals of these documents being provided to the Court, insufficient to constitute a complete or valid application (see § 22 of the decision).
  12. Based on the content of the materials provided by the Court, the applicants are represented not only by K. Moskalenko (all applicants, except for V.G. Belyakov and G.B. Truskanov, have powers of attorney in her name), but also by Ye. Napara, only 4 applicants out of 11 have powers of attorney in her name (A.V. Andronov, T.A. Nikolayeva, L.V. Pushkareva and S.S. Shestakov); while the mentioned representative submits the documents to the Court on behalf of all applicants.
  13. At the same time, the dates of execution and submission to the Court of the powers of attorney in the name of K. Moskalenko by S.S. Shestakov, T.A. Nikolayeva, Ye.P. Sizenov, L.V. Pushkareva and A.V. Davydov and the power of attorney in the name of Ye. Napara by T.A. Nikolayeva are unknown (neither the case file nor powers of attorney contain such information).
  14. The powers of attorney in the name of Ye. Napara submitted by S.S. Shestakov, L.V. Pushkareva and A.V. Andronov specify their execution dates, 10 March 2012 and 9 December 2011 respectively.
  15. The powers of attorney in the fiame of K. Moskalenko submitted by O.O. Andronova and A.V. Andronov specify 9 December 2011 as their execution and signing date.
  16. The Court's letter of 25 July 2014 is also accompanied by copies of powers of attorney issued in the name of Ye. Napara by V.G. Belyakov,
A.V. Davydov and G.B. Truskanov of 31 March 2014 and 2 April 2014 respectively.

  1. At that, the authorities of the Russian Federation also draw the Court's attention to the fact that the applicants' applications were sent to the Court long before 2014.
  2. Moreover, the case file does not contain the applicants' signatures on the application forms or the supplements thereto.
  3. At the same time, the application forms and supplements thereto were prepared, signed and sent by K.A. Moskalenko and Ye.P. Napara, who, as set out in the applications, are the representatives of these persons.
  4. The authorities of the Russian Federation, nevertheless, take into account the possibility that the Court could significantly extend the time-limits set for the purpose of submitting by the applicants their authority forms. However, given the importance of this issue for the proper consideration of the case and based on the need to ensure full transparency of the procedure by means of actions of both the parties and the Court, the authorities of the Russian Federation ask the Court to provide information about the date and reasons for extension, if any. The authorities of the Russian Federation believe that such reasons must be sufficiently compelling, and the applicants had to explain to the Court the reason for the delay in submitting authority forms, i.e., the failure to respect, according to the position of the Court itself, "the very simple yet crucial procedural requirement" (see Kaur v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 35864/11, 15 May 2012).
  5. In the absence of such documents at their disposal at this stage, the authorities of the Russian Federation consider that the applicants' application was lodged in an improper manner.
2. Inadmissibility of the application for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

  1. Article 35 § 1 of the Convention sets out that the Court may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, and within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken,
  2. The Court reiterated that the purpose of the exhaustion rule is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right - usually through the courts - the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court. Consequently, States are dispensed from answering for their acts before an international body before they have had an opportunity to put matters right through their own legal system. The rule is based on the assumption, reflected in Article 13 of the Convention - with which it has close affinity - that there is an effective remedy available in respect of the alleged breach in the domestic system. In this way, it is an important aspect of the principle that the machinery of protection established by the Convention is subsidiary to the national systems safeguarding human rights (see, among other authorities, Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, § 48, Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 65, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV; and Fressoz andRoire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 37, ECHR 1999-1).
  3. Exhaustion of domestic remedies is usually assessed on the date of submission of the application to the Court. However, there are exceptions from this rule which can be justified by the particular circumstances of each case (see Baumann v. France, 22 May 2001, no. 33592/96, § 47).
  4. In the present case, it is necessary to note, first of all, that the application was signed by the applicants' representative K. Moskalenko on 8 December 2011 and was received by the Court on 9 December 2011.
  5. The results of the election to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation of the sixth convocation were established by the CEC of Russia on 9 December 2011 by the decision no. 70/576-6. This decision was published in issue no. 278c of the "Rossiyskaya Gazeta" newspaper on 10 December 2011.
  6. The results of election of deputies to the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg of the fifth convocation were established by the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission on 12 December 2011 by the decision no. 131-2. This decision was published by the u Sankt-Peter burgskiye Vedomostf' newspaper on 13 December 2011.
  7. It is clear that at the stage of filing the application with the Court the applicants could not have exhausted all domestic remedies and had no legal grounds to allege a violation cf their right, guaranteed by the Convention, as the procedure for the election of the bodies of legislative power was not yet completed.
  8. In addition, we believe it is possible to report that none of the applicants used all available remedies.
  9. The voting results at the electoral districts nos. 638, 639, 641, 643, 644, 646, 648, 651, 652, 653, 654, 657, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 668 (territory no. 19) were appealed against in the Kolpino District Court by the regional branch of Spravedlivaya Rossiya in Saint-Petersburg, and not by A. V. Davydov. The regional branch did not challenge the voting results at the electoral districts nos. 642, 649.
  10. Applicant . Davydov did not apply to courts, in order to protect his rights, with complaints about the results of election to the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg of the fifth convocation at the electoral districts nos. 638, 639,
641, 642, 643, 644, 646, 648, 649, 651, 652, 653, 654, 657, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 668 referred to in his application lodged with the Court.

  1. 0.0. Andronova, A.V, Andronov and T.A. Nikolayeva applied to a district court of Saint-Petersburg only with a request to find unlawful the action (omission) of the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission, however the applicants did not challenge the voting results at the electoral districts referred to in their application lodged with the Court at the election of deputies to the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg of the fifth convocation and the deputies to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation of the sixth convocation. In addition, these persons applied to the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission only in respect of the election of deputies to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation of the sixth convocation, and therefore they only challenged the action (omission) of the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission only in respect of the establishment of the results of voting at the election of deputies to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation of the sixth convocation in the courts.
  2. We consider it is necessary to note that the private appeal against the ruling of the Saint-Petersburg City Court of 13 January 2012 was filed only by O.O. Andronova and A.V. Andronov, i.e., the other applicants - T.A. Nikolayeva and Ye.P. Sizenov did not exercise their right to appeal against the court judgment which had not entered into force.
  3. Ye.P. Sizenov applied to the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission with a request to verify the correctness of the input of the data on the results of voting at the electoral district no. 661 at the election of deputies to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation of the sixth convocation. At the same time, the applicant did not challenge the establishment of results of election of deputies to the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg of the fifth convocation. The Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission forwarded Ye.P. Sizenov's application to the Kolpino District Prosecutor's Office for consideration in accordance with the competence.
  4. Ye.P. Sizenov did not apply to courts of general jurisdiction of the Russian Federation in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, i.e., he also failed to comply with the requirement of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
  5. The authorities of the Russian Federation draw the Court's attention to the fact that applicants S. V. Yakushenko and V. G. Belyakov did not appeal against the decisions of appeal courts in cassation proceedings. Consequently, V.G. Belyakov and S.V. Yakushenko failed to exhaust all domestic remedies provided for by the legislation of the Russian Federation.
  6. N.L. Payalin, (7.2*. Truskanov, L. V. Pushkareva and 5.5. Shestakov, candidates for deputies to the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg of the fifth convocation on behalf of the regional branch of Spravedlivaya Rossiya in Saint- Petersburg, did not seek judicial protection of their rights and did not appeal against the results of voting at the election to deputies of the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg of the fifth convocation. These applicants' requests are based on the results of appealing against the voting results at the said election by the regional branch
  7. The voting results at the electoral districts nos. 721, 722, 723, 724, 725, 726, 727, 728, 729, 731, 733, 734, 735, 736, 739, 740, 741, 742, 743, 744, 745, 794 (territory no. 22) were appealed against in the Krasnogvardeyskiy District Court of Saint-Petersburg by a regional branch, and not by N.L. Payalin.
  8. The complaint requesting to quash the decisions of the District Electoral Commissions on voting results at 10 electoral districts, namely nos. 486, 489, 495, 496, 497, 498, 500, 501, 508, 509 (territory no. 17) was lodged with the Kirovskiy District Court of Saint-Petersburg by a regional branch, and not by G.B. Truskanov.
  9. The results of voting at the election of deputies to the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg of the fifth convocation at the electoral districts nos. 1852 and 1853 which were created at the places of voters' temporary stay, namely in the territory of the Kirov Plant, were also challenged in the Kirovskiy District Court of Saint-Petersburg by the regional branch, and not by G.B. Truskanov.
  10. The complaint requesting to quash the decisions of the District Electoral Commissions on voting results at 19 electoral districts, namely nos. 1070, 1084, 1089, 1090, 1093, 1097, 1098, 1103, 1104, 1107, 1108, 1109, 1111, 1114, 1115, 1116, 1118, 1126, 1127 (territory no. 33) was lodged with the Moskovskiy District Court of Saint-Petersburg by the regional branch, and not by L. Pushkareva.
  11. The complaint requesting to quash the decisions of the District Electoral Commissions on voting results at the electoral districts nos. 554, 555, 557, 592, 593, 597, 598, 600, 601, 605, 606, 607, 608, 610, 611 (territory no. 15) was lodged with the Kirovskiy District Court of Saint-Petersburg by the regional branch, and not by 5.5. Shestakov.
  12. Given the above, the authorities of the Russian Federation believe that the application lodged by A.V. Davydov, O.O. Andronova, A.V. Andronov, T.A. Nikolayeva, Ye.P. Sizenov, V.G. Belyakov, S.V. Yakushenko, N.L. Payalin, G.B'. Truskanov, L. V. Pushkareva and S.S. Shestakov does not meet the procedural requirements of admissibility for its consideration by the Court, as set out in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
2.1. Recourse to remedies after the adoption of the Russian Federation Constitutional Court's Judgment of 22 April 2013 no. 8-P.

  1. On 22 April 2013 the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation delivered the Judgment no. 8-P In the Case Concerning the Check of Constitutionality of Articles 3, 4, Article 134 § 1 (1), Article 220, Article 259 § 1, Article 333 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, Article 30 §9 (" "), Article 75 § 10, Article 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Federal Law On the Basic Guarantees of the Electoral Rights and the Right to Participate in a Referendum of Citizens of the Russian Federation, Article 92 §§ 4, 5 of the Federal Law On the Election of Deputies of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation in response to the complaints of A. V. Andronov, O.O. Andronova, OB. Belov and others, the Commissioner for Human Rights in the Russian Federation and the regional branch of Spravedlivaya Rossiya in the Voronezh Region.
By this Judgment the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation ordered the legislator to provide for a procedure of appeal in a court by means of which voters, who took part in an election, could appeal against its results.

As regards the issue of the applicants' exhaustion of remedies it should be noted that § 4 of the operative part of the Judgment provides that if law enforcement decisions in connection with which the applicants had applied to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation were based on the contested provisions in the interpretation at variance with their constitutional and legal sense identified in the Judgment, or if these decisions had been based on the indicated statutory provisions to the extent in which they were found to be inconsistent with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, they were to be reviewed in accordance with the established procedure, unless there were other obstacles.

This paragraph of the operative part of the Judgment provided the applicants with an opportunity to exercise the protection of their electoral rights on the basis of changes in the legislative regulation of the issue. The available facts lead to the conclusion that the applicants failed to exhaust all the remedies even after the adoption of the Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.[5]

  1. It should be noted that prior to the Russian Federation Constitutional
Court's Judgment applicants V.G. Belyakov and S.V. Yakushenko appealed against the voting results at the electoral districts where they were included in the voter lists (nos. 623 and 637 respectively).

  1. The first instance decisions were appealed against by the applicants by way of appellate procedure, but their requests were not satisfied.
  2. Due to the fact that the relevant appeal rulings were not appealed against by the applicants in accordance with chapter 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, i.e., in the cassation instance, there is reason to believe that they also did not exhaust remedies.
3. Incompatibility of the application ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention.

  1. Based on the applications and appendices thereto, submitted by the applicants, it can be concluded that in the European Court the applicants de facto challenge the results of the election[6] to the Legislative Assembly of Saint- Petersburg and the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation.
  2. However, the authorities of the Russian Federation believe that the applicants' applications fall outside the scope of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and therefore cannot be considered by the Court.
  3. According to Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free election at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.
  4. Thus, Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention provides for the right to elect and to be elected. This Article does not guarantee the right to challenge the results of the election in the European Court.
  5. The applicants already had this opportunity within the framework of examination of their complaints by the domestic courts, where the applicants could state their case, submit the relevant evidence, challenge, appeal against actions (omission) of the relevant State authorities. All questions regarding violations at electoral districts referred to by the applicants in the application were considered by the domestic courts.[7]
  6. The Court was set up to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the High Contracting Parties in the Convention and the Protocols thereto (Article 19 of the Convention), and that by virtue of Article 32 § 1 of the Convention its jurisdiction extends "to all matters concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention and the Protocols thereto which are referred to it as provided in Articles 33, 34 and 47".
  7. It is not the Court's role to assess itself the facts which have led a national court to adopt one decision rather than another. If it were otherwise, the Court would be acting as a court of third or fourth instance, which would be to disregard the limits imposed on its action (see Kemmache v. France (no. 3), 24 November 1994, Series A no. 296-C, § 44).
  8. The Court's judgment in the case of Davydov v. Russia states that the complaint... of wrong assessment of evidence is of a fourth-instance nature (no. 16621/05, judgment of 25 November 2010).
  9. It is the role of the domestic courts to interpret and apply the relevant rules of procedural or substantive law. It is the domestic courts which are best placed to assess the credibility of witnesses and the relevance of evidence to the issues in the case. It is also for the domestic courts to exclude evidence which is considered to be irrelevant (see, among many other authorities, Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, §32, Series A no. 235-B and Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, § 34, Series A no. 247-B).
  10. When examining the applicant's complaints and evidence in the case of Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan the Court noted the following.
  11. As for the applicant's claims concerning the specific instances of alleged irregularities, the Court notes that, although the evidence presented by the applicant in support of his claims can be considered strong, in the circumstances of the present case it is not in a position to assume a fact-finding role by attempting to determine whether all or part of these alleged facts had taken place and, if so, whether they had amounted to irregularities capable of thwarting the free expression of the opinion of the people.
  12. Owing to the subsidiary nature of its role, the Court must be cautious in taking on the function of a first-instance court, where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see I.Z. v. Greece, no. 18997/91, Commission decision of 28 February 1994, Decisions and Reports 76-B, p. 65, at p. 68).
  13. Again, the Court reiterates that its task under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 is rather to satisfy itself, from a more general standpoint, that the respondent State has complied with its obligation to hold election under free and fair conditions and ensured that individual electoral rights were exercised effectively.
  14. Thus, taking into account the Court's case-law, the authorities of the Russian Federation believe that the issues relating to domestic procedures, namely the election to the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg and the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, and which have already been the subject of examination of domestic courts, such as questions nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, are outside the jurisdiction of the Court and, therefore, cannot be considered.
4. Inadmissibility due to the applicants* provision of improper materials as evidence

  1. According to Article 35 §3 (a) of the Convention, the Court shall declare inadmissible any individual application submitted under Article 34 if it considers that the application is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, manifestly ill-founded, or an abuse of the right of individual application.
  2. The Court reiterated that an application may be rejected as abusive under Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention if it was knowingly based on untrue facts, in particular if applicants submitted falsified or misleading documents to the Court {Poznanski and Others v. Germany (dec,), no. 25101/05, judgment of 3 July 2007; Bagheri and Maliki v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 30164/06, judgment of 15 May 2007).
  3. In reply to request of the CEC of Russia of 2 July 2014 no. 05-23/2630 specialists of the Forensic Expert Criminalistic Centre of the Ministry of the Interior of the Russian Federation undertook a forensic and technical criminalistic examination of the materials submitted by the applicants to the Court as "evidence". During the check these materials were compared with copies of the original counterparts of the results protocols submitted by the Saint- Petersburg Electoral Commission.
  4. The results of the expert examination suggest that the images of results protocols sheets from the relevant voting stations (electoral districts) submitted by the applicants to the Court were not obtained from the results protocols of the District Electoral Commissions of Saint-Petersburg the copies of which were submitted by the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission.
  5. The data obtained as a result of the expert examination allow to assess objectively the documents submitted by the applicants to the Court as "evidence" in terms of their reliability and admissibility (the letter of the Forensic Expert Criminalistic Centre of the Ministry of the Interior of Russia of 30 July 2014 no. 3/39172 is appended hereto).
  6. In particular, during the expert examination it was found that the images of results protocols sheets from the relevant voting stations (electoral districts) submitted by the applicants to the Court were not obtained from the results protocols of the District Electoral Commissions of Saint-Petersburg the copies of which were submitted to the CEC of Russia by the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission.
  7. During the comparison of the images of essential elements contained in the copies of results protocols of the same electoral commissions submitted by the Electoral Commission and the applicants, differences in the contents and locations of this information were found.
  8. As a result of comparison of images of seals reading "Electoral District no. 1089" and "Electoral District no. 1104" contained in the copies of results protocols of the electoral districts nos. 1089 and 1104 respectively submitted by the Electoral Commission with the relevant images contained in the copies of results protocols of the electoral districts nos. 1089 and 1104 submitted by the applicants differences in the locations of different fragments with respect to each other were established.
  9. The established differences are significant and sufficient to conclude
that:

  • the seal reading "Electoral District no. 1089" contained in the copy of the results protocol of the electoral district no. 1089 submitted by the Electoral Commission, and the seal reading "Electoral District no. 1089" contained in the copy of the results protocol of the electoral district no. 1089 provided by the applicants were affixed by different printing plates;
  • the seal reading "Electoral District no. 1104" contained in the copy of the results protocol of the electoral district no.1104 submitted by the Electoral Commission, and the seal reading "Electoral District no. 1104" contained in the copy of the results protocol of the electoral district no. 1104 provided by the applicants were affixed by different printing plates.
    1. In support of the absence of any grounds to consider the applicants1 materials as evidence in the present case, the CEC of Russia prepared tables containing information about the non-compliance of these materials with the provisions of the legislation which establish the requirements to compilation of protocols and certification of their copies.
    2. The tables contain a detailed description of non-compliances in the compilation of results protocols and certification of copies of results protocols as for the applicants with indication of the number of the particular voting station (electoral district), as well as other information in respect of the materials provided by the applicants to the Court as results protocols.


. Dayydov, candidate of the regional branch of Spravedlivaya Rossiya Territory: 19 TEC: 21

Electoral District no. Grounds for Finding the Applicants' Materials as Protocols to be Improper Note
Non-Compliances Regarding Execution of the Protocol Non-Compliances Regarding Certification of the Protocol Copy
1. 638* Missing data: -"counterpart number,

  • address of the voting room,
  • duplication of numbers in words.
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • entries "Authentic" or "Authentic copy",
  • signature of the certifying person,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
The third page is missing.
2. 639 Missing data:

  • counterpart number,
  • address of the voting room,
  • duplication of numbers in words,
  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled,
  • signatures of some members of the DEC,
  • time of signing of the protocol,
  • stamp at the stamp place.
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • entries "Authentic" or "Authentic copy",
  • signature of the certifying person,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
Surnames and signatures of members of the Commission are missing (except for the chairman and the deputy chairman).

 


Electoral District no. Grounds for Finding the Applicants' Materials as Protocols to be Improper Note
3. 641 Missing data:

  • counterpart number,
  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled.
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • entries "Authentic" or "Authentic copy",
  • signature of the certifying person,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
 
4. 642 Missing data:

  • counterpart number,
  • duplication of numbers in words.
«
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • time of the certification
At that, the first sheet of the "copy" of the protocol is certified.
The third page is missing.
5. 643 Missing data:

  • counterpart number,
  • duplication of numbers in words.
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification
At that, the first sheet of the "copy" of the protocol is certified.
 

 


Electoral District no. Grounds for Finding the Applicants' Materials as Protocols to be Improper Note
6. 644 Data missing from both "copies":

  • counterpart numbef,
  • duplication of numbers in words.
  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled,
  • signatures of members of the DEC,
  • date and time of signing of the protocol,
  • stamp at the stamp place.
Data missing from both "copies":

  • copy number,
  • date and time of the certification.
Two different "copies" containing the same data in the lines of the protocol were submitted. Signatures of members of the Commission are missing.
7. 646 One of the "copies" has only the first page. Data missing from the other one:

  • counterpart number,
  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled,
  • signatures of members of the DEC,
  • date and time of signing of the protocol,
  • stamp at the stamp place.
Data missing from both "copies":

  • copy number,
  • date and time of the certification.
At that, the first sheet of the "copy" of the protocol is certified.
Two different "copies" were submitted.

Signatures of members of the Commission are missing.

8. 648 Data missing from both "copies":

  • counterpart number,
  • duplication of numbers in words,
  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled,
  • signatures of members of the DEC,
  • date and time of signing of the protocol,
  • stamp at the stamp place.
Data missing from both "copies":

  • copy number,
  • signature of the certifying person,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification.
Two different "copies" containing the same data in the lines of the protocol were submitted. Signatures of members of the Commission are missing (except for the chairman) in both "copies".
9. 649 Missing data:

  • counterpart number,
  • duplication of numbers in words,
  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled,
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification.
Signatures of the chairman and the secretary are missing. Surname of N.Y. Smotrovaya is misspelled.

 

 

Electoral District no. Grounds for Finding the Applicants' Materials as Protocols to be Improper Note
   
  • signatures of some members of the DEC,
  • time of signing of the protocol, stamp at the stamp place.
   
10. 651 Pata missing from,both "copies":

  • counterpart numbe| .
  • duplication of numbers in words,
  • th? column,on the number of complaints is not filled, , „
  • signatures of some members of the DEC,
  • date and time of signing of the protocol,
  • stamp at the stamp place.
Data missing from both "copies": - copy number. Two different "copies" containing the same data in the lines of the protocol were submitted. Signatures of some members of the Commission are missing.
. 652 Missing data:

  • counterpart number,
  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled,
  • signatures of members of the DEC,
  • date and time of signing of the protocol,
  • stamp at the stamp place.
Missing data: - copy number. Signatures of all members of the Commission are missing.
12. 653 Data missing from both "copies":

  • counterpart number,
  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled,
  • signatures of some members of the DEC. Data missing from one of the "copies":
  • duplication of numbers in words. Data missing from the other copy:
  • stamp at the stamp place.
Data missing from one of the "copies":

  • copy number,
  • entries "Authentic" or "Authentic copy",
  • signature of the certifying person,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription. Data missing from the other "copy":
  • copy number,
  • full name of the certifying person,
Two different "copies" containing the same data in the lines of the protocol were submitted. Signatures of members of the Commission are missing from one of the "copies".

Signatures of some members of the Commission are missing from the other "copy".

O.S. Velesyuk was not a member of

 

 

Electoral District no. Grounds for Finding the Applicants' Materials as Protocols to be Improper *

: »

Note
      - dab and time of the certification. the Commission in accordance with the decision on its composition.
13. 654 Data missing from both "copies":

  • counterpart number,
  • duplication of numbers in words. Data missing from one of the "copies":
  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled.
Data missing from both "copies":

  • copy number,
  • entries "Authentic" or "Authentic copy",
  • signature of the certifying person,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
Two different "copies" containing the same data in the lines of the protocol were submitted.
14. 657 Missing data:

  • address of the voting rot^m,
  • time of signing of the protocol.
Missing data:

- date and time of the certification.

 
15. 661 One of the "copies" contains an indication of a non-existent number of counterpart of the protocol (no. 5).

Data missing from both "copies":

  • duplication of numbers in words,
  • date and time of signing of the protocol.
Data missing from both "copies":

  • copy number,
  • entries "Authentic" or "Authentic copy",
  • signature of the certifying person,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
Two different "copies" containing the same data in the lines of the protocol were submitted.

 

 

Electoral District no. Grounds for Finding the Applicants' Materials as Protocols to be Improper Note
16. 662 Missing data:

  • counterpart number,
  • signatures of some members of the DEC.
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • entries "Authentic" or "Authentic copy",
  • signature of the certifying person,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
Only signatures of three members of the Commission are present.
17. 664 Missing data:

  • counterpart number,
  • duplication of numbers in words,
  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled,
  • signatures of some members of the DEC,
  • date and time of signing of the protocol.
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • entries "Authentic" or "Authentic copy",
  • signature of the certifying person,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
Only signatures of three members of the Commission are present.
18. 665 Missing data:

  • counterpart number,
  • duplication of numbers in words,
  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled,
  • signatures of some members of the DEC,
  • date and time of signing of the protocol.
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • entries "Authentic" or "Authentic copy",
  • signature of the certifying person,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
Four illegible names of persons who presumably were not members of the Commission are present. T.A. Smirnova's signature is missing.

 

 

Electoral District no. Grounds for Finding the Applicants' Materials as Protocols to be Improper Note
19. 666 Missing data:

  • counterpart number,
  • number of the electoral district,
  • duplication of numbers in words,
  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled,
  • signatures of members of the DEC.
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
Surnames and signatures of all members of the Commission are missing.
20. 667 Missing data:

  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled,
  • signatures of members of the DEC,
  • time of signing of the protocol.
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • entries "Authentic" or "Authentic copy",
  • signature of the certifying person,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
Surnames and signatures of all members of the Commission are missing (except for the chairman).
21. 668 Data missing from both "copies":

  • counterpart number,
  • duplication of numbers in words.
Signatures of some members of the DEC are missing from one of the "copies".
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification.
At that, the first sheet of the "copy" of the protocol is certified.
Two different "copies" containing the same data in the lines of the protocol were submitted.

 

 

. . Andronova, , Andronov, Ye.P. Sizenov, .. Nikolayeva.

Territory: part of the territory of Saint-Petersburg: "The City of Saint-Petersburg - South" of the single federal district for the election of deputies to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation of the sixth convocation TEC: 21

Electoral District no. Grounds for Finding the Applicants' Materials as Protocols to be Improper Note
    Non-Compliances Regarding Execution of the Protocol Non-Compliances Regarding Certification of the Protocol Copy  
22 651 Missing data:

  • duplication of numbers in words,
  • signatures of some members of the DEC,
  • date and time of signing of the protocol,
  • stamp at the stamp place.
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • status of the certifying person.
Only signatures of three members of the Commission are present.
23 652 Missing data:

  • counterpart number,
  • signatures of members of the DEC,
  • date and time of signing of the protocol,
  • stamp at the stamp place.
Missing data: - copy number. Signatures of members of the Commission are missing.

 

 

Electoral District no. Grounds for Finding the Applicants' Materials as Protocols to be Improper Note
24 654 Missing data:

  • counterpart number,
  • duplication of numbers in words.
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • entries "Authentic" or "Authentic copy",
  • signature of the certifying person,
  • full name and status of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
 
25 661 One of the "copies" contains an indication of a non-existent number of counterpart of the protocol (no. 3); missing data:

  • duplication of numbers in words,
  • time of signing of the protocol.
The other "copy" contains an indication of a non­existent number of counterpart of the protocol (no. 4); missing data:

  • duplication of numbers in words,
  • time of signing of the protocol.
Data missing from both copies:

  • copy number,
  • entries "Authentic" or "Authentic copy",
  • signature of the certifying person,
-full name and status of the certifying person,

  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
Two different "copies" containing the same data in the lines of the protocol were submitted.

 

 

5. Yakushenko, V.G. Belyakov

Territories: 18, 19 TEC:21

Electoral District no. Grounds for Finding the Applicants' Materials as Protocols to be Improper Note
    Non-Compliances Regarding Execution of the Protocol Non-Compliances Regarding Certification of the Protocol Copy  
26. 623 Missing data from one of the "copies":

  • counterpart number,
  • duplication of numbers in words,
  • signatures of some members of the DEC.
Data missing from both "copies":

  • copy number,
  • entries "Authentic" or "Authentic copy",
  • signature of the certifying person,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
Two different "copies" were submitted. Only signatures of three members of the Commission are present in one of the "copies".
27. 637 Missing data:

  • counterpart number,
  • duplication of numbers in words,
  • signatures of some members of the DEC.
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • entries "Authentic" or "Authentic copy",
  • signature of the certifying person,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
Signatures of some members of the Commission are missing.

 

 

N.L. Payalin, candidate on behalf of the regional branch of Spravedlivaya Rossiya (withdrew his application) Territory: 22 TEC: 4

Electoral District no. Grounds for Finding the Applicants' Materials as Protocols to be Improper

?

Note
    Non-Compliances Regarding Execution of the Protocol Non-Compliances Regarding Certification of the Protocol Copy  
28. 721 Missing data:

  • counterpart number,
  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled,
  • stamp at the stamp place.
There are corrections to the date of signing.
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • entries "Authentic" or "Authentic copy",
  • signature of the certifying person,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
 
29. 722   Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
 
30. 723 Missing data:

  • counterpart number,
  • duplication of numbers in words,
  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled,
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • date and time of the certification.
Only signature of one member of the Commission is present.

 

 

Electoral District no. Grounds for Finding the Applicants' Materials as Protocols to be Improper Note
   
  • signatures of some members of the DEC,
  • stamp at the stamp place.
   
31. 724 Missing data:

  • counterpart number,
  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled,
  • time of signing of the protocol.
»
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • entries "Authentic" or "Authentic copy",
  • signature of the certifying person,
  • lull name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
The signatures of the following members of the Commission are present, while they are missing from the original counterpart of the protocol:

  • V.R. Ledat,
  • N.P. Nikonova.
32. 725 Missing data:

- the column on the number of complaints is not filled.

Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • entries "Authentic" or "Authentic copy",
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
Ye.I. Dmitriyeva was not a member of the Commission in accordance with the decision on its composition, while her signature is present in the "copy".
33. 726 Missing data:

  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled,
  • date and time of signing of the protocol,
  • stamp at the stamp place.
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • time of the certification.
The signature of the following member of the Commission is present, while it is missing from the original counterpart of the protocol: - M.Ye. Ivanova.

 

 

Electoral , District no. Grounds for Finding the Applicants' Materials as Protocols to be Improper Note
34. 727 Missing data:

  • counterpart number,
  • duplication of numbers in words,
  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled,
  • stamp at the stamp place.
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification.
At that, the first sheet of the "copy3' of the protocol is certified.
The signatures of the following members of the Commission are present, while they are missing from the original counterpart of the protocol:

  • I.V, Denkoviya,
  • S.A. Rusachenko.
35. 728 Missing data:

  • address of the voting room,
  • signatures of some members of the DEC.
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • entries "Authentic" or "Authentic copy",
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
Only signatures of two members of the Commission are present.
36. 729 Missing data:

  • counterpart number,
  • duplication of numbers in words,
  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled.
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • entries "Authentic" or "Authentic copy",
  • signature of the certifying person,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
The signatures of the following members of the Commission are present, while they are missing from the original counterpart of the protocol:

  • A.S. Khomyakova,
  • Ye.V. Yakimovich.

 

 

Electoral District no. Grounds for Finding the Applicants' Materials as Protocols to be Improper Note
37. 731 Missing data: - stamp at the stamp place. Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification.
 
38. 733 Missing data:

- the column on the number of complaints is not filled.

Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • entries "Authentic" or "Authentic copy",
  • signature of the certifying person,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
S.V. Lebedev was not a member of the Commission in accordance with the decision on its composition, while his signature is present in the "copy".
39. 734 Missing data:

  • counterpart number,
  • some lines of the protocol are unfilled,
  • duplication of numbers in words,
  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled.
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
Signatures of the following members of the Commission are missing:

  • G.Yu. Grigoryan,
  • M.I. Dunina.
40. 735 Missing data:

- the column on the number of complaints is not filled.

Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • date and time of the certification.
The signature of the following member of the Commission is present, while it is missing from the original counterpart of the protocol: - V.O. Kuzhel.

 

 

Electoral District no. Grounds for Finding the Applicants' Materials as Protocols to be Improper Note
41. 736 Missing data:

  • counterpart number,
  • duplication of numbers in words,
  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled.
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
 
42. 739 Missing data:

  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled,
  • signatures of some members of the DEC.
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • signature of the certifying person,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification.
 
43. 740   Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • entries "Authentic" or "Authentic copy",
  • signature of the certifying person,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
 

 

 

Electoral District no. Grounds for Finding the Applicants' Materials as Protocols to be Improper Note
44. 741 Missing data:

  • counterpart number.
  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled,
  • signatures of some members of the DEC.
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • entries "Authentic" or "Authentic copy",
  • date and time of the certification.
The signature of V.S. Gavrilov is missing.
45. 742 Missing data:

  • counterpart number,
  • duplication of numbers in words,
  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled.
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • entries "Authentic" or "Authentic copy",
  • signature of the certifying person,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
L.G. Arinushenko and T.A. Leushina were not members of the Commission in accordance with the decision on its composition, while their signatures are present in the "copy".
46. 743 The number of the counterpart is missing. Missing data:

  • entries "Authentic" or "Authentic copy",
  • signature of the certifying person,
  • lull name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
Ye.A. Chursina and G.A. Lobytova were not members of the Commission in accordance with the decision on its composition, while their signatures are present in the "copy".

 

 

Electoral District no. Grounds for Finding the Applicants' Materials as Protocols to be Improper Note
47. 744 Missing data:

  • duplication of numbers in words,
  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled.
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • entries "Authentic" or "Authentic copy",
  • signature of the certifying person,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
G.K. Reyev was not a member of the Commission in accordance with the decision on its composition, while his signature is present in the "copy".
48. 745 Missing data:

  • address of the voting room,
  • duplication of numbers in words,
  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled,
  • signatures of some members of the DEC.
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • entries "Authentic" or "Authentic copy",
  • signature of the certifying person,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
Signatures of the following members of the Commission are missing:

  • L.A. Spiridonov,
  • V.N. Afanasyeva,
  • A.S. Belova,
  • A. A. Spiridonova.
49. 794 The number of the counterpart is missing. Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • entries "Authentic" or "Authentic copy",
  • signature of the certifying person,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
The signatures of the following members of the Commission are present, while they are missing from the original counterpart of the protocol:

  • T.V. Potina,
  • D.A. Panfikov,
  • V.P. Shakiryanova,
  • A.V. Babulich.

 

 

G.B. Truskanov, candidate on behalf of the regional branch of Spravedlivaya Rossiya Territory: 17 TEC: 3

Electoral

District

no.

Grounds for Finding the Applicants' Materials as Protocols to be Improper Note
Non-Compliances Regarding Execution of the Protocol Non-Compliances Regarding Certification of the Protocol Copy
50. 486 Both "copies" do not contain the number of the counterpart, one of the "copies" does not contain signatures of the members of the DEC. Data missing from both "copies":

  • copy number,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
Two different "copies" containing the same data in the lines of the protocol were submitted.

Signatures of all members of the Commission except for the chairman are missing from one of the "copies".

51. 489 Data missing from one of the "copies":

  • duplication of numbers in words,
  • date and time of signing of the protocol.
Data missing from one of the "copies":

  • copy number,
  • signature of the certifying person,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription. Data missing from the other "copy":
  • copy number,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification.
Two different "copies" containing the same data in the lines of the protocol were submitted.

Both "copies" contain all signatures of members of the Commission, while the original counterparts of the protocol do not contain the signatures of Yu.S. Ilyina, M.F. Kudryashova, N.S. Kurakina, Ye.N. Gerasimova.

52. 495 Missing data:

  • counterpart number,
  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled,
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
Surnames and signatures of members of the Commission are missing (except for the secretary).

 

 

Electoral

District

no.

Grounds for Finding the Applicants* Materials as Protocols to be Improper Note
   
  • signatures of some members of the DEC,
  • time of signing of the protocol.
   
53. 496 Data missing from both "copies":

  • counterpart number,
  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled.
Data missing from one of the "copies":

  • copy number,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription. Data missing from the other "copy":
  • copy number,
  • date and time of the certification.
Two different "copies" containing the same data in the lines of the protocol were submitted

Signatures of the following members of the Commission are missing from one of the "copies":

  • V.D. Gorokhov,
  • Ye.V. Koroleva,
  • A.V. Orlova,
  • N.G. Breusova,
  • V.V. Pashkevich.
Signatures of the following members of the Commission are missing from the other "copy":

  • N.G. Breusova,
  • Ye.V. Koroleva,
  • V.V. Pashkevich.
54. 497 One of the "copies" contains an indication of a non-existent number of the counterpart of the protocol (no. 4).

No number of the counterpart is indicated in the other "copy".

Data missing from both "copies":

- the column on the number of complaints is not

filled.

Data missing from one of the "copies":

  • entries "Authentic" or "Authentic copy",
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription. Data missing from the other "copy":
  • copy number,
  • entries "Authentic" or "Authentic
Two different "copies" containing the same data in the lines of the protocol were submitted.

Both "copies" contain all signatures of members of the Commission, while the original counterparts of the protocol do not contain the signatures of the following members of the Commission. - Ye.L. Novikova,

 

 

Electoral

District

no.

Grounds for Finding the Applicants' Materials as Protocols to be Improper Note
      copy",

  • signature of the certifying person,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
  • L.N. Malinovskaya,
  • S.N. Surenkova.
55. 498 Data missing from both "copies":

  • counterpart number,
  • signatures of some members of the DEC. Data missing from one of the "copies":
  • duplication of numbers in words.
Data missing from one of the "copies":

  • copy number,
  • entries "Authentic" or "Authentic copy",
  • signature of the certifying person,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription. Data missing from the other "copy":
  • copy number,
  • entries "Authentic" or "Authentic copy",
  • signature of the certifying person,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
Two different "copies" containing the same data in the lines of the protocol were submitted.

Only three signatures of members of the Commission are present in both "copies".

 

 

Electoral

District

no.

Grounds for Finding the Applicants' Materials as Protocols to be Improper Note
56. 500 One of the "copied" contains an indication of a non-existent number of the counterpart of the protocol (no. 7); missing data:

  • duplication of numbers in words,
  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled,
  • signatures of some members of the DEC,
  • stamp at the stamp place.
Data missing from the other "copy":

  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled,
  • signatures of some members of the DEC,
  • stamp at the stamp place.
Data missing from one of the "copies":

  • copy number,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification. Data missing from the other "copy":
  • copy number,
  • time of the certification.
Two different "copies" containing the same data in the lines of the protocol were submitted.

Both "copies" contain the signatures of only one member of the Commission; the surname of the following member of the Commission is missing: - M.E. Gaydar.

57. 501 Data missing from one of the "copies":

  • counteipart number,
  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled,
  • signatures of some members of the DEC. Data missing from the other "copy":
  • counterpart number,
  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled.
Data missing from one of the "copies":

  • copy number,
  • entries "Authentic" or "Authentic copy",
  • signature of the certifying person,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription. Data missing from the other "copy":
  • copy number,
  • entries "Authentic" or "Authentic copy",
  • signature of the certifying person,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
Two different "copies" containing the same data in the lines of the protocol were submitted.

Signatures of the following members of the Commission are missing from one of the "copies":

  • I.N. Mikhaylov,
  • Ye.S. Vygodina,
  • V.P. Ivanova,
  • N.P. Kozyreva,
  • N.P. Petrova.
The surname and signature of the member of the Commission T.B. Chugunova are missing from both "copies".

 

 

Electoral

District

no.

Grounds for Finding the Applicants' Materials as Protocols to be Improper

Note
58. 508 Missing data:

  • counterpart number,
  • duplication of numbers in words,
  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled.
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • entries "Authentic" or "Authentic copy",
  • signature of the certifying person,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
 
59. 509 One of the "copies" contains an indication of a non-existent number of the counterpart of the protocol (no. 3). Data missing from one of the "copies":

  • copy number,
  • date and time of the certification.
At that, the first sheet of the "copy" of

the protocol is certified.

Data missing from the other "copy":

  • copy number,
  • date and time of the certification.
At that, the first sheet of the "copy" of the protocol is certified.
Two different "copies" containing the same data in the lines of the protocol were submitted.
60. 1852 The CEC of Russia did not receive any materials from the applicants about this electoral

district.

-
61. 1853 The CEC of Russia did not receive any materials from the applicants about this electoral

district.

-

 

 

L. Pushkareva, candidate on behalf of the regional branch of Spravedlivaya Rossiya Territory: 33 TEC: 27

Electoral District no. Grounds for Finding the Applicants' Materials as Protocols to be Improper Note
Non-Compliances Regarding Execution of the Protocol Non-Compliances Regarding Certification of the Protocol Copy
62. 1070 Missing data:

  • counterpart number,
  • address of the voting room,
  • duplication of numbers in words,
  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled,
  • signatures of members of the DEC,
  • date and time of signing of the protocol,
  • stamp at the stamp place.
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • full name of the certifying person.
At that, the first sheet of the "copy" of the protocol is certified.
Signatures of members of the Commission are missing.
63. 1084 Missing data:

- the column on the number of complaints is not filled.

Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • signature of the certifying person,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
Surnames and signatures of the following members of the Commission are missing: - RYu. Boldarev.
64. 1089 Missing data:

  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled,
  • signatures of some members of the DEC.
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • entries "Authentic" or "Authentic copy",
  • signature of the certifying person,
Surnames and signatures of members of the Commission are missing (except for the chairman).

 

 

Electoral District no. Grounds for Finding the Applicants' Materials as Protocols to be Improper Note
     
  • fiill name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
 
65. 1090 Missing data:

  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled,
  • signatures of some members of the DEC.
There are corrections in the first column in the date of signing of the protocol.
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • entries "Authentic" or "Authentic copy",
  • signature of the certifying person,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
Surnames and signatures of the following members of the Commission are missing:

  • E.F. Gafarov,
  • I.V. Tregubova,
  • A.P. Borovikov,
  • R.F. Gafarov,
  • Ye.V. Parubok,
  • T.P. Parubok.
66. 1093 Missing data:

  • counterpart number,
  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled,
  • signatures of some members of the DEC.
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
Surname and signature of the following member of the Commission are missing: - O.V. Protasova.
67. 1097 A non-existent number of the counterpart of the protocol (no. 4) is indicated. Missing data:

- the column on the number of complaints is not filled,

•- there is no stamp at the stamp place.

Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification.
At that, the first sheet of the "copy" of the protocol is certified.
 

 

 

Electoral District no. Grounds for Finding the Applicants' Materials as Protocols to be Improper Note
68. 1098 Missing data:

- duplication of numbers in words.

Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • time of the certification.
At that, the first sheet of the "copy" of the protocol is certified.
 
69. 1103 Missing data:

  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled,
  • signatures of some members of the DEC.
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • signature of the certifying person,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
Signatures of all members of the Commission except for the chairman are missing.
70. 1104 Signatures of some members of the DEC are missing. Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • entries "Authentic" or "Authentic copy",
  • signature of the certifying person,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
Surnames and signatures of all members of the Commission are missing (except for the chairman).

 

 

Electoral District no. Grounds for Finding the Applicants' Materials as Protocols to be Improper Note
71. 1107 Missing data:

- duplication of numbers in words.

Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • date and time of the certification.
Surname of one of the members of the Commission is misspelled ("Zhavoronkov" instead of "Zhavoronkova").
72. 1108 Missing data:

- the column on the number of complaints is not filled.

Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification.
 
73. 1109 No comments. Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
Surname and signature of the following member of the Commission is missing: - L.A. Vasilyeva.
74. 1111 Missing data:

  • counterpart number,
  • duplication of numbers in words,
  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled.
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • date and time of the certification.
All signatures of members of the Commission are present, while the original counterparts of the protocol state that S.N. Goldrich and A.A. Berdigulov were absent.

 

 

Electoral District no. Grounds for Finding the Applicants' Materials as Protocols to be Improper Note
75. 1114 Missing data:

  • signatures of some members of the DEC,
  • date and time of signing of the protocol,
  • stamp at the stamp place.
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • entries "Authentic" or "Authentic copy",
  • signature of the certifying person,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
Only the signatures of the chairman and one Commission's member are present.
76. 1115 Missing data:

  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled,
  • signatures of members of the DEC.
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
Surnames of I.V. Sakhnenko and M.N. Khlynina and signatures of all members of the Commission are missing.
77. 1118 Missing data:

  • counterpart number,
  • duplication of numbers in words,
  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled,
  • signatures of members of the DEC,
  • date and time of signing of the protocol.
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • date and time of the certification.
The protocol is submitted in the form of two pages.

Surnames and signatures of members of the Commission are missing (except for the chairman).

 

 

Electoral District no. Grounds for Finding the Applicants' Materials as Protocols to be Improper Note
78. 1126 Missing data:

- duplication of numbers in words.

Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • date and time of the certification.
The signatures of all members of the Commission are present, while the signature of M.V. Isayev is missing from the original counterparts of the protocol.
79. 1127 Missing data:

  • duplication of numbers in words,
  • time of signing of the protocol.
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • entries "Authentic" or "Authentic copy",
  • signature of the certifying person,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
Surname and signature of the following member of the Commission are missing: - Ye. Ye. Kosareva.

Signatures of persons who were not voting members of the Commission are present.

 


S.S. Shestakov, candidate of the regional branch of Spravedlivaya Rossiya Territory: 15 TEC: 7

Electoral District no. Grounds for Finding the Applicants' Materials as Protocols to be Improper Note
Non-Compliances Regarding Execution of the Protocol Non-Compliances Regarding Certification of the Protocol Copy
80. 549 Missing data:

  • counterpart number,
  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled,
  • signatures of some members of the DEC.
Missing data:

  • date and time of certification of the copy,
  • full name of the certifying person on the first and second sheets.
Not all signatures of the Commission's members are present.
81. 552 Missing data:

  • counterpart number,
  • duplication of numbers in words,
  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled,
  • signatures of some members of the DEC,
  • date and time of signing of the protocol.
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • entries "Authentic" or "Authentic copy",
  • signature of the certifying person,
  • flill name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
Not all signatures of the Commission's members are present.
82. 553 Missing data:

  • counterpart number,
  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled,
  • signatures of members of the DEC,
  • stamp at the stamp place.
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification.
Signatures of members of the Commission are missing.

 


Electoral District no. Grounds for Finding the Applicants' Materials as Protocols to be Improper Note
83. 554 Missing data:

  • counterpart number,
  • signatures of members of the DEC.
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
Signatures of members of the Commission are missing.
84. 555 Missing data:

  • counterpart number,
  • duplication of numbers in words,
  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled,
  • signatures of some members of the DEC,
  • date and time of signing of the protocol,
  • stamp at the stamp place.
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • signature of the certifying person,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
Not all signatures of the Commission's members are present.
85. 557 Data missing from one of the "copies":

  • counterpart number,
  • duplication of numbers in words,
  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled,
  • signatures of some members of the DEC,
  • date and time of signing of the protocol,
  • stamp at the stamp place.
Data missing from the other "copy":

  • counterpart number,
  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled.
Data missing from one of the "copies":

  • copy number,
  • date and time of the certification.
At that, the first sheet of the "copy" of the

protocol is certified.

Data missing from the other "copy":

  • full name of the certifying person.
Two different "copies" containing the same data in the lines of the protocol were submitted. Not all signatures of the Commission's members are present in both submitted "copies".

 

 

Electoral District no. Grounds for Finding the Applicants' Materials as Protocols to be Improper Note
   
  • signatures of some members of the DEC,
  • date and time of signing of the protocol,
  • stamp at the stamp place.
   
86. 558 Data missing from one of the "copies":

  • duplication of numbers in words,
  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled,
  • signatures of members of the DEC,
  • stamp at the stamp place.
Data missing from the other "copy":

  • counterpart number,
  • address of the voting room,
  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled^
  • signatures of members of the DEC,
  • date and time of signing of the protocol,
  • stamp at the stamp place.
Data missing from one of the "copies":

  • copy number,
  • entries "Authentic" or "Authentic copy",
  • signature of the certifying person,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription. Data missing from the other "copy":
  • copy number,
  • entries "Authentic" or "Authentic copy",
  • signature of the certifying person,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
Two different "copies" containing the same data in the lines of the protocol were submitted. The signatures of the Commission's members are missing in both submitted "copies".
87. 592 Missing data:

  • counterpart number,
  • duplication of numbers in words,
  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled,
  • signatures of members of the DEC, -stamp at the stamp place.
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • date and time of the certification.
Signatures of members of the Commission are missing. Surnames of the following members of the Commission are missing:

  • O.B. Laburenko,
  • N.N. Zhirkov.

 

 

Electoral District no. Grounds for Finding the Applicants' Materials as Protocols to be Improper Note
88. 593 Missing data:

  • counterpart number,
  • duplication of numbers in words,
  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled,
  • signatures of members of the DEC.
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
Surnames of the following members of the Commission are missing:

  • S.Yu. Nikitina,
  • M.V. Sharoyko,
  • Ye.Yu. Vlasova.
N.A. Karpenko's surname is misspelled as "Korlenko". Ye.Yu. Makhova was not a member of the Commission in accordance with the decision on its composition. Only the signature of Zh.V. Valeyeva is present.
89. 594 The number of the counterpart is missing. Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification.
Surnames of the following members of the Commission are missing:

  • I.S. Vladimirova,
  • L.N. Shtolina.
90. 597 S ignores of some members of the DEC are missing. Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
Not all signatures of the Commission's members are present.

 

 

Electoral District no. Grounds for Finding the Applicants' Materials as Protocols to be Improper Note
91. 598 A non-existent number of the counterpart of the protocol (no. 3) is indicated. Missing data:

  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled,
  • signatures of some members of the DEC.
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • signature of the certifying person,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
Not all signatures of the Commission's members are present.
92. 600 The CEC of Russia did not receive any materials from the applicants about this electoral district. The CEC of Russia did not receive any materials from the applicants about this electoral district. The CEC of Russia did not receive any materials from the applicants about this electoral district
93. 601 Missing data:

  • counterpart number,
  • duplication of numbers in words,
  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled,
  • signatures of some members of the DEC,
  • date and time of signing of the protocol,
  • stamp at the stamp place.
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • entries "Authentic" or "Authentic copy",
  • signature of the certifying person,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
Not all signatures of the Commission's members are present.
94. 605 One of the "copies":

Contains an indication of a non-existent number of the counterpart of the protocol (no. 3); numbers are not duplicated in words. The other "copy":

Contains an indication of a non-existent number of the counterpart of the protocol (no. 6); the signatures of some members of the DEC are

Data missing from one of the "copies":

  • copy number,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription. Data missing from the other "copy":
  • copy number,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
Two different "copies" containing the same data in the lines of the protocol were submitted. Signatures of some members of the Commission are missing from the second "copy".

 

 

Electoral District no. Grounds for Finding the Applicants' Materials as Protocols to be Improper Note
    missing.    
95. 606 The number of the counterpart is illegible. Missing data:

  • duplication of numbers in words,
  • signatures of some members of the DEC.
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
Not all signatures of the Commission's members are present.
96. 607 Missing data:

  • counterpart number,
  • address of the voting room,
  • duplication of numbers in words,
  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled,
  • signatures of members of the DEC,
  • date and time of signing of the protocol,
  • stamp at the stamp place.
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • entries "Authentic" or "Authentic copy",
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
Signatures of members of the Commission are missing.

 

 

Electoral District no. Grounds for Finding the Applicants* Materials as Protocols to be Improper Note
97. 608 Missing data:

  • counterpart number,
  • address of the voting room,
  • numbers are not duplicated in words; the column on the number of complaints is not filled,
  • signatures of some members of the DEC,
  • date and time of signing of the protocol,
  • stamp at the stamp place.
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • entries "Authentic" or "Authentic copy",
  • signature of the certifying person,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
Not all signatures of the Commission's members are present.
98. 610 Data missing from one of the "copies":

  • counterpart number,
  • duplication of numbers in words,
  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled,
Data missing from the other one:

Counterpart number is missing; the column on the

number of complaints is not filled.

Data missing from one of the "copies":

  • copy number,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription. Data missing from the other "copy":
  • copy number,
  • full name of the certifying person,
  • date and time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
Two different "copies" containing the same data in the lines of the protocol were submitted.
99. 611 Missing data:

  • counterpart number,
  • address of the voting room,
  • duplication of numbers in words,
  • the column on the number of complaints is not filled,
  • signatures of some members of the DEC,
  • stamp at the stamp place.
Missing data:

  • copy number,
  • time of the certification,
  • stamp on the certification inscription.
Not all signatures of the Commission's members are present.

 


  1. Furthermore, during the check conducted by the CEC of Russia it was found that some of the "copies" of protocols, submitted by the applicants, contained surnames and signatures of the persons who were not members of the relevant District Electoral Commissions. In particular, the materials relating to the electoral district no. 653 contain the signature of O.S. Velesyuk, while according to the decision on the composition of the District Electoral Commission for this electoral district, such a person was not its member. Similar examples are found in the applicants' materials for the electoral districts nos. 725 (Ye.I. Dmitriyeva was not a voting member of the Commission), 733 (S.V. Lebedev), 742 (L.G. Arinushenko, T.A. Leushina), 743 (Ye.A. Chursina, G.A. Lobytova), 744 (G.K. Reyev).
  2. Also, the CEC of Russia found cases where the "copies" of results protocols contained signatures of members of the Commission, which were absent in the original counterparts thereof. For example, the original counterpart of results protocol for the electoral district no. 1111 does not contain the signatures of S.N. Goldrich and A.A. Berdigulov. Similar examples are found in the applicants' materials for the electoral districts nos. 1126 (the original counterpart of the results protocol does not contain the signature of M.V. Isayev), 489 (Yu.S. Ilyina, M.F. Kudryashova, N.S. Kurakina, Ye.N. Gerasimova), 724 (V.R. Ledat, N.P. Nikonova), 726 (M.Ye. Ivanova), 729 (A.S. Khomyakova, Ye.V. Yakimovich), 735 (V.O. Kuzhel), 794 (T.V. Potina, D.A. Panfikov, V.P. Shakiryanova, A.V. Babulich).
  3. In order to confirm these facts, the decisions of the relevant Territorial Electoral Commissions on the creation of District Electoral Commissions for electoral districts the voting results of which are challenged by the applicants, as well as copies of the original counterparts of results protocols submitted by the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission are hereby submitted (appended hereto).
  4. It should be clarified that if a recount f votes took place at the electoral district, the initial results protocol has no legal significance for the determination of voting results. This is why only copies of the repeated protocols for electoral districts, where a recount of votes took place, are submitted.
  5. At the same time, the authorities of the Russian Federation believe it is appropriate to provide copies of decisions of Territorial Electoral Commissions on conducting a recount at the relevant electoral districts, as well as a copy of the decision of the District Electoral Commission of the electoral district no. 722 on compiling of a repeated results protocol (appended hereto).
  6. It is necessary to note that in some cases the recount resulted in confirmation of the voting results established by the initial protocol (electoral districts nos. 1084, 1126). In addition, as a result of compilation of a repeated results protocol at the electoral district no. 722, the amount of votes cast for the list of candidates nominated by the Saint-Petersburg branch of Kommunisticheskaya Partiya Rossiyskoy Federatsii increased by 482 votes up to a total of 796 votes at this electoral district It should also be noted that following the recount at the electoral districts nos. 1098, 1127, electoral association "Saint-Petersburg regional branch of Ail-Russian political party Yedinaya Rossiya" lost 337 and 140 votes respectively. An acceptable example of redistribution of votes after the recount is the change of voting results at the electoral district no. 496 which resulted in an increase in the number of votes cast for the lists of candidates nominated by Liberalno-Demokraticheskaya Partiya Rossii, Patrioty Rossii and Pravoye Delo.
III. Answers to the questions posed by the European Court

Answer to questions nos. 1. 2

  1. The authorities of the Russian Federation believe that all applicants had legal remedies to challenge the alleged violations of their rights, guaranteed by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
  2. If citizens believe that there had been a fraud in the process of counting of votes and documenting of the results, they have the right to lodge a complaint for initiation of a criminal case under Article 142.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
  3. The citizens have the right to apply to a court with a request for the protection of electoral rights within the framework of civil proceedings in accordance with chapter 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.
  4. In its judgment of 31 March 2011 no. 5 On the Practice of Examination of Cases Relating to the Protection of the Electoral Rights and the Right to Participate in a Referendum of Citizens of the Russian Federation by the Courts the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation explained that, in accordance with Articles 22 and 245 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, cases initiated in requests for the protection of the electoral rights and the right to participate in a referendum of citizens of the Russian Federation are to be examined by courts of general jurisdiction subject to the rules of jurisdiction laid down in Articles 24, 26 and 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, Article 89 § 1 of Federal Constitutional Law of
.28 June 2004 no. 5-FKZ On the Referendum of the Russian Federation, Article 31 § 1, Article 75 § 2 of Federal Law of 12 June 2002 no. 67-FZ the Basic Guarantees of the Electoral Rights and the Right to Participate in a Referendum of Citizens of the Russian Federation, Article 3 § 7 of Federal Law of 26 November 1996 no. 138-FZ On Ensuring the Constitutional Rights to Elect and be Elected to Local Authorities of Citizens of the Russian Federation, Article 15

§ 17, Article 91 §§ 7-10, 12 of Federal Law of 18 May 2005 no. 51-FZ On the Election of Deputies to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, Article 84 §§ 4, 5 and 6 of Federal Law of 10 January 2003 no. 19-FZ On the Election of the President of the Russian Federation.

  1. Justices of the peace are not entitled to examine cases on the protection of electoral rights and the right to participate in a referendum of citizens of the Russian Federation according to the rules of chapters 23 and 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, as those are not included in their jurisdiction by the law (Article 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation).
  2. However, the jurisdiction of justices of the peace includes the examination of cases on administrative offences provided for by the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation related to violations of voting rights and the right to participate in a referendum of citizens of the Russian Federation, as well as procedures for holding of election and referendums. The exception are the cases of the category referred to above, the proceedings in which were conducted in the form of an administrative investigation and which are included in the jurisdiction of judges of district courts.
  3. Based on the provisions of Article 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, district courts, inter alia, examine and resolve the following cases:
  • on challenging of actions or omission (except for omission in the form of evasion of taking a decision) of the Central Electoral Commission of the Russian Federation, electoral commissions of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, constituency election commissions for election to legislative (representative) authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation;
  • on challenging of decisions, actions (omission) of electoral commissions of a municipal entity, as well as the constituency election commissions for election to representative bodies of municipal entities, territorial and district electoral commissions;
• ; - on cancelling of registration of a candidate, on cancelling of registration of a candidate included in the list of registered candidates, on cancelling of registration of a list of candidates at municipal election, as well as on cancelling of registration of an initiative group on holding a local referendum or other group of participants of such referendum;

. - on dissolution of electoral commissions of municipal entities, constituency election commissions for election to representative bodies of municipal entities, territorial electoral commissions and district electoral commissions;

  • on challenging of decisions, actions (omission) of state authorities, local authorities, public associations, officials violating the electoral rights and the right to participate in a referendum of citizens of the Russian Federation; on scheduling of a local referendum.
    1. In accordance with Article 26 § 1 parts 4 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, Article 75 § 2 of Federal Law of 12 June 2002 no. 67-FZ, Article 3 § 7 of Federal Law of 26 November 1996 no. 138-FZ, Article 15 § 17 of Federal Constitutional Law of 28 June 2004 no. 5-FKZ, the jurisdiction of the supreme courts of the republics, regional and equivalent courts includes the following cases'.
  • on challenging of decisions (evasion of taking decisions) of electoral commissions of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation (regardless of the level of the election or the referendum), constituency election commissions for election to legislative (representative) state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, with the exception of decisions which uphold the decisions of inferior electoral commissions, referendum commissions;
  • on cancelling of registration of a candidate, on cancelling of registration of a candidate included in the list of registered candidates, on cancelling of registration of a list of candidates at election to legislative (representative) authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, as well as on cancelling of registration of an initiative group on holding a referendum of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation or other group of participants of such referendum;
  • on dissolution of electoral commissions of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, constituency election commissions for election to legislative (representative) state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation;
  • on determining of the time for holding of election of deputies of representative (legislative) state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation;
  • on determining of the time for holding of election of deputies of representative bodies of a local authority, members of an elected body of a local authority and elected officials of a local authority provided for by the charter of the municipal entity, as well as the creation of the procedure for their appointment.
  1. By virtue of Article 27 § 1 parts 5 and 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, Article 15 § 17, Article 89 § 1 of Federal Constitutional Law of 28 June 2004 no. 5-FKZ, Article 75 § 2 of Federal Law of 12 June 2002 no. 67-FZ, Article 84 §§4, 5 and 6 of Federal Law of 10January2003 no.l9-FZ, Article91 §§7-10 and 12 of Federal Law of 18 May 2005 no. 51-FZ the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation examines the following cases:
  • on challenging of decisions (evasion of taking decisions) of the Central
Electoral Commission of the Russian Federation (regardless of the level of the election or the referendum), with the exception of decisions which uphold the decisions of inferior electoral commissions, referendum commissions;

  • on cancelling of registration of a candidate for the post of the President of the Russian Federation, on cancelling of registration of a federal list of candidates nominated by a political party, on cancelling of registration of a candidate included in a registered federal list of candidates nominated by a political party, as well as on excluding of a regional group of candidates from the federal list of candidates at the election of deputies to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation;
  • on terminating of activities of an initiative campaign group or an initiative group on holding a referendum of the Russian Federation;
  • on dissolution of the Central Electoral Commission of the Russian Federation.
  1. In cases where the powers of some electoral commissions or referendum commissions were assigned to other electoral commissions or referendum commissions (for example, if the powers of constituency election commissions for election to the legislative (representative) state authorities of constituent entities of the Russian Federation were assigned to territorial electoral commission on the basis of Article 25 § 1 of Federal Law of 12 June 2002 no. 67-FZ), the jurisdiction of the case is to be determined taking into account the level of the commission the powers of which were assigned to another electoral commission or referendum commission.
  2. If the term of office of an electoral commission or referendum commission, the decision, action or omission of which is contested, expired, the generic jurisdiction is to be determined on the basis of the level of the commission and the level of election or referendum, and the territorial jurisdiction is to be determined taking into account the location of the commission that organised the preparation and holding of the relevant election or referendum and relates to interested parties by the requests made.
  3. Decisions of superior electoral commissions or referendum commissions upholding the decisions of inferior commissions may be challenged in court together with the decision of an inferior commission which resolved the issue on its merits. The jurisdiction of the case in such cases is determined by the level of the commission the decision of which was appealed against to a superior commission.
  4. At that the court of a relevant level is to examine the decision of the commission organising the election or the referendum, as well as the decisions of inferior commissions taking part in these election or the referendum in accordance with the law, if the violations that they committed could affect the results of these
election or the referendum.

  1. Thus, Federal Law of 2 April 2014 no. 51-FZ On Introduction of Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation[6] introduced amendments to Articles 75 and 77 of Federal Law no. 67-FZ setting out that the court of appropriate level <...> can quash the decision of the district commission on the voting results at electoral district or a referendum station if:
    1. violation of the rules of compiling of lists of voters or referendum participants, if this violation prevents the results of declaration of will of voters or referendum participants from being determined with certainty;
    2. violation of the procedure of voting and determining of voting results, if this violation prevents the results of declaration of will of voters or referendum participants from being determined with certainty.
  2. In addition, the court of the relevant level may also quash the decision of the commission on the voting results in case of:
  • hindering observation over the voting and count of votes of voters and referendum participants, if this violation prevents the results of declaration of will of voters or referendum participants from being determined with certainty;
  • violation of the procedure for creation of an electoral commission or a referendum commission, if this violation prevents the actual will of voters or referendum participants from being determined;
  • other violations of the legislation of the Russian Federation on election and referendum, if these violations prevent the actual will of voters or referendum participants from being determined.
  1. The court may quash the decision of the relevant commission on registration of a candidate (list of candidates), on refusal to register a candidate (list of candidates), on the voting results, on the results of the election or a referendum, or other decision of the commission.
  2. Thus, a decision of the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission may be challenged in a court of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation, and an action of the commission which is not to be formalised in the form of a decision may, subject to the provisions contained in Article 2 §§21, 38, Article 28 § 1 of Federal Law no. 67-FZ, be challenged in a district court, and actions and decisions of inferior commission may be challenged in a district court.
  3. The provisions of Article 259 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, Article 30 §9, sub-paragraph "", Article 75 §10, Article 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Federal Law On the Basic Guarantees of the Electoral
Rights and the Right to Participate in a Referendum of Citizens of the Russian Federation, Article 92 §§ 4, 5 of the Federal Law On the Election of Deputies to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation provide for the right of voters to apply to courts for the protection of their electoral rights, the right of observers affiliated with political parties to challenge in courts decisions and actions (omission) of electoral commissions violating the rights of observers themselves which are directly related to their exercise of the powers to observe the election, and the right of a regional branch of a political party to apply to a court with a request for the protection of its electoral rights associated with the participation in the relevant election as an electoral association, as well as on the protection of the rights and legitimate interests of the political party itself if it is allowed by the charter of the political party and regardless of the level of election and the direct participation of the regional branch of the political party therein.

  1. According to Article 75 § 10 of this Federal Law (in edition of Federal Law of 2 April 2014 no. 51-FZ) complaints regarding decisions and actions (omission) violating citizens' electoral rights and the right of citizens to participate in a referendum may be lodged by voters, referendum participants, candidates, their agents, electoral associations and their agents, other public associations, an initiative group on holding a referendum and its authorised representatives, observers, as well as commissions. Voters and referendum participants may apply to courts with complaints regarding decisions, actions (omission) of district commission relating to the establishment of voting results in the electoral district or referendum station where they participated in the election or the referendum.
  2. The application for the protection of electoral rights and of the right to participate in a referendum of citizens of the Russian Federation shall comply with the requirements stipulated in Article 247 § 1 (2) and Article 131 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, taking into account the features of proceedings in this category of cases, set out in chapters 23 and 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation. It shall, inter alia, indicate what decisions, actions (omission) are, in the complainant's opinion, illegal and what is the violation of electoral rights. The request shall be accompanied by: a copy of the request; a document confirming payment of the state fee; a power of attorney or other document certifying the authority of the complainant's representative; information confirming the fact of the contested decisions being delivered or the contested actions or omission being done; documents proving the facts on which the complainant bases his or her claims with copies for the parties to the case, if they do not have these copies (Article 246 § 1, Article 132 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation).
  3. Citizens shall pay the state fee, except for those who have benefits when applying to a court of general jurisdiction in accordance with Article 333.36 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation. Other persons having the right to apply to a court with a complaint due to a violation of the law on election and referenda under Article 259 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation shall not be exempt from payment of state fees, except for a prosecutor and electoral commissions which are state authorities (Article 333.36 §§ 9 and 19, § 1 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).
  4. Having established that an application does not fulfil the above requirements, the judge shall, in accordance with Article 136 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, issue a ruling to suspend the application and determine a minimum necessary period to correct the deficiencies in the application; in the event of failure to fulfil or improper fulfilment of the requests contained in the ruling, the application shall be considered to be unfiled and shall be returned to the complainant (Article 136 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation).
  5. In considering the merits of the case (in accordance with the law in force at the period of consideration of the applications) it shall be taken into account that after the establishment of the voting results and determining the election results by a superior commission, the decision of the inferior commission on the voting or election results can be quashed only by a court, or the court may decide to make changes to the protocol on the voting or election results and/or the consolidated table; the ground for quashing of the decision of the relevant electoral commission on voting or election results are violations listed in Article 77 §§ 2, 3 and 4 of Federal Law no. 67-FZ, provided that they prevent the actual will of the voters from being determined.
  6. Article 260 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, Articles 31 and 78 of the Federal Law no. 67-FZ set out the time-limits for applying to court (including decreased ones) the duration of which depends on the stage of the election campaign and the nature of the submitted requests.
  7. In accordance with the wording of Article 78 of Federal Law no. 67-FZ in force at the time of consideration of the applications, after the official publication of the election results an application regarding violation of electoral rights of citizens that took place during the election campaign may be filed with a court within one year from the date of official publication of results of the relevant election.
  8. By virtue of the wording of the aforementioned Federal Law of 2 April 2014 no. 51-FZ the application to quash the commission decision on the voting results may be filed with a court within ten days from the date of the decision of the voting results being delivered. The application to quash the
commission decision on the results of the election or a referendum may be filed with a court within three months from the date of the official publication of the results of the relevant election or referendum. These procedural deadlines cannot be restored.

  1. Decisions regarding complaints, which were filed before the voting day during the election campaign or the referendum campaign, shall be made within five days, but not later than the day preceding the voting day, and in those filed on the voting day or on the day following the voting day shall be made immediately. If the facts contained in the complaints require additional verification, the decision thereon shall be delivered no later than ten days. A complaint about a commission decision on voting results or on results of an election or referendum shall be resolved by a court no later than two months from the date of its filing.
  2. A request to cancel the registration of a candidate or a list of candidates may be submitted to a court no later than eight days before the election day (including repeated one). The court's decision shall be delivered not later than five days before the election.
  3. Article 77 of Federal Law no. 67-FZ provides for grounds for quashing of decisions on voting results or on results of the election or referendum and also defines the scope of subjects who may lodge such a request.
  4. In particular, § 1.3 of the mentioned Article states that a court of the relevant level may, at the request of a voter or a referendum participant challenging the results of the voting at electoral district or a referendum station where this voter or referendum participant took part in the election or the referendum, quash the decision of the district commission on the voting results at the electoral district or the referendum station.
Answer to questions nos. .3. 4

  1. The authorities of the Russian Federation consider that questions nos. 3 and 4, posed by the Court in the present case, relate to the applicants' right to fair trial during consideration of their cases in the Russian courts, as provided for by Article 6 of the Convention.
  2. In this regard, the Government would like to draw the Court's attention to the case of Namat Aliyevv. Azerbaijan (no. 18705/06, judgment of 8 April 2010), in which the applicant complained, among other things, under Article 6 of the Convention that the domestic judicial proceedings had been unfair and arbitrary.
  3. The Court noted that the proceedings in question involved the determination of the applicant's right to stand as a candidate in the parliamentary election. The dispute in issue therefore concerned the applicant's political rights and did not have any bearing on his "civil rights and obligations" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Pierre-Bloch v. France, 21 October 1997, § 50, Reports 1997-VI; Cherepkov v. Russia (dec.), no. 51501/99, ECHR 2000-1; tdanokav. Latvia (dec.), no. 58278/00; and Mutalibov v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no. 31799/03).
  4. Accordingly, this Convention provision does not apply to the proceedings complained of. It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
  5. Furthermore, in /.Z. v. Greece (no. 18997/91, decision of 28 February 1994) the Commission noted that litigation concerning the validity of legislative or communal election involves the determination of political rights which do not fall within the notion of civil rights and obligations as referred to in Article 6 § 1. The Commission concluded that Article 6 of the Convention did not apply to the case in question (see Priorello v. Italy, no. 11068/84).
  6. The authorities of the Russian Federation believe that a similar approach should be applied to the present case, and that the applicants' complaint under Article 6 of the Convention should be declared inadmissible on the grounds stated above.
  7. Taking into account the fact that the Court may disagree with the arguments of the Russian Federation authorities in this part, the Government state that the courts of the Russian Federation considered all significant issues raised by the applicants in the complaints, all relevant and sufficient sources of information in their possession or in the public domain.
  8. Applicants N.G. Payalin, G.B. Truskanov, L.V. Pushkareva and S.S. Shestakov did not apply to the Saint-Petersburg City Court together with the regional branch of Spravedlivaya Rossiya in Saint-Petersburg and were not complainants in these proceedings; their arguments were not studied or evaluated by the court in the decision of the Saint-Petersburg City Court of 27 February 2012, and therefore no replies to questions nos. 3, 4 posed by the Court are given in respect of these applicants.
  9. As to all other applicants, the courts of the Russian Federation considered all significant issues raised in the complaints. The procedure, employed in the consideration of the complaints, guaranteed an effective examination of the applicants' complaints, as this procedure is based on the study and evaluation of evidence submitted by all parties to civil proceedings in the case and the application of the effective domestic legislation governing the legal relations which are the basis of the complaints to the conclusions made as a result of evaluation of evidence. Domestic courts considered all significant sources of information relevant to the complaints, including the publicly available ones, within the
framework of the rules on the collection, study and evaluation of evidence established by the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.

  1. In /.Z v. Greece, cited above, the Commission noted that, in view of the finding of the Special Supreme Court, the competent national authority on the subject, that the irregularity complained of could not have prejudiced the outcome of the legislative election, the Commission's review must be confined to whether or not such a finding was arbitrary. In that case the Commission concluded that the Special Supreme Court's findings cannot be considered arbitrary.
  2. At the same time, the authorities of the Russian Federation draw the Court's attention to the fact that all the applicants' complaints in this regard, as well as the copies of protocols and other documents submitted by them were considered not only by judicial, but also by the law enforcement authorities of the Russian Federation,
Examination of the applicants' complaints by the law enforcement authorities

  1. On 6 December 2011 the Main Investigation Department of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation for Saint-Petersburg (hereinafter "the Saint-Petersburg Investigative Committee") received complaints of O.O. Andronova, A. V. Andronov[7] and . Nikolayeva about a possible violation of the effective legislation by officials of the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission expressed in an interference with the work of the District Electoral Commissions nos. 651, 652 and 654 at the election of deputies to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation held on 4 December 2011.
  2. The essence of the applicants' arguments was that they had in their possession copies of results protocols which contained informatipn about the election results different from those which were approved by the Sa in t-Pe ters b rg Electoral Commission.
  3. These complaints were examined in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Federal Law of 2 May 2006 no. 59-FZ and Order of the Chairman of the Investigative Committee at the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation of 19 September 2007 no. 17.
  4. Since, in accordance with Federal Law of 17 January 1992 no. 2202-1 On the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation, prosecutors shall supervise the execution of the federal law, on 12 December 2011 the complaints of O.O. Andronova, A.V. Andronov and T.A. Nikolayeva were forwarded to the Saint-Petersburg Prosecutor's Office for examination as they contained information about a possible violation of the electoral law; the applicants were informed thereof.
  5. On 26 December 2011 the Prosecutor's Office of Saint-Petersburg forwarded this complaint to the Kolpino District Prosecutor's Office on the basis of Article 8 § 3 of Federal Law of 2 May 2006 no. 59-FZ On the Procedure for Consideration of Complaints of Citizens of the Russian Federation and §§3.2 and 3.4 of the Instruction on the Procedure for Examination of Complaints and Reception of Citizens in the System of the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation approved by the Order of the General Prosecutor of the Russian Federation of 17 December 2007 no. 200 (repealed on 30 January 2013).
  6. On 14 February 2012 the prosecutor of the aforementioned district replied to the applicants that in the course of the check conducted regarding their complaints the District Prosecutor's Office found neither any violations of the effective legislation nor reasons to take prosecutorial response measures; it also explained to them the right to appeal against actions (decisions) of the District Electoral Commission in court, which is consistent with Article 75 of Federal Law of 12 June 2002 no. 67-FZ On the Basic Guarantees of the Electoral Rights and the Right to Participate in a Referendum of Citizens of the Russian Federation which provides for the opportunity to appeal against decisions and actions (omission) of electoral commissions and their officials which violate citizens' electoral rights in court.
  7. The prosecution authorities did not forward the materials of these citizens' complaints made under Article 37 § 2 part 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (hereinafter "the CCrP") to investigative units of the Main Investigative Department for Saint-Petersburg for taking a procedural decision in the manner provided for by Articles 144-145 of the CCrP.
  8. However, by the judgments of the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Saint- Petersburg of 18 April 2012 and the Judicial Division for Criminal Cases of the Saint-Petersburg City Court of 11 July 2012, delivered in , Andronov's complaint, the omission of the head of the Main Investigative Department for Saint-Petersburg, expressed in the failure to examine A.V. Andronov's complaint about initiation of a criminal case, was found to be unlawful.
  9. Pursuant to these judgments, on 21 August 2012 a procedural check was organised in the investigative division for the Kolpino District of Saint- Petersburg (material no. 732pr-2012), following which A.V. Andronov's allegations of violations of the electoral law at the electoral district no. 651 of Saint-Petersburg were not confirmed.
  10. Thus, the copy of the results protocol of the relevant District Electoral Commission, submitted by the applicant, was compiled in an improper manner, and therefore could not serve as a confirmation of the election results different from those which have been declared by Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission and posted on the relevant website.
  11. In addition, on 5 December 2011 Territorial Electoral Commission no. 21 of Saint-Petersburg, which is a superior commission with regard to the indicated District Electoral Commission, decided to conduct a recount at the electoral district no. 651 due to complaints about violations of the law during the vote counting. This recount was conducted by the members of the Territorial Electoral Commission on the same day; following it a relevant results protocol was compiled, which was then submitted to the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission, and it was this data which was recognised as official results of the election at the relevant electoral district.
  12. The last circumstance explains the difference in the election results as reflected in the protocol, a copy of which was submitted by the applicant, and the official results of the election, approved by the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission. This position was confirmed in the judgment of the Kolpino District Court of Saint-Petersburg of 22 March 2012 which was upheld by the appeal ruling of the Judicial Division for Civil Cases of the Saint-Petersburg City Court of 30 May 2012.
  13. Following the check, on 21 May 2013 it was decided to refuse to institute a criminal case under Article 142.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on the ground provided for by Article 24 § 1 part 1 of the CCrP, which was found to be lawful and reasonable by the Saint-Petersburg Investigative Committee.
  14. The complaints of voting member of the District Electoral Commission no. 654 T.A. Nikolayeva of 6 December 2011 and 14 December 2011 about the violation of the law by its other members during the vote counting were forwarded by the Main Investigation Department of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation to the Saint-Petersburg Prosecutor's Office and arrived there on 19 December 2011 and 22 December 2011 respectively, which forwarded them to the Kolpino District Prosecutor's Office on 26 December 2011 and 28 December 2011.
  15. During the check on 18 January 2012 and 21* February 2012, pending the results of handwriting expert examination, the decisions refusing to institute a criminal case were delivered.
  16. The district prosecutor replied to the above complaints of the applicant on 13 February 2012; he informed her that the investigative division for the Kolpino District of Saint-Petersburg of the Main Investigation Department of the
Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation completed its check in accordance with the criminal procedure law, as well as that the decision of

  1. January 2012 refusing to institute a criminal case was quashed and an additional check was ordered.
    1. The additional check established that by the decision of the Territorial Electoral Commission of 5 December 2011 a recount at the electoral district no. 646 was ordered. Following this recount the election results different from those which were initially declared by the District Electoral Commission were established, and it was this data which was recognised as official results of the election.
    2. Following the check on 5 June 2012 it was decided to refuse to institute a criminal case under Article 142.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on the ground provided for by Article 24 § 1 part 1 of the CCrP, which was found to be lawful and reasonable by the Saint-Petersburg Investigative Committee.
    3. On 16 December 2011 the investigative division for the Kolpino District of Saint-Petersburg received V.G. Belyakov's complaint stating that the applicant had in his possession a copy of the results protocol of the electoral district no. 637 relating to the election of deputies to the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg which contained information about the election results different from those which were approved by the superior Territorial Electoral Commission no. 21, which led the applicant to believe that the members of this Territorial Commission violated the legislation about election.
    4. As this complaint did not contain sufficient data on the presence of signs of a crime, it was examined in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Federal Law of 2 May 2006 no. 59-FZ and the Order of the Chairman of the Investigative Committee at the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation of
  2. September 2007 no. 17. .
  1. Due to the fact that the applicant de facto challenged the actions of members of the Territorial Electoral Commission, on 19 December 2011 this complaint was forwarded to the higher authority for examination, namely to the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission, for taking actions in accordance with the competence; the applicant was informed thereof on the same day.
  2. V.G. Belyakov appealed against the actions of the official of the investigative authority who forwarded the complaint without resolving it in accordance with the criminal procedural law in the Kolpino District Court of Saint- Petersburg.
  3. By its decision of 10 January 2012 the Kolpino District Court of Saint-Petersburg found these actions of the head of the investigative division to be unlawful.
  4. Pursuant to this decision on 26 January 2012 a procedural check was organised in the investigative division for the Kolpino District of Saint-Petersburg (material no. 96pr-2012), following which V.G. Belyakov's allegations of violations of the legislation about election at the electoral district no. 637 of Saint- Petersburg were not confirmed.
  5. Thus, on 5 December 2011 the Territorial Electoral Commission no. 21 of Saint-Petersburg, which is a superior commission with regard to this District Electoral Commission, decided to conduct a recount at the electoral district no. 637 due to complaints about violations of the law during the vote counting. This recount was conducted by the members of the District Electoral Commission on the same day; following it a relevant results protocol was compiled, which was then submitted to the Territorial Electoral Commission, and it was this data which was recognised as official results of the election at the relevant electoral district.
  6. The last circumstance explains the difference in the election results as reflected in the protocol, a copy of which was submitted by the applicant, and the official results of the election, approved by the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission.
  7. This position was confirmed in the judgment of the Kolpino District Court of Saint-Petersburg of 24 May 2012 refusing to satisfy V.G. Belyakov's complaint against the actions of the Territorial Electoral Commission no. 21 on determination of voting results at the electoral district no. 637.
  8. Following the check on 21 May 2013 it was decided to refuse to institute a criminal case under Article 142.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on the ground provided for by Article 24 § 1 part 1 of the CCrP, which was found to be lawful and reasonable by the Saint-Petersburg Investigative Committee.
  9. In addition on 2 February 2012 V.G. Belyakov, A.A. Vasilyev and V.E. Dolinin lodged collective complaints about violations of electoral law in the territory of Saint-Petersburg to the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation and the Saint-Petersburg Prosecutor's Office. The General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation forwarded the collective complaint to the Saint- Petersburg Prosecutor's Office. The Saint-Petersburg Prosecutor's Office examined the two collective applications and send reasoned responses to the complainants of 6 March 2012 and 23 March 2012 signed by the head of the zonal division for supervision over procedural activities of the bodies of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation.
  10. On 8 December 2011 and 13 December 2011 the Saint-Petersburg Investigative Committee received complaints of Ye.P. Sizenov and N.L. Payalin about a possible violation of the effective legislation by the chairman of the
Territorial Electoral Commission no. 4 I.A. Zaripov expressed in the wrong determination of voting results, as well as interference with the work of the District Electoral Commissions nos. 721, 722, 723, 724, 725, 726, 727, 728, 729, 731, 733, 734, 735, 736, 737, 739, 740, 741, 742, 743, 744, 745, 746, 749, 794, 819 at the election of deputies to the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg. The essence of the applicants' arguments was that they had in their possession copies of results protocols which contained information about the election results different from those which were approved by the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission.

  1. These complaints were examined in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Federal Law of 2 May 2006 no. 59-FZ and the Order of the Chairman of the Investigative Committee at the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation of 19 September 2007 no. 17.
  2. Since, in accordance with Federal Law of 17 January 1992 no. 2202-1 On the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation, prosecutor shall supervise the execution of the federal law, on 14 December 2011 and 19 December 2011 respectively the complaints were forwarded to the Saint- Petersburg Prosecutor's Office for examination as they contained information about a possible violation of the legislation about election; the applicants were informed thereof.
  3. A similar complaint of N.L. Payalin received by the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation from the deputy of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation M.V. Biyachak on 23 April 2012 was forwarded to the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation on 5 May 2012.
  4. On 26 December 2011 the Saint-Petersburg Investigative Committee received L. Pushkareva's complaint about a possible violation of the effective legislation at the election of deputies to the State Duma and the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg on 4 December 2011 and counting of votes at the electoral districts nos. 1126, 1093, 1098, 1104, 1107, 1108, 1127, 1097, 1084, 1089, 1090, 1109, . 1115, 1103, 1118, 1116, 1114, 1111. The essence of the applicant's arguments was that she had in her possession copies of results protocols which contained information about the election results different from those which were approved by the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission.
  5. This complaint was examined in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Federal Law of 2 May 2006 no. 59-FZ and the Order of the Chairman of the Investigative Committee at the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation of 19 September 2007 no. 17.
  6. Since, in accordance with Federal Law of 17 January 1992 no. 2202-1 On the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation, prosecutor shall supervise the execution of the federal law, on 10 January 2012 the complaint was forwarded
to the Saint-Petersburg Prosecutor's Office for examination; the applicant was informed thereof.

  1. On 18 August 2011 and 2 September 2011 the Saint-Petersburg Investigative Committee received two complaints of A. Davydov about the refusal of the chairman of the commission of the "Petrovskiy" municipal entity L.G. Kleymanova to accept and register his application for nomination to the municipal council.
  2. The procedural check was organised in the investigative division for the Petrogradskiy District of Saint-Petersburg (material no. 346pr-2011) regarding these complaints, following which A.V. Davydov's allegations of violations of the legislation about election at the electoral district of the "Petrovskiy" municipal entity of Saint-Petersburg were not confirmed.
  3. Thus, the actions of the officials of the "Petrovskiy" municipal entity could not affect A.V. Davydov's exercise of his electoral rights, namely: the right to be elected to a local authority, as, in accordance with the approved Schedule of Activities for the Preparation and Conduct of By-Election in the "Petrovskiy" Municipal Entity" of the Fourth Convocation of Multi-Mandate Constituency no. 187, registration of candidates for deputies was finished on 27 July 2011.
  4. Following the check on 19 March 2012 it was decided to refuse to institute a criminal case under Article 141 §§1,2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on the ground provided for by Article 24 § 2 part 1 of the CCrP, which was found to be lawful and reasonable by the Main Investigation Department for Saint-Petersburg.
  5. On 8 February 2012 the Saint-Petersburg Investigative Committee received S. Yakushenko's complaint about a possible violation of the effective legislation on the election of deputies to the Legislative Assembly of Saint- Petersburg by officials of the electoral territories nos. 18 and 19 expressed in entering falsified results protocols of the District Electoral Commissions to summary tables of the Territorial Electoral Commission no. 21. The essence of the applicant's arguments was ihat S.V. Yakushenko had in his possession copies of results protocols which contained information about the election results different from those which were approved by the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission.
  6. During the examination of this complaint all the necessary materials were requested from .the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission to verify the applicant's arguments.
  7. Following the examination of the complaint it was established that the copies of results protocols of the relevant District Electoral Commissions were compiled in an improper manner, and therefore could not serve as a confirmation of the election results different from those which have been declared by Saint- Petersburg Electoral Commission and posted on the relevant website.
  8. In this connection, on 23 April 2012 a relevant explanation was sent to S.V. Yakushenko.
  9. The Saint-Petersburg Investigative Committee did not receive any complaints from G.B. Truskanov or S.S. Shestakov.
  10. The actions (decisions) of the bodies of the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation in the examination of the above complaints were not appealed against by the complainants in courts.
  11. Moreover, the Main Investigation Department of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation for Saint-Petersburg also organised a check under Articles 144 and 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (hereinafter "the CCrP") regarding the materials about a possible violation of the Russian Federation legislation about election.
  12. In its issue of 9 December 2011 no. 138 "Novaya Gazeta" newspaper published an article entitled "I am a participant in falsifications at the 2011 election" the contents of which cast doubt on the results of voting at electoral districts on election of deputies to the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg in the Kolpino District.
  13. The Central Electoral Commission of the Russian Federation took rapid response measures due to the information in this newspaper: on 9 December 2011 the letters were sent to the Governor of Saint-Petersburg, the Main Department of the Ministry of the Interior of Russia for Saint-Petersburg and the Leningrad Region, the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation containing a request to organise the check of this information.
  14. Following the check on 19 January 2012 the investigation division for the Kolpino District of the Main Investigation Department of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation for Saint-Petersburg decided to refuse to institute a criminal case on the ground provided for by Article 24 § 1 parti of the CCrP.
Answer to question no. 5

  1. In order to clarify the circumstances relating to the differences between the content of documents, submitted by the applicants as "copies of results protocols of the relevant electoral districts", and information posted on the State Automated System " Vybory" the authorities of the Russian Federation believe it is possible to note the following.
  2. The requirements for the form and content of the results protocol at a relevant electoral district are established by Article 67 of the Federal Law no. 67-FZ.
  3. In particular, if the results protocol is made in a hard copy[8], it shall be compiled on a single sheet. In exceptional cases, it may be compiled on more than one sheet; in such case, each sheet shall be numbered, signed by all present voting members of district commission and certified by means of the seal of district commission.
  4. The results protocol shall include: number of the counterpart; name of the election, voting date; word "Protocol"; address of the voting room with the number of the electoral district; lines of the protocol in the fixed sequence; information on the number of complaints (applications) submitted to district commission on the voting day and before the end of counting of votes cast by voters or referendum participants appended to the results protocol; surnames and initials of the chairman, the deputy chairman, the secretary and other voting members of the district commission and their signatures; date and time of signing of the protocol; seal of the district commission (for protocols in a hard copy).
  5. It should be noted that the numbers specified in lines of the protocol are to be entered into the results protocol in figures and words. The numbering of lines of the results protocol is established by the law.
  6. Article 68 § 27 of Federal Law no. 67-FZ sets out that if during the filling of the results protocol some voting members of the district electoral commission were absent, a note about this fact shall be made in the protocol with indication of the reason for their absence. The protocol shall be valid if signed by the majority of the established number of voting members of the district commission.
  7. During the signing of the results protocol, voting members of the district commission disagreeing with the content of the results protocol may attach a dissenting opinion thereto, with a relevant note being made thereof in the protocol (Article 68 § 28 of Federal Law no. 67-FZ).
  8. In accordance with Article 68 § 29 of Federal Law no. 67-FZ, at the request of a member of the district commission, an observer or other persons with adequate powers[9] the district commission shall, immediately after signing of the results protocol (including the repeated one), provide the above persons with a certified copy of the results protocol.
  9. The certified copies of protocols provided shall be numbered. The district commission shall reflect the fact of provision of a certified copy in the relevant register. A person receiving a certified copy shall place his or her signature in this register. Liability for the full compliance of the data contained in the copy of the results protocol to the data contained in the protocol shall be borne by the persons who certified this copy of the protocol.
  10. Particular attention should be paid to the rules governing the number of counterparts of the results protocol. For instance, in accordance with the provisions of Federal Law no. 67-FZ (in particular, Article 68 §§ 30, 31), in total the district electoral commission shall draw up two counterparts of the results protocol; the first counterpart, after its signing by all present voting members of the district commission and issuing of certified copies thereof to the persons entitled to receive them, shall be immediately forwarded to the superior commission and shall not be returned to the district commission. The second counterpart of the results protocol shall be provided to observers and other persons15 for review, and a certified copy thereof shall be posted for public inspection in the place designated by the district commission.
  11. Thus, the column of the protocol which should contain the number of the protocol's counterpart may only contain a number equal to one or two.
  12. The Federal Law also governs in details the requirements for the preparation of counterparts of the results protocol and for the procedure of their receipt and certification.
  13. In addition, in order to implement the powers defined in Article 21 § 9 sub-paragraphs "" "e'\ §13 and Article 25 §§3-5 of Federal Law of 18 May 2005 no. 51-FZ On the Election of Deputies to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, the Central Electoral Commission approved the Instruction for the Organisation of a Uniform Procedure for Determining of Voting Results, Compiling of Protocols of Electoral Commissions, Determining of Election Results, Receiving, Transferring and Processing of Information via the State Automated System "Vybory" during the Election of Deputies to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation of the sixth convocation (the decision of the CEC of Russia of 17 August 2011 no. 26/254-6).
  14. Paragraphs 2.18.1 to 2.18.3 of this Instruction govern in details the procedure for issuing of copies of the results protocol by the district electoral commission.
  15. Thus, in accordance with paragraph 2.18.2, the district commission shall reflect the fact of provision of a certified copy of the protocol in the relevant register; such entry shall include the full name and status of the recipient of the certified copy of the results protocol in the election campaign and the number of
the provided copy of the protocol. The recipient shall place his or her signature in the register and indicate his or her telephone number for notifications in case of need about the meeting of the district electoral commission for the signing of a repeated protocol or conducting a recount, as well as the date and time of receipt of the protocol copy.

  1. Paragraph 2.18.3 provides that a copy of the results protocol of the district electoral commission, which by its form and contents shall fully correspond to the original counterpart of the protocol, shall be certified by the chairman, the deputy chairman or the secretary of the district electoral commission after the latter's having verified in advance the correspondence of the data of the protocol copy to the data contained in the first counterpart of the results protocol signed by all present voting members of the district electoral commission (counterpart number; electoral district number; address of the voting room; numerical data entered into all lines of the protocol with mandatory verification of the correspondence of the figures in numbers and in words); then the word "Copy" shall be placed on the front side of the certified document in its upper right corner; following which the word "Copy" or words "Authentic copy" shall be inserted under the lines of the protocol or the inscription indicating the date and time of execution of the protocol; shall indicate his or her full name and position in the electoral commission; shall place his or her signature; shall indicate the date and time (hours, minutes) of the certification in a mandatoiy manner; and shall place
the seal of the district electoral commission. The number of the copy "no.                      "

corresponding to the number specified in the register of issuing copies of the results protocol shall be indicated on the front side next to the word "Copy". If the copy of the results protocol is made on more than one sheet, each sheet shall be certified in accordance with the above indicated procedure.

  1. Taking into account the totality of all the rules establishing the requirements to the form and contents of a results protocol and to the execution of a certified copy of the protocol and after a thorough examination of all the submitted materials, it may be concluded that neither of the documents submitted by the applicants meets all of the aforementioned requirements.
  2. All of the above raises doubts about the justification for treating the "evidence " submitted by the applicants to be appropriate and reliable. Following an objective assessment of the available materials it cannot be claimed that the sheets of paper submitted to the Court by the applicants are copies of results protocols of the relevant electoral districts. The applicants also did not submit any confirmation for their allegations that they had received these materials as copies of results protocols from members of the relevant district electoral commissions.
  3. Article 5.6 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation establishes administrative liability for provision of a certified copy of the results protocol of the electoral commission with data not corresponding to the data contained in the first counterpart of the relevant protocol by the chairman, the deputy chairman or by other voting member of the electoral commission, as well for the certification of a protocol copy in violation of the requirements provided for by the law by the chairman, the deputy chairman, the secretary or by other voting member of the electoral commission. These offences entail the imposition of an administrative fine.
  4. In accordance with Article 28.3 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, the powers to institute a case under this Article are vested in officials of the bodies of internal affairs (the police).
  5. If the applicants received from electoral districts the documents which they had submitted to the Court as copies of results protocols, the applicants were to contact immediately the relevant law enforcement bodies in order to hold those responsible to administrative liability.
  6. However, there is no information that the applicants used this remedy.
  7. Moreover, the comparison of the aforementioned features of legal regulation of the procedure for certifying and issuing of copies of results protocols with the circumstances of this case raises concerns as to the Court's objective approach to this application. The form of presentation of all the circumstances of the case by the Registry of the Court presumes the good faith and legality of all actions of the applicants and is manifestly biased towards the respondent State.
  8. Thus, the answer to the Court's question about the main reason (or reasons) for the difference between the data published on the official website of the Central Electoral Commission of the Russian Federation in the Internet and the data submitted by the applicants is that the applicants' materials have no relation to the official information on the voting results at any electoral districts during the relevant elections.
Answer to question no. 7

  1. As to the procedure for compiling repeated protocols and the recounting procedure, the authorities of the Russian Federation explain as follows.
  2. According to Article 69 $ 8 of Federal Law no. 67-FZ, if after the signing of the results protocol and/or the consolidated table and sending of their first counterparts to the superior commission, the commission which sent the protocol and the consolidated table, or - the superior commission finds an inaccuracy therein during the preliminary review (clerical, typographical errors or an error in the summation of the data of protocols of inferior commissions), the commission which sent the protocol and the consolidated table shall be entitled to consider at its meeting the issue of making adjustments to lines of the results protocol and/or the consolidated table the contents of which do not relate to the
distribution of votes of voters for each of the items contained in the voting bulletins.

  1. The commission shall in a mandatory manner inform its members with a consultative vote, observers and other persons present during the compilation of the originally approved protocol, as well as media representatives of the decision taken. In this case, the commission shall draw up a results protocol and/or a consolidated table with a note reading "Repeated". This protocol and/or a consolidated table shall be immediately forwarded to the superior commission.
  2. If it is required to make adjustments to line 12 and the subsequent lines of the results protocol (i.e., to change the data on the distribution of votes of voters cast for candidates or electoral associations), recount of votes in the manner prescribed by paragraph 9 of this Article shall be conducted.
  3. In accordance with the provisions of Article 69 § 9 of Federal Law no. 67-FZ, if during the detection of errors and inconsistencies in results protocols and/or consolidated tables any doubts arise as to the correctness of the results protocols and/or the consolidated tables, received from the inferior commission, the superior commission may decide to conduct a recount by the inferior commission or to conduct a recount itself at the respective electoral district or the respective territory. The recount shall be conducted in the presence of the voting member(s) of a superior commission by the commission which prepared and approved the results protocol subject to verification, or by the commission which decided to conduct a recount with the mandatory notification of the members of the relevant commission with a consultative vote, observers, candidates and other
1 9

persons who may be present during the recount.

  1. Following the recount, the recounting commission shall draw up a results protocol with a note reading "Recount of votes". Certified copies thereof shall be issued to observers and other persons who may be present during the recount. The protocol shall be immediately forwarded to the superior commission. This recount may take place before the determination of the voting results by the superior commission, determining the election results, and making of the protocol on the results of the voting or election.
  2. It should be noted that Articles 79 and 80 of Federal Law of 18 May 2005 no. 51-FZ On the Election of Deputies to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation provide for a similar procedure for actions of District and Territorial Electoral Commissions. - " »
  3. This recounting mechanism is fully consistent with the principles of publicity, transparency and openness of the electoral process and provides adequate and effective safeguards for observance of the rights of all the parties
12 See the provisions of Article 30 §§ 1,3 of Federal Law no. 67-FZ.

thereto.

  1. Within the framework of examination of the present case the authorities of the Russian Federation believe it is reasonable to report that during the election of deputies to the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg of the fifth convocation a recount took place at 46 electoral districts (out of the 95 electoral districts in which the voting results are challenged by the applicants) and protocols with the relevant note were compiled.
  2. However, none of the documents submitted by the applicants as copies of protocols contains the note indicating that a recount took place; this once again confirms the validity of arguments about the improper nature of such materials as evidence.
  3. In assessing the cases of recounts at all electoral districts, including those in which the voting results are not challenged by the applicants, it should be noted that the redistribution of votes as a result of recounts did not have the nature of unidirectional increase or decrease of the results of any of electoral associations which took part in the election campaign. The recounting procedure in question is aimed at remedying all inaccuracies and mistakes, made during the counting of votes and compilation of the initial results protocol, and is aimed at providing a reliable determination of the will of the voters.
Answer to question no. 8

  1. The allegations about a biased position of electoral commissions at the respective electoral districts are absolutely baseless. The statutory procedure for the creation of electoral commissions of any level ensures the representation of all electoral associations and is a guarantee for the protection of their rights during any electoral activities.
  2. Thus, the procedure for the formation of territorial electoral commissions (hereinafter "TECs") is set out by Article 26 of Federal Law no. 67- FZ.
  3. TECs operate on a permanent basis; their term amounts to 5 years. They are composed of from 5 to 14 voting members.
  4. TECs are created by the electoral commission of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation based on the proposals of the entities referred to in Article 22 § 2 of the Federal Law[10], as well as the proposals of the representative
bodies of municipal entities, groups of voters at the place of residence, work, service, study, territorial commissions of the previous composition.

  1. At that Article 26 § 7 of Federal Law no. 67-FZ establishes the mandatory quota (less than one half of the total number of members of the TEC) for the appointments to be made by the electoral commission of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation based on the proposals received from parties allowed to take part in the distribution of mandates in the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation; parties allowed to take part in the distribution of mandates in the legislative (representative) body of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation; parties to which deputy mandates are passed to in accordance with the law of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation provided for by Article 35 § 17 of the Federal Law; as well as on the basis of the proposals from electoral associations allowed to take part in the distribution of mandates in the representative body of a municipal entity.
  2. During the electoral campaigns for election of deputies to the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg and the election of deputies to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation of the sixth convocation the following procedure of creation of district electoral commissions (hereinafter "DECs") applied.14
  3. The number of voting members of DECs was established by laws governing the conduct of the relevant election.
  4. DEC is created by a superior electoral commission on the basis of proposals from the relevant entities.15
  5. The superior electoral commission shall appoint no less than one half of the total number of members of DEC based on the proposals, submitted by the political parties allowed to take part in the distribution of mandates in the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation; political parties to which deputy mandates are passed to in accordance with Article 82[11] of Federal Law no. 67-FZ; political parties allowed to take part in the distribution of mandates in the legislative (representative)^ body of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation; political parties to which deputy mandates are passed to in accordance with the law of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation provided for in Article 35 § 17 of this Federal Law; electoral associations allowed to take part in the distribution of mandates in .the representative body of a municipal entity.
  6. Thus, the procedure of creation of TECs and DECs provides for the mandatory representation of those parties to the electoral process which received mandates in the bodies of legislative power, as well as the possibility of appointing of the members of the relevant electoral commissions on the proposals of the representative bodies of municipal entities, groups of voters at the place of residence, work, service, study, and, with regard to the appointment of members of TECs - also on the proposals of TECs of the previous composition.
  7. Another guarantee of equal representation is the requirement of Article 22 § 4 of Federal Law no. 67-FZ that no more than one voting member may be appointed to the commission based on the proposal of each political party, each electoral association and other public associations.
Answer to question no. 9

  1. Copies of the relevant documents are appended hereto.
Answer to questions nos. 6,10. 11 and 12

  1. Access to information relating to the outcome of the voting and results of the election of deputies to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation of the sixth convocation, as well as the outcome of the voting and results of the election of deputies to the Legislative Assembly of Saint- Petersburg of the fifth convocation is free and is exercised through the official website of the Central Electoral Commission of the Russian Federation[12] in the Internet and through the newspaper in which the relevant data is published. Any person interested in such data has the right to get acquainted with it.
  2. First counterparts of the protocols of district electoral commissions for election of deputies to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation are stored in electoral commission of constituent entity of the Russian Federation and may not be sent to any organisations other than in accordance with the order established by law. A similar regime applies to first counterparts of the protocols of district electoral commissions for election of deputies to the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg.
In addition to this position, the authorities of the Russian Federation append

16Information on election of deputies to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation of the sixth                                                                                                                        convocation:

http://www.wborvjzbirkom.iWregion/region/i2birkom?action=show&root=l&tvd=l 00100028713304&vrn= IQQ10 0028713299&region=0&global= 1 &sub region=Q&prver=0&pronetvd=null&vibid=100100028713304&tvpe=233 Information on election of deputies to the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg of the fifth convocation:

hereto copies of the protocols of DECs by which the voting results were determined\ copies of decisions on recounting of votes and copies of the decisions on the creation of district electoral commissions.

Answers to the questions set out in the footnotes of the statement of facts prepared by the Court's lawyers.

Footnote on page 3

  1. According to the text of the statement of facts, A.V. Davydov stood as candidate to the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg on behalf of Spravedlivaya Rossiya, and his complaint concerns the results of voting in the Kolpino district, Saint-Petersburg (electoral territory no. 19).
  2. According to the text of footnote, domestic decisions also refer to electoral territory no. 21; see, in particular, the decision of the City Court of 12 January 2013. It is unclear whether the contested election took place within one or two electoral territories; the parties are invited to comment on this point.
  3. First of all, it should be noted that 12 January 2013 was a Saturday, a non-working day, the Saint-Petersburg City Court did not deliver any decisions or judicial judgments on this day.
  4. It appears that reference was made to the ruling of the judge of the Saint-Petersburg City Court of 12 January 2012 to return the complaint of O.O. Andronova, A.V. Andronov, T.A. Nikolayeva, A.V. Davydov, A.G. Nikolayeva and Ye.P. Sizenov requesting to find actions of the City Electoral Commission of Saint-Petersburg to be unlawful and to quash its decisions of 8 December 2011.
  5. This ruling makes reference to the fact that the applicants challenged on the merits the lawfulness of actions and decisions of TECs (Territorial Electoral Commissions) nos. 19 and 21 and the respective DECs (District Electoral Commissions).
  6. This ruling does not contain any references to electoral territory no. 21.
  7. The concepts of a territorial electoral commission and an electoral territory are not identical.
  8. By virtue of Article 1 § 1 of Law of Saint-Petersburg of 20 July 2006 no. 385-57 On the Territorial Electoral Commissions in Saint-Petersburg, a territorial electoral commission in Saint-Petersburg shall be a state body of Saint- Petersburg, which works on a permanent basis, is a legal entity, has a bank account, a separate balance sheet, stamp of the territorial commission, stamp and blanks with its name and requisites. Under § 2 of this Article, the boundaries of the territory to which the powers of the territorial commission apply shall be established with account for the boundaries of the districts of Saint-Petersburg in accordance with Law of Saint-Petersburg of 30 June 2005 no. 411-68 On the Territorial Structure of Saint-Petersburg.
  9. The decision of the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission of 19 August 2011 no. 102-2 On the Distribution of Powers of Territorial Electoral Commissions in Saint-Petersburg during the Preparation and Conduct of Election of Deputies to the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg of the Fifth Convocation sets out that the powers of TEC no. 21 apply to electoral territories nos. 18 and 19; the powers of TEC no. 19 apply to electoral territories nos. 31 and 32; the powers of TEC no. 4 apply to territory no. 21.
  10. According to the decision of the Saint-Petersburg Electoral Commission of 1 January 2007 no. 85-5 On the List of Territorial Electoral Commissions in Saint-Petersburg, only TEC no. 21 is related to the Kolpino District of Saint-Petersburg; TEC no. 19 is related to the Moskovskiy District of Saint-Petersburg, and TEC no. 4 is related to the Krasnogvardeyskiy District of Saint-Petersburg.
  11. Given the above, it appears that in his application A.V. Davydov is referring to the voting results in the Kolpino District of Saint-Petersburg in electoral territory no. 19 to which the powers of TEC no. 21 applied, and that the ambiguity was caused by clerical errors (incorrect indication of the title "electoral territory" and "territorial electoral commission").
Footnote on page 10

  1. Detailed information on the possibility of lodging complaints regarding decisions and actions (omission) violating citizens' electoral rights and the right of citizens to participate in the referendum is set out in answers to questions nos. 1,2.
Footnote on page 14

  1. A copy of the Ruling of the Judicial Division for Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 22 February 2012 no. 78-G12-3 is appended hereto.
Footnote on page 16

  1. See the statement of facts in Section 1.2 "As regards the examination of V. G. Belyakov's complaint
Footnote on page 20

  1. The copy of the decision of the Kolpino District Court of Saint- Petersburg of 16 July 2012 is contained in the appendix to the Memorandum. Translation of the decision into English will be forwarded to the Court simultaneously with the translation of the Memorandum within the period prescribed by the Court.
Footnote on page 23

333. Copies of the requested documents related to the consideration of S.V. Yakushenko's complaint are appended hereto.

In view of the foregoing, representing the interests of the Russian Federation in accordance with the Regulation on the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights approved by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of 29 March 1998 no. 310,

I SUBMIT:

that this application is inadmissible due to it is being lodged in an improper manner;

that this application is inadmissible for failure to exhaust effective remedies;

that this application is inadmissible as incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention;

that this application is inadmissible as an abuse of the right of application by the applicants;

that the applicants' complaint under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention is ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention and should be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

I ASK:

to declare this application inadmissible due to it is being lodged in an improper manner, the applicants' failure to exhaust effective remedies, incompatibility of the application ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, as well as due to the abuse of the right of application by the applicants.

to declare that the applicants' complaint alleging violation of the rights guaranteed by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention is ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, and to dismiss it pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

Appendix: copies of the requested documents.

G.O. Matyushkin (signature)


6 Here and below emphasis added for the electoral districts where a recount of voters took place.

11 See the provisions of Article 30 §§ 1, 3 of Federal Law no. 67-FZ.

electoral associations, which nominated lists of candidates, allowed to take part in the distribution of mandates in the representative body of the municipal entity, (provisions of Article 22 §§ 1,2 of Federal Law no. 67-FZ)

  1.  



[3]  L.V. Pushkareva does not refer to unlawfulness of results of voting at the election of deputies to the Legislative Assembly of Saint-Petersburg of the fifth convocation at the electoral district no. 1116 in her application lodged with the Court, but this was the subject of a complaint lodged with a court by the regional branch.

[4]  Of the 20 electoral districts referred to by S.S. Shestakov in his application lodged with the Court, the voting results at 5 electoral districts, namely nos. 549, 552, 553, 558, 594, were not appealed against in courts.

In order for the federal legislator to implement the requirements of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, on 2 April 2014 the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation adopted Federal Law no. 51-FZ On Introduction of Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation (published in the Rossiyskaya Gazeta newspaper on 4 April 2014)

The rules of this Federal Law confer to voters and referendum's participants the right to apply to courts with complaints about decisions, actions (omission) of District Commissions relating to the establishment of voting results in the electoral district or referendum station where they participated in the election or the referendum.

[6] In particular, the statement of facts, prepared by the Court's lawyers, states that, referring to Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicants alleged that the official results did not reflect the actual results of voting as reflected in the "original results tables" drawn up after the counting of votes at the voting stations (electoral districts).

[7]In particular, the statement of facts, prepared by the Court's lawyers, states that, referring to Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention, the applicants also complained of manipulation and irregularities at the voting stations (electoral districtsj during the process of voting.

[6] Federal Law no. 51-FZ On Introduction of Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation was adopted by the State Duma of the Russian Federation on 2 April 2014 (published in the "Rossiyskaya Gazetar" newspaper on 4 April 2014)

g

A.V. Andronov applied to the Main Investigation Department of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation on two occasions, on 6 December 2011 and 14 December 2011, about a possible violation of the law by the members of the Commission during the vote counting. The applicant's complaints were received by the Saint- Petersburg Prosecutor's Office on 19 December 2011 and 21 December 2011. On 26 December 2011 and 27 December 2011 the City Prosecutor's Office forwarded these complaints to the Kolpino District Prosecutor's Office. On 14 February 2012 the district prosecutor sent to the applicant a reasoned response.

[8]

According to paragraph 1 of this Article, the results protocol can also be made in electronic form.

[9]              By virtue of the provisions of Article 30 §§ 1,3 of Federal Law no. 67-FZ, such persons are: members of superior commissions and employees of their officers; a candidate registered by this or by a superior commission or his or her authorised representative; an authorised representative or agent of an electoral association whose list of candidates was registered by this or by a superior commission, or a candidate from the said list; a member or an authorised representative of the initiative group on holding a referendum; representatives of the media; observers, foreign (international) observers.

Entities with the right to make proposals regarding candidates to electoral commissions include:

political parties, which nominated lists of candidates, allowed to take part in the distribution of mandates in the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, the legislative (representative) body of the relevant constituent entity of the Russian Federation;

political parties, which nominated lists of candidates, whom deputy mandates are passed to in accordance with the law of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation provided for in Article 35 § 17 of the Federal Law; other political parties and other public associations;

[11] This procedure is established by Article 27 of Federal Law no. 67-FZ, but a new edition of this Article is currently in force. In contrast to the period of the election in question, currently DECs are created for a period of 5 years and work on a permanent basis. According to the effective regulation, DECs are created by territorial commissions at electoral districts located within the territory of the Russian Federation. 15 See the provisions of Article 22 §§ 1,2, Article 27 § 4 of Federal Law no. 67-FZ.

http://www.wborvJzb irkom.ru/region/izbirfo d=null

Voting results for each electoral district can be viewed using the relevant links to go to the site of electoral commission of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation of interest, and then to the information provided by the relevant TEC. Then select a specific electoral district


!