The Georgian Labour Party v. Georgia | 2008

Protections against the arbitrary exclusion of voters in elections

...the European Court of Human Rights confirmed the human right to free elections and assured the free expression of people to choose their legislative representatives, hence strengthening democracy in Georgia and in Europe.

Dr. Johanna Rinceanu, lawyer for the Georgian Labour Party in this case, pictured at a Chamber hearing with the party’s chairman Shalva Natelashvili in 2007 (Photo: Council of Europe)

Background

A small political party claimed it had lost out in rerun elections because tens of thousands of voters had been unable to cast their vote.

The repeat elections in 2004 followed turbulent events in Georgia.

Backed by a wave of popular discontent, the country’s main opposition movement had disputed earlier election results in 2003 amidst numerous instances of electoral fraud. Opposition forces had then stormed parliament and ousted its members. These events became known as the ‘Rose Revolution’.

It was subsequently decided to hold repeat elections.

Days after the rerun polls took place, the electoral commission invalidated results in two districts (which formed part of an autonomous region), citing complaints about voting irregularities.

The polls were to be repeated in these two districts, but voting stations failed to open on election day. This meant that 60,000 people—around 2.5% of Georgia’s electorate—were unable to vote.

The Georgian Labour Party argued that the election could not be finalised without votes from the two districts – which the party might have relied upon for support. Unlike in 2003, the party had narrowly missed out on clearing a threshold needed to win seats in parliament.

But the electoral commission decided to approve the vote tally anyway.

Georgia’s top court later dismissed a legal complaint from the party about the electoral commission’s decision.

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

The European court found a violation of the Georgian Labour Party’s right to stand for election.

In the court’s view, Georgia’s electoral commission had overstepped its authority by invalidating results in the two districts – a decision which lacked proper reasoning and was taken without guarantees of fairness. When doing so, the commission had also ruled out taking other steps, like recounting ballots, which the court said “smack[ed] of arbitrariness".

The court also found that the electoral commission had taken no further action to include the excluded voters in the election.

In light of tensions in the autonomous region, the Georgian government had argued that the local authorities there were to blame for the polls not opening. But the European court ruled that the Georgian state was responsible for securing rights throughout its territory.

Separately, the court did not find a violation of the right to free elections in response to the party’s other allegations, including those about Georgia’s voter registration system and presidential control over electoral commissions.

Follow-up

In 2014 and 2015, Georgia changed its election law, setting out clear criteria which must be met for the country’s electoral commissions to annul results. An effective mechanism to settle election disputes was promptly put in place.

Additional information

Themes:

İlgili örnekler

Yerel halktan birinin AİHM’de açtığı tarihi davayı müteakiben, demokrasinin Mostar’a geri dönüşü

Irma Baralija gibi Mostar’da ikamet eden Mostar’lılar, on iki yıldır yasal bir açmaz nedeniyle yerel seçimlerde oy kullanamıyor veya aday olamıyorlardı. Irma, Bosna Hersek hükümetine karşı açtığı davayı AİHM’ye taşımaya karar verdi. AİHM Bosna Hersek hükümetinin seçimlerin yapılmasını sağlayamamasının, Irma’nın haklarını ihlal ettiğine hükmetti. Bosna Hersek hükümeti AİHM kararına cevaben...

Themes: Eşitlik Right to free elections

Bosna Hersek

Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesinin etkileri