- 27 - CDL-AD(2020)025 sometimes less than three days) whereas 31 countries141 provide for longer periods (i.e. more than five days). 103. Similarly to the time limits for lodging complaints on election results, complaints related to election results have to be adjudicated within a short or at least, in case of multiple complaints, within a reasonable deadline, in order to avoid suspicions or mistrust vis-à-vis the electoral process as a whole. However, considering the possibility for numerous complaints challenging election results at precincts and national levels, a longer period than the usual 35 days recommended by the Code of good practice in electoral matters is recommended. In this respect, it should be reminded that the Code of good practice in electoral matters does not detail the types of complaints relating to time limits. Therefore, legal provisions have to be provided within the electoral legislation in order to leave enough time to adjudicate the complaints related to election results while putting a reasonable legal deadline for adjudicating such complaints. 104. It is understandable that there is a wide range of different time limits and deadlines in the respective laws of the various countries. Overall, most countries provide for time limits for introducing and deciding on electoral complaints and appeals within the period set by the Code of good practice in electoral matters, i.e. three to five days. There is no consistent practice among the countries analysed to stipulate shorter time limits for election dispute resolution than the recommended period set by the Code of good practice in electoral matters (i.e. from three to five days). It appears that there is a trend to determine in the law time limits not only for possible applicants to complain, but also for the competent bodies to adjudicate the complaint.142 Moreover, such rules must necessarily distinguish time limits according to the type of steps challenged. Opinions of the Venice Commission and the OSCE/ODIHR related to some countries, show that in a number of countries the time limit of the decision-making of the competent body is too short.143 105. In summary, it is difficult to determine a positive or negative trend among Venice Commission’s member States regarding time limits for lodging and adjudicating the various types of complaints analysed – i.e. candidate registration, decisions or actions taken by election commissions, voter registration and voter lists’ corrections, voting and counting/tabulation procedures and election results. Overall, it has to be reminded that the Code of good practice in electoral matters recommends short time limits for lodging and adjudicating electoral complaints, i.e. within three to five days. However, the Code of good practice in electoral matters also envisages expanded periods to guarantee the exercise of the rights of defence and to a reflected decision.144 Overall, the time limit for the competent body has to be taken into account with regard to the effectiveness of the administrative or judicial control of the electoral process.145 The conduct of an electoral process requires prompt decisions and actions within a predetermined time frame. The electoral law and other relevant 141 Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Iceland Ireland, Italy, Republic of Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Mexico, Monaco, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia, United Kingdom, United States of America. 142 For example, see 2009 Report on the cancellation of election results, para. 57 et seq. See also 2009 Joint Opinion on the Draft Law No. 3366 about Elections to the Parliament of Ukraine. See also 2017 Joint opinion on amendments to the electoral code of Bulgaria, para. 14. 143 See for example 2009 Joint opinion on the Electoral Code of "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" as revised on 29 October 2008, para. 71; 2009 Joint Opinion on the Law on Amending some legislative acts on the election of the President of Ukraine adopted by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on 24 July 2009 by the Venice Commission and the OSCE/ODIHR, para. 81; 2010 Joint Opinion on the Election Code of Georgia as amended through March 2010, para. 71; 2011 Joint opinion on the election code of Bulgaria, para. 59; 2018 Joint opinion on the draft election code of Uzbekistan, para. 50. 144 Code of good practice in electoral matters, Guideline II. 3.3. g. 145 See for instance 2012 Opinion on the Federal Law on the election of the Deputies of the State Duma of the Russian Federation, para. 108.