CDL-AD(2020)025 - 52 - of concern for the integrity and effectiveness of the electoral process which could not be considered compatible with the spirit of the right to free elections. (j) Enforceability of final judicial decisions Failure to abide by final decisions given in response to electoral appeals undoubtedly undermines the effectiveness of a domestic system for election dispute resolution.204 Specific case: In Petkov and Others v. Bulgaria (nos. 77568/01, 178/02 and 505/02, 11 June 2009) the applicants complained about the failure of the electoral authorities to abide by final court judgments and reinstate them on list of candidates for parliamentary elections. All three applicants were registered as candidates in the parliamentary elections to be held on 17 June 2001. Some two and a half months prior to the election, new legislation came into force which contained a provision allowing parties or coalitions to withdraw nominations of individuals who had allegedly collaborated with the former State security agencies. The applicants were struck off the lists of candidates on account of such allegations just ten days before the elections took place. The decisions to strike them off the lists were subsequently declared null and void by the Supreme Administrative Court. However, the electoral authorities did not restore their names to the lists and as a result they could not run for Parliament. The Court noted that it was not its task to decide whether or not it had been contrary to the Convention to allow political parties to withdraw their candidates on account of their links with the former State security agencies. Nor was it required to determine the correctness of the Supreme Administrative Court’s rulings. Its task was confined to assessing whether the electoral authorities’ failure to give effect to the final and binding judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court had violated their rights to stand for election. The reason the electoral authorities had not complied with the judgment was either that they considered that the Supreme Administrative Court had given erroneous rulings or that they believed that the judgments had not become final. However, the Court held, in a democratic society abiding by the rule of law, it was not open to the electoral authorities to cite their disapproval of findings made in a final judgment as a reason for not complying with it. It was not only contrary to domestic law not to give effect to those judgments, but it also deprived the procedural guarantees available to the applicants of any useful effect and was, in the Court’s view, arbitrary. The Court took account of the difficulties the electoral authorities faced on account of the fact that two of the Supreme Administrative Court’s judgments had been given only a couple of days before the elections. However, those difficulties had been largely attributable to the authorities themselves. Firstly, the new electoral law had been adopted just over two months before the elections took place, at odds with the Council of Europe’s recommendation on the stability of electoral law. Furthermore, instead of requiring political parties to verify links with former State security agencies before nominating their candidates, the parties were allowed to do so afterwards. Finally, the practical arrangements for the withdrawal of candidates had been clarified only twelve days before the elections took place. All this resulted in serious practical difficulties and led to legal challenges that had to be adjudicated and acted upon under extreme time constraints. The Court therefore found a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. 204 See Petkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 77568/01, 178/02 and 505/02, § 63, 11 June 2009.