CDL-AD(2020)025 - 16 - registration,72 45 regarding candidate registration,73 29 regarding media coverage during the electoral campaign.74 53. All countries analysed regulate explicitly complaints against election results. Additionally, a number of electoral laws explicitly regulate the possibility to complain on election-day operations. This concerns more particularly the possibility to challenge the operations or the decisions, actions or inactions, taken by election commissions regarding voting (47 countries),75 counting and tabulation (42 countries),76 and transmission (11 countries)77 of election results. These figures have to be taken with caution considering that some domestic laws may have not explicitly detailed such possibilities to lodge complaints on very specific aspects of the electoral processes, while this could be dealt with by infralegislative texts or thanks to the domestic case-law.78 54. The present report dealt earlier with the issue of election results from the perspective of the competency of bodies entitled to adjudicate complaints on election results.79 Regarding the grounds for complaining on election results, 39 countries allow to challenge final election results based on potential violations of electoral legislation that may have had an impact on 72 See for more detail para. 36 of the present report. Albania (Electoral College of the Court of Appeal), Andorra (Higher Court of Justice), Armenia (the Constitutional Court or the Administrative Court), Belgium (House of Representatives), Bosnia and Herzegovina (Appellate Division of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina), Bulgaria (Supreme Administrative Court), Chile (Elections Qualifications Court), Costa Rica (Supreme Electoral Tribunal), Czech Republic (Supreme Administrative Court), France (Constitutional Council), Estonia (Supreme Court), Georgia (Tbilisi City Court), Germany (Federal Constitutional Court), Hungary (judicial review, no judicial body is specified), Iceland (no judicial body is specified, complaints are heard by the Ministry of Justice or the Althing), Ireland (High Court), Italy (Regional Administrative Court), Kazakhstan (Supreme Court), Kyrgyzstan (Supreme Court), Kosovo (Supreme Court), Latvia (District Administrative Court or Senate of the Supreme Court), Liechtenstein (State Court), Luxembourg (Administrative Court), Malta (Court of Magistrates), Mexico (Electoral Court), Republic of Moldova (legislation does not specify the competent court), Monaco (Court of First Instance), Morocco (Constitutional Court), Montenegro (Constitutional Court), the Netherlands (Council of State), North Macedonia (Administrative Court), Norway (The Storting), Peru (National Electoral Jury), Poland (Supreme Court), Portugal (Constitutional Court), Romania (High Court of Cassation and Justice), Russian Federation (Supreme Court), Serbia (Administrative Court), Slovak Republic (Supreme Court), Slovenia (Constitutional Court), Spain (Administrative Court), Sweden (no court specified; the Election Review Board can order a witness hearing in district court), Tunisia (Administrative Appeal Court), Turkey (Supreme Electoral Council), Ukraine (any decision of the election commission may be challenged at the court). 74 Albania, Andorra, Bulgaria, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Denmark, France, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, North Macedonia, Mexico, Norway, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Spain, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom. 75 Albania, Algeria, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Estonia, Finland (for early voting), France, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Republic of Korea, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, the Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine. 76 Albania, Algeria, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Republic of Korea, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, Morocco, North Macedonia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom. 77 Austria, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Chile, Luxembourg, Montenegro, Norway, Serbia, Russian Federation, Turkey, Ukraine. 78 For instance, in Czech Republic, there is no such a division as suggested in the report between voting, counting and tabulation, and transmission of results when it concerns the steps of the process that can be challenged. If any of these steps is suspicious/potentially illegal, the relevant categories of citizens can challenge the election results on the basis of this suspicion. They can then either ask the courts to annul the results of one election district, or to annul the result pertaining to one candidate, or to annul the election results as a whole; these options are listed from the least intrusive to the most intrusive interference. It does not matter whether the irregularity happened at one of these stages of the electoral process. The only element that matters is that election results have been influenced by the claimed irregularity. Furthermore, the Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic has ruled in its case law that in some cases, courts themselves should recount the votes. 79 Paragraphs 45-48 of the report. 73