-7- CDL-AD(2020)025 implementation of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights related to the right to free elections (Article 3 of the First Additional Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights), as well as related to other rights crucial for an effective and meaningful democracy, such as freedom of expression (Article 10 of the Convention), freedom of assembly and association (Article 11 of the Convention), the right to an effective remedy (Article 13 of the Convention) as well as prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 of the Convention). 24. Article 3 of the First Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights21 on the right to free elections does not mention ways to complain about supposed violations during electoral processes. Nevertheless, the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights has recognised the procedural aspect of the right to free elections, implying the protection of citizens with regard to the effectiveness of the system of appeal. It emphasised that “a domestic system for effective examination of individual complaints and appeals in matters concerning electoral rights is one of the essential guarantees of free and fair elections”.22 25. Article 6 §1 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides the right to a fair and public hearing in disputes concerning “civil rights and obligations” or “criminal charge”, but does not apply to electoral disputes.23 Instead, guidelines for the grounds providing a right to lodge complaints and appeals in electoral disputes can be found in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights based on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. C. Code of good practice in electoral matters 26. The Venice Commission’s Code of good practice in electoral matters is the reference document of the Council of Europe in the electoral field.24 It defines a number of required preconditions for an effective system of appeal.25 Overall, it leaves to the member States the choice of the appeal body, providing that a final appeal to a court be possible. The Code of good practice in electoral matters also insists on the necessity of a procedure simple and devoid of formalism, in particular concerning the admissibility of appeals. Additionally, the law has to define clearly the powers and responsibilities of the relevant bodies and appeal bodies so as to avoid risks of conflicts of jurisdiction (whether positive or negative) and neither the appellants nor the authorities should be able to choose the appeal body. It recalls that the appeal body must have the authority on the main aspects of an electoral cycle, such as voter and candidate registration, observance of campaigns rules, the outcome of the elections, including the possibility to cancel elections where irregularities may have affected the outcome. Importantly, the Code of good practice in electoral matters recommends that any voter or candidate in the constituency concerned must be entitled to appeal. It recommends also that time limits for lodging and deciding appeals must be short, and finally, that the applicants should have the right to a hearing. All these required preconditions will be developed in the next parts of the present report. It should be noted that the European Court of Human Rights regularly refers to the Code of good practice in electoral matters in its judgments related to Article 3 of the First Additional Protocol of the Convention.26 Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom. 21 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Rome, 4.XI.1950. 22 See for example Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, 8 April 2010, para. 81. 23 See Pierre-Bloch v. France, 21 October 1997, para. 51, 61. However, Article 6 §1 of the European Convention on Human Rights may be applicable to election-related cases pertaining to alleged violations of other rights and freedoms than electoral rights. See in this respect Shapovalov v. Ukraine, 31 October 2012, para. 45, 46, 48, 49. 24 Code of good practice in electoral matters (CDL-AD(2002)023rev2-cor). 25 See Guideline II 3.3 and Explanatory Report, para. 92-102. 26 See e.g. Davydov and others v. Russia, 30 May 2017, para. 287; Riza and others v. Bulgaria, 13 October 2015, para. 177.