operating system Windows 7 which is why the list of candidates was only partly visible on the computer
screen – names of independent candidates at the end of the list (in district no. 3 H. Põlluaas and R. Nurmik)
were concealed. The list of candidates could not be scrolled up.
4. In the assessment of H. Põlluaas, it is the state's responsibility to ensure proper operation of the
programme used in e-elections regardless of which computer, operating system, resolution or font the voter
uses. If that cannot be done, it is not possible to organise e-elections. Because the names of some of the
candidates were not always visible on the computer screen, the equal treatment principle in respect of the
candidates has been violated to the detriment of the independent candidates, and the election results have
been distorted.
5. The National Electoral Committee did not regard in its letter of 14 March 2011 the complaint of H.
Põlluaas as a complaint since it was filed belatedly. The e-elections took place from 24 February 2011 to 2
March 2011. Pursuant to § 38(1) of the Constitutional Review Court Procedure Act (CRCPA), the complaint
shall be filed within three days as of the contested act being performed. The term for filing complaints began
on 3 March 2011 and ended on 5 March 2011.
6. About the contents of the complaint of H. Põlluaas the National Electoral Committee noted that it
analysed thoroughly the display problems of the indicated voter application, and explained the essence of the
problem in its response to H. Põlluaas. The final analysis established that the display problem of the voter
application occurred on three identified cases. All three voters noticed the problem, rectified it and were able
to vote. The cause of the problem was not the operating system or the voter application, but the changes the
users had made in the operating system settings. In these cases the entire lower part of the voter application
was partly concealed which is why it was obvious to the voters that the voter application was not displayed
correctly. Therefore the extent of the described problem was not such which could have affected or would
have affected the voting results. Since H. Põlluaas failed to present new information about the case, and the
usability of the voter application had already been analysed, the National Electoral Committee did not deem
it necessary to additionally monitor the alleged problems regarding the use of the voter application of the
electronic voting.
7. On 16 March 2011, H. Põlluaas filed a complaint with the Supreme Court against the response of 14
March 2011 of the National Electoral Committee. He found that his complaint was timely. The elections are
an undivided activity – the pre-elections and the main elections are not two different things. Since the
elections ended on 6 March 2011 and the final results were declared on 7 March 2011, the three-day term for
filing complaints began namely as of that date.
8. About the contents of the complaint H. Põlluaas added that the position of the National Electoral
Committee stating that the fault lay with the voters who did not know how to use the computer is not
accurate. The fact that the fault was in the voter application was also confirmed by Antti Andreimann, a
lecturer in IT College, who stated that solving the problem is not feasible by a regular user and presents quite
a challenge also for a skilled computer user.
OPINION OF THE CHAMBER
9. To adjudicate the complaint of H. Põlluaas, it has to be decided whether it has been filed within the term
provided in § 38(1) of the CRCPA.
10. Before dealing with that issue the Chamber deems it necessary to note that the National Electoral
Committee should have regarded the letter of H. Põlluaas of 9 March 2011 addressed to the National
Electoral Committee as a complaint against the Committee’s own activity and should have forwarded it
together with explanations to the Supreme Court (§ 38 of the CRCPA). It clearly appears from the letter that
it contests the activity of the National Electoral Committee and requests annulment of the e-voting results.
Its procedural shortcoming does not preclude the Supreme Court from forming an opinion on the filed
complaint.