18 GROSARU v. ROMANIA JUDGMENT candidate, who had secured a large number of votes in a single constituency. The Central Electoral Office therefore opted for a method based on territorial representation rather than national representation. 51. The issue arising in the instant case is whether that lack of clarity in the electoral rules could give rise to an arbitrary interpretation upon their application. In that regard, the Court points out that it has already sanctioned a wide, and therefore arbitrary, interpretation of a legal provision relating to elections (see the cases of Kovach v. Ukraine (no. 39424/02, §§ 48-62, ECHR 2008), concerning invalidation of the ballot in four constituencies during parliamentary elections, which led to the election of a candidate other than the applicant; Lykourezos v. Greece (no. 33554/03, §§ 50-58, ECHR 2006-VIII), concerning the forfeiture of a parliamentary seat as a result of professional incompatibility introduced by a new Law; and Paschalidis, Koutmeridis and Zaharakis v. Greece (nos. 27863/05, 28422/05 and 28028/05, §§ 29-35, 10 April 2008), concerning the counting of blank votes when calculating the electoral quotient in a single constituency). 52. In the opinion of the Court, the lack of clarity of the relevant electoral provisions required the national authorities to be prudent in interpreting them, bearing in mind the direct impact that their interpretation would have on the result of the elections (see Kovach, cited above, § 59). The Central Electoral Office interpreted the provisions of Law no. 68/1992 to mean that the seat should be allocated to the list of the organisation of citizens belonging to a national minority which had secured the largest number of votes in a single constituency. It did not specify whether that was a first interpretation of that provision or whether there was an established practice in that regard. Neither did it explain why the criterion of territorial representation applied to national minorities while, in other electoral matters, such minorities benefited from specific provisions relating to the criterion of national representation. Lastly, although the Court had requested it, the Government failed to provide additional information on the interpretation by the national authorities or legal authorities of Article 68 § 1 (g) of Law no. 68/1992. The Court therefore considers that the decisive provisions governing the allocation of a parliamentary seat to the organisation representing a national minority did not, at the material time, satisfy the requirements of precision laid down in its case-law (see paragraph 47 above). 53. However, the Court takes note of the legislative amendment made to the scope of the provision at issue in the new parliamentary election Law (see Relevant domestic law above, paragraph 19). The fact remains, however, that that legislative amendment was introduced long after the events which were the subject of the applicant’s complaints and cannot therefore remedy his situation.