Guide on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 – Right to free elections V. Effective remedies 109. States must ensure that arguable complaints by individuals concerning election irregularities are effectively addressed and that domestic decisions are sufficiently reasoned. 110. In cases relating to post-election disputes, the Court has made a distinction according to whether the disputes had been examined by a judicial body at domestic level (Riza and Others v. Bulgaria, 2015, § 94; Paunović and Milivojević v. Serbia, 2016, § 68). Where the domestic law entrusted the consideration of post-election disputes to a judicial body, the Court has examined the case under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 alone, finding that there was no need for a separate assessment under Article 13 of the Convention (Podkolzina v. Latvia, 2002, § 45; Kerimova v. Azerbaijan, 2010, §§ 31-32; Gahramanli and Others v. Azerbaijan, 2015, § 56; Davydov and Others v. Russia, 2017, § 200; Abdalov and Others v. Azerbaijan, 2019), or that no separate issue arose under that Article (Riza and Others v. Bulgaria, 2015, § 95). 111. On the other hand, where the post-election dispute had not been examined by a judicial body at domestic level, the Court has conducted a separate assessment of the complaint under Article 13 (Grosaru v. Romania, 2010; Paunović and Milivojević v. Serbia, 2016; Mugemangango v. Belgium [GC], 2020). 112. The Court has indicated that in electoral matters only those remedies which are capable of ensuring the proper functioning of the democratic process may be regarded as effective (Petkov and Others v. Bulgaria, 2009). In Petkov and Others v. Bulgaria, 2009, the applicants’ names had been struck out of the lists of candidates only ten days before the election day, and on the basis of legislation passed less than three months earlier. Those strike-out decisions were subsequently declared null and void but, as the electoral authorities had not reinstated the applicants as candidates, they were unable to stand for election. The Court took the view that, since the remedy available in the context of the elections offered only pecuniary redress, it could not be regarded as effective under Article 13 of the Convention. In Grosaru v. Romania, 2010, the Court noted that the applicant, who was an unsuccessful candidate in legislative elections, had not been able to obtain any judicial review of the interpretation of the impugned electoral legislation and it found a violation of Article 13 taken together with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. The Court also found a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 in the case of Paunović and Milivojević v. Serbia, 2016, concerning the lack of an effective possibility to challenge the illegal removal of an MP from his seat (§§ 68-72). 113. Where a remedy does exist, any deficiencies may be raised before the Court under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. Such deficiencies may constitute a violation of that Article when they call into question the integrity of the electoral process. The decision-making process concerning ineligibility or a dispute as to election results must be surrounded by certain minimum safeguards against arbitrariness (Davydov and Others v. Russia, 2017, § 288). In particular, the findings in question must be reached by a body which can provide minimum guarantees of its impartiality. Similarly, the discretion enjoyed by the body concerned must not be exorbitantly wide: it must be circumscribed, with sufficient precision, by the provisions of domestic law. Lastly, the procedure must be such as to guarantee a fair, objective and sufficiently reasoned decision and prevent any abuse of power on the part of the relevant authority (Podkolzina v. Latvia, 2002, § 35; Kovach v. Ukraine, 2008, §§ 54-55; Kerimova v. Azerbaijan, 2010, §§ 44-45; Riza and Others v. Bulgaria, 2015, § 144). Where it engages in such an examination, the Court confines itself, however, to ascertaining whether the decision rendered by the domestic body was arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable in nature (ibid., § 144; Kerimli and Alibeyli v. Azerbaijan, 2012, §§ 38-42; Davydov and Others v. Russia, 2017, § 288). 114. Noting the existence of arguable complaints of serious electoral anomalies in the counting of votes, the Court found that the domestic remedy should provide sufficient guarantees against arbitrariness. Failure to ensure effective examination of such arguable complaints would constitute European Court of Human Rights 29/35 Last update: 30.04.2021