2
ANNAGI HAJIBEYLI v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT
6. The applicant was nominated by the coalition of the Popular Front
and Musavat parties to stand as a candidate in the parliamentary elections of
7 November 2010 and applied for registration as a candidate in the
single-mandate Saatli Electoral Constituency No. 62.
A. Refusal to register the applicant as a candidate
7. As the Electoral Code required that each nomination as a candidate
for parliamentary elections be supported by a minimum of 450 voters, on
5 October 2010 the applicant submitted to the Constituency Electoral
Commission (“the ConEC”) fourteen signature sheets containing 675 voter
signatures collected in support of his candidacy.
8. Before the ConEC’s decision on the question of the applicant’s
registration as a candidate, the accuracy of the signature sheets and other
registration documents submitted by the applicant were to be first examined
by a special working group (işçi qrupu) established by the ConEC.
Although the applicant had requested to be present during the process of the
examination by the working group, this took place without him.
9. By a decision of 11 October 2010 the ConEC refused the applicant’s
request for registration as a candidate. The ConEC found that, according to
the opinion of the working group, a number of submitted supporting
signatures were invalid, and that the remaining valid signatures numbered
fewer than 450. In particular, 597 of the 675 signatures had been examined,
and it was found that 257 of those signatures were invalid.
10. The following reasons were given in the ConEC working group’s
examination record dated 10 October 2010: (a) three signatures were “repeat
signatures”; (b) seven signatures were invalid because there were
uncertified corrections of them on the signature sheets; (c) twelve signatures
were invalid owing to incorrect personal information provided concerning
those voters; (d) one signature was invalid because it was on the wrong line;
(e) 201 signatures were not authentic because they had been made
repeatedly by the same individuals who had already signed the signature
sheets; and (f) thirty-three signatures were invalid for “other” (unspecified)
reasons.
B. Appeal to the Central Electoral Commission
11. On 13 October 2010 the applicant lodged a complaint with the
Central Electoral Commission (“the CEC”) against the ConEC decision to
refuse registration. He complained, inter alia, of the following:
(a) 257 signatures were deemed invalid on the basis of a mere visual
examination, without any additional adequate investigation;
(b) the members of the ConEC working group were not real experts. The
head of the working group was a school gym teacher, while two other