ANNAGI HAJIBEYLI v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT
3
members were an employee of a statistics committee and an employee of
the passports department of a local police office;
(c) there was no explanation as to what constituted “other” reasons for
declaring thirty-three of the signatures invalid;
(d) contrary to the requirements of Article 59.3 of the Electoral Code,
the applicant had not been invited to participate in the process of
examination of the signature sheets by the ConEC working group, and thus
had been deprived of the right to give the necessary explanations to the
experts;
(e) contrary to the requirements of Article 59.13 of the Electoral Code,
he had not been provided with a copy of the results of the examination of
the signature sheets at least twenty-four hours prior to the ConEC meeting
to decide on the applicant’s registration;
(f) the applicant’s presence at the ConEC meeting of 11 October 2010
had not been ensured.
12. Enclosed with his complaint to the CEC, the applicant submitted
written statements by over 400 voters whose signatures had been declared
invalid, affirming the authenticity of their signatures. However, according to
the applicant, those statements were not taken into consideration by the
CEC.
13. The CEC conducted another examination of the signature sheets
using members of its own working group. The applicant was not invited to
participate in this process. According to the working group’s findings, a
total of 238 signatures were considered to be invalid. It appears that 233 of
those were considered inauthentic because they had allegedly been made
repeatedly by the same persons in the name of other persons, and the
remaining five were found to be invalid owing to the voters’ incorrect
personal information.
14. The applicant was not invited to the CEC meeting dealing with his
complaint against the ConEC decision of 11 October 2010.
15. By a decision of 16 October 2010 the CEC dismissed the applicant’s
complaint and upheld the ConEC decision of 11 October 2010. It found
that, on the basis of the findings of the CEC’s own working group, 238 out
of 675 signatures submitted by the applicant were invalid and that the
remaining 437 valid signatures were below the minimum number required
by law.
16. The applicant was given copies of the CEC decision and the working
group opinion on 17 October 2010.
C. Appeals to domestic courts
17. On 19 October 2010 the applicant lodged an appeal against the CEC
decision with the Baku Court of Appeal. He reiterated his complaints made