CDL-AD(2020)025 VII. - 22 - Time limits 75. While international standards recommend short time limits for lodging and deciding on electoral disputes, a number of domestic cases brought before administrative or jurisdictional bodies are rejected for procedural reasons, either because time limits are exceeded or because the competent bodies do not take the time to analyse the substantive elements of the case, arguing of short deadlines. This issue of time limits in election dispute resolution systems is therefore an indispensable aspect to consider in the present report. 76. It is therefore important to analyse both the time limits for lodging complaints – and later on for lodging appeals, if required – and the time limits for adjudicating complaints and appeals. A. International standards 77. The Code of good practice in electoral matters recommends the following: “Time-limits for lodging and deciding appeals must be short (three to five days for each at first instance)”; while stating that: “Time limits must, however, be long enough to make an appeal possible, to guarantee the exercise of rights of defence and a reflected decision.”108 78. Appeal proceedings should be as brief as possible in any case concerning decisions to be made before election day. On this point, two pitfalls must be avoided: first, that appeal proceedings delay the electoral process – or, as said earlier in the report, disrupt the electoral calendar, and second, that due to their lack of suspensive effect, decisions on appeals which could have been taken before, are taken after the elections. In addition, decisions on election results must not take too long. 79. The importance of a timely remedy is widely recognised at the international level and has been recognised by courts as inextricably linked to fair public participation in government and elections.109 B. Time limits for lodging complaints and appeals 80. Regarding time limits for lodging complaints and appeals, the persons entitled to lodge electoral complaints, primarily the voters and the candidates, should act quickly in order to avoid disruption of the on-going electoral process. At the same time, it remains problematic in a number of countries to ensure transparency and clarity of the procedure for lodging electoral complaints. Due to these imperfections in the law, and sometimes a lack of willingness from the authorities and/or the bodies in charge to adjudicate those complaints,110 the voters or the candidates waste a precious time to understand the procedure, to find the correct form to fill in or to redirect a complaint which would not have been submitted to the right body, and sometimes exceed the required deadline due to unclear or complex procedures. 81. Concerning the time limits for lodging complaints in first instance, 36 member States111 generally provide time limits in line with the recommendations of the Code of good practice in electoral matters, meaning three to five days and sometimes less than three days. On the 108 Code of good practice in electoral matters, Guideline II 3.3. g, Explanatory Report, para. 95. International Foundation for Electoral System, Guidelines for Understanding, Adjudicating, and Resolving Disputes in Elections, 2011, para. 50. 110 See inter alia Gahramanli and others v. Azerbaijan, 8 October 2015, paras. 80-86. 111 Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Costa Rica, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, North Macedonia, Peru, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine. 109