CDL-AD(2020)025 XII. - 44 - Annex 2 – Selection of relevant case-law of the European Court of Human Rights on election dispute resolution Role of a domestic system for election dispute resolution The existence of a domestic system for effective examination of individual complaints and appeals in matters concerning electoral rights is one of the essential guarantees of free and fair elections. Such a system ensures an effective exercise of individual rights to vote and to stand for election, maintains general confidence in the State’s administration of the electoral process and constitutes an important device at the State's disposal in achieving the fulfilment of its positive duty under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to hold democratic elections. Indeed, the State’s solemn undertaking under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 and the individual rights guaranteed by that provision would be illusory if, throughout the electoral process, specific instances indicative of failure to ensure democratic elections are not open to challenge by individuals before a competent domestic body capable of effectively dealing with the matter.195 General requirements The Court has developed in its case-law a number of general principles regarding the effectiveness of a domestic system for election dispute resolution. Many of them are outlined below. This list should not, however, be regarded as exhaustive. (a) Existence of procedural safeguards against arbitrariness The decision-making process must be surrounded by minimum safeguards against arbitrariness.196 One of such safeguards is procedural fairness. Specific case: In the case of Podkolzina v. Latvia (no. 46726/99, 9 April 2002) the applicant complained about the removal of her name from the list of parliamentary election candidates for insufficient knowledge of Latvian. The list in question had been registered with the Central Electoral Commission (“the CEC”) after all the documents required by the legislation on parliamentary elections had been supplied to it, including a copy of the certificate attesting to the fact that the applicant knew the State’s official language - Latvian - issued by the Standing Committee for Language Certification, an administrative institution answerable to the Ministry of Justice. In a week after the registration of the list, an examiner belonging to the language examination service of the State Language Centre came to the applicant’s workplace to check how well she knew Latvian, and to that end began a conversation with her in that language in the course of which the applicant was asked, among other questions, why she supported the party, on whose list she was, rather than another party. The examiner returned the next day accompanied by witnesses and asked the applicant to write an essay in Latvian. Being extremely nervous, because she had not expected such an examination and because of the constant presence of the witnesses, the applicant stopped writing and tore up her work. The examiner then drew up a report to the effect that the applicant did not have an adequate command of the official language and the CEC struck the applicant’s name off the list of candidates. The Court found that the purpose of the legislation on parliamentary elections barring citizens without an advanced degree of proficiency in the national language from standing for election 195 See Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 18705/06, § 81, 8 April 2010. See, for example, Podkolzina v. Latvia, no. 46726/99, § 35, 9 April 2002, Kovach, cited above, §§ 55 et seq., Namat Aliyev, also cited above, § 72, 8 April 2010, and Davydov and Others, cited above, §§ 273 and 336. 196