ATAKISHI v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT 11 comprehensive assessment of the situation. Subsequently, upon the examination of the ConEC request by the Court of Appeal, the applicant was not afforded sufficient time to examine the material in the case file and to prepare arguments in his defence, as he had been notified of the forthcoming judicial hearing only a very short time before it began. The Court reiterates that considerations of expediency and the necessity for tight time-limits designed to avoid delaying the electoral process, although often justified, may nevertheless not serve as a pretext to undermine the effectiveness of electoral procedures (see, mutatis mutandis, Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 18705/06, § 90, 8 April 2010) or to deprive the persons concerned by those procedures of the opportunity to effectively contest any accusations of electoral misconduct made against them (see Orujov, cited above, § 56). In the present case, it appears that the examination of the issue of the applicant’s disqualification took place without reasonable advance notice, and as such caught him by surprise and left him unprepared for the hearing. Lastly, the domestic courts failed to take into account, and provide any reasoned response to, the applicant’s objections and submissions made during the judicial hearings and in his appeals. 49. The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that the interference with the applicant’s electoral rights fell foul of the standards required by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. In particular, the applicant’s disqualification from running for election was not based on sufficient and relevant evidence; the procedures of the electoral commission and the domestic courts did not afford the applicant sufficient guarantees against arbitrariness; and the domestic authorities’ decisions lacked sufficient reasoning and were arbitrary. 50. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION 51. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the domestic judicial proceedings had been unfair and arbitrary. Article 6 of the Convention provides as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...” 52. The Court notes that the proceedings in question involved the determination of the applicant’s right to stand as a candidate in the parliamentary elections. The dispute in issue therefore concerned his political rights and did not have any bearing on his “civil rights and obligations” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Pierre-Bloch v. France, 21 October 1997, § 50, Reports 1997-VI;