Election Judgments - IFES

generales-au-niger-le-comite-des-sages-appelle-toutes-les-parties-a-oeuvrer-pour-deselections-apaisees 61 Kosovo, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, referred to in the European Commission for Democracy Through Law

opinion on the election code of Bulgaria, para. 56. 175 See for example 2011 Joint opinion on the election code of Bulgaria, para. 56. 168 CDL-AD(2020)025

nonetheless succeeded in attracting a large share of the vote, even winning in Bulgaria and two Yugoslav republics, Serbia and Montenegro. These considerations reveal that

notion of an ‘effective remedy’ under Article 13”). 88 Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, App. No. 24760/94, Eur. Ct. H.R. 103 (1998). 89 Labita v. Italy,

rules. For instance, in Bulgaria and Serbia, no political party or coalition may have a majority within the commission. In Bulgaria, the chairman and the

redress for any violation that has already occurred” (see Petkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 77568/01, 178/02 and 505/02, § 74, 11 June 2009). The Court also

In the other, Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria (nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, ECHR 2001-IX), the Court likewise found a violation

Russia, no. 71362/01, §§ 47-49, 7 June 2007; and Iliya Stefanov v. Bulgaria, no. 65755/01, §§ 41-42, 22 May 2008). 70. The Court notes that Mr

[GC], no. 25803/94, § 95, ECHR 1999-V, and the Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII, p

test was used in Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, ECHR 2001-IX. 2. In truth this doctrine goes

the Court, it would seem that, apart from Moldova, three countries (Azerbaijan, Bulgaria and Lithuania) clearly ban dual nationals from being elected to Parliament. In

may be regarded as effective (Petkov and Others v. Bulgaria, 2009). In Petkov and Others v. Bulgaria, 2009, the applicants’ names had been struck out of

loc. cit. 133 Eur. Court HR, Case of Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII, p. 3298, para. 146.

proportional systems are the most widely used in Europe. By way of example, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Norway,

member States fall into this category: Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany,

LE BRÉSIL: 3a BpasujiHio: FOR KL BRASIL : FOR BULGARIA: POUR LA BULGARIE : 3a BoJirapnio: POR BULGARIA: FOR BURMA: POUR LA BIRMANIE: 3a POR BIRMANIA:

of all available and effective remedies at the domestic level. In Petkov v. Bulgaria, the ECtHR interpreted the right to an effective remedy and affirmed that

agotados   todos   los   recursos   eficaces   a   nivel   nacional.     En   Petkov   vs   Bulgaria,   el   Tribunal   Europeo   de   Derechos   ,ƵŵĂŶŽƐŝŶƚĞƌƉƌĞƚſĞůĚĞƌĞĐŚŽĂƵŶĂƌĞƉĂƌĂĐŝſŶĞĨŝĐĂnjLJĂĨŝƌŵſƋ

Preservation of Evidence’ in Commissioner of Canada Elections (2004). 7 Petrov v. Bulgaria, Eur.Ct. H.R., App. nos. 77568/01, 178/02 and 505/02, Judgment of 11 June

pdf. 46 VENICE COMMISSION CODE, supra note 7, at 29-30. 47 Petkov v. Bulgaria, App. no. 77568/01, 2009 Eur. Ct. H.R. ¶ 63, available at http://hudoc.echr

providing specificity and concreteness to otherwise abstract guarantees.”43 In Petkov v. Bulgaria, the ECtHR ruled that a remedy must be “effective in practice as well

in the EDRS when it comes to challenges to election results. These include Bulgaria, Croatia, Moldova, Montenegro, Romania and Slovenia, as well as Armenia, the

petitions in which the outcome of the election is at stake.117 In Petkov v. Bulgaria, the ECtHR has stressed that “an effective system of electoral appeals is