NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

Court subsequently quashed the earlier judgments by way of supervisory-review proceedings. As a result, the applicant party could not take part in the elections, which took place on 19 December 1999. All further appeals by the applicant party were unsuccessful. The Court observed that the final and enforceable judgment of 22 November 1999 had been quashed by means of supervisory-review proceedings, which led to the breach of the principle of legal certainty. 1227 The Russian government had not pointed to any circumstances of a substantial and compelling character that could have justified that departure from the principle of legal certainty in this case. Accordingly, the applicant party had been prevented from standing for election. Concerning whether the decision to disqualify the applicant party had been proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued, the Court noted that the applicant party had not been found to have been in breach of the electoral laws. Thus, its own conduct had not led to the disqualification. For those reasons, such a disqualification had been disproportionate to the legitimate aims pursued. 2.12.3 Information on elections The application in the case of Geraguyn Khorhurd Patgamavorakan Akumb v. Armenia 1228 was submitted by the non-governmental organisation, Geraguyn Khorhurd Patgamavorakan Akumb, which acted as an election observer during the parliamentary election of 25 May 2003 held in Armenia. The applicant organisation complained before the Court about a failure to conduct free elections. 1229 In its opinion, numerous provisions of the Electoral Code had been violated by the actions of the Central Election Committee (‘the CEC’), such as those related to the publicity of elections and to the rights of election observers. In particular, the CEC failed to provide copies of various election-related documents to which the applicant organisation should enjoy access due to its status of an election observer. This status was conferred on it under the electoral legislation and was valid for the period of the parliamentary election in question. The right of access to election-related documents, therefore, constituted a part of a wider public function performed by election observers who sought to ensure the publicity of an election and to contribute to the election’s proper conduct and outcome. The Court observed that due to the applicant organisation’s failure to substantiate its case properly, its complaint about the CEC’s alleged failure to respond to its request for information was not examined by the domestic courts on the merits. The Court reminded that, according to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, it may only 1227 SHYROKOVA. I. The Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters and the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights with respect to Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 . 10th European Conference of Electoral Management Bodies “The Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters: Strengths and Potential Developments”, 26-27 June 2013, Chişinău, Republic Of Moldova. URL: accessed 20 July 2015. 1228 Geraguyn Khorhurd Patgamavorakan Akumb v. Armenia (dec.), no. 11721/04, 14 April 2009, not published. 1229 YOUNG, J. International election principles : democracy & the rule of law . Chicago: ABA Section of Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice, 2009, p. 25.

234