10.  The applicant party is a political party. 11.  On 20 November 2003 the Central Electoral Commission (“the CEC”) announced the final results of the votes in the regularly scheduled parliamentary election of 2 November 2003, according to which seven parties had cleared the 7% legal threshold required by Article 105 § 6 of the Electoral Code (“the EC”, see paragraph 44 below). The opposition party, the Saakashvili‑National Movement, took third place with 18.04% of the vote (giving them 32 seats in Parliament), followed by the applicant party with 12.04% of the vote (20 seats) and the United Democrats, a coalition led by the President of the Parliament, Ms N. Burjanadze, with 8.79% of the vote (15 seats). 12.  On account of numerous instances of ballot fraud reported by election observers, the Saakashvili‑National Movement and the United Democrats refused to accept the election results. With general support from the population, they called for President Shevardnadze’s resignation. When the newly elected parliament convened for its first session on 22 November 2003, the opposition forces broke into the parliament building, disrupted the President’s inaugural speech and ousted the members of parliament (MPs). 13.  On 23 November 2003 Mr E. Shevardnadze resigned and Ms N. Burjanadze became the interim President of Georgia, as provided for by the Constitution. Those events were later referred to as the “Rose Revolution”. 14.  As the parliament elected in November 2003 had been ousted by the revolutionary forces, the interim leadership recalled the previous parliament elected in 1999 (see Article 50 § 4 of the Constitution, paragraph 42 below) until such time as a new parliament was elected. 15.  On 25 November 2003 the Supreme Court of Georgia annulled the CEC vote tally of 20 November 2003 in the part concerning the election results under the proportional system. The results in single-seat constituencies remained in force. 16.  On 28 November 2003 the Chairman of the CEC, who had been appointed by ex-President Shevardnadze, resigned. On 30 November 2003 the interim President dismissed five members of the CEC who had been appointed by the ex-President, and Parliament elected a new Chairman of the CEC on the basis of a candidature proposed by the interim President. 17.  In view of the partial annulment of the election results of the initial parliamentary election of 2 November 2003 by the Supreme Court on 25 November 2003, on 2 December 2003 the CEC Chairman issued Ordinance no. 167/2003 which, under Article 106 § 4 of the EC, set the date of the repeat parliamentary election (“the repeat election”) for 25 January 2004. On the same day, however, the CEC Chairman applied to the interim President of Georgia (Decree no. 50/2003), requesting that a later date be set for the election, arguing that it would hardly be possible to ensure its proper administration within such a short time frame. This application was finally granted on 9 January 2004 and the repeat election was scheduled for 28 March 2004 by the interim President. 18.  The applicant party challenged CEC Ordinance no. 167/2003 in court, claiming that the CEC had erroneously relied on Article 106 § 4 instead of Article 105 § 17 of the EC when setting the date for the repeat election. By a judgment of 8 December 2003, the Tbilisi Regional Court dismissed the claim, reasoning that the applicant party lacked victim status. That judgment was quashed on 26 December 2003 by the Supreme Court which noted that, since the applicant party was running for election, there was a direct and consequential link between its interests and the decisions of the CEC. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the claim as manifestly ill‑founded. 19.  On 7, 9 and 12 December 2003 the CEC issued Ordinances by which voters were required to attend electoral precincts and fill out special forms; this would enable them to cast their ballots during the presidential election of 4 January 2004. 20.   Along with other opposition parties, the applicant party challenged the lawfulness of those rules in court. On 15 December 2003 the Tbilisi Regional Court dismissed the claim as unsubstantiated. With regard to the applicant party, the court stated that it lacked victim status as it had failed to show what direct and specific harm the preliminary voter registration procedure for the presidential election could possibly have caused to its interests. 21.  On 15 January 2004 Mr M. Saakashvili was declared President of Georgia. By an Ordinance of 31 January 2004, the new President appointed five members of the CEC, one of whom was given authority to appoint five members in the District Electoral Commissions (“the DECs”) under Article 128(1) § 4 of the EC. 22.  Nineteen political parties and blocs were registered by the CEC on 21 February 2004 as candidates for the repeat parliamentary election, including the applicant party and the ruling coalition of the President’s National Movement and Ms Burjanadze’s United Democrats. The presidential National Movement had previously won the 2002 municipal elections in Tbilisi. 23.  For the purposes of the repeat election, the CEC passed another decree on 27 February 2004 (Decree no. 30/2004), pursuant to which the Precinct Electoral Commissions (“the PECs”) had to post preliminary lists of voters in their bureaux, data which had been gathered in the course of the preliminary registration of voters for the presidential election. Between 8 and 21 March 2004, voters were to attend the electoral precincts again to verify that their names were on the lists. If a voter found that he or she was missing from the list, a petition for correction was to be filed with the relevant PEC. On 21 March 2004 the PECs were to send corrected versions of the preliminary electoral rolls to the relevant DEC, which was required to produce final electoral rolls and remit them to the PECs for a further public examination. Between 23 and 27 March 2004, voters were to recheck the final lists and request corrections if necessary. The Decree also envisaged adding the names of voters who had not been included in the preliminary registration to the lists on election day itself. 24.  The rationale behind the introduction of this system of voter registration was explained by the CEC Chairman in a public statement: “If a voter does not want to participate in the election, does not engage in politics, does not want to cooperate with the State, then the State is also under no obligation to ensure that this voter is on the unified electoral roll.” 25.  The repeat election, based on the system of proportional representation, was held as planned on 28 March 2004. Numerous complaints about irregularities on election day were subsequently filed with electoral commissions, including the CEC, and with the courts. 26.  On 2 April 2004 the CEC issued Ordinance no. 82/2004, which annulled the election results for all the PECs in the Khulo and Kobuleti electoral districts (nos. 81 and 84) in the Ajarian Autonomous Republic (“the AAR”), where 42,011 and 17,263 voters were registered respectively. The CEC Ordinance did not explain which legal provision had entitled it to take this annulment decision. It simply noted that complaints had been filed about voting irregularities in these two districts. The complaints requested that the investigative measures envisaged by Article 105 § 13 of the EC be undertaken by the CEC. However, “in view of the nature of the irregularities alleged in the complaints”, there was, according to the CEC, no point in resorting to such measures. Consequently, the challenged election results in the Khulo and Kobuleti districts were to be annulled and, in accordance with Article 105 § 12 of the EC, the polls were to be repeated there. The new date was set for 18 April 2004 (for more details, see paragraphs 50 and 53 below). 27.  On 6 April 2004 the CEC issued rules of procedure (Decree no. 45/2004) for the posting of electoral rolls in the various precincts of the Khulo and Kobuleti districts. As before the presidential election of 4 January 2004 and the repeat parliamentary election of 28 March 2004, voters were expected to pay preliminary visits to the precincts in order to ensure that their names were on the lists. 28.  On 18 April 2004, election day, the polling stations in the Khulo and Kobuleti districts failed to open (see paragraph 50 below). On the same day, however, the CEC tallied the votes in the repeat election of 28 March 2004. It stated that 1,498,012 votes had been cast, while 2,343,087 voters had registered. The applicant party received 6.01% of the vote, which was not enough to clear the 7% threshold and thus to obtain seats in Parliament. 29.  According to the minutes of the CEC meeting of 18 April 2004, the applicant party’s representative, as one of the fifteen members of the CEC, objected to the finalisation of the election results. The representative argued that the CEC could not lawfully end the countrywide election without first having held an election in the Khulo and Kobuleti districts. The Chairman of the CEC replied that the fact that the polling stations had not opened in those districts was the fault of the Ajarian authorities. He also added that, even if the election had been conducted in those districts, this would not have affected the final results. By a majority vote, the Chairman’s proposal to approve the vote tally was accepted and the relevant Ordinance (no. 94/2004) was adopted on the basis of Articles 64 and 105 of the EC. 30.  On 22 April 2004 the newly elected parliament convened for its first session. After several weeks of tension, the Head of the AAR, Mr A. Abashidze, stepped down on 6 May 2004, fleeing the country. 31.  On 20 April 2004 the applicant party appealed to the Supreme Court against Ordinance no. 94/2004 (see paragraph 29 above). Alongside the main claim for annulment of the Ordinance in question, the applicant party asked the court to apply an interim measure whereby Parliament would be forbidden from convening for its first session until the dispute had been resolved. The applicant party argued that, if Parliament convened, it would become impossible to enforce the judgment should the court find in the applicant party’s favour. On 20 April 2004 the Supreme Court declared the claim admissible but refused to apply the requested interim measure. It reasoned that the claim could not have any suspensive effect under Article 77 § 3 of the EC and noted that, pursuant to Article 51 of the Constitution, the first sitting of a newly elected parliament was to be held within twenty days of the finalisation of the election results. 32.  The applicant party submitted four major arguments to the Supreme Court, which dismissed its claim on 26 April 2004. 33.  Firstly, the applicant party challenged the rules on the composition of electoral rolls. It claimed that many eligible voters who had failed to comply with the procedure for preliminary registration had been refused the right to cast their votes on election day. At the same time, the obligation to register in advance had created a kind of carousel to facilitate ballot fraud in which some voters could register in different electoral precincts and thus cast their vote more than once. As a result of those irregularities, the applicant party claimed that it had lost votes. It also complained that the CEC had not had competence to change the rules on the composition of electoral rolls, this prerogative being reserved solely for Parliament, which alone was entitled to make the relevant legislative amendments to the EC. In the applicant party’s view, the fact that many voters had been refused the right to vote because of the new rules, and that the Government had total control over the electoral administration, had allowed the election results to be rigged. Based on statistical data about high voting activity across the country at particular times, provided by its representatives in the electoral commissions of the Kvemo Kartli, Meskhet‑Javakheti and Ajarian regions, the applicant party claimed that vote-riggers had fraudulently cast around 500,000 ballots in favour of the presidential and pro-presidential parties at 12 noon, 5 p.m. and 8 p.m. on election day. 34.  The Supreme Court found the latter allegation unsubstantiated, reasoning that the applicant party had submitted no relevant evidence in support of it. As to the voter registration rules, the court noted that the CEC had issued Decree no. 30/2004 (see paragraph 23 above) by which it had remedied the deficiency of Article 9 § 12 of the EC, the effect of which had been suspended by the Constitutional Court on 26 December 2003 (see paragraph 45 below). Since that Ordinance allowed voter registration on the day of election, the allegation that the voters who had missed preliminary registration deadlines were subsequently denied the right to vote was held to be ill-founded. 35.  Secondly, the applicant party complained that its representatives at various levels in the electoral commissions had been prevented by other members from fulfilling their duties properly. They had been threatened and instructed not to write complaints about violations observed, namely when votes cast in favour of the Georgian Labour Party were attributed to the presidential and pro-presidential parties. The applicant party complained that such permissive conduct was due to the composition of the electoral commissions, since, in every commission at all levels, eight out of the fifteen members were representatives of the presidential and pro‑presidential parties. 36.  Thirdly, the applicant party argued that the impugned Ordinance of 18 April 2004 was contrary to Article 105 § 19 of the EC, since it did not specify the total number of voters and the number of votes cast in each district. 37.  In reply to these latter arguments, the Supreme Court reasoned that the applicant party should first have complained about the threats to its representatives before a district court. However, it gave no response to the complaint about the pro-presidential composition of the electoral commissions. As to the CEC’s failure to include information in the Ordinance about the total number of voters and the number of votes cast in each district, the court stated that this was not a gross violation of electoral legislation and could not therefore be regarded as grounds for invalidating that administrative act. 38.  Lastly, the applicant party claimed that the finalisation of the countrywide election results without elections being held in the Khulo and Kobuleti districts had been unlawful. In view of the fact that there were at least 60,000 voters in those districts and that the applicant party needed only 16,000 votes in order to clear the 7% legal threshold, it complained that it had been unlawfully deprived of a genuine chance to obtain seats in Parliament. It noted that the Georgian Labour Party was, by and large, supported in the Ajarian constituency. 39.  The Supreme Court replied as follows:
“It is true that the repeat parliamentary election results were annulled in the Khulo and Kobuleti electoral districts and the CEC called a new repeat election by its Ordinance ... [of 2 April 2004]. However, due to well-known events [tensions between the central and local authorities], the election was not held ... in those districts on account of factual circumstances, this being a ground for the annulment of an administrative act [the CEC Ordinance of 2 April 2004] under Article 60 § 1 (g) of the General Administrative Code of Georgia.”
Relying on Article 105 § 3 of the EC, the Supreme Court decided that the repeat election could be considered as having been held, since, according to the vote tally, more than a third of the total number of voters had taken part in it. 40.  Acting as a private individual, the Chairman of the applicant party challenged CEC Decree no. 30/2004 of 27 February 2004 (the rules on the composition of electoral rolls) and Ordinance no. 94/2004 of 18 April 2004 (the vote tally) before the Constitutional Court. He claimed that the system of preliminary voter registration, the disfranchisement of the Khulo and Kobuleti constituencies and the presidential control of the electoral administration had infringed the constitutional principle of free and fair elections. 41.  On 25 May 2004 the Constitutional Court declared the claim inadmissible. It reasoned that, since it was not a normative act, the disputed Ordinance could not be challenged before the Constitutional Court. As to the impugned Decree, it considered that, firstly, the claimant had failed to substantiate how this normative act had infringed any of his constitutional rights. Secondly, it stated that the claimant, as a private person, did not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the election, this right being reserved by section 37 of the Constitutional Court Act for the President of Georgia and a specific number of MPs.