5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Baku. He stood for the elections to the National Assembly (Milli Majlis) of 6 November 2005 as a candidate of the opposition bloc Azadliq. 6.  The applicant was registered as a candidate by the Constituency Electoral Commission (“the ConEC”) for the single-mandate Zaqatala Election Constituency no. 110. 7.  There were a total of forty-one polling stations in the constituency. At the end of election day, the applicant obtained copies of official records of election results (səsvermənin nəticələrinə dair protokol) drawn up by all forty-one Polling Station Electoral Commissions (“PECs”). According to the copies of the PEC records in the applicant’s possession, he received the majority of votes in the constituency. 8.  On 7 November 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Central Electoral Commission (“the CEC”), claiming that, after the submission of all the PEC records of results to the ConEC, the PEC records for Polling Stations nos. 23, 24 and 25 had been falsified in favour of one of his opponents. 9.  On 14 November 2005 the CEC acknowledged receipt of the applicant’s complaint and also notified him that, on 12 November 2005, it had issued a decision to invalidate the election results for the entire Zaqatala Election Constituency no. 110. The decision, in its entirety, stated as follows:
“Pursuant to Articles 19.4, 19.14, 25.2.22, 28.4, 100.12 and 170.2.2 of the Electoral Code and sections 3.5 and 3.6 of the Law of 27 May 2003 on Approval and Entry into Force of the Electoral Code, the Central Electoral Commission decides: 1.  To invalidate the election results in Polling Stations nos. 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 26, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37 and 40 of Zaqatala Electoral Constituency no. 110 due to impermissible alterations [“yolverilməz düzəlişlər”] made to the PEC records of election results [“protokollar”] of those polling stations as well as infringements of the law [“qanun pozuntuları”] which made it impossible to determine the will of the voters. 2.  To invalidate the election results in Zaqatala Electoral Constituency no. 110 due to the fact that the number of polling stations in which the election results have been invalidated constitutes more than two-fifths of the total number of polling stations in the constituency and that the number of voters registered in those polling stations constitutes more than one-quarter of the total number of voters in the constituency.” 10.  On 14 November 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision with the Court of Appeal, arguing that the findings in the CEC decision were wrong. He argued that, while the CEC decision stated that “impermissible alterations” had been made to the results records of nineteen PECs, in reality such alterations had been made to the records of only three PECs (in Polling Stations nos. 23, 24 and 25). As for the PEC records for other polling stations, the photocopies of the same PEC records which were in his possession did not contain any such alterations or changes. According to those PEC records (and excluding the PEC records for Polling Stations nos. 23, 24 and 25), he had obtained the highest number of votes in the constituency. The applicant requested the court to quash the CEC decision of 12 November 2005 and to declare him the winner of the election in the constituency. 11.  During the hearing held on 14 November 2005, the judges of the Court of Appeal did not independently examine the originals of the PEC and the ConEC records of results or hear witnesses called by the applicant. The Court of Appeal upheld the CEC decision by reiterating the findings made in that decision and concluding that the invalidation of the election results based on those findings had been lawful. 12.  The applicant lodged a cassation appeal. In addition to the arguments advanced in his appeal before the Court of Appeal, he also complained, inter alia, that the Court of Appeal had refused to independently examine the primary evidence and had simply taken the CEC’s findings as fact. He also complained that the CEC had failed to consider the possibility of ordering a recount of the votes as required by Article 108.4 of the Electoral Code and to summon him as an affected party and hear his explanation as required by Article 112.8 of the Electoral Code. 13.  On 23 November 2005 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s appeal and upheld the Court of Appeal’s judgment as lawful. 14.  On 1 December 2005 the Constitutional Court ordered repeat elections to be held on 13 May 2006 for all electoral constituencies in which the results had been invalidated, including the applicant’s constituency.