MELNYCHUK v. UKRAINE

 
 
 
Communicated on 29 April 2019
 
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 77851/12
Ivan Ivanovych MELNYCHUK
against Ukraine
lodged on 29 November 2012
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The case was initially submitted with an inadmissibility proposal (manifestly ill-founded) to a single judge, who adjourned it on 24 January 2013, having indicated that it would be more appropriate to examine it by Chamber (at that time the “Broader WECL” procedure had not yet been introduced).
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the alleged distortion of the results of the parliamentary elections of 28 October 2012 in single-seat electoral constituency no. 14 in Vinnytsya Region, in which the applicant stood as a candidate. According to the initial results as recorded in the protocols of the precinct electoral commissions (PSCs), he had won the elections, having obtained 2,218 votes more than his main rival Zh. (37,002 v. 34,784). However, on 30 October 2012 the constituency electoral commission (ConEC) ordered a recount in thirteen precincts on the grounds that some packages with documents had been damaged during their transportation from the PSCs to the ConEC. During the recount it was discovered that many ballots with a vote for the applicant also contained another mark, which led to their invalidation. As a result, the applicant lost 2,301 votes, whereas Zh. lost none. According to the final results, Zh. was the winner (with 83 votes more than the applicant). The applicant complained to the administrative courts that the decision to recount the ballots had been arbitrary and that many ballots in his favour had been spoilt while already in the ConEC. He observed that the ConEC had initially accepted all the documents from the PSCs without having reported any packaging damages and that it had “noticed” some damages in the packaging and decided to hold the recount only a day later, after Zh.’s complaint. He also noted that, while Zh.’s complaint had been accompanied by supporting statements of some PSCs’ members, those members had denied having written them. The applicant further complained that the recount had taken place in the absence of the PSCs’ members concerned who either had not been duly notified of it or had left it in protest to the allegedly arbitrary recount. The administrative courts found against the applicant, allegedly without having duly assessed his arguments.
QUESTION tO THE PARTIES
Has there been a breach of the applicant’s right under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention to free elections?

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy