a) Armenia / b) Constitutional Court / c)  / d) 28-06-1999 / e) DCC-167 / f) On the dispute on the outcome of the elections of the National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia by proportional system held on 30 May 1999 / g) Tegekagir (Official Gazette) / h) .


Keywords of the Systematic Thesaurus:

Constitutional Justice - Types of claim - Claim by a public body - Legislative bodies.

Constitutional Justice - Jurisdiction - Types of litigation - Electoral disputes - Parliamentary elections.


Institutions - Legislative bodies - Status of members of legislative bodies.


Institutions - Elections and instruments of direct democracy - Electoral system.


Fundamental Rights - Civil and political rights - Electoral rights.

Keywords of the alphabetical index:


Election, entire, invalidity / Voting, irregularity.




The necessity of protecting the constitutional purpose of elections means that elections must be declared invalid only if a concrete and precise dispute exists. Arguments in such disputes should not be expressed in general terms but must be directly related to concrete and legal issues forming the basis of the dispute.




A candidate in the National Assembly elections, who had participated in the elections of the National Assembly by proportional system in the electoral list of the "Motherland" alliance, appealed to the Constitutional Court for it to declare invalid the National Assembly elections conducted using the proportional system. He argued that violations of the Electoral Code had taken place during the preparation and conduct of elections and summarisation of its results to such an extent that they had influenced the election results.


As an example of such violations he mentioned that voters lists were not displayed at electoral offices during the period specified in the Electoral Code. Furthermore, approximately 200 000 voters were not included in the voters lists, which deprived them of the right to vote. Final statements giving summarised results of voting and final statements on the number of irregularities by many electoral commissions within individual constituencies were also among the violations of the Code. The main emphasis was placed on the fact that the statement as to the number of irregularities was incorrect.


As evidence for the claim that 200 000 voters were not included in the voters lists and were deprived of the opportunity to restore their electoral rights through judicial avenues, the appellant provided only the observations of scrutineers of the "Motherland" alliance. However, the Electoral Code provides the opportunity to restore a citizen's right to vote through judicial avenues even on the day of elections.


The appellant argued that the number of voters in the constituencies where the final statements summarising the results of particular constituencies were among the violations of the Code should be taken into account as irregularities. But the determination of the number of irregularities is precisely regulated by the Code: any other form of calculation is illegal.


Moreover, according to the Electoral Code, the number of irregularities cannot be a ground for invalidating elections conducted under the proportional system. The number of irregularities has a consequence only in terms of the distribution of seats. The mistakes concerning the calculation of the number of irregularities in the statements of constituency and regional commissions had no influence on the results of the elections and on the fact that the "Motherland" alliance did not participate in the distribution of seats.