GYLA: ECHR to hear complaint on 2024 parliamentary elections, though annulment of results not sought

“The Strasbourg Court has begun hearing complaints submitted regarding the 2024 parliamentary elections,” the Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association (GYLA) representative Tamar Oniani stated at a briefing.

According to Oniani, GYLA indicated in its submitted complaint that the election administration’s inadequate fulfilment of its obligations during the elections resulted in widespread violation of the fundamental principle of ballot secrecy.

“According to the Strasbourg Court, this case may be granted the status of a case with significant impact, which means the Court sees this case as a priority, allowing it to assess violations of secrecy in relation to the 2024 parliamentary elections as well as other related defects in electoral legislation.

In its submitted complaint, GYLA stated that during the conducted elections, the inadequate fulfilment of the election administration’s obligations led to widespread breaches of the fundamental principle of ballot secrecy. Additionally, during the examination of electoral disputes, the right to resolve such disputes through effective mechanisms was violated. GYLA also argued in its complaint that the blanket provision in Georgian legislation, which restricts citizens’ ability to submit complaints regarding electoral disputes, does not comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. GYLA sent this complaint to the Strasbourg Court in 2025.

It is known to the public, and the Strasbourg Court also emphasises this issue, that GYLA, as an experienced monitoring organisation, submitted complaints nationwide to all district election commissions regarding violations of voting secrecy caused by improper use of electronic technologies. These complaints concerned the annulment of results from all those polling stations (2,263) within the relevant districts where elections were conducted using technologies; subsequently, the courts did not satisfy this demand. The only exception was the Tetritskaro District Court, whose decision was later overturned by the Tbilisi Court of Appeals.

Accordingly, the state must answer the questions posed by the Court and present its position on the extent to which the right to free elections was ensured at polling stations where electronic technologies were used. Also, whether the principle of secret ballot was violated on parliamentary election day at polling stations due to the manner in which the vote-counting electronic technologies functioned.

It should be noted that several weeks before the 2024 parliamentary elections, during training and information sessions organised by the CEC, GYLA identified potential risks of breaches of secrecy. They raised these concerns in advance with the CEC, allowing the election authorities the opportunity to implement measures to address and eliminate such issues. In a letter dated September 28, 2024, GYLA was informed that the ballot paper used during the sessions held by the CEC was a test version and that the ballot papers used during actual voting would be of a different quality, ensuring the confidentiality of the vote.

“The Strasbourg Court has consolidated three complaints and is examining the case under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, which concerns the right to free elections, and within the framework of Article 13, the right to an effective remedy. In addition to the aforementioned issues, the Court is also deliberating and will assess whether the opening of an insufficient number of polling stations abroad violates the right to vote. The Court has set a deadline of May 15, 2026, for the state to present its position on this case,” Tamar Oniani stated.

In response to a question that “some of the complainants, specifically an individual group, requested annulment of election results as an interim measure, which the Court did not even deliberate upon,” Tamar Oniani stated:

“Three complaints are consolidated in the existing case. Of these, one claim has been submitted by the Young Lawyers’ Association. This demand, by which I mean the interim measure, was not made by us,” Ioseliani noted, adding that this matter is unknown to her.

“When the Court consolidates complaints, this is not subject to the wishes of the complainants. Regarding similar types of disputes, the Court has the authority to consolidate complaints and proceed with a substantive examination in a consolidated manner,” stated the GYLA representative.