.



Юридическая консультация онлайн

- , , , , , , ; . .


:

» 
» 
» 
» X-files
» 
» 
» 
» 
» 
» 
» English

:

Рейтинг@Mail.ru




17.10.2021, . 00:22

Case No KII96-84

Supreme Court Of The Russian Federation

In the name of the Russian Federation

April 10, 1996

The Supreme Court represented by: Judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Fedin A.P.
Secretary Popova Yu.V.
with participation of Procurator of the General Procurator Office of the Russian Federation Kharlanov A. V.
and the Attorney Saperova N.L.

having adjudicated, at an open court session, the civil case regarding a complaint by Bryntsalov Vladimir Alekseevich against Resolution No. 84/968-11 of the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation dated March 29, 1996 denying the registration of Bryntsalov V.A. Federation nominated by an initiative group of voters as a candidate for President of the Russian,

established the following

An initiative group of voters who nominated Bryntsalov V.A. as a candidate for President of Russian Federation and authorized representatives of the initiative group were registered by the Resolution of the CEC of the RF dated January 22, 1996 (Case -7-8).

The authorized representatives of the initiative group of voters submitted to the CEC of the RF petitions (signature lists) and other documents required to register Bryntsalov V.A. as a candidate for President of the Russian Federation on March 20, 1996 (case -10).

According to the report (protocol) on the results of collection of voter signatures in favor of candidate for President of the Russian Federation Bryntsalov V.A., 1,325,492 voter signatures were collected (case -11-13). According to the CEC of the RF the number of voter signatures in the petitions submitted by the initiative group of voters was 1,349,941 (case-17-19).

The Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation by its Resolution dated March 29, 1996 denied the registration of candidate for President of the Russian Federation Bryntsalov V.A. who was nominated by the initiative group of voters (case -20-21).

Bryntsalov V.A. appealed to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation requesting to cancel the Resolution of the CEC of the RF denying his registration as a candidate for President of the Russian Federation as illegal.

The representatives of applicant Bryntsalov V.A. and the authorized representatives of the initiative group of voters supported the complaint submitted by the applicant.

The representatives of the CEC of the RF objected to the complaint.

The Supreme Court having heard the explanations by Bryntsalov V.A., his attorney Saperova N.L. the representatives of the applicant and the authorized representatives of the initiative group of voters who supported the complaint of Bryntsalov V.A., representatives of the CEC of the RF Vedeneev Yu. A., Tur A.I., Korablin V.B., and Fadeev N.V., who objected to the complaint, and having investigated written evidence and witnesses' testimonies, having heard a conclusion by Kharlanov A.V. Procurator of the General Procurator Office of the Russian Federation, who believed that the complaint should be partially satisfied, ruled that the complaint by Bryntsalov V.A. shall be satisfied for the following reasons.

According to Clause 1, Article 34 of the Federal Law «On Election of President of the Russian Federation» an electoral association, electoral bloc or initiative group who nominated a candidate for President of the Russian Federation have to collect at least one million voter signatures in favor of the candidate. In this case, the number of signatures collected in one legal subject of the Russian Federation should not exceed seven percent of the total number of signatures required.

As is evident from the appealed resolution and explanations of the representatives of the CEC of the RF the sole reason for denial in registration of Bryntsalov V.A. as a candidate for President of the Russian Federation is that the properly made petitions contain less than one million voter signatures.

According to the Resolution and the Report by the Head of Staff Working Group of the CEC of the RF for Acceptance and Verification of Petitions (case 17-19), by the time the appealed Resolution was adopted 432,688 voter signatures out of 1,349,941 had been found invalid because some petitions failed to meet the requirements set by the Federal Law, or contained improper data about voters and signature collectors, or were executed in violation of the set requirements, 899,842 signatures were found valid (according to the Report on results of verification of the petitions as of March 27 1996, 129,012 signatures out of 1,346,710 checked signatures were found invalid, and 1,198,284 signatures were found valid (case -14-16).

Korablin V.E., representative of the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation, confirmed at the court that, by the time the appealed resolution was adopted, the CEC of the RF proceeded from the fact that the number of valid signatures, accepted as those collected in favor of Bryntsalov V.A. as a candidate for President of the Russian Federation, was 899,842, that was not sufficient to register the applicant as a candidate for President of the Russian Federation, since during the period from March 27 till March 29, 1996 approximately another 300,000 out of 1,198,284 signatures to be accepted were invalidated.

The signatures collected in the territory of the legal subjects of the Russian Federation including Moscow, the Karachaevo-Cherkesskaya Republic and the Belgorod region (case 92-94, 332) were completely invalidated (purged as invalid). As it comes out from the report (case -17 - 19) and explanations of the representatives of the CEC of the RF, 3306 signatures were purged from the amount collected in the Karachaevo-Cherkesskaya Republic, 4373 signatures out of 33,251 signatures collected in the Belgorod region were rejected, and 5147 signatures were purged out of 70,000 signatures collected in Moscow (case -14 - 15).

Thus, by the time the resolution denying the registration of Bryntsalov V.A. as a candidate for President of the Russian Federation, the CEC of the RF had purged additional 35,826 signatures collected in the territory of the Karachaevo-Cherkesskaya Republic (39,131 - 3306), 28,878 signatures collected in the Belgorod region (33251 -4373), and 64,853 signatures collected in Moscow (70,000 - 5147).

This fact was not denied by the representatives of the CEC of the RF.

The total number of the additional rejected signatures collected in the aforesaid three legal subjects of the Russian Federation amounted to 129,556 signatures.

According to the explanations of the representatives of the CEC of the RF, the report (case -332) and petitions examined at the court, 129,556 signatures were purged additionally from the petitions collected in the aforesaid three legal subjects of the Russian Federation during the period of March 27 to March 29, 1996, since the CEC of the RF, having conducted an additional verification, concluded that the representatives had submitted false information about signature collectors who allegedly collected signatures in those three legal subjects of the Russian Federation.

This fact is also confirmed by the minutes of the session of the CEC of the RF dated March 29, 1996 and other materials related to the case.

In particular, according to the explanations of the representatives of the CEC of the RF and the report (case - 332) and other documents regarding fraudulent information about collector Salpagarov R.S. contained in the petitions endorsed by authorized representative of the initiative group Moscovskaya Z.I., that were collected in the territory of the Karachaevo-Cherkesskaya Republic, by the time the appealed resolution was adopted, in addition to 3306 signatures another 35,825 signatures were invalidated.

The representatives of the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation explained that by March 29, 1996 the Commission, after having conducted a thorough verification of the petitions by formal signs as of March 27, 1996 (case -154 and 241), had rejected another 127,000 signatures and revealed fraudulent information about a number of signature collectors, including Salpagarov R.S. in the Karachaevo-Cherkesskaya Republic.

Hence, according to the report of the Chairman of the Election Commission of the Karachaevo-Cherkesskaya Republic received by the CEC of the RF (case -210) Salpagarov Ramazan Seitovich does not reside at the address specified in the petition:

Koshevogo street, 6, settlement Uchkeken (case -310-311).

The CEC of the RF found this information sufficient to make a conclusion that Salpagarov R.S. listed in the petition as a signature collector is a fictitious person. And, since such fictitious (in the opinion of the CEC of the RF) data about the collector were certified by Moscovskaya Z.I., an authorized representative of the initiative group (case -310), consequently the Commission was entitled not to trust authorized representative Moscovskaya Z.I. in regard to other petitions submitted by other collectors. Since all petitions with voter signatures gathered by different collectors, inter alia in the Karachaevo-Cherkesskaya Republic, were certified only by authorized representative Moskovskay Z.I., all still remaining valid, by that time, signatures of voters in the Karachaevo-Cherkesskaya Republic totaled to 35,825 were purged, by the CEC of the RF, from the count as invalid.

Thus, the CEC of the RF additionally rejected the signatures collected in Moscow (those that remained valid by the time the appealed resolution was adopted).

As is evident form the explanations of the representatives of the CEC of the RF, the report of the Inspector of the Passport Division of the Main Department of Interior Affairs of Moscow (case -197), the results of the signature verification (case -14 - 19), the report (case - 332) and the minutes of the Commission session dated March 29, 1996 (case - 241 - 267) where the appealed Resolution was adopted, the CEC of the RF had received the information from the Interior Ministry agencies that one of the signature collectors in Moscow (the total number of such collectors amounted to 2000) Lastov Yu.S. was not ever registered at the address specified in the petition.

The Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation found the fact sufficient to invalidate all other signatures of moscovites remaining valid, by the time the resolution was adopted, since the petitions certified by one fictitious collector who (in the opinion of the CEC of the RF) does not exist at all, and all other Moscow petitions certified by other collectors, were endorsed by one and the same authorized representative Braga V.V. (case - 302 - 303) whom the CEC of the RF ( by its view) had all rights to distrust and, as a consequence, not to account all signatures collected in the region.

As is evident form the explanations of the representatives of the CEC of the RF, the report of the Chairman of the Election Commission of the Belgorod region (case -211), the results of the signature verification (case -14 - 19), the report (case - 332) and the minutes of the Commission session dated March 29 1996 (case - 241 - 267), the CEC of the RF, by the time the appealed resolution was adopted, had received the information from the Election Commission of the Belgorod region that only one of the signature collectors Mischenko Yu.A. did not reside at the address specified in the petition.

The CEC of the RF found this fact sufficient to purge all signatures collected in the Belgorod region remaining valid by that time, since Mischenko Yu. A. was a fictitious person (who does not exist at all) and Myagkov A.P. who was a sole authorized representative in the region, had endorsed both the fictitious data about collector Mischenko A.P., and all other petitions certified by other collectors in the region.

Resorting to such an approach for evaluation of similar data received from the regions, the CEC of the RF completely purged all signatures collected in other regions that remained valid by the time the appealed resolution was adopted.

Thus, another 19,399 rejected signatures were added to the previous 2896 signatures since there was no information about residential registration of collectors Sergeichenko A.V. and Sizova O.A. in Kursk (case - 180).

17,335 signatures collected in the Lipetsk region were added to previously purged 3960 signatures by the time the resolution was adopted since persons Meer V.P., Sotova Yu.A., Zubkova L.N., Inozemtseva N.A. and Ushakov A.S. whose petitions had been endorsed by one and the same authorized representative Frolikova M.E. were reported fictitious.

Bryntsalov V.A., counsel Saperova N.L. and the authorized representatives of the initiative group of voters stated at the court session that after March 27, 1996, when the CEC of the RF regarded 1,198,284 signatures valid, the staff of the Commission stopped informing the applicant and the authorized representatives of the initiative group of voters about the progress of the further verification and providing information about signature collectors that seemed dubious to them, so the applicant, his legal counsel and authorized representatives only at the court session got aware of the names of the collectors whom the CEC of the RF had found fictitious and only after that time they could start obtaining evidence refuting the reasoning of the CEC of the RF.

The representatives of the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation at the beginning of the court session did not denied that statement, putting forward a reason that according to Clause II, Article 30 of he Federal Law «On Election of President of the Russian Federation» authorized representatives of initiative group of voters, candidates for President of the Russian Federation and their agents are entitled to attend the procedure of verification of petitions and other documents by the CEC of the RF, but not to get required information.

This statement is found unreasonable.

The clause of the Federal Law cited by the representatives of the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation applies only to one specific right of the above persons i.e. to attend the signature verification procedure, however, it does not cover other rights of citizens.

In accordance with Clause 4, Article 29 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation each citizen is entitled to seek and obtain information by any legal way.

According to Article 2 of the Law of the Russian Federation «On Appealing Actions, and Decisions, Violating Rights and Freedoms of Citizens in the Court» dated April 27, 1993 with further amendments and alterations, each citizen has the right to get, and officials, state employees are bound to provide such a citizen with an opportunity to get familiar with documents and materials that directly affect his rights and freedoms, unless federal laws impose limitations to the access to the information contained in such documents and materials.

The information contained in the documents submitted by the authorized representatives and additional information obtained by the CEC of the RF regarding the petitions clearly and objectively related to the rights and freedoms of the authorized representatives of initiative group of voters and the candidate for President of the Russian Federation, thus, the officials of the CEC of the RF should have made available the documents and materials that served the ground for the further (after March 27, 1996) rejection of voter signatures after which the applicant was denied in registration as a candidate for President of the Russian Federation due to the insufficient amount of signatures in favor of the candidate.

Then the representatives of the CEC of the RF changed their position stating that the applicant and authorized representatives were informed about the reasons for the further rejection of signatures and the names of the collectors that seemed dubious to the officials of the CEC of the RF.

However, this statement is incorrect, since it is refuted by complaints submitted to the CEC of the RF and the General Procurator Office of the Russian Federation by Bryntsalov V.A. after March 27, 1996, and the minutes of the Central Election Commission session held on March 29, 1996, which evidences that Bryntsalov V.A. and authorized groups repeatedly referred to the illegal actions of the CEC officials who had not stated, after March 27, 1996, the reasons for the further purge of collectors in dubious petitions.

Bryntsalov V.A. stated at the session of the Election Commission that he had demanded that the CEC of the RF should tell him the names of the signature collectors found suspicious by the CEC of the RF, so that he could find them and show to the Commission to dispel all doubts concerning the data contained in the petitions (case -251), (as he did regarding collectors Titarenko N.N. and Tyurin, as a result of the check up, not all signatures collected in the Moscow region and the Krasnoyarsk krai were rejected).

As comes out from the explanations of Mr. Beloborodov A.G. presenting at the session of the CEC of the RF (case -253 - 253 reverse), he decided not to inform the applicant and authorized representatives (after March 27, 1996) about the results of the verifying check up at site in order to prevent information disclosure.

The applicant and authorized representatives of initiative group of voters submitted to the court various evidence that completely refuted, in the court's opinion, the conclusions of the CEC of the RF about fictitious signature collectors in a number of legal subjects of the Russian Federation and consequently refuted the reasons, provided by the CEC of the RF, for purging all voter signatures in the regions.

Thus, Mr. Salpagarov R.S., a signature collector in the Karachaevo-Cherkesskaya Republic, who was considered a fictitious person which resulted in rejecting 35,825 signatures, confirmed in a cable forwarded to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation that he had collected signatures in favor of Bryntsalov V.A. (case -275).

The Chairman of Election Commission of the Karachaevo-Cherkesskaya Republic in his letter of April 3, 1996 (case -322) stated that during the repeat check up it was found that collector Salpagarov R.S. in fact resided at the address: Koshevogo street, 16 (not 6), Uchkeken settlement. The fact is also confirmed by the copy of Salpagarov's application certified by the election commission of the Karachaevo-Cherkesskaya Republic.

The representatives of the CEC of the RF admitted the fact that Salpagarov R.S. was not a fictitious person and did not objected to the applicant's statement that he had collected signatures in the Karachaevo-Cherkesskaya Republic.

Their argument that Salpagarov R.S. misstated his place of residence in different petitions (case -320 - 321) cannot be regarded evidence that authorized representative Moscovskaya Z.I. endorsed the petitions with fraudulent data about the collector.

Hence, the CEC of the RF had no legal reasons to reject all remaining by March 29, 1996 signatures, gathered by all collectors in the territory of the Karachaevo-Cherkesskaya Republic.

Bryntsalov V.A. stated in the court that only those signatures that had been gathered by the collector, who actually exists, might be rejected if there were discrepancies and inaccuracies in the petitions certified by Salpagarov R.S..

Thus, the CEC of the RF with no good reason invalidated, even without the signatures collected by Salpagarov R.S. (the number of those signatures does not exceed 600), over 35,000 (35,825 - 600) signatures.

Mr. Lastov Yu.S. was interrogated at the court as a witness. He stated that he had actually collected signatures to support Bryntsalov V.A.

The fact that he miswrote the series and number of passports and some other data cannot serve the ground for rejecting all signatures collected in Moscow by other (about 2000) collectors only for the reason that those petitions were endorsed by authorized representative Braga V.V. since collector Lastov Yu.S. is a real, not fictitious, person.

Discrepancies he made while completing the petitions may, under certain circumstances, serve the ground for rejecting the signatures he collected, and Bryntsalov V.A. did not object to that.

Therefore, even neglecting the signatures collected by Lastov Yu.S. (the number of such signatures does not exceed 250) the CEC of the RF improperly purged over 64,000 signatures gathered by other collectors (64,853 - 250) only for the above reason.

An argument of the representatives of the CEC of the RF that Lastov Yu. S. was younger than 18 at the time he collected signatures (he was engaged in collecting in February 1996, and became 18 only on March 31, 1996) and was not entitled to collect signatures was found unreasonable.

Lastov Yu.S. acted in a capacity of a collector as a citizen, not as a voter, so the clause of the law that only persons of 18 may be voters does not apply to Lastov Yu.S. The authorized representatives of initiative group of voters presented to the court a labor agreement and a bill (case -328 - 2 - 329) that evidenced that the initiative group of voters and Lastov Yu.S. had concluded a contract for signature collection in favor of Bryntsalov V.A. under which Lastov Yu.S. was paid 1000 rubles for each signature and got 100,000 rubles in advance.

The federal laws do not state that a signature collector must be a citizen of the Russian Federation 18 years old.

The court, on the basis of the above, holds that the statement, contained in Clause 3.7. of Explanations «On the Procedure of Voter Signature Collection in Favor of a Candidate for President of the Russian Federation, Acceptance and Verification of Petitions and Other Documents to be Submitted by Authorized Representatives of Electoral Associations, Electoral Blocs, Initiative Groups of Voters to the CEC of the RF» approved by the Resolution of the CEC of the RF dated January 22, 1996, that an electoral association, electoral bloc, initiative group of voters is entitled to assign a signature collection task to a Russian Federation citizen of 18 on the basis of Clause II of Article 120 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, is contradicting the law, and the court makes a decision on the basis of the law rather than the above act of the CEC of the RF.

Besides even if Lastov Yu. S. due to his young age were not entitled to collect signatures, that fact could have served the ground for rejecting the signatures that he had collected rather than all signatures gathered by other collectors in Moscow.

Citizen Mischenko Yu.A. was also interrogated at the court session who stated that he had actually collected signatures in favor of Bryntsalov V.A. among voters of the Belgorod region.

Discrepancies and inaccuracies made by collector Mischenko in petitions (including the data about the collector himself) may not serve a good reason for rejecting all signatures of voters in the Belgorod region gathered by other collectors only on the ground that all petitions in the region were endorsed by authorized representative Myagkov A.P. since the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation, the additional (after March 27, 1996) rejecting of all signatures based on the assumption that Mischenko Yu.A. is a fictitious person, however, this person actually exists.

Even if the signatures of the Belgorod region voters collected by Mischenko Yu.A. are neglected (their amount does not exceed 300) the CEC of the RF had no right to invalidated over 28,000 voter signatures gathered by other collectors (28,879 - 300).

The applicant and the authorized representatives of initiative group of voters provided evidence that refuted to conclusions made by the CEC of the RF about the allegedly fictitious persons who collected signatures in other regions of Russia, in particular, the Lipetsk region, Ryazan region, Kursk region, Chelyabinsk region and Penza region, which proves that the CEC's rejection of all signatures collected in other legal subject of the Russian Federation on the ground of allegedly fictitious but actually real collectors was contrary to law.

The illegitimately rejected, by the time the appealed resolution was adopted, signatures collected in the territory of the above three legal subjects of the Russian Federation (the Karachaevo-Cherkesskaya Republic, the city of Moscow, the Belgorod region) exceed 127,000 signatures that should have been accepted by the time the CEC of the RF issued the resolution denying the registration of Bryntsalov V.A. as a candidate for President of the Russian Federation, together with 899,842 signatures accepted by the CEC of the RF account for over a million voter signatures required for registration a candidate for President of the Russian Federation (127,000 + 899,842).

Having taken into account the above circumstances the court holds that the appealed resolution of the CEC of the RF denying registration of Bryntsalov V.A. as a candidate for President of the Russian Federation is illegal, since the only ground for its issue was an erroneous conclusion (that was completely refuted at the court session), made by the CEC of the RF about a fictitious nature of a number of signature collectors that led to the illegitimate rejection of at least 127,000 signatures collected in favor of the candidate.

The above number of signatures together with 899,842 signatures accepted by the CEC of the RF makes the number of signatures required for Bryntsalov V.A. to be registered as a candidate for President of the Russian Federation.

The representatives of the CEC of the RF did not deny the fact that the conclusion about a fictitious nature of a number of persons specified in the petitions as signature collect (in particular, in the Karachaevo-Cherkesskaya Republic, the Belgorod region, and the city of Moscow,) that served the ground for purging 127,000 voter signatures, was completely refuted by evidence presented by the applicant in the course of the proceedings.

In compliance with Clause IV, Article 35 of the Federal Law «On Election of President of the Russian Federation» a candidate for President of the Russian Federation may be denied in registration only if he/she violates the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the above Federal Law.

The sole ground for denying the registration of Bryntsalov V.A. as a candidate for President of the Russian Federation provided by the CEC of the RF was the failure of the authorized representatives of initiative group of voters to comply with Clause I Article 34 of the Federal Law in respect of collecting at least one million signatures in favor of a candidate.

However, this statement was completely refuted at the court session.

In such situation the court holds that in compliance with Clause 8, Article 21 of the Federal Law the resolution of to CEC of the RF shall be canceled as contradicting the Federal Law since there is no legitimate grounds for denying the registration of Bryntsalov V.A. as a candidate for President of the Russian Federation.

The statement by the representatives of the CEC of the RF that, after the appealed resolution was adopted the information about fictitious persons stated in the petitions as signature collectors and about other discrepancies made allegedly during the collection of signatures continue to come, cannot be taken by the court as a legitimate fact important to the case.

The subject of the complaint is the resolution adopted by of the CEC of the RF on March 29, 1996.

According to Claus 1, Article 35 of he Federal Law «On Election of President of the Russian Federation» the CEC of the RF should, within 10 days after the day the documents were delivered, verify that the procedure of nomination of a candidate for President of the Russian Federation matches the provisions of the Federal Law.

The resolution denying registration of the candidate was issued a day prior to the expiration of the ten day term.

The court, taking into account the evidence and the explanations of the representatives of the CEC of the RF recognizes the right of the Election Commission to take a decision regarding registration of a candidate at any time before the expiration of the ten day period, if it finds sufficient the measures undertaken to verify the procedure for nominating a candidate for President of the Russian Federation (including petition completion and purging voter signatures).

However, the Federal Law does not stipulate a possibility to continue verifying the compliance of a candidate nomination procedure with the requirements of the Federal Law (including verification of petitions and their purge) after the decision to register of to deny registration of a candidate has been made.

On the basis of the above, the court cannot use the information received by the CEC of the RF after the resolution was adopted, while adjudicating complaints regarding a specific resolution. The court cannot agree with the arguments of the representatives of the CEC of the RF about the legitimate nature of the purge of all signatures contained in the petitions forwarded to the General Procurator Office for additional verification

To support the statement the representatives of the Commission referred to Clause 4.3. of the Explanation of the CEC of the RF dated January 22, 1996 under which the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation, if it finds dubious the information or voter signatures contained in the petitions, is entitled to arrange a relevant additional verification of the petitions and make a decision to send the petitions to the corresponding agencies of preliminary investigation. In this case all petitions contained signatures sent to such agencies are not included in the total number of voter signatures collected in favor of a candidate for President of the Russian Federation.

Based on Clause II, Article 120 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation the court cannot be guided by this provision of the state agency act since it contradicts the law.

The federal election laws do not regulate the procedure for verifying petitions and their purge.

However, the above laws do not contain provisions allowing the CEC of the RF to neglect all petitions sent for investigation to the relevant agencies only if the election commission finds dubious the information or voter signatures contained in the petitions,

According to Cause 3 , Article 35 of the Federal Law «On Election of President of the Russian Federation» in case of doubts in authenticity of such data the CEC of the RF is entitled to arrange verification of the petitions.

Rejecting the signatures, in the court opinion, may be made only under certain circumstances after the relevant verification.

In his final statement Procurator of the General Procurator Office of the Russian Federation KLharlanov A.V. recognizing the legitimate right of the court to cancel the illegitimate resolution of the CEC of the RF and making it register Bryntsalov V.A. as a candidate for President of the Russian Federation, at the same time suggested that the appealed resolution should be canceled, however, the petitions should be sent for additional verification without obliging the CEC of the RF to register the candidate.

However, with due regard to the evidence to this case and in compliance with the provisions of the federal laws, the court holds it has the right and must restore the lawful rights of applicant Bryntsalov V.A. and the initiative group of voters that by canceling the resolution denying the candidate in registration and by obliging the CEC of the RF to register Bryntsalov V.A. as a candidate for President of the Russian Federation.

According to the above reasons the court unambiguously determined that the CEC of the RF illegitimately and with no good reason invalidated a certain number of voter signatures. The total number of illegitimately purged signatures in the mentioned three legal subjects of the Russian Federation and 899,842 signatures accepted by the CEC of the RF exceed one million signatures required for the registration.

The court having concluded that the initiative group of voters met the provision of the law concerning the required one million voter signatures in no way exceeded its powers since the statement of the CEC of the RF about fictitious persons specified in the petitions as signature collectors had been refuted at the court session, which was not denied by the Commission representatives.

As is evident form their explanation and the information provided by the CEC of the RF (case 154), the CEC of the RF, when discrepancies and inaccuracies in the data and signatures contained in the petitions (in particular, if the signature of a collector , or a voter signature are not available, if a collector address or the place of residence or passport details are incomplete or inaccurate) or other violations were revealed , rejected all signatures (or part of signatures) collected only be such collectors.

As is stated above, even without all signatures collected by Salpagarov R.S. in the Karachaevo-Cherkesskaya Republic, Lastov Yu.S. in the city of Moscow and Mischenko Yu.A. in the Belgorod region, over one million signatures of voters have been collected in favor of candidate Bryntsalov V.A.

In compliance with Article 7 of the Law of the Russian Federation «On Appealing Actions and Decisions Violating Rights and Freedoms of Citizens in Court», a court having found a complaint grounded, rules an appealed action (decision) illegal, and ensures satisfaction of a citizen's claim, and restores his/her violated rights and freedoms.

In compliance with Article 2397 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Russian Federation a court, having found the complaint grounded, rules that the relevant state agencies, public organizations or officials are obliged to completely remedy the committed violation of rights and freedoms of a citizen

Since it was unambiguously determined at the court session that the initiative group of voters that nominated Bryntsalov V.A. as a candidate for President of the Russian Federation met the requirement concerning the collection of one million signatures, the requirement that was the sole reason for denying registration of the candidate, and the CEC of the RF put forward an argument that the number of collected signatures was less than one million, the court holds that the claim of Bryntsalov V.A. should be satisfied and the CEC of the RF should be obliged to register him as a candidate for President of the Russian Federation, thus, restoring the applicant's rights and freedoms infringed upon by the illegal resolution of the CEC of the RF. At the same time the court takes into account that the parties involved were suggested to settle the dispute in an amicable way, provided that the CEC of the RF would conduct a repeat verification of the petitions, but the representatives of the CEC of the RF rejected the proposal, stating that an initiative group of voters is not entitled to provide additional signatures for such verification (as was stated by Bryntsalov V.A. the authorized representatives could provide additionally collected signatures, the number of which would exceed a million).

In addition the representatives of the CEC of the RF stated that the court should itself assess the evidence to the case and settle the dispute.

Based on the above, guided by Articles 191 - 237, 231 - 232, 2397 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

rules:

to satisfy the complaint of Bryntsalov Vladimir Alekseevich

to cancel Resolution of the CEC of the RF No 84/698-11 «date March 29, 1996 «On Denying the Registration Candidate for President of the Russian Federation Bryntsalov V.A. Nominated by Initiative Group of Voters».

to oblige the CEC of the RF to register Bryntsalov V.A. as a candidate for President of the Russian Federation and give him a registration certificate with the date and time of issue being specified.

The decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation is final and is not subject to appeal.

Judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation /s/ A.I. Fedin

Certified: Judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation /s/







© Copyright , 1999-2021