DOCSLIB.ORG

Annual Report 2010

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Annual Report 2010 Provisional version EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME All or part of this document may be freely reproduced with acknowledgment of the source “Annual Report 2010 of the European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe” Cover: the Human Rights Building (Architects: Richard Rogers Partnership and Atelier Claude Bucher) – Photograph: Frantisek Zvardon – Graphic design: Publications Unit of the Registry of the Court © Council of Europe, January 2011 CONTENTS Page Foreword ............................................................................................................................. 5 I. History and development of the Convention system................................................. 7 II. Composition of the Court .......................................................................................... 19 III. Composition of the Sections...................................................................................... 23 IV. Speech given by Mr Jean-Paul Costa, President of the European Court of Human Rights, on the occasion of the opening of the judicial year, 29 January 2010 .......... 27 V. Speech given by Mr Jean-Marc Sauvé, Vice-President of the French Conseil d’Etat, on the occasion of the opening of the judicial year, 29 January 2010........... 37 VI. Visits.......................................................................................................................... 47 VII. Activities of the Grand Chamber and Sections ......................................................... 51 VIII. Publication of the Court’s case-law........................................................................... 57 IX. Short survey of the main judgments and decisions delivered by the Court in 2010 65 X. Selection of judgments, decisions and communicated cases..................................... 83 Judgments .................................................................................................................. 85 Decisions ................................................................................................................... 107 Communicated cases................................................................................................. 115 XI. Cases accepted for referral to the Grand Chamber and cases in which jurisdiction was relinquished by a Chamber in favour of the Grand Chamber ............................ 119 XII. Statistical information ............................................................................................... 123 Events in total (2009-2010) ....................................................................................... 125 Pending cases allocated to a judicial formation at 31 December 2010, by respondent State......................................................................................................... 126 Pending cases allocated to a judicial formation at 31 December 2010 (main respondent States)...................................................................................................... 127 Events in total, by respondent State (2010)............................................................... 128 Violations by Article and by respondent State (2010) .............................................. 130 Applications processed in 2010................................................................................. 132 Applications allocated to a judicial formation (1955-2010)...................................... 133 European Court of Human Rights – Annual Report 2010 (provisional version) Contents Events in total, by respondent State (1 November 1998-31 December 2010) .......... 134 Applications declared inadmissible or struck out (1955-2010)................................. 136 Judgments (1959-2010)............................................................................................. 137 Applications struck out by a decision or judgment following a friendly settlement or unilateral declaration (1959-2010)........................................................................ 138 Allocated applications by State and by population (2007-2010) .............................. 139 FOREWORD The year 2010, which was the sixtieth anniversary of the European Convention on Human Rights, has been an important year for the European Court of Human Rights. For several years the non-entry into force of Protocol No. 14 had blocked a process of reform that had become indispensable for the future of our Court. Strasbourg’s judicial mechanism, which had been stretched to the limit as a result of the attraction it holds for European citizens and the trust placed in it by them, was in dire need of a new lease of life that only the entry into force of that Protocol could provide. At the end of 2009 encouraging signs from Moscow raised hopes that ratification by the Russian Federation would be forthcoming. Those hopes turned out to be founded because Protocol No. 14 was ratified on 18 February 2010 and accordingly came into force on 1 June 2010. Ratification took place at the Interlaken Conference, which was held on 18 and 19 February 2010 and hosted by the Swiss authorities during their chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. That conference was the other major event of the year for our Court. Switzerland’s positive response to a call for the organisation of a major political conference on the Court’s future, which I had voiced during the official opening ceremony of 2009, made it possible to carve out the path necessary for the survival of the European system for the protection of human rights. There will now be a “before” and an “after” Interlaken. The idea of a conference had been mooted in a somewhat subdued climate, particularly for the reasons indicated above. However, Interlaken has kept its promises. Firstly, and this was its first objective, the conference gave the States an opportunity to reaffirm their commitment to human rights and the Court. This was demonstrated by the very high number of participants at ministerial level. Next, and above all, the efforts invested by everyone bore fruit and resulted in a political Declaration being adopted, to much acclaim, in which the States undertake to ensure the protection of human rights, and in an Action Plan which constitutes the basis of future reforms. The Declaration and Action Plan are of course addressed to the States, but also to the Court, and at the end of the conference decisions were taken allowing the Court to fully play its part in implementation. The avenues mapped out are numerous: simplification of the procedure for amending the European Convention on Human Rights with the creation of a Statute for the Court approved and modified by resolution of the Committee of Ministers; strengthening of the subsidiarity principle which implies shared responsibility between the States and the Court; increasing the clarity and consistency of the case-law, which must be as clearly explained as possible. One of the other results of the Interlaken Conference has been the creation of a Panel of Experts on the appointment of judges to the European Court of Human Rights. This Panel, which I had advocated and whose composition has been decided by the Committee of Ministers, will certainly contribute, through the opinions it will give to the States, to endowing the Court with judges having all the requisite expertise. This is especially important since the Court’s authority depends to a large extent on the quality of the judges who are members of it. There are going to be a large number of new judges arriving in the next two years, in particular because the term of office, which is now nine years, is no longer renewable. The Panel will thus have a crucial role to play. 5 European Court of Human Rights – Annual Report 2010 (provisional version) Foreword An important aspect of the Action Plan concerns the role of the Court in providing information to applicants about the Convention and the case-law. That information is indispensable for the implementation of the Convention at domestic level. The Court has therefore set about the task of improving the HUDOC database. This should be facilitated by voluntary contributions from a number of States. Factsheets have also been launched and are regularly updated and supplemented by other information sheets. These can be found on the Court’s website. Initial reactions have been very favourable. Lastly, a guide to admissibility criteria is now available to all. It is mainly intended for professionals, such as NGOs and bar associations, and will give them guidance on the procedure before the Court. Informing the public in this way is particularly important given the Court’s ever- increasing caseload. Indeed, as all these changes are being implemented, the Court’s judicial activity has not decreased. By the end of the year we had received 61,300 new applications, a 7% increase in comparison to 2009. In terms of production, the Court had finished processing over 41,000 applications, i.e. an increase of more than 16%. More than 2,600 applications ended in a judgment, which is a 9% increase. The number of communications to the Governments increased by 8% and reached almost 6,700. The major problem is that our backlog is also continuing to grow. By the end of the year it had reached approximately 140,000 applications, which is an increase of 17%. The deficit at the end of 2010 amounted to more than 1,600 applications per month. One of the challenges in the coming years will
Recommended publications
  • Final 05/09/2014

    Final 05/09/2014

    FIFTH SECTION CASE OF KÜBLER v. GERMANY (Application no. 32715/06) JUDGMENT (Just satisfaction – Strike-out) STRASBOURG 5 June 2014 FINAL 05/09/2014 This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. KÜBLER v. GERMANY 1 (JUST SATISFACTION – STRIKE-OUT) JUDGMENT In the case of Kübler v. Germany, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Mark Villiger, President, Boštjan M. Zupančič, Ann Power-Forde, Vincent A. De Gaetano, André Potocki, Helena Jäderblom, judges, Bertram Schmitt, ad hoc judge, and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 13 May 2014, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 32715/06) against the Federal Republic of Germany lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a German national, Mr Tobias Kübler (“the applicant”), on 9 August 2006. The applicant was represented by Mr C. Lenz and Mr T. Würtenberger, lawyers practising in Stuttgart. The German Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Mrs A. Wittling-Vogel and Mr H.- J. Behrens, of the Federal Ministry of Justice. 2. Renate Jaeger, the judge elected in respect of Germany, was unable to sit in the case (Rule 28). The Government accordingly appointed Mr B. Schmitt to sit as an ad hoc judge. 3. In a judgment delivered on 13 January 2011 (“the principal judgment”), the Court held that there had been a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention since the Baden-Württemberg Ministry of Justice had failed to comply with an interim injunction issued by the Federal Constitutional Court upon the applicant’s request to reserve a position as advocate notary (Kübler v.
  • Comments on the Law on Occupied

    Comments on the Law on Occupied

    Strasbourg, 4 March 2009 CDL(2009)045* Opinino no. 516/2009 Engl.only EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) COMMENTS ON THE LAW ON OCCUPIED TERRITORIES OF GEORGIA Ms Angelika NUSSBERGER (Substitute Member, Germany) *This document has been classified restricted on the date of issue. Unless the Venice Commission decides otherwise, it will be declassified a year after its issue according to the rules set up in Resolution CM/Res(2001)6 on access to Council of Europe documents. This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. www.venice.coe.int CDL(2009)045 - 2 - Introduction The Monitoring Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly has asked the Venice Commission to assess the law of Georgia “On occupied territories of Georgia” which was enacted on 23 October 2008. The reporters were provided with an English translation of the relevant law as well as with additional information, i.e. an extract of the Criminal Code of Georgia (Articles 322/1 and 344), an extract of the Georgian Law on General Education (Article 63/1) and an extract of the Georgian Law on High Education (Article 89/1). They were also sent “Information regarding the criminal charges being brought against foreigners having breached the law on occupied territories”. The “Law on Occupied Territories of Georgia” is based on the perception that the two break- away regions of the Republic of Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, are part of the Republic of Georgia, but are illegally occupied by the Russian Federation. This understanding is clearly expressed by the reference to the sovereignty and integrity of Georgia in the preamble to the law and the qualification of the presence of military forces as “illegal military occupation of the territory of a sovereign country”.
  • European Court of Human Rights

    European Court of Human Rights

    FIFTH SECTION CASE OF UZUN v. GERMANY (Application no. 35623/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 2 September 2010 FINAL 02/12/2010 This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. UZUN v. GERMANY JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Uzun v. Germany, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Peer Lorenzen, President, Renate Jaeger, Karel Jungwiert, Mark Villiger, Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, Ganna Yudkivska, judges, and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 29 June 2010, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 35623/05) against the Federal Republic of Germany lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a German national, Mr Bernhard Uzun (“the applicant”), on 24 September 2005. The applicant, who had changed his surname from Falk to Uzun during the proceedings before the domestic courts, readopted his original family name Falk in 2009. 2. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Mr . Comes, a lawyer practising in Cologne. The German Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs A. Wittling-Vogel, Ministerialdirigentin, of the Federal Ministry of Justice. 3. The applicant alleged that the surveillance measures he had been subjected to, in particular his observation via GPS, and the use of the data obtained thereby in the criminal proceedings against him, had violated his right to respect for his private life under Article 8 of the Convention and his right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention.
  • The German Federal Constitutional Court and Its Two European Neighbours

    The German Federal Constitutional Court and Its Two European Neighbours

    chapter 10 A Law Love Triangle? The German Federal Constitutional Court and Its Two European Neighbours Vanessa Hellmann 10.1 Introduction Germany1 and Slovenia2 are only two examples for countries in Europe which have transferred judicial power to international and supranational bodies. In fact all 47 member states of the Council of Europe, including not only Ger- many and Slovenia but also Norway,3 the United Kingdom4 and Switzerland,5 transferred judicial power to an international body, and all 28 (27)6 member states of the European Union, including Germany and Slovenia, transferred judicial power to a supranational body. As all member states of the European Union are also member states of the Council of Europe they all transferred judicial power to an international and a supranational body, Germany7 and Slovenia8 among them. All these countries find themselves not only operat- ing within their own national court systems but in a complicated internation- al framework where the judicial power transferred to the Council of Europe is exercised by the European Court of Human Rights and the judicial power transferred to the European Union is exercised by the European Court of Jus- tice. The decisions of both courts are binding for the Member States, and the decisions of both courts have a deep impact on their national law and their national court systems. This chapter focuses on Germany and the German Fed- eral Constitutional Court to explore this impact. 1 See the country report above Chapter 3 Germany, section 3.3. 2 See the country report above Chapter 4 Slovenia, section 4.3.
  • Here Only Five Per Cent of the 168 Ad Hoc Panelists Who Served During the GATT Period Were Women

    Here Only Five Per Cent of the 168 Ad Hoc Panelists Who Served During the GATT Period Were Women

    Celebrating women in WTO dispute settlement The WTO dispute settlement system recently reached a milestone, when a woman was selected to serve on a panel for the 100th time since the establishment of the WTO in 1995. This represents an achievement not only for the WTO, but for international adjudication more generally. Traditionally, women have not been well represented on international adjudicative bodies. For example, during its more than 75 years of operation, almost all judges of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have been male. Only four women have been elected to the ICJ, the first ever in 19951, and four women have served temporarily as ad hoc judges in specific cases before the Court.2 One woman, Dame Rosalyn Higgins, has served as President of the Court. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea has a shorter yet similar history. Only one woman has been elected to the Tribunal out of a total of 41 judges elected since August 19963, and no women have served temporarily as ad hoc judges in specific cases. The field of investor-state arbitration has not fared much better. A 2015 study found that only 25 of the 499 arbitrators appointed in such disputes between the 1970s and the end of 2014 were women, making up approximately five per cent of the total.4 The European Court of Human Rights features slightly higher numbers, with 37 (or approximately 16 per cent) of the 184 judges elected since 1959 being women.5 Ms Işıl Karakaş of Turkey is currently serving as the Vice-President of the ECHR, following in the footsteps of one other woman Vice-President.6 The same tradition was found in international trade adjudication, where only five per cent of the 168 ad hoc panelists who served during the GATT period were women.
  • Draft Study on Individual Access to Constitutional Justice

    Draft Study on Individual Access to Constitutional Justice

    Strasbourg, 8 December 2010 CDL(2010)134* Study N° 538 / 2009 Or. Engl. EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) DRAFT STUDY ON INDIVIDUAL ACCESS TO CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTICE on the basis of comments by Mr Gaguik HARUTYUNYAN (Member, Armenia) Ms Angelika NUSSBERGER (Substitute Member, Germany) Mr Peter PACZOLAY (Member, Hungary) *This document has been classified restricted on the date of issue. Unless the Venice Commission decides otherwise, it will be declassified a year after its issue according to the rules set up in Resolution CM/Res(2001)6 on access to Council of Europe documents. This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. http://www.venice.coe.int CDL(2010)134 - 2 - Table of contents INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................6 GENERAL REMARKS......................................................................................................6 I. ACCESS TO CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW ................................................................15 I.1. TYPES OF ACCESS...................................................................................................16 I.1.1. Indirect access ....................................................................................................16 I.1.2. Direct access.......................................................................................................20 I.2. THE ACTS UNDER REVIEW ........................................................................................27
  • Equality in Germany and the United States

    Equality in Germany and the United States

    12 302008236 51PM EBERLEEBERLEF 12/30/2008 2:36:51 PM Equality in Germany and the United States EDWARD J. EBERLE* TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EQUAL PROTECTION METHODOLOGY ................................................................ 66 A . United States Law .................................................................................. 70 B . G erm an Law ......................................................................................... 73 IT. STRICT SCRUTINY: TRAITS COMPRISING SUSPECT CLASSES ............................... 76 A . Illegitim ate Children.............................................................................. 77 B. Transsexual Equal Protection II ............................................................ 81 C. Handicapped Student ........................................................................... 84 Ill. GENDER DISCRIMINATION: STRICT SCRUTINY .................................................. 88 A. M en Housekeepers ............................................................................... 89 B . Night W orker ........................................................................................ 91 C. M achinist........................................................................................... 96 D . Firefi ghter ............................................................................................. 98 E. M aternity L eave ....................................................................................... 100 F. United States Gender Equality................................................................
  • Members of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (2010)

    Members of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (2010)

    Members of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (2010) Mr. Mario ACKERMAN (Argentina), Director of the Labour Law and Social Security Department and Professor, Labour Law Chair, University of Buenos Aires; former adviser to the Parliament of Argentina; former Director of the Labour Police of the National Ministry of Labour and Social Security of the Republic of Argentina. Mr. Anwar Ahmad Rashed AL-FUZAIE (Kuwait), Docteur en droit; Professor of Law; Professor of Private Law of the University of Kuwait; attorney; former member of the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC); member of the Administrative Board of the Centre of Arbitration of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Kuwait; Member of the Governing Body of the International Islamic Centre for Mediation and Commercial Arbitration (Abu Dhabi); former Director of Legal Affairs of the Municipality of Kuwait; former Director of Legal Affairs of the Bank KFH; former Adviser to the Embassy of Kuwait in Paris. Mr. Denys BARROW S.C. (Belize), Justice of Appeal for the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court; former High Court Judge for Belize, Saint Lucia, Grenada and the British Virgin Islands; former Chairperson of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal in Belize; former member of the Committee of Experts for the Prevention of Torture in the Americas. Ms. Janice R. BELLACE (United States), Samuel Blank Professor and Professor of Legal Studies, Business Ethics and Management of the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania; Trustee and Founding President, Singapore Management University; Senior Editor, Comparative Labor Law and Policy Journal; President-elect of the International Industrial Relations Association; member of the Executive Board of the US branch of the International Society of Labor Law and Social Security; member of the Public Review Board of the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implements Workers’ Union; former Secretary of the Section on Labor Law, American Bar Association.
  • Anti-Discrimination Directive Anti-Discrimination

    Anti-Discrimination Directive Anti-Discrimination

    Demanding rights: EWL multiple strategies European Transgender Council, Malmö, 3rd October 2010 Alexandra Jachanova Dolezelova EWL Vice-President The voice of European Women The largest umbrella organisation of women’s associations in the EU, with more than 2500 member organisations Membership-based and centered Concentrating on European-level, but with activities from local to international level The main policy areas of EWL work: Violence against Women EU Gender equality legislation and policies Women in Decision-making /Parity Democracy Employment and Social Affairs Women and Health Women and the Media /Stereotypes Immigration, Integration and Asylum EU framework for gender equality EU legislation and policies on gender equality European Roadmap for equality between women and men 2006-2010 and new upcoming strategy European Gender Institute European Commission Advisory Committee on Gender Equality Building effective partnerships Campaigns at International and European level Strengthening regional cooperation between government agencies and NGOs Facilitating networking between NGOs that do no have access to European decision- makers Joint lobbying of EU institutions Building effective partnerships A. Campaigning at the International and European level Goal: reform of UN Gender Equality Architecture Launched in 2008 Global network of 307 NGOs GEAR Campaign Global Focal Points Regional Focal Points NY Lobbying Group Website: www.un-gear.eu • José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, Portugal • Bibiana Aido,
  • Comments on the Role of the Opposition

    Comments on the Role of the Opposition

    Strasbourg, 25 May 2009 CDL-DEM(2009)002* Or. Engl. Study no. 497/2008 EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) COMMENTS ON THE ROLE OF THE OPPOSITION by Ms Angelika NUSSBERGER (Substitute Member, Germany) *This document has been classified restricted on the date of issue. Unless the Venice Commission decides otherwise, it will be declassified a year after its issue according to the rules set up in Resolution CM/Res(2001)6 on access to Council of Europe documents. This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. www.venice.coe.int CDL-DEM(2009)002 - 2 - Legal assessment and standards concerning the role of the opposition in democratic regimes The Parliamentary Assembly has elaborated a comprehensive document on “Procedural guidelines on the rights and responsibilities of the opposition in a democratic parliament”. It is based on a comparative analysis of existing rules on the role, function and rights of the parliamentary opposition and also takes into account documents on topical discussions on new rules on this subject. Resolution No. 1601 (2008) summarizes procedural guidelines, but nevertheless stresses the necessity of a study on the role of opposition in modern democratic society by the Venice Commission. The Venice Commission had to deal with the role of parliamentary opposition when assessing the Draft Law on the Parliamentary Opposition in Ukraine (Opinion No. 422/2006, CDL-AD(2007)015. In this opinion the Commission doubts and reserves its position on “whether it is appropriate to regulate all questions concerning the opposition in a single law and, if so, what procedural guarantees in favour of the opposition need to exist in respect of the adoption of such a law by the majority (Para.
  • FORMER FIFTH SECTION CASE of KOCH V. GERMANY

    FORMER FIFTH SECTION CASE of KOCH V. GERMANY

    FORMER FIFTH SECTION CASE OF KOCH v. GERMANY (Application no. 497/09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 19 July 2012 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. KOCH v. GERMANY JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Koch v. Germany, The European Court of Human Rights (Former Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Peer Lorenzen, President, Renate Jaeger, Mark Villiger, Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, Zdravka Kalaydjieva, Ganna Yudkivska, judges, and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 23 November 2010 and 26 June 2012, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no. 497/09) against the Federal Republic of Germany lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a German national, Mr Ulrich Koch (“the applicant”), on 22 December 2008. 2. The applicant was represented by Mr D. Koch, a lawyer practising in Braunschweig. The German Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms A. Wittling-Vogel of the Federal Ministry of Justice, and by Mr C. Walter, Professor of international law. 3. The applicant alleged that the refusal to grant his late wife authorisation to acquire a lethal dose of drugs allowing her to end her life violated both her and his own right to respect for private and family life. He further complained about the domestic courts’ refusal to examine the merits of his complaint.
  • JOINT OPINION on the LAW on AMENDING SOME LEGISLATIVE ACTS on the ELECTION of the PRESIDENT of UKRAINE Adopted by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on 24 July 2009

    JOINT OPINION on the LAW on AMENDING SOME LEGISLATIVE ACTS on the ELECTION of the PRESIDENT of UKRAINE Adopted by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on 24 July 2009

    Strasbourg/Warsaw, 12 October 2009 CDL-AD(2009)040 Or. Engl. Opinion No. 546 / 2009 EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) JOINT OPINION ON THE LAW ON AMENDING SOME LEGISLATIVE ACTS ON THE ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE adopted by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on 24 July 2009 by the Venice Commission and the OSCE/ODIHR Adopted by the Council for Democratic Elections at its 30 th meeting (Venice, 8 October 2009) and by the Venice Commission at its 80 th Plenary Session (Venice, 9-10 October 2009) on the basis of comments by Ms Angelika NUSSBERGER (Substitute member, Venice Commission, Germany) Mr Jessie PILGRIM (Electoral expert, OSCE/ODIHR) This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. www.venice.coe.int CDL-AD(2009)040 - 2 - TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 3 II. Executive Summary........................................................................................................... 4 III. Discussion of the Presidential Election Law ..................................................................... 5 A. Nomination and Candidate Registration....................................................................... 5 B. Election Administration ................................................................................................. 7 C. Observers and Transparency....................................................................................