D. Limitations on candidacy rights

The 2011 joint opinion expressed concern over the possibility to cancel a candidate’s registration for a wide range of violations of the law, ranging from minor violations to more serious violations.[1] Although there is some improvement in the text of the draft law, concern remains due to broad and vague language found in articles of the draft law. Article 53(8) allows for cancellation of candidate registration “in the event of breach of the requirements specified herein” and for “violations of the abovementioned requirements”. It is not clear whether these phrases are intended to refer to all requirements of the draft law or just the requirements of Article 53. Further, Article 70(2) allows cancellation of candidate registration for violations of Articles 46, 77, 87, 102, and 108, and for “direct involvement of the candidate and his/her representatives in violation of election campaign rules”. Similar provisions apply to lists of candidates according to Article 70(3). As the OSCE/ODIHR and the Venice Commission previously noted, such provisions permit the cancellation of registration of a candidate for a variety of reasons; in many instances, the reasons for cancellation are disproportionate and the grounds are too wide. A variety of campaign violations can be the basis for cancellation of registration.[2] Revocation of candidate’s registration can be accepted as a sanction only in the last resort, and only if other sanctions cannot be considered proportional to the gravity of the violation committed by the candidate. In this connection, the possibility of revocation of candidate’s registration for any, even minor, violation of the election campaign rules cannot be considered in accordance with international standards. The provision of Article 70(3)(5), which provides for a possibility of revocation of the list of candidates if the violation of the campaign rules was committed by the leadership, or officials of an executive body or representatives of a political party, is even more problematic. These provisions could in particular be misused to “cancel” electoral opponents.

[1] See the 2011 joint opinion, paragraphs 27-31.

[2] Article 46(3)(3) prohibits the “use of telephone” of state institutions for the purpose of campaigning. Thus, making telephone calls on a government telephone could be the basis for cancellation of candidate registration.