Election results are the most crucial, visible and sensitive element of any electoral process, since they determine who is elected. They thus lead to satisfaction or on the contrary dissatisfaction of electoral stakeholders. This is why electoral disputes are often limited to complaints and appeals on election results. This is not necessarily restrictive despite it focuses all complaints related to any step of an electoral process on its election results. The importance of the issue implies to have a broad approach of the potential categories of electoral stakeholders able to challenge election results. However, opening too broadly the possibility for challenging election results may lead to abusive complaints with the only aim to block the system and prevent the relevant authority to announce the election results on time. In countries where the public trust in public authorities and in electoral processes is still fragile, a delayed announcement of election results may even lead to the contrary effect by raising suspicion against the electoral process and the electoral authority. For sure, candidates and voters are the primary categories of citizens directly impacted by potential frauds or irregularities that can drastically change the results. According to the data analysed, a small number of countries allow candidates to challenge election results, which seems surprising and may be explained by the absence of explicit provision in the law rather than by a ban for candidates to challenge the results. More countries – albeit a minority of those analysed – allow for voters to challenge election results. This is surprising as voters, and citizens as a whole, directly suffer from potential irregular election results. In this respect, the Code of good practice in electoral matters underlines that “[a]ll candidates and all voters registered in the constituency concerned must be entitled to appeal” and that “[a] reasonable quorum may be imposed for appeals by voters on the results of elections.”