Council of Europe activities on electoral matters - Follow-up to Parliamentary Assembly Resolution 1264 (2001) - CG (9) 26 Part II

Rapporteur:
Mr Llibert CUATRECASAS (Spain, R), Past-President of the Congress

---------------------

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

I. Recognition of a fund of knowledge and experience, exercise of a responsibility

1. The Congress must first of all congratulate the Parliamentary Assembly and its Political Affairs Committee for the idea of highlighting the knowledge and experience of the Council of Europe in the electoral sphere through the setting up, at European level, of a permanent discussion group, and the adoption of a legal reference text.

2. This initiative represents an important and necessary step, for it makes possible official recognition of the work done by the Council of Europe over the past decade in one of its areas of excellence1. The Assembly's initiative also enables the organisation to exercise an institutional responsibility in a Europe still looking for recognised bodies and legal reference points able to react speedily and effectively to its ceaseless developments.

3. The work done is mostly based on the efforts of countless delegations of observers sent by the Assembly and the Congress, from the early nineties onwards, to European countries which were, for the first time, holding democratic elections, or which were organising elections in a climate which did not guarantee observance of the minimum safeguards in respect of the legitimacy of the electoral process.

4. The presence during referendums and during presidential, legislative, regional or local elections of Assembly and Congress observers armed with good will, but particularly with humility and with a constructive attitude, has enabled the requisite confidence to be communicated to the electorate and the candidates concerned, in a framework of mutual recognition and respect.

5. This work of course drew on our organisation's common values; however, in order fully to attain the set objectives on the ground, it had to be based inter alia on each observer's good will and experience. In this respect, the Assembly and the Congress regret that these values and this experience have always lacked a basis of uniform rules clearly laid down at European level.

6. In spite of the difficulties which result from this shortcoming, the balance and competence provided by the observers have enabled the Council of Europe to give its views, with the necessary authority, as to the validity of the various electoral processes. However, if we leave these positive results aside, the fact remains that the European criteria and rules relating to electoral matters are highly fragmented. There is no formal text bringing together the basic rules on the conduct of elections, nor is there a permanent European body to supervise elections.

7. The Parliamentary Assembly's initiative also constitutes an act of institutional responsibility. Responsibility to the citizens of an enlarged Europe, confident in the progress of democracy, but also concerned to see this progress translated into balanced legal texts, obeyed by all and applicable to all, with account being taken of the diversity within our continent's local, regional and national communities.

8. The adoption by the Assembly of Resolution 1264 (2001) on a Code of good practice in electoral matters2 provided a full answer to these concerns. On the basis of the recommendations made in this resolution, in November 2001, a Council for Democratic Elections was finally set up within the Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission). This Council has enabled the existing co-operation between the Council of Europe bodies concerned with electoral matters to be made official, strengthening the complementary nature of their specific initiatives.

9. Bringing together members of the Venice Commission, the Assembly and the Congress3, this new European body started work in March 20024. In October the same year, in accordance with the wishes of the Assembly, the Council for Democratic Elections presented a draft Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters. This text, which is appended to this report, has finally been adopted by the Venice Commission5. Given the complexity of the issues dealt with, the Venice Commission deserves to be congratulated for reacting so speedily and efficiently to the Assembly's proposals.

10. The necessary foundations have been laid for the setting up within our organisation of a permanent discussion group and for the adoption of a legal reference text relating to elections. Congratulations are therefore in order for the fact that work has finally begun on an institutional and legal arsenal for our organisation in one of the fundamental areas of democratic life. This effort must now be continued.

2. The text of the Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters

11. The Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters draws on the guidelines in the report6 on which the Assembly’s resolution was based, as well as on the work done by the Venice Commission in the electoral sphere7. Its prime purpose is to harmonise the rules on election organisation and observation. It examines in greater detail both the procedures and the conditions in which the electoral process needs to be organised.

12. The Code is therefore intended to give indications to Council of Europe member states with a view to the constitutional principles of electoral law being complied with by all, on the basis of uniform rules. The approach it takes is a general one, leaving some discretion for states to take into consideration their own specific traditions and situations. The arrangements for the conduct of elections in practice depend to some extent on each country's political and cultural traditions and positive law.

13. When it drew up the Code, the Council for Democratic Elections took account of the activities relating to electoral matters carried out by a number of international organisations [European Union (Commission, Parliament), OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), Association of Central and Eastern European Election Officials (ACEEEO)].
14. The Code consists of guidelines, which form its core, and an explanatory report. In the first part, the guidelines set down the principles of Europe’s fund of electoral knowledge and experience, based on the constitutional principles of electoral law. The chapter on universal suffrage analyses the rules and the possible or necessary exceptions to them, and also examines the conditions required for reliable electoral registers to be drawn up and for candidatures to be submitted without undue hindrance.

15. The chapter on equal suffrage states that this must encompass equal voting rights, equal voting power and equality of opportunity, and it contains sub-chapters on national minorities and gender equality. A third chapter, on free suffrage, looks more closely at the free formation and free expression of the voter's wishes, as well as at the combating of electoral fraud. The following chapters describe secret ballots, direct suffrage and the frequency of elections.

16. The second part of the guidelines looks at the basic conditions of a state governed by the rule of law which have to be complied with if truly democratic elections are to be held. So this part looks in succession at the conditions for implementation of these principles, such as the honouring of fundamental rights, the stability of electoral law and effective procedural guarantees, presupposing the organisation of the ballot by an impartial body, strict rules on the observation of the elections and the existence of an effective appeal system.

17. The explanatory report looks in detail at the principles set down in the guidelines. It defines and details these, including recommendations on specific points. It also has two parts, one on the definition, the other on the conditions for implementation, of the underlying principles of European electoral systems.

3. An effort which must be continued

18. In Resolution 1264, the Parliamentary Assembly pointed to some activities in addition to those already described in sections 1 and 2 of this report. Among these activities are the creation, again at the Council of Europe, of a database containing the underlying principles of European electoral systems. This database will have to include member states' electoral legislation. Links will be able to be established with Venice Commission documents, the reports on the observation of elections drawn up by the Assembly and Congress, and the other relevant databases which exist in Europe. The database should also refer to the reports drawn up by the relevant Council of Europe bodies referring to specific problems connected with the election process. In this context, the Congress' recent report on women’s individual voting rights: a democratic requirement8 represents a significant example.

19. In parallel, in the light of the wishes expressed by the Assembly, the Council for Democratic Elections might be instructed to draw up a questionnaire appropriately covering the general principles of the Code. This questionnaire, which would be processed by computer, would cover both the conduct of the ballot and the periods before and after the vote. It would enable the delegations of observers to gain a better understanding of the electoral process as a whole. All this information, ultimately collected in the database, could be exchanged with the other international bodies operating in this sector.

4. Conclusions

20. Looking beyond these complementary initiatives, the Congress should, in conjunction with the Parliamentary Assembly, ensure that the results achieved through the setting up of the Council for Democratic Elections and the adoption of the Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters can be confirmed by appropriate initiatives of the Committee of Ministers, Parliamentary Assembly, Venice Commission and Congress.

21. With this in mind, the Congress should invite the Venice Commission to prolong the activities of the Council for Democratic Elections. This body should continue to be a tripartite one (Venice Commission, Parliamentary Assembly and Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe). It is important that the Congress should be able to continue to be represented on the Council by one member of the Chamber of Local Authorities and one member of the Chamber of Regions.

22. As already highlighted, the responsibilities of the Council should be extended to the following areas:

a. Creation of the database,
b. Preparation of a draft questionnaire, to be processed by computer, appropriately covering the principles of the Code of Good Practice,
c. Preparation of opinions relating to electoral matters in co-ordination with the Assembly and the Congress.

23. It is proposed that the text of the Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters be distributed to all members of the Congress with a letter from the President so that it may already be referred to when future local and regional elections are held.

24. The Committee of Ministers should be invited to adopt the Code in the form of a
European convention, taking account, if necessary, of the initiatives of other international bodies active in this field. The group of experts which may be instructed to draw up a preliminary draft convention should include, as observers, members of the Parliamentary Assembly, the Venice Commission and the Congress.

Strasbourg, 30 October 2002
CDL-AD (2002) 23 Or. Fr.
Opinion no. 190/2002

EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW

v. Validation of signatures must be completed by the start of the election campaign;

 

1 Since it was set up (1994), the Congress has organised over 50 election observation missions (to observe local or regional elections).

2 Resolution 1264 (2001) - Code of good practice in electoral matters. Text adopted by the Standing Committee on behalf of the Assembly on 8 November 2001 (see document 9267, report of the Political Affairs Committee, rapporteur Mr Clerfayt).

3 Dr Ian Micallef (Malta, L) and Mr Owen Masters (United Kingdom, R) currently represent the Congress.

4 The Council for Democratic Elections met in Venice on 7 March, 3 July and 16 October 2002.

5 Definitively adopted at the 52nd Session, on 18 and 19 October 2002.

6 Doc 9267.

7 Doc CDL (2002) 7.

8 Text prepared by Mrs Diane Bunyan (United Kingdom), rapporteur, on the occasion of the ninth plenary Session of the Congress (Strasbourg, 4-6 June 2002). The Congress adopted Recommendation 111 (2002) on the basis of this report.

9 Item 6; see Doc. 9267, Report by the Political Affairs Committee; Rapporteur: Mr Clerfayt.

10 See Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

11 Article 3, Right to free elections: “The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature”.

12 Where universality is concerned, cf. ECHR No. 9267/81, judgment in Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt vs. Belgium, 2 March 1997, Series A vol. 113, p. 23; judgment in Gitonas and others vs. Greece, 1 July 1997, No. 18747/91, 19376/92; 19379/92, 28208/95 and 27755/95, Collected Judgments and Decisions, 1997-IV, p. 1233; re. equality, cf. aforementioned judgment of Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt, p. 23.

13 ECHR No. 24833/94, judgment in Matthews vs. the United Kingdom, 18 February 1999, Collected Judgments and Decisions 1999-I, para. 64.

14 E.g. Article 38.1 of the German Constitution, Articles 68.1 and 69.2 of the Spanish Constitution and Article 59.1 of the Romanian Constitution.

15 ETS 144.

16 Article 19 of the Treaty establishing the European Community.

17 ETS 166, Article 17.

18 The ECHR does not go so far: Eur. Comm. HR No. 28858/95, judgment 25.11.96 Ganchev vs. Bulgaria, DR 87, p. 130.

19 See most recently ECHR No. 31891/96, judgment 7.9.99, Hilbe vs. Liechtenstein.

20 See Eur. Comm. HR No. 23450/94, judgment 15.9.97, Polacco and Garofalo vs. Italy (re. Trentino-Alto Adige).

21 See Chapter II.1 below.

22 See e.g. ECHR No. 26772/95, judgment in Labita vs. Italy, 6 April 2002, paras. 201 ff.

23 CDL (99) 66, p. 9.

24 CDL-INF (2000) 17, pp. 4-5; CDL (99) 67, pp 7-8.

25 See, for example, Article 64 of the Albanian Constitution and Section 1 of the German Federal Elections Act.

26 See CDL (98) 45, p. 3; CDL (99) 51, p. 8; CDL (2000) 2, p. 5; CDL-AD (2002) 9, para. 22.

27 CDL-AD (2002) 9, para. 23.

28 See below, Chapter II.3.5.

29 Article 4.1 of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (ETS 157).

30 Re. bans on political parties and similar measures, see CDL-INF (2000) 1.

31 As is the case in Slovenia and Croatia.

32 As is the case in Germany and Poland. Romanian law even provides for representation of minorities’ organisations if they have secured a number of votes equivalent to 5% (only) of the average number of validly cast votes required for the election of a deputy to the lower house country-wide.

33 Article 3 of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (ETS 157).

34 Re. electoral law and national minorities, see CDL-INF (2000) 4.

35 See Article 3.2 of the French Constitution; cf. judgment of 18 November 1982, Recueil des décisions du Conseil constitutionnel, 1982, pp. 66 ff.

36 See section I.4 below.

37 CDL (2000) 2, p. 9.

38 See above, Chapter I.3.2.2.1.

39 See ECHR No. 9267/81, judgment Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt vs. Belgium, 2 March 1997, Series A No. 113, p. 23; Eur. Comm. HR No. 27311/95, Timke vs. Germany, DR 82, p. 15; No. 7008/75, 12.7.76, X vs. Austria, DR 6, p. 120.

40 Article 3 of the European Charter of Local self-government (ETS 122).

41 Article 13 of the European Charter of Local self-government.

42 Article 25 b.

43 Article 3.

44 On the importance of credibility of the electoral process, see for example CDL (99) 67, p. 11; on the need for stability of the law, see CDL (99) 41, p. 1.

45 See above, Chapter I.2.3.

46 Cf CDL-AD (2002) 7, para. 5, 7 ff, 54.

47 See CDL (98) 10, p. 5.

48 Re. election observation, see Handbook for Observers of Elections, Council of Europe, 1996.

49 CDL (98) 45, p. 11.

50 See section I.2.3 above.

51 For further details on funding of political parties, see CDL-INF (2001) 8.