Constitutional Court

The Applicant filed a Referral pursuant to Article 113.7 of the Constitution challenging the Supreme Court’s decision to reject her complaint against the refusal of the Election Complaints and Appeals Panel (ECAP) to certify her election to the Podujeva Municipal Assembly, arguing that the rejection violated Articles 3, 24 and 45 of the Constitution. She argued that ECAP rejected her first appeal without examining the facts and deemed her second appeal as inadmissible despite factual support, and that the Supreme Court unjustly held that neither the inconsistency between preliminary and final election results nor the Applicant’s expectation was a legitimate basis for reversing the CEC’s decision, The Court found that the CEC and the ECAP were given authority to ensure certainty in the electoral process, indicating that the Constitutional Court will annul an electoral certification only after an Applicant has met a high burden of proof that a very serious violation of Constitutional guarantees of individual rights and freedoms has occurred. Crediting the determinations by ECAP and the Supreme Court, the Court held pursuant to Rules 36.1(c) and 36.2(d) that the Referral was inadmissible because the Applicant had failed to sufficiently substantiate her claim