EDRIElection Dispute Resolution Index

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 67 of the NRWO regulates voter identification and admission procedures at polling stations, not election contest standing. It addresses operational voting mechanics (presentation of identity documents, admission of voters without documents if known to poll officials) rather than the enumeration of parties with legal standing to file an election contest or dispute. The provision contains no language identifying categories of persons or entities entitled to challenge election results. To satisfy CONT.EDRI.1, the statute would need to enumerate standing holders (e.g., candidates, parties, registered voters, state attorney) for post-election disputes or contests. This section predates and is logically distinct from contest procedures.

The statute clearly specifies that election contest disputes regarding the Federal Election Authority's decision must be brought before the Verfassungsgerichtshof (Constitutional Court). The venue and jurisdiction are unambiguous: the Constitutional Court has original jurisdiction over challenges to the election result on grounds of procedural irregularity. The statute further specifies standing (authorized representative of a lawful electoral proposal under § 9), a filing deadline (within one week of announcement), and the court's decision timeline (within four weeks). This satisfies the requirement for statutory specification of the court with original jurisdiction.

“Innerhalb einer Woche vom Tag der Verlautbarung kann die Wahlentscheidung der Bundeswahlbehörde (Abs. 1) beim Verfassungsgerichtshof wegen jeder behaupteten Rechtswidrigkeit des Wahlverfahrens vom zustellungsbevollmächtigten Vertreter eines dem Gesetz entsprechenden Wahlvorschlages (§ 9) angefochten werden.”

§ 110(1) of the NRWO explicitly codifies a filing deadline for election contests (Einspruch) in statutory text. The deadline is clearly specified as three days (drei Tagen) measured from two defined events: (1) publication by the state electoral authority (Landeswahlbehörde) pursuant to § 105(1), or (2) publication by the federal electoral authority (Bundeswahlbehörde) pursuant to § 108(6). The triggering events are themselves referenced to other statutory provisions, establishing a clear temporal anchor. This satisfies the criterion because the deadline is both specified by statute and tied to an objectively defined event (official publication). The procedure further specifies standing (authorized party representatives), content requirements (subsection 2), and review process (subsections 3-4), all codified in statute.

“innerhalb von drei Tagen nach der gemäß § 105 Abs. 1 erfolgten Verlautbarung, gegen die ziffernmäßigen Ermittlungen der Bundeswahlbehörde innerhalb von drei Tagen nach der gemäß § 108 Abs. 6 erfolgten Verlautbarung”

§ 16 BPräsWG establishes a standard of proof for election contest objections ('hinreichend glaubhaft zu machen' — sufficiently credible demonstration) and a threshold requirement that objections must demonstrate why and how regional election authority determinations violate statutory law. This codifies a standard of proof at the statute level. However, the statute does not provide detailed evidentiary rules governing what types of evidence are admissible, how evidence is weighted, procedural rules for presenting evidence, or standards for evaluating documentary evidence beyond the requirement that objections be 'sufficiently credible' and 'adequately reasoned.' The Federal Election Authority reviews objections 'on the basis of documents at its disposal' (§ 16(3)), but no statutory rules specify what documents qualify, how disputes over document authenticity are resolved, or how the authority evaluates conflicting evidence. The section thus sets a proof standard but lacks detailed codified evidentiary rules.

“In den Einsprüchen ist hinreichend glaubhaft zu machen, warum und inwiefern die ziffernmäßigen Ermittlungen der Landeswahlbehörde nicht den Bestimmungen dieses Bundesgesetzes entsprechen. Fehlt diese Begründung, so kann der Einspruch ohne weitere Überprüfung abgewiesen werden.”

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 16 BPräsWG addresses objections to numerical determinations (ziffernmäßige Ermittlungen) by authorized representatives of published electoral proposals within 48 hours. However, it does not enumerate recount TRIGGERS. The statute establishes a procedure for challenging election result determinations and requires the Federal Election Authority to review them, but provides no enumerated thresholds (e.g., margin percentages), no automatic recount conditions, and no objective criteria triggering a mandatory recount. The mechanism is discretionary objection-based rather than threshold-based, and evidentiary standards are minimal ('hinreichend glaubhaft zu machen'—sufficiently credible). This addresses procedural clarity of objection-handling but does NOT enumerate recount triggers as required by RECT.2.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section of the Austrian Federal Presidential Election Act (BPräsWG) concerns mail-in ballot (Briefwahl) procedures, including submission deadlines, validity requirements, and handling protocols. It does not address recount procedures, triggers, or cost allocation. The section establishes statutory rules for absentee voting administration but contains no provisions governing recount petitions, procedures, or the allocation of costs in the event a recount is requested. The criterion requires codified rules specifying who bears the cost of a petition-based recount under what outcomes—a topic entirely absent from this text.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 100 of the NRWO establishes procedural rules for the second ballot-allocation phase (zweites Ermittlungsverfahren), specifying which parties qualify to participate based on first-round performance thresholds. It does not address recount procedures, recount triggers, or the legal binding effect of recount findings. The section concerns seat-allocation methodology and notification procedures, not the consequences or mandatory effect of a recount determination. No statutory language codifies whether a recount finding is binding on certification, mandatory in amending official results, or merely advisory.

§ 14a establishes specific procedural timelines for ballot processing and reporting: the district election authority begins processing on the day after the election at 9:00 AM (Abs. 1-2), issues immediate reports to the state authority (Sofortmeldung), compiles provisional results in a record (Abs. 3), and must determine late-arriving ballots by the fifteenth day after election day (Abs. 5). However, the section does not explicitly specify when the overall election result becomes 'official' or 'unanfechtbar' (incontestable). The statute references the point at which 'das Ergebnis der Wahl unanfechtbar feststeht' for purposes of ballot destruction but does not codify the statutory mechanism or deadline for certification itself. The procedural steps are clearly detailed, but the final certification moment—when results transition from provisional to officially certified—is not explicitly anchored to a fixed statutory date. This satisfies the procedural clarity requirement partially: timelines for intermediate steps are codified, but the ultimate certification deadline and mechanism appear to depend on the completion of dispute periods rather than a fixed statutory date.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section of the Austrian Parteiengesetz (Party Funding Act) deals exclusively with administrative penalties and sanctions for violations of party donation reporting and accounting requirements. It addresses enforcement of transparency rules through the independent Party Transparency Senate (unabhängiger Parteien-Transparenz-Senat) and prescribes fines for intentional breaches of donation disclosure and accounting obligations. The section contains no provisions whatsoever regarding election certification, recounts, election contests, or any mechanism to stay certification pending dispute resolution. It is not relevant to the EDRI criterion of procedural clarity in election dispute resolution.