EDRIElection Dispute Resolution Index

Article 121 enumerates specific parties with standing to file complaints regarding candidate admissibility: (1) those who submitted the candidate lists (déposants), and (2) failing them, one of the candidates on those lists. However, the provision addresses only challenges to candidate admissibility/eligibility (réclamation contre l'admission), not broader election contest standing. The criterion asks whether parties with standing to contest an election are enumerated. This section provides partial clarity: it clearly specifies who may challenge candidacies before the election (a narrow subset of potential contestants), but does not address post-election contest standing, the scope of eligible contestants generally, or other dispute triggers. The enumeration is precise for the pre-electoral complaint mechanism but incomplete for comprehensive election dispute resolution standing.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 218 of the Belgian Electoral Code addresses the timing coordination of cooptation of senators in relation to verification of powers of senators from federated entities when elections coincide. It does not specify any court of original jurisdiction for election contests, nor does it establish venue rules for dispute resolution. The provision is purely procedural regarding the sequence of senatorial designation and contains no language allocating jurisdiction to any court or tribunal for hearing election disputes.

Articles 18-19 of the Belgian Electoral Code specify a clear, codified deadline for filing electoral complaints (réclamations) regarding voter list disputes: 'jusqu'au douzième jour précédant celui de l'élection' (until the twelfth day before election day). This is a statutorily defined event-based deadline (tied to the election itself) with precision. The deadline applies to all persons meeting electoral conditions who wish to challenge voter list entries, radiations, or omissions. While these provisions address voter list complaints rather than a post-election contest, they establish a clear filing deadline by statute, meeting the procedural clarity standard required by CONT.EDRI.3.

The statute codifies a procedural requirement (filing deadline: before verification of credentials) but does not address standard of proof or admissibility rules for evidence. The provision establishes a temporal gating rule ('before verification') but lacks substantive evidentiary standards—no specification of what burden of proof applies, what types of evidence are admissible, how evidence must be presented, or what factual findings are required to succeed in an election contest. This satisfies only the first component of the scoring rule (standard set), and then only obliquely by establishing temporal boundaries, not substantive evidentiary thresholds. Admissibility and proof standards remain absent from this provision.

“Toute réclamation contre l'élection doit être faite avant la vérification des pouvoirs.”

This section establishes that the bureau counts votes ("le bureau procède aussitôt au recensement des voix") and that the president opens ballot envelopes in the presence of the bureau and witnesses. However, the text provides only skeletal procedural outline. It specifies WHO counts (the bureau/officials present) and establishes WHEN (immediately/aussitôt), but does not define HOW votes are counted, what methodology is used, standards of evidence for disputed ballots, or detailed recount triggers and procedures. The statute delegates significant operational detail to the Crown ("Le Roi") regarding personnel and logistics. The absence of detailed statutory rules on: (1) recount triggers beyond initial count, (2) recount methodology and standards, (3) evidentiary rules for ballot disputes, and (4) appeals from initial count results means that procedural clarity is incomplete. A jurisdiction scoring high on RECT.1 would codify not just that counting occurs but the detailed mechanics of HOW disputes within counts are resolved and what triggers a formal recount process.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 150 of the Belgian Electoral Code addresses the random selection of polling stations whose ballots will be counted by particular counting offices, conducted twelve days before the election. This provision concerns the allocation of ballot-counting responsibilities through a lottery mechanism, not the triggers for recounts. The text does not enumerate any recount triggers, such as margin thresholds, sworn challenges, discrepancies between preliminary and final counts, or other conditions that would necessitate a recount or petition-based recount process. The provision is purely procedural regarding the organizational designation of counting bureaus and witness attendance, without addressing when or under what circumstances a recount may be initiated.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 174 addresses only the dissemination and public proclamation of vote tallies and elected names via electronic means. It does not codify the legal effects of a recount finding—whether such findings are binding on officials, whether they mandate result amendments, whether they are advisory only, or what procedural consequences follow from a recount. The section is purely procedural regarding communication/publication, not substantive regarding the normative force of recount determinations. RECT.4 requires codification of what happens when a recount is conducted and produces a finding; this article does not address that question.

Article 177 establishes a 5-day statutory deadline for transmission of election protocols and contested ballots to the Chamber of Representatives clerk. This codifies a procedural timing requirement for compilation of results. However, the section does not explicitly state when the result becomes 'official' or certified—it addresses only transmission deadlines for documentation to the legislative body. The clause establishes administrative timing requirements but stops short of codifying the moment at which certification is legally complete or effective. A statutory certification deadline typically specifies the date by which official results must be proclaimed or declared final; this article addresses prior procedural steps. The criterion asks whether the certification deadline itself is set by statute, not whether intermediate reporting deadlines are codified.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 211 of the Belgian Electoral Code addresses the procedure for designating senators to the Flemish Parliament following verification of powers. It establishes deadlines for submission of designation lists (five days after verification of powers) and requirements for their validity (majority signature by elected members of the same political formation). However, the section contains no provisions concerning: (1) stay mechanisms for certification pending disputes; (2) recount procedures; (3) election contests; or (4) certification timing or suspension. The article deals exclusively with post-election parliamentary procedures for designating senators, not with dispute resolution, certification delays, or mechanisms to suspend certification pending resolution of electoral challenges. It does not codify any statutory procedure to stay certification while a recount or contest is pending.