EDRIElection Dispute Resolution Index

§ 87 of Czech Law No. 247/1995 explicitly enumerates the parties with standing to contest elections. For Chamber of Deputies elections, standing is granted to: (1) every citizen registered in the voter list of the electoral district where the deputy was elected, and (2) every electoral party whose candidate list in the electoral region was registered for Chamber of Deputies elections. For Senate elections, standing is granted to: (1) every citizen registered in the voter list of the electoral district where the senator was elected, and (2) every electoral party whose candidate list in the electoral district was registered for Senate elections. The statute also specifies three distinct grounds for contesting: voting nullity, election nullity, and candidate selection nullity, each with enumerated standing requirements. This provides clear, statutory enumeration of eligible contestants rather than discretionary or open-ended standards.

“navrhovatel, jímž je každý občan zapsaný do seznamu voličů ve volebním okrsku, kde byl poslanec volen, a každá volební strana, jejíž kandidátní listina ve volebním kraji byla pro volby do Poslanecké sněmovny zaregistrována”

The statute explicitly designates the Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic (Nejvyšší správní soud) as the court of original jurisdiction for proceedings under § 57 (which concerns election disputes and challenges to candidate validity and mandate loss). This satisfies the criterion by providing statutory specification of venue and jurisdiction. The provision is unambiguous and creates a clear, codified jurisdictional rule rather than leaving venue determination to discretion.

“K řízení podle § 57 je příslušný Nejvyšší správní soud České republiky”

The statute specifies a clear, binding deadline for filing election contest motions: 10 days after the announcement of election results by the State Election Commission (Státní volební komisí). This deadline applies to all three types of contests covered in § 87: nullity of candidate election (subsection 1), nullity of voting/elections/candidate election (subsection 2). The deadline is tied to a defined statutory event (announcement of results by the competent state authority), not left to discretion. This satisfies the EDRI criterion for procedural clarity requiring a codified filing deadline.

“Návrh je třeba podat nejpozději 10 dnů po vyhlášení výsledků voleb Státní volební komisí”

Section 60(2)–(4) establishes a substantive standard of proof by requiring that statutory violations be committed "in a manner that grossly affected" (způsobem, který hrubě ovlivnil) the results. This formulation codifies a materiality threshold—evidence of violation alone is insufficient; the violation must have substantially influenced the outcome. However, the statute does not codify specific rules governing the admissibility, form, or weight of evidence. There is no enumeration of admissible evidence types, no procedure for challenging evidence, and no codified evidentiary burdens or standards of review. The standard is set at the statute level, satisfying the lower tier of the criterion, but evidentiary rules are not provided. This places the section at score 1 rather than 2.

“Návrh na neplatnost hlasování může podat navrhovatel, má-li zato, že byla porušena ustanovení tohoto zákona způsobem, který hrubě ovlivnil výsledky hlasování”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 59 of Zákon č. 247/1995 Sb. addresses electoral district boundaries and territorial definitions for Senate elections. It contains no provisions whatsoever regarding recount procedures, counting methods, evidence standards, or the mechanics of recounting ballots. The section is purely administrative-geographic in nature, defining how 81 Senate electoral districts are constituted and how municipal boundary changes affect district assignments. It does not codify who performs recounts, how they are conducted, what evidence is required, or what effects recount findings have. To satisfy RECT.1, a statute must define recount procedures directly; this section does neither directly nor by reference.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 47 of Law 491/2001 addresses only the announcement and publication of election results by the registration office on official boards. It specifies the procedural timing (without delay after approval and signing) and publication location, but contains no codified provisions regarding recount procedures, recount triggers, cost allocation, or—critically for this criterion—the legal effects of recount findings (whether binding, advisory, or requiring mandatory amendment of results). The section is procedurally narrow, addressing result announcement rather than dispute resolution or recount mechanics. A criterion-satisfying provision would explicitly state whether a recount finding mandates result amendment, is binding on officials, or operates in advisory capacity.

§ 47 establishes a 30-day deadline for the Minister of Interior to announce re-elections or repeated voting following a court finding that a vote or election was invalid. However, this section addresses only contingent scenarios (invalidation or failure to achieve quorum) triggering remedial elections, not the primary certification deadline for normal election results. The statute codifies a procedural deadline for ministerial action in dispute contexts, but does not explicitly set a certification deadline for when initial election results become official under normal circumstances. The section provides procedural clarity for post-dispute proceedings (timing for announcing re-runs) but does not address the core element of TIME.1—when the main election result is officially certified—which would typically be governed by other statutory provisions not provided in this excerpt. Without visibility into whether a general certification deadline exists elsewhere in the Electoral Act, this partially satisfies the criterion by establishing temporal rules for dispute remedies but leaves the primary certification mechanism unclear.

“vyhlásí opakované volby nebo opakované hlasování ministr vnitra do 30 dnů poté, kdy mu bylo oznámeno usnesení soudu”

The statute establishes a 10-day deadline for court resolution of challenges to the issuance of certificates of election (osvědčení o zvolení) for MPs and senators. This timing rule implies that certification can be challenged before or at the point of issuance, and the court must decide within 10 days. However, the text does not explicitly codify a mechanism to 'stay' certification pending dispute resolution. The statute is silent on: (1) whether certification is automatically suspended upon filing a challenge; (2) the effect of a pending complaint on the validity or implementation of the certificate; (3) explicit procedural authority for a court to enjoin or defer certification. The 10-day resolution deadline suggests urgency and implied temporal protection, but does not clearly state that certification is stayed. A dual-scholar reading would note that the narrow language—focused on court decision timing rather than certification suspension—leaves the stay mechanism implicit rather than codified. This satisfies the criterion only partially: there is a clear pre-decision deadline, but no explicit statutory stay mechanism.