EDRIElection Dispute Resolution Index

Article 110 of LOREG explicitly enumerates the parties with standing to file electoral contest appeals (recursos contenciosos electorales). The statute names three categories: (a) proclaimed and non-proclaimed candidates; (b) representatives of candidacies in the district; and (c) political parties, associations, federations, and coalitions that presented candidacies in the district. This enumeration satisfies the criterion because standing is codified with specificity rather than left to judicial discretion. The statute uses a closed list of qualifying parties, which provides procedural clarity on who may initiate or defend against electoral contests.

“Están legitimados para interponer el recurso contencioso electoral o para oponerse a los que se interpongan: a) Los candidatos proclamados o no proclamados. b) Los representantes de las candidaturas concurrentes en la circunscripción. c) Los partidos políticos, asociaciones, federaciones y coaliciones que hayan presentado candidaturas en la circunscripción.”

Artículo 112(2) of LOREG explicitly specifies the court of original jurisdiction for election contests (recursos contencioso-electorales) by election type: the Supreme Court's Administrative Law Chamber (Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo del Tribunal Supremo) for general elections and European Parliament elections, and the respective Autonomous Community's Superior Court of Justice for regional and local elections. This satisfies the statutory clarity requirement under CONT.EDRI.2. The venue rule is not discretionary or fact-dependent; it is determined by the nature and level of the election being contested. Procedural clarity is further enhanced by Article 112(1) specifying that the contest is filed before the corresponding Electoral Board (Junta Electoral) within three days of proclamation, and Article 112(3) requiring that body to forward the case to the competent court within one day. While the rule structure involves an initial filing before the Electoral Board, the ultimate jurisdiction for resolution is statutorily fixed.

“El Tribunal competente para la resolución de los recursos contencioso-electorales que se refieren a elecciones generales o al Parlamento Europeo es la Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo del Tribunal Supremo. En el supuesto de elecciones autonómicas o locales el Tribunal competente es la Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo del Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la respectiva Comunidad Autónoma.”

The statute specifies a 24-hour filing window ('dentro de las veinticuatro horas siguientes a la notificación del acuerdo'), which is a clear deadline tied to notification of the challenged decision. However, this section addresses administrative appeals within the electoral management hierarchy (appeals to higher-level Juntas Electorales), not the initial filing deadline for election contests. The section does not address when election contests must be filed relative to certification or other defining electoral events. It establishes a procedural deadline for challenging administrative board decisions, but the criterion requires specification of the deadline for filing an election contest proper. The rule is precise for administrative review within the system, but does not clearly establish the outer boundary for contesting election results themselves.

“La interposición tendrá lugar dentro de las veinticuatro horas siguientes a la notificación del acuerdo”

Article 112(5) codifies procedural structure for evidence receipt and practice, specifying (1) the court may order evidence reception, (2) probative phase follows contencioso-administrativo rules, and (3) the temporal limit is five days maximum. However, the statute delegates substantive evidentiary standards and admissibility rules to the generic contencioso-administrativo framework rather than codifying them directly within the electoral statute. A standard of proof is not explicitly stated (e.g., preponderance, clear and convincing, or balance of probabilities). Paragraph 4 permits 'los documentos que, a su juicio, puedan servir' ('documents that, in their judgment, may serve'), which is discretionary language, not a codified admissibility rule. The cross-reference to administrative procedure rules, while providing some clarity via incorporation, does not satisfy full codification within the electoral statute itself. This represents a midpoint: the structure and deadlines for evidence phases are clear and statutory (supporting 1 point), but the substantive standard of proof and detailed evidentiary rules are not codified in the electoral statute (preventing achievement of 2).

Article 108 codifies scrutiny (escrutinio) procedures and the documentation requirements at the Electoral Board level, including what must be recorded in the scrutiny record. However, the statute does not detail the mechanics of the recount process itself—who physically counts votes, procedures for disputing individual ballot determinations, or standards for resolving ambiguous ballots. The article prescribes the written output (acta de escrutinio) and the complaint/protest mechanism (reclamaciones y protestas within one day, resolved by the Electoral Board within one day, appealable to the Central Electoral Board within one day), but recount procedure as a distinct remedial mechanism for recounting ballots after initial scrutiny is not explicitly addressed. The section addresses scrutiny completion and dispute resolution post-scrutiny, not the procedural mechanics of recounting votes if election results are challenged. The statutory text covers documentation standards and protest procedures but lacks detail on when, how, and by whom a true recount (as opposed to mere protest review) would be conducted.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 75 of LOREG addresses voting procedures for Spanish residents abroad (overseas voting mechanisms, documentation requirements, timing of ballot transmission, in-person deposit procedures, and identity verification). It contains no language enumerating recount triggers, automatic recount thresholds, margin-based recount conditions, petition-based recount procedures, or any mechanism for initiating recounts. The article is purely procedural regarding the exercise of the vote by residents abroad and does not address post-election dispute resolution, recount mechanics, or the conditions under which votes would be recounted. To satisfy RECT.2, a statute must specify what triggers a recount (e.g., margin thresholds, sworn challenges, percentage-based triggers). This section contains no such enumeration.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 75 of LOREG regulates the exercise of voting by Spanish residents abroad—specifically the mechanics of ballot distribution, voting procedures, and ballot deposit timelines for overseas voters. The section addresses procedural clarity regarding when ballots must be sent (days 18–25 post-call), when official ballots arrive (days 29–33 or 29–39 depending on candidacy challenges), and voting deposit windows (8–3 days before election). However, this section contains no provisions whatsoever regarding recount procedures, recount triggers, or cost allocation for recounts. It is purely concerned with overseas voting logistics and ballot access. The criterion explicitly asks whether recount cost allocation is codified by statute; this section does not address recounts at all. While LOREG may contain recount provisions elsewhere, this particular article does not satisfy the criterion.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 75 of LOREG addresses procedural mechanics for voting by Spanish residents abroad—specifically the documentation sent to voters, timing of ballot delivery, voting methods at diplomatic posts, and identity verification. The section is entirely focused on the mechanics of exercising the franchise (voto) by overseas voters, not on recount procedures, recount triggers, or the legal effects of recount findings. The criterion RECT.4 asks whether legal effects of a recount finding (binding, advisory, mandatory amendment to official results) are codified in statute. This section contains no language addressing recount procedures, what happens after a recount is conducted, whether recount findings are binding on election officials, or how recount results modify or confirm official tallies. This is a provision on electoral participation mechanics, not on dispute resolution or recount finality.

Article 224(1) of LOREG establishes a binding statutory deadline—'no más tarde del vigésimo día posterior a las elecciones' (no later than the twentieth day following elections)—for the Central Electoral Board (Junta Electoral Central) to conduct the national recount, attribute seats to each candidacy, and proclaim the elected candidates. The use of 'procederá' (shall proceed) and the specific temporal limit ('no más tarde del vigésimo día') indicate a mandatory duty with a fixed, non-discretionary deadline. The proclamation of elected candidates is the point at which results become official under Spanish law. This deadline is codified in statute, not left to administrative discretion, and thus satisfies the criterion that certification timing must be set by law rather than administrative choice.

“La Junta Electoral Central procederá, no más tarde del vigésimo día posterior a las elecciones, al recuento de los votos a nivel nacional, a la atribución de escaños correspondientes a cada una de las candidaturas y a la proclamación de electos.”

No matching sections in corpus.