EDRIElection Dispute Resolution Index

The statute explicitly enumerates the parties with standing to contest elections in this jurisdiction (BES islands). It identifies two categories: (1) 'belanghebbende' (interested parties) and (2) 'iedere kiezer' (every voter/elector). This enumeration is clear and codified in statute. The provision further narrows standing by specifying that it applies only to decisions on candidate lists meeting certain criteria (articles I 4, S 2, Y 2). The reference to applicable provisions in articles I 7, I 8, and Ya 42 reinforces the statutory framework for contest procedures. While the term 'belanghebbende' requires interpretation in context, the statute does enumerate the classes of persons with standing rather than leaving it to judicial discretion. This satisfies the EDRI criterion that standing categories be enumerated in statute, even if the definition of 'interested party' may have some contextual bounds.

“door een belanghebbende en iedere kiezer uitsluitend beroep worden ingesteld bij het Gemeenschappelijk Hof”

Article I 7 of the Kieswet (Electoral Law) clearly and statutorily designates the Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State (Administrative Law Division of the Council of State) as the court of original jurisdiction for election disputes. The provision specifies: (1) which party can appeal (belanghebbende and any voter); (2) the deadline for filing (four days under art. I 7(1)); (3) the specific appellate body (Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak); and (4) the decision deadline (by the sixth day after receipt). This creates explicit statutory specification of venue and jurisdiction for election contest resolution, satisfying the criterion that venue and court of original jurisdiction be specified in statute.

“De Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State doet uitspraak uiterlijk op de zesde dag nadat het beroepschrift is ontvangen.”

The statute specifies a 4-day filing deadline for appeals (beroepschrift) against decisions described in art. I 4, and extends standing to any interested party (belanghebbende) and any voter (kiezer). The deadline is codified with clarity. However, the criterion requires specification of when the deadline clock *starts* — i.e., days after *certification* or after a *defined event*. This section specifies '4 days' but does not explicitly anchor the deadline to certification, publication of results, or another triggering event. Article I 4 (referenced but not provided) likely defines the triggering decision, so full specification may exist in the statutory system. As presented in isolation, the deadline duration is clear but the trigger event is not self-evident from this section alone. Under a strict reading of 'specified by statute,' this is incomplete without the referenced article's definition. Under a more generous reading accounting for cross-reference integration, it is substantially satisfied.

“In afwijking van artikel 6:7 van de Algemene wet bestuursrecht bedraagt de termijn voor het indienen van een beroepschrift vier dagen.”

Article V 4(1) establishes that the representative body 'examines the credentials without delay and decides whether the appointed person is admitted as a member' and 'decides the disputes which arise with regard to the credentials or the election itself.' This codifies a standard—examination must be 'onverwijld' (without delay) and disputes must be resolved—but it does not codify specific standards of proof (e.g., preponderance, clear and convincing evidence) or detailed evidentiary rules (e.g., what evidence is admissible, burdens of proof, witness procedures). The provision delegates procedural detail to standing orders ('reglement van orde') rather than statute. The statutory text sets a dispute-resolution obligation and temporal standard but lacks substantive evidentiary codification required for a score of 2.

“Het vertegenwoordigend orgaan waarvoor de verkiezing is geschied, onderzoekt de geloofsbrief onverwijld en beslist of de benoemde als lid van dat orgaan wordt toegelaten. Daarbij gaat het na, of de benoemde aan de vereisten voor het lidmaatschap voldoet en geen met het lidmaatschap onverenigbare betrekking vervult, en beslist het de geschillen welke met betrekking tot de geloofsbrief of de verkiezing zelf rijzen.”

Article V 4b of the Kieswet (Electoral Act) codifies the recount procedure in statutory law. It specifies: (1) who conducts the recount (the representative body/vertegenwoordigend orgaan); (2) the procedural steps (chairperson of central voting bureau transfers sealed packages, representative body opens packages immediately upon receipt, compares contents with voting bureau records); (3) the evidentiary basis (comparison with procès-verbaux of voting bureaus); and (4) incorporation by reference of Articles T 6–T 10, which establish handling and sealing procedures. The procedure is triggered by decision of the representative body under Article V 4(1). This satisfies the criterion because recount mechanics—who counts, how they count, with what evidence—are defined directly in statute rather than delegated to regulation or administrative directive.

Article P 21(1) of the Kieswet enumerates recount triggers with sufficient statutory clarity. The statute specifies two distinct pathways: (1) automatic/ex officio recount ('ambtshalve') when the central election bureau has serious suspicion of material counting errors affecting seat allocation, and (2) petition-based recount ('naar aanleiding van een onderbouwd verzoek van een of meer personen') initiated by one or more persons on substantiated grounds. The trigger itself is defined as 'ernstig vermoeden' (serious suspicion) that counting errors in one or more polling stations 'van invloed kunnen zijn op de zetelverdeling' (may affect seat distribution). This provides statutory enumeration of both the procedural mechanism and the substantive trigger condition, satisfying the criterion that recount triggers be enumerated in statute.

“Indien een ernstig vermoeden bestaat dat een of meer gemeentelijk stembureaus of briefstembureaus bij de stemopneming zodanige fouten hebben gemaakt dat die van invloed kunnen zijn op de zetelverdeling, kan het centraal stembureau op de in artikel P 20 bedoelde zitting, voordat de uitslag van de verkiezing bekend wordt gemaakt, hetzij ambtshalve, hetzij naar aanleiding van een onderbouwd verzoek van een of meer personen, besluiten over te gaan tot een nieuwe opneming van stembiljetten”

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses only the destruction of candidate lists and related documents after determination of election results, with an exception for statements of consent. It describes a procedural requirement for record-keeping (preparation of a report of destruction) but does not codify the legal effects of a recount finding. The statute is silent on whether recount findings are binding, advisory, trigger mandatory amendment of results, or have any other specified legal consequence. The section concerns post-outcome document management rather than the substantive effects of recount determinations on election certification or result validity.

The statute establishes a minimum timeline (no earlier than the eighth day after voting) but uses discretionary language ('zo spoedig mogelijk' — 'as soon as possible') for the actual certification deadline itself. This creates a floor but not a ceiling. The statute mandates minimum delay and requires public proceedings with opportunity for oral objections, establishing procedural clarity about *when* and *how* certification occurs. However, the absence of a fixed maximum deadline leaves the ultimate certification timing to administrative judgment within the constraint of expedited process. This satisfies the procedural transparency requirement partially: the minimum threshold is codified and the process is structured, but the definitive certification moment is not fixed by statute, only bounded below.

“Het centraal stembureau stelt de uitslag van de verkiezing zo spoedig mogelijk vast doch niet eerder dan de achtste dag nadat de stemming heeft plaatsgevonden.”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses suspension of council membership decisions pending appeal, not certification of election results. The statute provides for suspension (opschorting) of a council member's removal from office pending appeal rights expiration or appeal resolution. However, the criterion requires a statutory mechanism to stay CERTIFICATION of election results while a recount or contest is pending. This section concerns disciplinary action against sitting councillors for violation of municipal law duties, not the pre-certification stay of vote tabulation or electoral certification itself. The provision deals with post-election administrative removal, not with pausing official election certification pending dispute resolution. There is no codified mechanism here addressing when or whether electoral certification may be stayed pending recount or contest proceedings.