The Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association (GYLA)
The International Society of Fair Elections and Democracy (ISFED)
Joint Statement
October 11, 2006
On October 9 2006 the Central Election Commission of Georgia adopted a ruling according to which the mandates by proportional principles have been divided in a following way for Tbilisi Local Council:
1. National Movement – 9
2. Topadze, Entrepreneurs -1
3. Georgian Labor Party – Shalva Natelashvili-1;
4. Davitashvili, Khidasheli, Berdzenishvili (Georgian Republican Party-Georgian Conservative Party) -1.
It is noteworthy that according to the principle established by law, mandates are allocated only to those parties, which receive no less that 4 % of the voters.
When calculating the votes as prescribed by law(article 126.13), National Movement received 8 mandates, the Georgian Labor Party –Shalva Natelashvili and the Coalition Davitashvili, Khidasheli, Berdzenishvili (The Georgian Republican Party –the Georgian Conservative Party) received one vote each, while Topadze, Entrepreneurs have not reliecieved a mandate, as though it has overcome 4 % barrier established by law, the quantity received after calculatiopn did not amount to a whole number.Therefore, two mandates were left from which one hasrightfully been delivered to the National Movement and the other to Topadze, Entrepreneurs, although this deviates from the procedure of dsicrutiburing mandates stated in eth Election law. Based on the argument that Topadze, Entrepretneurs passed the threshold of 4% they were allocted the amndate, although numder of votes receivd by them is not enouph for receopt of a mandate as prescribed by the legislation. According to the procedure described by the ELEction law, tremained mandate should have been allocted to the coalition: Davitashvili, Khidasheli, Berdzenishvili (The Georgian Republican Party, the Georgian Conservative Party), as this election subject has the highest result after the National Movemenet.
We would like to emphasoze, hereby that both of our organizations attribute paamount importance to meeting the requirements of the law. Thererfore, ineterst of any election subject should be considered at the background of legislative requirements.
Therefore, we consider that the mentioned decision of the Central Election Commission is violation of the norms of Election Code. Respectively, we urge the courts that will be considering the matter to be impartial, remedy the unlawful decision of the Central Election Commission and in its decision abide by the requirements of the election legislation.