Rivne District Administrative Court refused to recognise violation of the election law during determination of voting results in the electoral district No.155.

The FPTP candidate of the All-Ukrainian Union Fatherland Serhii Koshyn filed a claim to court. He thinks that in the single-member district No.155, voting results were determined in violation of Articles 94 and 96 of the Law On Election of People's Deputies of Ukraine. The candidate is convinced that the district election commission hadn't complied with the procedure of acceptance and processing of documents of precinct commissions, and determined voting results incorrectly.

His accusations Serhii Koshyn justified with violations reported by an OPORA observer, and formal notes taken by representatives of Fatherland Party. Moreover, the candidate states that protocols of vote counting were filled out at the DEC, and complaints to the district commission weren't considered. In connection with these and other violations reported, Serhii Koshyn demanded to recognise acceptance of protocols of ten stations that were filled out with mistakes wrongful. The candidate also asked the court to oblige the DEC to carry out full vote recount at ten more stations.

The defendant failed to appear in court. Third-party claimants had also ignored the hearing — candidates for People's Deputy in district No.155 Oleksandr Bobryk, Vitalii Burma, Mykola Kushnir, and Vasyl Yanitskyi. Interests of the DEC in court were defended by the representative of the FPTP candidate of the Party of Regions Mykola Soroka. The latter denied the claim and stated that the DEC was not entitled to commit acts demanded by Serhii Koshyn.

Having considered the arguments of the parties, the court denied the candidate's claim. It is worth mentioning that the witness in the case was an OPORA observer who video-recorded members of precinct commissions at the DEC on 29 October rewriting protocols. However, the court refused to accept video materials as evidence having referred to the fact that on the video, no damages of packages, numbers of stations, or protocols could be seen. For the same reason, the court didn't consider the testimony of the observer.

It is worth mentioning that when considering case files, the court prejudiced evidence provided by the parties of the dispute. When arguments of the defendant had been actively introduced in the case most of the evidence of the plaintiff weren't considered.

For comment, please contact:
Anatolii Bodnarchuk
Observation Coordinator of OPORA in Rivne Oblast
096 91 87 408