The Supreme Court rejected the claim of retired officer Ivan Otrakovsky, who was removed from the presidential elections for violating the procedure

The Supreme Court on Tuesday confirmed the legality of the decision of the Central Election Commission, which refused to register the initiative group to nominate retired officer Ivan Otrakovsky for president. Nevertheless, the failed candidate intends to go to the Constitutional Court to prove that the rules of the presidential race are too complex and have created unnecessary obstacles for him, to which Mr. Otrakovsky, in particular, attributes difficulties with notarization of nomination documents. The expert believes that theoretically the applicant has a chance if he formulates the question correctly.

The head of the public organization “Army of Defenders of the Fatherland,” Ivan Otrakovsky, was unable to submit to the Central Election Commission (CEC) a complete set of necessary documents: in particular, the minutes of the meeting of group members were not notarized; there were also missing certificates about property and income and the presence of real estate abroad. However, having received a predictable refusal to register, the ex-candidate appealed this decision, considering that the CEC’s position was not properly motivated. In addition, the applicant argued, the Central Election Commission failed to fulfill the role of the commission organizing the elections, since it was unable to ensure equal conditions for all candidates. Among the obstacles that arose for him, Mr. Otrakovsky named the refusal to rent the premises where the initiative group’s meeting was planned, as well as problems with the notary: about 20 representatives of this profession refused to come to the meeting to certify the identity and signatures of the participants.

Representatives of the Central Election Commission brought to the court several boxes of documents that Ivan Otrakovsky submitted to the commission, and copies of them for the participants in the process, so that no one could doubt the validity of the decision. But the applicant stood his ground: it is wrong when the expression of the will of citizens is made dependent on the will of the notary, especially since none of the specialists who refused him agreed to formalize their refusal in writing. As for information about income and property, this is, in any case, information that the Central Election Commission receives confirmation from government bodies, and the candidate’s obligation to report this data is caused by the desire to burden him with extra work, Mr. Otrakovsky is convinced.

A representative of the Central Election Commission, speaking in court, recalled that notarization of the data of group members is an independent stage of the candidate nomination procedure provided for by law. It precedes the start of the meeting and subsequently allows for confirmation of its legitimacy. At the meeting of the initiative group to nominate Ivan Otrakovsky, the notary was absent, which, in fact, is not denied by the applicant himself, therefore the decision to refuse registration was made on the basis of the law and in full compliance with the regulations of the Central Election Commission, the representative of the commission emphasized. She also added that the law does not provide for the possibility of clarifying the data provided by the candidate or providing them with additional documents: this is a principle of public law – everything that is not permitted is prohibited. The position of the Central Election Commission was supported by the prosecutor’s office, according to which the arguments of the claim as a whole boil down to disagreement with the procedure and have not been objectively confirmed.

Following the meeting, judge Oleg Nefedov announced the operative part of the decision: to deny the claim. Nevertheless, Ivan Otrakovsky assured Kommersant that this decision will not stop him: he intends to reach the Constitutional Court, and at the same time will create his own political party.

Let us remind you that problems with notarization of minutes of meetings of initiative groups arose during the current presidential campaign not only with Mr. Otrakovsky. For example, entrepreneur Alexander Suslov, who also notified the CEC of his intention to move forward, could not fulfill this requirement of the law: the only notary worked with the documents for several hours, and as a result, the group members began to disperse without waiting for the procedure to be completed.

However, in general, Garegin Mitin, managing partner of the T&M Consulting Bureau, is convinced that the problem is not systemic in nature. At one time, he recalls, the Central Election Commission was quite active in working with the Federal Chamber of Notaries, several joint letters were prepared that explained issues of interaction, and now pre-election work with notaries has generally been established. Moreover, candidates often resort to the services of notaries in various emergency situations – for example, to confirm the authenticity of voters’ signatures. This is an atypical situation, but notaries even do this, the expert notes. There may be discrepancies, but they are more likely associated not with the system as a whole, but with individual notaries; after all, elections are a rather specific area for them, Mr. Mitin emphasizes.

However, this case, in his opinion, may be relevant for the Constitutional Court if the question is correctly posed: to what extent can the implementation of passive suffrage depend on a situation that the candidate is not able to challenge? Because, indeed, it is almost impossible to record a notary’s refusal, and he himself has the right to do this, citing employment. But in any case, this is not a question that should be raised before the Supreme Court, sums up Garegin Mitin.

Anastasia Kornya