text:
RUSSIAN CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF ENTREPRENEURS v. RUSSIA About Project
(as composed before 1 April 2006)
CASE OF RUSSIAN CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF ENTREPRENEURS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 55066/00 and 55638/00)
In the case of the Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs and Others v. Russia,
Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mr P. Lorenzen,
Mrs N. Vajić,
Mrs S. Botoucharova,
Mr A. Kovler,
Mrs E. Steiner,
Mr K. Hajiyev, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 7 December 2006,
1. The case originated in two applications (nos. 55066/00 and 55638/00) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by the Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs ("the applicant party") and two Russian nationals, Mr Aleksandr Anatolyevich Zhukov ("the second applicant") and Mr Viktor Sergeyevich Vasilyev ("the third applicant"), on 8 and 22 February 2000.
2. The applicants were represented before the Court by Mr M. Toporkov, the chairman of the applicant party, and Mr P. Sklyarov, the head of its legal department. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. The applicants alleged a violation of the applicant party's and the second applicant's right to stand for election and a violation of the third applicant's right to cast his vote for the party of his choice. The applicant party also complained about the domestic authorities' refusal to return the election deposit. Finally, all the applicants complained that they had had no effective remedy in respect of the alleged violations of their rights.
4. The applications were allocated to the First Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1.
5. On 3 April 2003 the Chamber decided to join the applications (Rule 42 § 1).
6. By decision of 18 March 2004, the Court declared the applications admissible.
7. The applicants and the Government filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1). The applicants submitted their comments on the Government's observations.
8. The applicant party, the Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs (Российская консервативная партия предпринимателей), is a nationwide political party established under the laws of the Russian Federation.
The second applicant, Mr Aleksandr Anatolyevich Zhukov, was born in 1949 and lives in Smolensk. He stood as one of the applicant party's candidates for the 1999 elections to the State Duma.
The third applicant, Mr Viktor Sergeyevich Vasilyev, was born in 1959 and lives in Moscow. He was a supporter of the applicant party.
A. Participation in the 1999 elections to the State Duma
1. Registration of the applicant party for election
9. On 24 September 1999 the applicant party nominated 151 candidates for the elections to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, the lower chamber of the Russian bicameral parliament.
10. On 15 October 1999 the Central Electoral Commission of the Russian Federation (Центральная избирательная комиссия РФ – "the CEC") confirmed receipt of the applicant party's list of candidates. The applicant party paid the election deposit.
11. On 3 November 1999 the CEC refused to register the applicant party's list, with reference to sections 24(1), 47 (6) (d), 51 (11) and 91 (2) of the Elections Act. The CEC established that seventeen candidates had submitted substantially inaccurate information about their income and property and struck them off the list. One of them was the number two candidate on the list. On that ground the CEC decided:
"2. To refuse the registration of the federal list of candidates to the State Duma of the Russian Federation nominated by [the applicant party] because of the withdrawal [выбытие] of the candidate listed as number two in the nationwide section of the accepted federal list of candidates."
2. Judicial proceedings concerning the applicant party's complaint
12. The applicant party appealed to a court against the CEC's refusal to register it.
13. On 10 November 1999 the Civil Division of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, acting as a first-instance court, upheld the CEC's decision to remove from the list the candidates who had made false representations, but declared unlawful the CEC's refusal to register the list in its entirety. The court interpreted the term "withdrawal" in section 51(11) of the Elections Act as meaning only a candidate's voluntary withdrawal of his or her own free will. The court therefore held that the provision should not apply to a situation where one of the top three candidates had been struck off the list by the CEC.
14. The CEC appealed against that judgment. The applicant party submitted its observations on the CEC's grounds of appeal.
15. On 22 November 1999 the Appeals Division of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the judgment of 10 November 1999. The court thoroughly analysed the wording of the Elections Act and agreed that the word "withdrawal" in section 51(11) of the Act should only refer to situations where the candidate's name had been taken off the list of the candidate's own free will or at the request of the candidate's electoral union.
16. On the same date the CEC allowed the registration of the applicant party's list of candidates.
3. Supervisory-review proceedings and quashing of earlier judgments
17. On 26 November 1999 a deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation lodged an application for supervisory review with the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The prosecutor argued that "withdrawal" was a generic term which applied to any situation where a candidate was struck off the list, be it the expression of will of the candidate himself, of his electoral union, or of the CEC. Hence a candidate's exclusion as a result of the CEC's decision should count as "withdrawal" and thus render section 51(11) of the Elections Act applicable.
18. On 8 December 1999 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation granted the application for supervisory review and quashed the judgment of 22 November 1999. The court followed the line of reasoning suggested by the deputy Prosecutor General. The court emphasised that the exclusion of a candidate from the list as a result of the CEC's decision was only a specific instance of "withdrawal" and that the CEC's refusal to register the list had therefore been lawful.
19. On 9 December 1999 the CEC annulled its earlier decisions, refused the registration of the applicant party's list and ordered the applicant party's name to be removed from the ballot papers. The applicant party appealed against the CEC's decision to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. On 18 December 1999 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dismissed the applicant party's complaint. The court found that pursuant to the judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the CEC had no discretion in the matter and it was obliged as a matter of law to refuse the registration of the applicant party's list.
20. On 19 December 1999 the elections to the State Duma took place. The applicant party was not listed in the voting papers.
4. Ruling no. 7-P of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation
21. On 25 April 2000 the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, acting on an application by a group of Russian MPs, declared unconstitutional the part of section 51(11) of the Elections Act which provided for the refusal or cancellation of a party's registration in the event of the withdrawal of one of the top three candidates on the list.
22. The Constitutional Court stressed that the right to stand for election was an individual rather than a collective right. However, the contested provision made the exercise of that right conditional on the consistent presence of the top three candidates on the list, which amounted to a restriction on the other candidates' right to stand for election and on the citizens' right to vote for them. It violated the principle of equality between the candidates because it only applied in the event of withdrawal of one of the top three candidates but not of those in lower positions on the list. Such a restriction could not be justified by the special role played by the top three candidates, who were usually political heavyweights, in the electoral campaign and it did not serve any legitimate aim listed in the Constitution.
23. Moreover, withdrawal of one of the top three candidates had a disproportionately crippling effect on the electoral union or bloc, which forfeited the right to stand for election through no fault of its own. On the other hand, it made it difficult for the top three candidates to leave an electoral union whose platform had changed to the point of being inconsistent with their own views. It also encroached on the active voting rights of the electorate, depriving them of an opportunity to vote for the candidates and impairing the formation of a representative spectrum of members of Parliament.
24. Finally, the Constitutional Court noted that the refusal or cancellation of registration was essentially a sanction imposed on an electoral union or bloc. Sanctions could only be inflicted for violations of the electoral laws and should be proportionate to the violation. However, the contested provision made it possible to sanction electoral unions, blocs and other candidates who had not committed any violation, and this was incompatible with the general principles of justice and rule of law.
25. The Constitutional Court also ruled that the finding that section 51(11) was unconstitutional was of no consequence for the State Duma elections of 19 December 1999 and could not be relied upon to seek a review of their results.
26. On 4 May 2000 the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation disallowed the applicant party's application for review of the compatibility of section 51(11) with the Constitution, because the subject-matter of the application was essentially the same as the matter adjudicated on 25 April 2000.
5. Request for a review on account of new circumstances
27. In 2001 the applicant party lodged an application with the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation to review the judgment of 8 December 1999 in the light of a new circumstance, namely the ruling of the Constitutional Court.
28. On 7 February 2001 the Presidium of the Russian Federation Supreme Court refused the applicant party's application. The court ruled that the ruling of the Constitutional Court was not a new circumstance under domestic law and that, in any event, the applicant party had failed to comply with the procedural time-limit of three months for lodging its application for a review.
B. Proceedings for the return of the election deposit
29. On 30 July 2000 the applicant party applied to the CEC to have its election deposit paid back.
30. In a letter of 24 August 2000, the CEC informed the applicant party that the election deposit had been credited to the federal budget and could not be repaid. The CEC maintained that the decision of the Constitutional Court did not apply to the 1999 elections and that there was consequently no ground for returning the election deposit.
31. On 26 April 2001 the applicant party brought a civil action against the CEC for the return of the election deposit.
32. In a judgment of 6 September 2001, the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant party's action. The court based its decision on a provision of the Elections Act to the effect that the election deposit could not be repaid if the party's list had not been registered in accordance with section 51(11) of the Act. The court held that the applicant party's request for the return of the deposit on the basis of the Constitutional Court's ruling was in fact a disguised request for a review of the election results, which had been expressly prohibited by the Constitutional Court.
33. On 10 June 2002 the Moscow City Court upheld on appeal the judgment of 6 September 2001.
A. Constitution of the Russian Federation
34. The Constitution of the Russian Federation guarantees to the citizens of the Russian Federation the right to elect and to stand for election to State and municipal bodies (Article 32 § 2).
B. The Elections Act
35. The Federal Law on Elections of Deputies to the State Duma of the Russian Federation Federal Assembly (no. 121-FZ of 24 June 1999 – "the Elections Act") provided at the material time as follows:
Section 47. Registration of a candidate or of a federal list of candidates
"1. No later than ten days after the submission of the lists of signatures ([or] upon receipt of the election deposit in the special account of the Central Electoral Commission) and of other documents required for the registration of the federal list of candidates, the Central Electoral Commission shall make a decision to register the federal list of candidates or a reasoned decision to refuse to register the said list...
6 ... Grounds for a refusal shall include:
(d) ["(г)" in the original] inaccuracy of information submitted by candidates, electoral unions or blocs in accordance with the present Federal Law, provided that such inaccuracy is substantial (inaccuracy of information in respect of specific candidates on the federal list of candidates of an electoral union or bloc may only be a ground for the exclusion of the candidates in question from the approved federal list)..."
Section 51. Withdrawal of candidates, registered candidates, electoral unions or
electoral blocs
"11. If the number of candidates, registered candidates and candidates excluded from the federal list of candidates of their own motion or by virtue of a decision of the electoral union or electoral bloc exceeds 25 per cent of the total number of candidates in the approved electoral list or if withdrawal of one or more candidates listed in the top three positions in the nationwide section of the approved federal list of candidates occurs (except in the event of compelling circumstances as described in subsection 16 of this section), the Central Electoral Commission shall refuse to register the federal list of candidates or shall cancel such registration.
15. ...[If] the registration of the federal list was cancelled pursuant to subsection 11 of this section..., all expenses incurred by the electoral commission in connection with the preparation and organisation of elections shall be reimbursed by that registered candidate, electoral union or electoral bloc."
Section 64. Election deposit
"7. ...If... a registered candidate withdraws on his own initiative or a candidate, registered candidate or the federal list is withdrawn by the electoral union or electoral bloc (with the exception of cases described in section 51(15) of this Federal Law) ... [or] registration of a candidate or of the federal list is refused (except on the grounds set out in section 91(2) of this Federal Law) ..., the election deposit that has been paid shall be returned by the electoral commission to the appropriate electoral fund no later than ten days after an application (notice) to that effect is submitted to the Central Electoral Commission ... by the electoral union, electoral bloc, candidate, or registered candidate, or after the registration is refused."
Section 91. Grounds for refusal or cancellation of the registration of a candidate
or a federal list of candidates
"2. An electoral commission may refuse to register a candidate or a federal list of candidates if:
(а) it is established that the information submitted by the candidate or an authorised representative of an electoral union or bloc under this Federal Law is substantially inaccurate ..."
C. Decree no. 65/764/3 of the Central Electoral Commission of the Russian Federation on the Approval of the General Election Results for the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation
36. On 29 December 1999 the CEC approved, by the above decree, the general election results. It appears from the appendices to the decree that 28 political parties and blocs took part in the elections, of which six passed the requisite 5% threshold for representation in Parliament. 66.8 million voters cast their votes in the election, representing 61.85% of the voting population. 3.3% of voters voted "against all candidates".
III. RELEVANT COUNCIL OF EUROPE DOCUMENTS
A. Resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly on the Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters
37. The relevant parts of Resolution 1320 (2003) adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly on 30 January 2003, read as follows:
"1. The holding of free, equal, universal, secret and direct elections at regular intervals remains a sine qua non [condition] for recognising a political system as democratic...
5. The Assembly considers that the code constitutes a major step towards harmonising standards for the organisation and observation of elections and in establishing procedures and conditions for the organisation of the electoral process...
8. The Assembly considers that, as a reference document not only for member states but also for itself, the code would reinforce the impact and the credibility of the electoral observation and monitoring activities conducted by the Council of Europe."
B. Declaration by the Committee of Ministers on the Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters
38. The relevant parts of the declaration adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 13 May 2004 at its 114th Session, read as follows:
"The Committee of Ministers...
Recalling the importance of the effective implementation of the principles of Europe's electoral heritage: universal, equal, free, secret and direct suffrage...
Recognises the importance of the Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters, which reflects the principles of Europe's electoral heritage, as a reference document for the Council of Europe in this area, and as a basis for possible further development of the legal framework of democratic elections in European countries;
Calls on governments, parliaments and other relevant authorities in the member states to take account of the Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters, to have regard to it, within their democratic national traditions..."
C. Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters: Guidelines on Elections and Explanatory Report
39. The Code of Good Practice was adopted by the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) at its 51st (Guidelines) and 52nd (Report) sessions on 5-6 July and 18-19 October 2002 (Opinion no. 190/2002, CDL-AD (2002) 23 rev.).
40. Guidelines on Elections provide as follows:
I. Principles of Europe's electoral heritage
"The five principles underlying Europe's electoral heritage are universal, equal, free, secret and direct suffrage. Furthermore, elections must be held at regular intervals.
3.1. Freedom of voters to form an opinion
a. State authorities must observe their duty of neutrality. In particular, this concerns:
i. media;
ii. billposting;
iii. the right to demonstrate;
iv. funding of parties and candidates.
b. The public authorities have a number of positive obligations; inter alia, they must:
i. submit the candidatures received to the electorate;
ii. enable voters to know the lists and candidates standing for election, for example through appropriate posting.
iii. The above information must also be available in the languages of the national minorities.
c. Sanctions must be imposed in the case of breaches of duty of neutrality and voters' freedom to form an opinion.
3.2. Freedom of voters to express their wishes and action to combat electoral fraud
i. voting procedures must be simple;
ii. voters should always have the possibility of voting in a polling station...
vii. at least two criteria should be used to assess the accuracy of the outcome of the ballot: the number of votes cast and the number of voting slips placed in the ballot box...
x. polling stations must include representatives of a number of parties, and the presence of observers appointed by the candidates must be permitted during voting and counting...
xiii. counting must be transparent. Observers, candidates' representatives and the media must be allowed to be present. These persons must also have access to the records;
xv. the state must punish any kind of electoral fraud."
41. Explanatory Report reads as follows:
"3. Free suffrage
26. Free suffrage comprises two different aspects: free formation of the elector's opinion, and free expression of this opinion, i.e. freedom of voting procedure and accurate assessment of the result.
3.1 Freedom of voters to form an opinion
a. Freedom of voters to form an opinion partly overlaps with equality of opportunity. It requires the state – and public authorities generally – to honour their duty of even-handedness, particularly where the use of the mass media, billposting, the right to demonstrate on public thoroughfares and the funding of parties and candidates are concerned.
b. Public authorities also have certain positive obligations. They must submit lawfully presented candidatures to the citizens' votes. The presentation of specific candidatures may be prohibited only in exceptional circumstances, where necessitated by a greater public interest. Public authorities must also give the electorate access to lists and candidates standing for election by means, for instance, of appropriate billposting...
3.2. Freedom of voters to express their wishes and combating electoral fraud
27. Freedom of voters to express their wishes primarily requires strict observance of the voting procedure. In practice, electors should be able to cast their votes for registered lists or candidates, which means that they must be supplied with ballot papers bearing their names and that they must be able to deposit the ballot papers in a ballot box. ... Electors must be protected from threats or constraints liable to prevent them from casting their votes or from casting them as they wish, whether such threats come from the authorities or from individuals; the state is obliged to prevent and penalise such practices."
IV. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTS
42. The relevant part of the summary of the findings of the Final Report on the parliamentary elections in the Russian Federation (19 December 1999), prepared by the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE/ODIHR), reads as follows:
"In general, and in spite of episodic challenges that could have undermined the general integrity of the process as a whole, the State Duma elections marked significant progress in consolidating representative democracy in the Russian Federation. They reflected a political environment in which voters had a broad spectrum of political forces from which to choose.
A solid turnout demonstrated a respectable level of public confidence in the process, and the final result showed a significant increase in the representative share of overall voter support actually included in the State Duma.
The electoral laws governing the process had improved significantly with each successive election and were found to be consistent with commonly recognized democratic principles, including those formulated in the OSCE Copenhagen Document of 1990. This legal framework provided a sound basis for the conduct of orderly, pluralistic and accountable elections.
The law provides the framework for parties and blocs to enter the political arena on an equal basis and provides a foundation for maintaining a level playing field for political participants. In particular, the law provided a basis for equal access to free media time for all participants, and instituted rigid parameters for enforcing accountability measures and controlling the use of campaign funds.
The political campaigns were competitive and pluralistic with 26 parties and blocs ultimately competing on the federal list and 3 to 24 candidates appearing on ballots for the single-mandate constituency races..."
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1
43. The applicants complained under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the first and second applicants' right to stand for election and the third applicant's right to vote had been violated. Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 provides as follows:
"The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature."
44. The Court will consider separately the alleged violation of the applicant party's and the second applicant's right to stand for election, and the alleged violation of the third applicant's right to vote.
A. The right to stand for election
1. The parties' arguments
45. The applicants submitted that the Central Electoral Commission had acted in excess of its jurisdiction. It followed from the CEC's decision of 3 November 1999 that it had uncovered false representations made by individual candidates rather than by the applicant party as an entity. Neither section 47(6)(d) nor section 91(2) of the Elections Act could be construed as a legal basis for the applicant party's exclusion: the former provision provided for a sanction against individual candidates rather than against the entire list, whereas the latter refused registration of a party that submitted substantially inaccurate information about itself. Neither provision was applicable to the case at hand. Registration of the applicant party had been cancelled on the basis of section 51(11), which had later been struck down by the Constitutional Court because it unduly restricted voting rights. There had been a violation of the applicant party's and the second applicant's right to stand for election, which comprised, in particular, the right to be listed on a ballot paper.
46. The Government submitted that there had been no violation because after the elections the contested section 51(11) had been struck down by the Constitutional Court. The CEC's decision to refuse to register the applicant party and the second applicant, subsequently upheld by the domestic courts, was a consequence of a breach of the requirement to submit exact information about the property and income of all candidates on the federal list. That decision had been based not only on section 51(11), but also on section 91(2), which the applicants had disregarded. In any event, from 22 November to 9 December 1999 the applicants had participated in the election campaign on a par with other parties and candidates.
2. The general principles established in the Court's case-law
47. Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 enshrines a fundamental principle for effective political democracy, and is accordingly of prime importance in the Convention system (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 113, p. 22, § 47). As to the links between democracy and the Convention, the Court has made the following observations (see United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey, judgment of 30 January 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I, pp. 21-22, § 45, cited in Yazar and Others v. Turkey, nos. 22723/93, 22724/93 and 22725/93, § 47, ECHR 2002-II):
"Democracy is without doubt a fundamental feature of the European public order ... That is apparent, firstly, from the Preamble to the Convention, which establishes a very clear connection between the Convention and democracy by stating that the maintenance and further realisation of human rights and fundamental freedoms are best ensured on the one hand by an effective political democracy and on the other by a common understanding and observance of human rights ... The Preamble goes on to affirm that European countries have a common heritage of political traditions, ideals, freedom and the rule of law. The Court has observed that in that common heritage are to be found the underlying values of the Convention ...; it has pointed out several times that the Convention was designed to maintain and promote the ideals and values of a democratic society ..."
48. The Court reiterates that implicit in Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 are the subjective rights to vote and to stand for election. Although those rights are important, they are not absolute. In their internal legal orders the Contracting States make the rights to vote and to stand for election subject to conditions which are not in principle precluded under Article 3. They have a wide margin of appreciation in this sphere, but it is for the Court to determine in the last resort whether the requirements of Protocol No. 1 have been complied with; it has to satisfy itself that the conditions do not curtail the rights in question to such an extent as to impair their very essence and deprive them of their effectiveness; that they are imposed in pursuit of a legitimate aim; and that the means employed are not disproportionate (see Sadak and Others (no. 2) v. Turkey, nos. 25144/94 et al., § 31, ECHR 2002-IV).
49. More particularly, States enjoy considerable latitude to establish in their constitutional order rules governing the status of parliamentarians, including criteria for disqualification. Though originating from a common concern – ensuring the independence of members of parliament, but also the electorate's freedom of choice – the criteria vary according to the historical and political factors peculiar to each State. The number of situations provided for in the Constitutions and the legislation on elections in many member States of the Council of Europe shows the diversity of possible choice on the subject. None of these criteria should, however, be considered more valid than any other provided that it guarantees the expression of the will of the people through free, fair and regular elections (see Podkolzina v. Latvia, no. 46726/99, § 33, ECHR 2002-II; and Gitonas and Others v. Greece, judgment of 1 July 1997, Reports 1997-IV, pp. 1233-34, § 39).
50. The Court further reiterates that the object and purpose of the Convention, which is an instrument for the protection of human rights, requires its provisions to be interpreted and applied in such a way as to make their stipulations not theoretical or illusory but practical and effective (see United Communist Party of Turkey and Others, cited above, pp. 18-19, § 33). The right to stand as a candidate in an election, which is guaranteed by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 and is inherent in the concept of a truly democratic regime, would only be illusory if one could be arbitrarily deprived of it at any moment. Consequently, while it is true that States have a wide margin of appreciation when establishing eligibility conditions in the abstract, the principle that rights must be effective requires the finding that this or that candidate has failed to satisfy them to comply with a number of criteria framed to prevent arbitrary decisions (see Podkolzina, cited above, § 35, and Melnychenko v. Ukraine, no. 17707/02, § 59, ECHR 2004-X).
3. Application of the above principles to the present case
51. Turning to the present case, the Court notes that the applicant party and the second applicant did not participate in the 1999 elections to the Russian legislature because the Central Electoral Commission (CEC) refused registration of the applicant party's list of candidates, with the result that all candidates on the list, the second applicant among them, were disqualified.
52. In its decision of 3 November 1999 the CEC found that certain candidates on the list, including the candidate listed second, had provided incorrect information about their income and property, and ordered their disqualification in their individual capacity. Paragraph 2 of the decision additionally refused the registration of the applicant party's list "because of the withdrawal of the candidate listed as number two". Although the decision referred indiscriminately to a number of sections of the Elections Act, that particular reason was mentioned only in section 51(11), and paragraph 2 did not give any other reason for the refusal.
53. The Court notes that it is not called upon to examine whether the refusal to register individual candidates disclosed a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. Not one of the candidates in question is an applicant in the present case and the applicants did not complain about that part of the CEC's decision. Rather, their complaint hinged on the fact that the applicant party and the other candidates who had done nothing wrong, such as the second applicant, had been disqualified in the election through the fault of the number two candidate.
54. Section 51(11) provided for disqualification of the entire party's list in the event of "withdrawal" (выбытия) of one of the top three candidates on the list. That provision was interpreted by the CEC as encompassing all instances of "withdrawal" for whatever reasons: both voluntary withdrawal of the candidate's own free will, and involuntary withdrawal as a consequence of his or her registration having been cancelled or refused by an electoral commission.
55. Disagreeing with such an interpretation, the applicant party challenged the CEC's decision before a court of general jurisdiction. The Supreme Court found for the applicant party at two instances and rejected the CEC's appeal. As a result, on 22 November 1999 the applicant party obtained a final judgment to the effect that section 51(11) applied only if the "withdrawal" had been voluntary. As in the applicant party's case the withdrawal had not been voluntary since the number two candidate had been refused by the CEC, the judgment was immediately enforced: on the same day the CEC registered the applicant party and allowed it to carry on its electoral campaign.
56. The judgment of 22 November 1999 was final and no ordinary appeal lay against it. However, on 26 November 1999 a deputy Prosecutor General lodged an application for supervisory review of the adopted judgments, requesting the Supreme Court to reopen the proceedings and to accept the CEC's original broad interpretation of section 51(11). The Presidium of the Supreme Court acceded to the prosecutor's request, quashed the earlier judgments by way of supervisory-review proceedings and upheld the CEC's position. On the following day the CEC annulled its decision to register the applicant party's list of candidates.
57. The Court has already found a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 in a case where the procedure for determination of the applicant's eligibility as a candidate in the election had not satisfied the requirements of procedural fairness and legal certainty (see Podkolzina, cited above, § 37).
58. The Court further reiterates that the requirement of legal certainty presupposes respect for the principle of res judicata, that is the principle of finality of judgments. This principle underlines that no party is entitled to seek a re-opening of the proceedings merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. Higher courts' power to quash or alter binding and enforceable judicial decisions should be exercised for correction of fundamental defects. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for re-examination. Departures from that principle may be justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character (see Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, § 52, ECHR 2003-IX). Indeed, as the Court has noted, "judicial systems characterised by the objection procedure and, therefore, by the risk of final judgments being set aside repeatedly ... are, as such, incompatible with the principle of legal certainty that is one of the fundamental aspects of the rule of law" (see Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine, no. 48553/99, § 77, ECHR 2002-VII).
59. Turning back to the present case, the Court notes that the final and enforceable judgment of 22 November 1999 which cleared the way for the applicant party and the second applicant to stand in the elections was quashed by means of supervisory-review proceedings on an application by a deputy Prosecutor General, a State official who was not a party to the proceedings. The purpose of his application was precisely to obtain a fresh determination of the issue that had been already settled in the judgment of 22 November 1999, notably whether section 51(11) of the Elections Act also applied to instances where the withdrawal of a candidate was involuntary. The Government did not point to any circumstances of a substantial and compelling character that could have justified that departure from the principle of legal certainty in the present case. As a result of the re-examination, the CEC's point of view prevailed and the applicant party and the second applicant were prevented from standing for election.
60. It follows that by using the supervisory-review procedure to set aside the judgment of 22 November 1999, the domestic authorities violated the principle of legal certainty in the procedure for determining the applicant party's and the second applicant's eligibility to stand in the elections.
61. Independently of the issue of legal certainty, the Court has to examine whether the decision to disqualify the applicant party and the second applicant from standing in the election was proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued, having regard to the State's margin of appreciation.
62. The Court has accepted as incontestably legitimate the interest of each State in ensuring the normal functioning of its own institutional system. That applies all the more to the national parliament, which is vested with legislative power and plays a primordial role in a democratic State (see Podkolzina, cited above, § 33). The requirement to submit information on the candidate's property, earnings and sources of income serves to enable the voters to make an informed choice and to promote the overall fairness of elections. Regard being had to the principle of respect for national specificity (see paragraph 49 above), the introduction of such a requirement, which is determined by historical and political considerations particular to the Russian Federation, does not appear arbitrary or unreasonable. Accordingly, the Court concludes that requiring a candidate for election to the national parliament – be it a person or an electoral bloc or union – to make his or her financial situation publicly known pursues a legitimate aim.
63. In a party-list proportional representation system, where a voter votes for a party list on the understanding that candidates placed higher on the list have more chances of obtaining seats in the parliament, it is not surprising that, as part of their electoral campaigning strategy, political parties nominate the most well-liked or charismatic figures at the top of their lists. Legal provisions reinforcing the bond between the top candidates and the entire party list are therefore instrumental for promoting the emergence of a coherent political will, which is also a legitimate aim under the terms of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Gorizdra v. Moldova (dec.), no. 53180/99, 2 July 2002).
64. The Court notes that section 47(6)(d) of the Elections Act provided for disqualification of candidates or electoral unions if a substantial discrepancy in their financial submissions was uncovered. That provision expressly restricted the application of the measure to individual candidates. Section 51(11) of the Elections Act, however, provided for disqualification of the entire list of candidates in the event of the withdrawal of one of the top three candidates.
65. The Court observes that neither the applicant party as an entity nor the second applicant as an individual candidate on the applicant party's list was found to have been in breach of the electoral laws. Thus, it was not their own conduct that led to their ineligibility or disqualification. As noted above, they were prevented from standing for election because the number two candidate on the party's list had been withdrawn in connection with his untrue financial declaration. However, under the domestic law, electoral blocs or candidates on the list were not required to verify the truthfulness of financial representations that were not their own. It follows that the applicant party and the second applicant were sanctioned for circumstances which were unrelated to their own law-abiding conduct and were also outside their control. Notwithstanding the considerable latitude which States are allowed in establishing criteria for disqualification, the Court considers that the disqualification of the applicant party and the second applicant for the above reasons was disproportionate to the legitimate aims pursued, namely ensuring the truthful disclosure of the candidates' financial position and promoting the integrity of electoral blocs or unions.
66. The Court notes that this was also the view of the Russian Constitutional Court, which subsequently found section 51(11) of the Electoral Law to be incompatible with the Russian Constitution in so far as it disproportionately restricted the party's and other candidates' right to stand for election (see paragraphs 21 et seq. above). The Constitutional Court convincingly established that disqualification of candidates and entire electoral alliances for reasons unrelated to their conduct unduly impaired their passive voting rights, irrespective of the grounds for the withdrawal of a top-three candidate, and was contrary to the legal principle nulla poena sine culpa. The Court sees no reason to dissent from these findings.
67. It follows that there has been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the applicant party and the second applicant.
B. The right to vote in elections
68. The applicants submitted that, irrespective of the applicant party's electoral potential in the 1999 elections, the fact that it was not allowed to stand for election had forced its supporters, such as the third applicant, to change their voting preference or not to cast their vote at all. This represented an unjustified interference with the third applicant's right to vote.
69. The Government responded that there had been no restriction on the third applicant's right to vote because he had been able to vote for any lawfully registered candidate or party. The applicant party had not been registered for elections because of its failure to abide by the legislation in force at the time. Alternatively, the third applicant could have cast his vote "against all candidates", making use of a special line on the ballot paper indicating that the voter did not wish to see any of the listed candidates elected. In any event, the applicant party's low level of popular support would not have permitted it to gain representation in the legislature.
2. The Convention institutions' case-law and the Council of Europe's general principles pertaining to the right to vote
70. The common principles of the European constitutional heritage, which form the basis of any genuinely democratic society, frame the right to vote in terms of the possibility to cast a vote in universal, equal, free, secret and direct elections held at regular intervals (see Resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly on the Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters, paragraph 37 above; Declaration by the Committee of Ministers on the Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters, paragraph 38 above; and the Guidelines on Elections, paragraphs 40 and 41 above). Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 explicitly provides for the right to free elections at regular intervals by secret ballot and the other principles have also been recognised in the Convention institutions' case-law.
71. Freedom of suffrage is the cornerstone of the protection afforded by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. The Court considers, as did the Commission, that the words "free expression of the opinion of the people" primarily signify that "the elections cannot be made under any form of pressure in the choice of one of more candidates, and that in this choice the elector [may] not be unduly induced to vote for one party or another" (see X. v. the United Kingdom, no. 7140/75, Commission decision of 6 October 1976, Decisions and Reports 7, p. 96). In other words, from a voter's perspective, free suffrage comprises two aspects: freedom to form an opinion and freedom to express that opinion (see the Explanatory Report, § 26).
72. As regards the freedom of voters to form an opinion, the Court notes that the Council of Europe's institutions have primarily described it in terms of the State authorities' obligation to honour their duty of neutrality, particularly where the use of the mass media, billposting, the right to demonstrate and the funding of parties and candidates are concerned (see, for example, the Guidelines on Elections, § 3.1 (a), and the Explanatory Report, § 26 (a)). In addition, this freedom has been considered to imply certain positive obligations on the part of the authorities, such as the obligation to submit the candidatures received to the electorate and to make information about candidates readily available (see the Guidelines on Elections, § 3.1 (b), and the Explanatory Report, § 26 (b)).
73. The freedom of voters to express their wishes, on the other hand, has been understood in terms of strict observance of the voting procedure. The electors should be able to cast their votes for registered lists or candidates in conditions shielding them from threats or constraints liable to prevent them from casting their votes or from casting them as they wish, whether such threats come from the authorities or from individuals (see the Guidelines on Elections § 3.2, and the Explanatory Report, § 27).
3. The Court's assessment
74. The Court notes at the outset that the cases concerning the right to vote that have come before the Convention institutions in the past have focused on the possibility for the applicant to exercise his or her franchise. Thus, the Court has found a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 in cases where the voting ban was not proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (see Vito Sante Santoro v. Italy, no. 36681/97, ECHR 2004-VI; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV; and Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], no. 74025/01, ECHR 2005-IX) or where the applicants belonged to a disenfranchised cluster of the population (see Matthews v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24833/94, ECHR 1999-I, and Aziz v. Cyprus, no. 69949/01, ECHR 2004-V). The Commission extended the reasoning in respect of a single voter's right to vote to the entire voting population in Greece and expressed the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 in that "the Greek people were... prevented from expressing their political opinion by choosing a legislature..." owing to the dissolution of Parliament and the postponement of new elections (see the Commission report in the Greek case, Yearbook 12, pp. 179-80).
75. In the present case it has not been claimed that the third applicant was disenfranchised because of any restriction on his right to vote existing in law or in practice. The thrust of his grievance was not that his right to vote had been taken away but rather that it had been impossible for him to cast his vote for a party of his choosing – the applicant party – which had been denied registration for the election.
76. The Court, however, does not consider that an allegedly frustrated voting intention is capable, by itself, of grounding an arguable claim of a violation of the right to vote. It notes, firstly, the obvious problem of laying down a sufficient evidentiary basis for demonstrating the nature and seriousness of such an intention. An intention to vote for a specific party is essentially a thought confined to the forum internum of an individual. Its existence cannot be proved or disproved until and unless it has manifested itself through the act of voting or handing in a blank or spoiled paper (see X v. Austria, Commission decision of 22 March 1972, Yearbook 15, p. 474). Moreover, a voter's preference is not static but may evolve in time, influenced by political events and electoral campaigning. A sudden and sweeping change in voters' intentions is a well-documented political and social phenomenon.
77. The Court reiterates that an individual applicant should be able to claim to be actually affected by the measure of which he complains and that Article 34 may not be used to found an action in the nature of an actio popularis (see, among other authorities, Norris v. Ireland, judgment of 26 October 1988, Series A no. 142, § 30). The third applicant did not furnish any information about the way in which he had exercised his right to vote. It is not known whether he cast a ballot paper or, for that matter, whether he attended the polling station on the voting day. He did not bring, or take part in, any domestic proceedings in which the courts could have established the fact that he had intended to vote for the applicant party.
78. On a more general level, the Court is mindful of the ramifications of accepting the claim of a frustrated voting intention as an indication of an interference with the right to vote. Such acceptance would confer standing on a virtually unlimited number of individuals to claim that their right to vote had been interfered with solely because they had not voted in accordance with their initial voting intention.
79. In the light of the above considerations, the Court finds that the right to vote cannot be construed as laying down a general guarantee that every voter should be able to find on the ballot paper the candidate or the party he had intended to vote for. It reiterates, nevertheless, that the free expression of the opinion of the people is inconceivable without the participation of a plurality of political parties representing the different shades of opinion to be found within a country's population (see Federación Nacionalista Canaria v. Spain (dec.), no. 56618/00, ECHR 2001-VI). Accordingly, it must have regard to the broader context in which the right to vote could be exercised by the third applicant.
80. The Court notes that more than twenty-five political parties and electoral blocs representing a broad gamut of political views and platforms competed in the 1999 elections to the lower chamber of the Russian Parliament. The elections were acclaimed as competitive and pluralistic by international observers (see paragraph 42 above). The observers recognised that the voters' freedom to form an opinion had a secure basis in domestic law, which laid down "a foundation for maintaining a level playing field for political participants" (ibid.). It was not alleged that the voters lacked sufficient or adequate information about the candidates, and the strict measures adopted by the CEC in respect of the candidates who had made false representations about themselves served to reinforce that guarantee. Nor has it been claimed that the third applicant was subjected to any form of pressure or undue inducement in his voting choices. Indeed, if there were no candidates to his taste (assuming that he persisted in his wish to vote for the applicant party), he could have voted "against all candidates", as more than two million other voters did (see paragraph 36 above). It cannot therefore be said on the basis of the information available that the third applicant's right to take part in free elections has been unduly restricted.
81. There has therefore been no violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 as regards the third applicant's right to vote.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
82. The applicants complained that they had had no effective remedy in respect of the breach of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. The Court has decided to examine this complaint under Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity."
A. The applicant party and the second applicant
83. The applicants submitted that the Presidium of the Supreme Court should not have adjudicated on the interpretation issue and should have referred it to the Constitutional Court, which was the only judicial body competent to determine the compatibility of the contested provision with the Constitution. The question to be determined was not whether any means of appeal had existed but whether the applicants had had a real opportunity to redress a breach of their electoral rights in the framework of the electoral campaign. Furthermore, although the Constitutional Court had received the applicants' complaint at the time when a similar application by a group of Russian MPs had been examined, it had not joined the two applications. Instead, it had disallowed the applicants' complaint as "substantially the same". Lastly, the applicants submitted that Russian law did not provide for a procedure for granting compensation for breaches of electoral law.
84. The Government asserted that the applicants' contention that they had had no effective remedy was incompatible with the provisions of Russian law in force at the time and was not based on the facts of the case. The applicants had had their claims examined by the Supreme Court and also by the Constitutional Court. In particular, the Supreme Court had heard their appeal against the CEC's decision of 9 December 1999 and dismissed it as unsubstantiated. After the Constitutional Court had declared the contested provision invalid, the applicants could have applied for a review of the Presidium's judgment in the light of newly discovered circumstances, but had not complied with the three-month time-limit for lodging that application.
85. The Court reiterates that Article 13 of the Convention guarantees the availability at national level of a remedy to enforce the substance of the Convention rights and freedoms in whatever form they may happen to be secured in the domestic legal order. The scope of the Contracting States' obligations under Article 13 varies depending on the nature of the applicant's complaint; the "effectiveness" of a "remedy" within the meaning of Article 13 does not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for the applicant. However, the remedy required by Article 13 must be "effective" in practice as well as in law in the sense either of preventing the alleged violation or remedying the impugned state of affairs, or of providing adequate redress for any violation that had already occurred (see Balogh v. Hungary, no. 47940/99, § 30, 20 July 2004, and Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 158, ECHR 2000-XI).
86. In the instant case the applicant party and the second applicant were disqualified as candidates in the election as a result of the Central Electoral Commission's decision of 9 December 1999 (see paragraph 20 above). Accordingly, the Court has to examine whether they had an effective remedy in respect of the violation of their right to stand for election.
87. The Government argued that the applicant party had been able to appeal to a court against the decision of 9 December 1999. However, the remedy they suggested was obviously not an effective one: the appeal failed because the domestic courts considered that the supervisory-review judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Court was final and that no further examination of the matter was possible.
88. The RSFSR Code of Civil Procedure at the time did not provide for any appeal against a judgment or decision given in supervisory-review proceedings. It could only be set aside by means of another supervisory-review judgment or decision. However, the power to institute supervisory-review proceedings was discretionary, that is to say it was solely for the State official concerned to decide whether or not a particular case warranted supervisory review (see Ryabykh, cited above, § 34). It follows that a new round of supervisory-review proceedings could not have been set in motion by a party and that that "remedy" was not accessible to the applicants.
89. It follows that the applicant party and the second applicant were denied an effective remedy in respect of the violation of their electoral rights through the use of the supervisory-review procedure. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention. In the light of this finding, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine whether further developments in the case, such as the Constitutional Court's refusal to consider the merits of the applicants' complaint, also disclose a violation of that provision.
B. The third applicant
90. The Court reiterates that Article 13 applies only in respect of grievances under the Convention which are arguable (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52). As it has found above that the third applicant did not have an arguable claim of a violation of his right to vote (see paragraph 76 et seq.), Article 13 finds no application in this situation. There has therefore been no violation of the third applicant's right under Article 13 of the Convention.
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
91. The applicant party complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the refusal to return its election deposit and the requirement for it to pay for the airtime it had used on State television had violated its property rights. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 provides as follows:
A. The parties' arguments
92. The applicant party submitted that the election deposit could be credited to the budget only if registration of the party's list had been refused, inter alia on the grounds set out in section 51(11) of the Elections Act, or if the party received less than 3% of the votes. However, the applicant party had not been allowed to stand for election and the level of its support had therefore remained unknown. Likewise, the requirement to pay for airtime had also impaired its property rights because it only applied to parties that had stood for election and obtained less than 2% of the votes.
93. The Government submitted that the applicant party had obtained State financial assistance and used free airtime for campaigning in the same conditions as other parties until the judgment of the Presidium of the Supreme Court had been given. In any event, the election deposit was payable out of the electoral fund created by the applicant party and accordingly did not directly form part of its assets. The CEC's decision to refuse to return its election deposit had been justified because there were no legal grounds for returning it. After the deposit had been credited to the budget, the CEC had had no control of the money concerned, and the Constitutional Court's ruling of 25 April 2000 could not change that situation.
B. The Court's assessment
94. It has been the Convention institutions' settled case-law that the requirement to pay an election deposit and the provisions making reimbursement of the deposit and/or campaigning expenses conditional on the party's having obtained a certain percentage of votes serve to promote sufficiently representative currents of thought and are justified and proportionate under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, having regard to the wide margin of appreciation afforded to the Contracting States in this matter (see Tête v. France, nos. 11123/84 and 11802/85, Commission decisions of 9 December 1987 and 10 March 1988; André v. France, no. 27759/95, Commission decision of 18 October 1995; and New Horizons and Others v. Cyprus, no. 40436/98, Commission decision of 10 September 1998).
95. The situation in the present case is different. Firstly, the applicant party complained about a violation of its property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 rather than about a violation of its right to take part in free elections under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, as the applicants in the above-mentioned cases did. Secondly, and more importantly, the applicants in those cases did participate in the election, albeit unsuccessfully, whereas the applicant party in the present case was prevented from standing for election as a result of the defective domestic procedure.
96. The Court notes that the domestic courts refused the applicant party's request for the return of its election deposit because it had been disqualified from standing for election on the basis of section 51(11) of the Elections Act. However, it has already found that the application of that provision in the present case was incompatible with the requirements of the Convention. In particular, the Court has found that the domestic proceedings were conducted in breach of the principle of legal certainty. That conclusion holds true for the applicant party's complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Brumărescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 74, ECHR 1999-VII).
97. It follows that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the applicant party.
99. The applicants claimed 2,315,520 Russian roubles (RUR) in respect of compensation for pecuniary damage. The amount claimed represented 91.3% of the election fund, of which 90.7% represented the applicant party's own assets and 0.6% represented contributions from private individuals, which had been used to pay the election deposit. The applicants further claimed 1,600,000,000 euros (EUR) for the applicant party and EUR 200,000 for each of the second and third applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
100. The Government considered these claims excessive and "fabulous".
101. The Court refers to its above finding that the election deposit was forfeited as a consequence of the domestic procedure, which was incompatible with the principles set forth in the Convention. There is therefore a causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage claimed. Accordingly, the Court awards the applicant party the entire amount claimed for the pecuniary damage plus any tax that may be chargeable on it.
102. As regards the claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court considers that the finding of a violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction in respect of the applicant party and the second applicant.
103. The applicants claimed RUR 168,306 as reimbursement of the court fees paid in the domestic proceedings and RUR 28,371 for postal, translation and notary expenses incurred in the Strasbourg proceedings. They also submitted that the applicant party had signed a contingency fee agreement with Mr Sklyarov, according to which he was to receive EUR 10,000 plus 5% of any amount awarded after the judgment of the Court had been delivered.
104. The Government did not comment on those claims.
105. The Court notes that Mr Sklyarov is the head of the applicant party's legal department. It would therefore be logical to assume that the representation of the applicant party's legal interests before judicial bodies is part of his normal professional duties, any additional pay or bonus in the event of successful litigation being a matter between him and his employer. It has not been shown that the second applicant paid him any fee for representing him before the Court. In these circumstances, the Court makes no award in respect of Mr Sklyarov's fees.
106. The Court is satisfied that the other expenses have been necessarily incurred by the applicant party and are supported by appropriate documentation. Accordingly, it awards the entire amount claimed in respect of the domestic costs, as well as postal, notary and translation expenses, that is, RUR 196,677, plus any tax that may be chargeable on it.
1. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the applicant party and the second applicant;
2. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the third applicant;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the applicant party and the second applicant;
4. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the third applicant;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the applicant party;
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts:
(i) RUR 2,315,520 (two million three hundred and fifteen thousand five hundred and twenty Russian roubles) in respect of pecuniary damage;
(ii) RUR 196,677 (one hundred and ninety-six thousand six hundred and seventy-seven Russian roubles) in respect of costs and expenses;
(iii) any tax that may be chargeable on the above amounts;
7. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants' claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 January 2007, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
RUSSIAN CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF ENTREPRENEURS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT


If you've never had problems with your hardware you must have a contract with God. Share your pain and knowledge with other members.
I just finished building my first HTPC XBMC build and I am running into issues with the remote. I have a logitech Harmony One. I purchased a cheap remote on Amazon that came with an IR dongle (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001M56..._s00_i03).
The problem is, when I configure the remote using the software (I am familiar with using this software as I've has a One for years) I have to tell the remote the make/model of the IR dongle. Therefore, when I try to configure MC Keyboard commands, it does not send them to the correct "device". Any commands sent to the IR dongle model (Chinavision CVSB-983 in Logitech software) works, but any command I tell to use from the MC Keyboard device doesn't make it.
Is this because I got the wrong kind of IR dongle? Or is there a way that I can send MC Keyboard commands to the Chinavision IR?
IR usually just works, plug n' play. But it obviously isn't here. With Harmony remotes, you sometimes need them to be specifically Microsoft certified to work. look it up with them. Sounds like your dongle.
Also, and out of curiosity, about how much was it for the XBMC build?


1. Individual advice in addition to standard guideline care in patients with acute non-specific low back pain: a survey on feasibility among physiotherapists and patients.
Bakker EW, Verhagen AP, van Trijffel E, Lucas C, Koning HJ, Koes BW.
2. Spinal mechanical load: a predictor of persistent low back pain? A prospective cohort study.
Bakker EW, Verhagen AP, Lucas C, Koning HJ, Koes BW.
3. Daily spinal mechanical loading as a risk factor for acute non-specific low back pain: a case-control study using the 24-Hour Schedule.
Bakker EW, Verhagen AP, Lucas C, Koning HJ, de Haan RJ, Koes BW.
4. Interobserver reliability of the 24-hour schedule in patients with low back pain: a questionnaire measuring the daily use and loading of the spine.
Bakker EW, Koning HJ, Verhagen AP, Koes BW.


text:
Read Next:	Benny Blanco Swipes Right on Tinder Founder's $9 Million L.A. Mansion
April 16, 2019 6:07AM PT
Danny Boyle Boards Alan McGee Biopic 'Creation Stories'
By Leo Barraclough and Jem Aswad
CREDIT: Erik Pendzich/Shutterstock
Danny Boyle has come on board rock music biopic "Creation Stories," about music mogul Alan McGee, as exec producer. Rupert Everett, Suki Waterhouse and Jason Flemyng have joined the cast of the film, which is being sold by Metro International.
Irvine Welsh, who wrote the novel that was adapted as Boyle's movie "Trainspotting," and Dean Cavanagh wrote the screenplay, based on McGee's autobiography, "The Creation Records Story: Riots, Raves and Running a Label." Ewen Bremner, who was Spud in "Trainspotting," plays McGee.
The pic tells the story of the Scottish-born McGee and his record label, Creation, which was one of the most successful and influential imprints of the 1980s and '90s, launching bands such as Oasis, Primal Scream, My Bloody Valentine and The Jesus & Mary Chain. McGee was a charismatic and hard-partying figure on the music scene of the era, with a brash attitude reminiscent of Sex Pistols svengali Malcolm McLaren. However, his business acumen did not match his musical or PR savvy — McGee was even enlisted by Britain's Labour Party in 1997 to spearhead a youth-oriented media campaign — and the label began to lose steam in toward the end of the decade and was shut down in 1999. McGee has revived it and launched other labels in the years since, although not with a similar level of success.
Nick Moran, who appeared as an actor in "Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" and directed "Telstar: The Story of Joe Meek" and "The Kid," helms. The film, which shoots in late May in London, is being produced by casting director Dan Hubbard.
"It's a story of relentless ambition, mental torment, drugs, bankruptcy, unfathomable wealth, courting politicians and of how one written-off young Glaswegian upstart rose to irrevocably change the face of British culture," according to the film's production company, Burning Wheel Productions.
Alan McGee
Making good on news that was reported last July but not officially announced until now, Sony/ATV Music Publishing Nashville has appointed Rusty Gaston CEO. As head of the titan Nashville division, Gaston will work under Jon Platt, Sony/ATV's chairman/CEO. "The Sony/ATV Nashville catalog is the undisputed greatest collection of country music on the planet," Gaston [...]
BTS took James Corden back into the woods for the live television premiere of the group's new "Black Swan," unfolding on a deep-forest set two nights after their Grammys debut, which was also the subject of a short interview on the late-night show. Speaking of their appearance on the Grammys, the group said, "Everything about [...]
John Prine, Yola, Rhiannon Giddens and Other Americana Notables Salute Willie Nelson
Willie Nelson could have warned mamas not to let their babies grow up to be Americana musicians, but too late — he's one of the core heroes and spiritual gurus of that roots-based movement, and some of its leading lights gathered at L.A.'s Troubadour on Grammy weekend to salute Nelson by covering his songs, showing [...]
Kristen Anderson-Lopez Talks Responsibility, Representation in 'Frozen 2' and the Biz
Gender parity isn't an issue in Oscar-winning songwriting-composer Kristen Anderson-Lopez's house, what with her longstanding collaboration with husband Bobby Lopez, but at the Oscars luncheon on Monday, it was a different story. "There were 13 female directors represented in the shorts and documentary fields," Anderson-Lopez notes, adding, "but how do we get from there to [...]
Listen: 'Mrs. Doubtfire' the Musical, Live From BroadwayCon
In the Broadway-bound musical version of "Mrs. Doubtfire," actor Rob McClure has the unenviable job of following in the footsteps of comedy great Robin Williams, who memorably played the title role in the 1993 film on which the stage show is based. Listen to this week's podcast below: How does McClure hope to fill those [...]
Osheaga and Firefly Festivals Reveal Lineups: Lizzo, Kendrick Lamar, Billie Eilish, More
Two of the summer's biggest festivals — Firefly in Delaware and Osheaga in Montreal — announced their lineups this week, and both feature some of the most important artists working today. Delaware's Firefly Festival will feature headliners Billie Eilish, Halsey and Rage Against the Machine (the latter of which is also set to headline Coachella). [...]
Hitmaker of the Month: Writer-Producer 30 Roc on Hitting No. 1 With Roddy Ricch's 'The Box'
Stop me if you think that you've heard this one before: Eccentric young rapper signs with major label; Writes catchy song based on borrowed beat; Inspires memes on Instagram and viral videos on TikTok; Lands on chart; Hits No. 1; Stays on top; Week after week, after week, after week. Sound familiar? While it's tempting [...]

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


QPI was developed in partnership with the Youth Law Center in San Francisco, CA and the University of Southern Florida. Carole Shauffer, JD, as the Executive Director and Senior Director of Strategic Initiatives for the Youth Law Center, co-created QPI, which is focused on developing positive culture change within the child welfare system through the recruitment and retention of quality foster parents. As of July 2017, QPI has been implemented in over 20 public and private child welfare systems across 10 states.
DCFS Leadership, Casey Family Services, and Youth Law Center Meeting to discuss DCFS interest and commitment to the implementation of QPI. The decision to implement in two initial sites -- Lafayette and Covington Regions -- followed by all other regions.
Statewide meeting held at Healing Place Church with more than 100 foster parents, birth parents, community stakeholders and staff participating.
Final kickoff held. Over 1,200 foster parents, community stakeholders, birth parents and staff participating in regional kickoff meetings across the state.
All regions implementing QPI with regionally identified areas of focus to improve the care of children and support Quality Parenting Initiative.
Ongoing meeting held to share information and implementation strategies and results across the state.
Initial implementation included educating the entire child welfare system about changes in the foster and adoptive system. Among these were changes to curriculum and policy development new training for staff, stakeholders, foster parents, providers, legal stakeholders, and others, and new online educational resources for staff and foster and adoptive parents. The goal was to improve recruitment and retention of foster parents, increase the quality of the foster care experience and support more timely permanency for foster children. See www.QPI4kids.org for more information.
Lafayette and Covington regions were the first to roll out QPI, but all nine regions have now presented initial implementation plans. Every region has received an enthusiastic response from the community and a commitment from partners to implement actions and strategies that support quality care for children in the DCFS child welfare system.
At initial kickoff meetings held in each region, all members of the community's child welfare system acknowledged the need to improve communication and the exchange of information. Each region has identified strategies for improving working relationships at all levels, including additional opportunities for foster parents and birth parents to meet and share information about the child and each other as they become more familiar and comfortable in their relationship.
Providing birth parents with information about the foster home to help relieve their anxieties.
Initiating phone calls between foster parents and birth parents at the time of placement to allow birth parents to receive and share information about the child and assist in the child's care.
Incorporating more intentional and earlier visits between children and their birth parents.
Establishing regular informal communication between foster parents and birth parents to discuss the care of the child.
Providing opportunities for birth parents to attend medical and other appointments for their child while they are in foster care.
In some regions, judges are chairing and/or participating in work groups to improve the court experience for foster children and their families.
Judges are developing strategies to improve relationships between agency staff and the court. They use informal meetings and brown bag lunches to address issues and familiarize participants with expectations.
Some regions are focusing on specific steps to improve the relationship between birth families and foster families. This makes the child feel more secure and helps families work together to meet the specific needs of the child.
They are focusing on reducing and addressing the trauma a child experiences when he or she is removed from the family.
They are designing strategies for improving communication between all members of the child welfare team.
They are focusing on transitions, such as when a child must move from one home to another. The goal is to reduce the number of times a child is moved but also the trauma associated with moves.


338 listings match your search criteria.
Build your dream waterfront home. Featuring 75 FT of water frontage. Prime lot with no fixed bridges overlooking intracoastal waterway.
Developer unit, last unit on this line. Best price at the Reserve at Marina Palms.
Courtesy of FCP Realty Associates, Inc.
New Home at reconstruction price!! home will feature modern finishes, wood cabinets, quartz counter top and much more!!
Beautifully renovated large 2 bedroom 2 bathroom apartment. Southern exposure and great views. No rental restrictions and easy to show.
Gorgeous school perfect for assisted living facility or potential business, includes a fully functional lunch room area with many rooms available for potential assisted living.
UNBELIEVABLE OCEAN VIEW. THIS GORGEOUS APARTMENT IS IN THE DESIRABLE SUNNY ISLES BEACH. SPACIOUS 1 BEDROOMS APARTMENT WITH 2 FULL BATHROOMS AND BEAUTIFUL OCEAN VIEW FROM ALL THE APARTMENT.
Multi-Family Development Opportunity in Booming Area. Close to Brickell and Downtown Miami. Land Used: General, Zoned T6-12 O.
Courtesy of Bravo Realty Services Inc.
Courtesy of Kellogg Realty, Inc.
Great location in Doral!! Upgraded! All A Schools. Painted in neutral colors used as a vacation home. Granite countertops and Stainless Steel Appliances. Vacant and easy to show.
Totally remodeled,1 Bedroom, 1 and 1 half baths, direct ocean view, full and half bath remodeled, biggest 1 bedroom unit, 24 hour security, valet parking, able to rent 12 times a year.
Courtesy of Best of Luxury Realty Corp.
Courtesy of Streamline Properties, Inc.
Gated 4 bedroom, but can be 5, fully finished tile garage, 24-hour patrol security, possible in-law quarters, newer kitchen, fully tiled, big living/dining area, pool, game room, clubhouse, tennis courts, and basketball courts.
Courtesy of M&J Real Estate Group, Inc.
Courtesy of Estate Capital Group, Inc.
Courtesy of Oceanaire Realty, Inc.
Courtesy of Delco Realty, Inc.
2 BEDROOMS AND 2 BATHS CONVERTIBLE, WASHING & DRY INSIDE, NICE VIEW, STEP TO THE BEACH, RESTAURANTS, CABLE INTERNET, GYM, TENNIS, HEAT POOL, ETC. SHOOL K-8.- SECURITY 24 HRS. DOOR MAN.
Courtesy of Zully Ruiz Enterprises, Inc.
Courtesy of Solutionz Real Estate, Inc.
Courtesy of RD Realty Group, Inc.
Large unit just on the ocean side, building almost complete of full remodeling from the A-Z, 2 parking spaces and lots of amenities, unit is in original condition waiting for the new owner.
Beautiful and spacious townhouse in a very desirable location, gated community, enjoy top of the class amenities, close to shopping, dining and all major highways.
Courtesy of Edge Global Ventures, Inc.
Courtesy of Ryan Realty Group, LLC.
Investor and owner occupant ready. Hurry this will go fast. Close Miami International Airport and downtown Miami. Walking distance to public transportation.
Courtesy of Doral Service Realty Inc.
EXCELLENT BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY PROFITABLE AND GREAT BUSINESS PLAN FOR NATION WIDE SERVICING!!!
Courtesy of REXSFL Realty, LLC.
VACANT LOT IN GREAT LOCATION WITH MULTIFAMILY ZONING T4. WEST OF WYNWOOD. CLOSE TO DOWNTOWN, MIAMI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AND PORT OF MIAMI.
Freshly painted, new Granite kitchen Counter Top and Sink, New Granite vanity tops, New stainless steel Appliances.
4/2 Single Family home in Richmond Heights. Close to popular schools, shopping, main roads and turnpike and more!! PLEASE DO NOT DISTURB TENANTS.
Courtesy of The Katsikos Group, Inc.
Courtesy of PVC Realty Group, Inc.
PRICED BELOW MARKET VALUE FOR QUICK SALE. SOLD AS IS. NO WHOLESALERS. DO NOT SEND OFFERS WITHOUT FIRST VIEWING THE PROPERTY.
Courtesy of Principal Properties, Inc.
SOLD AS IS, OFFERS WELCOME, SELLER IS HIGHLY MOTIVATED!!!
Cozy 2/2 home located in Keys Gate with split bedroom plan, kitchen island and eat-in sunroom. Just off the turnpike, close to shopping centers, restaurants and Homestead Hospital.
First floor unit with a very large yard. live in an apartment feeling like in a house. close to palmetto expressway and downtown doral.
Courtesy of EAG Realty International Inc.
BRIGHT & AIRY 1st FLOOR UNIT / OWNERS HAVE MAINTAINED THIS HOME / SCREENED IN PORCH WITH BEAUTIFUL, PEACEFUL VIEW OF THE WATER / PRICED RIGHT, A MUST SEE!
good size studio in the heart of South Beach, featuring wood floors, lots of light in a great location, right in front of Flamingo park, an a few blocks from the beach.
10 ACRES VACANT LAND IN THE DORAL AREA.
Freshly painted small executive office with two rooms and reception area. Property is located in Pinecrest and is minutes away from shopping area. Perfect office for professional individual starting a small practice.
Great investment for ground floor unit. Low Maintenance fee. Current Tenant is month to month.Need advance notice to show. 24 hours.
Great investment for ground floor unit. Low Maintenance fee. Current Tenant is month to month.Easy to show. Please provide 24 hour notice.
Courtesy of Bill Kelleher Realty, Inc.
Great place to call home or investment.
Check out this 1 bedroom in a great community with amenities. washer and dryer in unit. Tenants paying 1100/month until May 2018. Price is Negotiable.
Beautiful condo located in golf community, available in this exclusive area, two bedroom two bath, 1st floor unit, enclosed porch, furnished, won't last!
OUTSTANDING APARTMENT TILE FLOORS, WASHER AND DRYER INSIDE THE UNIT. THE CURRENT TENANT PAY $1,250 PER MONTH.
Beautiful secluded, corner lot features 3 bedrooms and 2 baths, tile throughout, and spacious fenced in backyard with avocado & mango trees.
Totally renovated unit with tenant in place paying $1400/m Great for investor with 11% Roi.
Nice 1/1 unit in Lakeview Club Condo, perfect for investors! unit is rented until 05/31/2018 and tenant wants to continue living in it. Complex with many amenities, and near a lake.
Spacious 2/2 conveniently located. Tiled throughout. Maintenance includes all essentials plus amenities. Great location, close to all highways, major stores, houses of worship, mall, beaches, etc.
Courtesy of Winston Towers Realty, Inc.
Courtesy of Dream Terra Realty, Inc.
This adorable one bedroom one bath condo has new kitchen cabinets and counter tops, new appliances, and a new AC. Screened in patio out back over looks the lake.
VERY NICE UNIT , 2 BEDROOMS AND 1 AND 1/2 BATH WITH A GREAT GARDEN AND POOL VIEW. 55+ COMMUNITY WITH A LOT OF AMENITIES, SELLER IS VERY MOTIVATED.
Residential CORNER lot in Cape Coral; Cape Coral has many new homes and other new homes being built. Great opportunity for INVESTMENT or to build your own dream home!
Vacant Lot. Zoned for Residential Use. May have liens and/or back taxes. Buyer is responsible for clearing all liens, violations and back taxes.
Courtesy of The R.E. Resource Grp., Inc.
LIKE NEW OFFICE READY TO BE OCCUPY BY MEDICAL OFFICE, DOCTOR, MEDICAL RESEARCH, LAW OFFICE, INSURANCE AGENCY, ETC. 2 NEW CENTRAL A/C AND TASTEFULLY UPDATED. FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT LISTING AGENT.
Great office in pinecrest with two rooms and reception area, also avail for sale at 160k.
A great opportunity! 13 acres of land located in Homestead purposed for agricultural nursery farm use. Available now.
MINI-STORAGE- GATED W/SECURITY. CLIMATE CONTROLLED UNITS AVAILABLE FOR SLIGHTLY HIGHER COST. TRUCK AVAILABLE, LEASE A PLACE & USE THE TRUCK FOR FREE. SPACES FROM 5X6 TO 1800 SQ.FT 39 DOLLARS A MONTH & UP.
Unique Commercial space for lease - a former bank - Office & Retail use! Tons of parking. GREAT OPPORTUNITY. Total sq. ft. of 9,947 is per appraisal.


A leader of McKinsey Digital in Germany, Karel also leads McKinsey Digital labs in Western Europe. He helps clients to discover and implement unique technological and cultural solutions that lead to rapid, sustainable results.
In his broad digital transformation and marketing experience, Karel has led retail, media, consumer goods, and B2B companies in developing and applying digital transformations, e-commerce strategies, and multichannel technology and marketing efforts.
Karel has addressed digital leaders at NOAH conferences and maintains a large, intensive network within the European start-up community. Before joining McKinsey, he cofounded and was managing director of eBay Europe. Karel also established Aventeon Inc., a US-based mobile ERP-software provider where he served as CEO. While he enjoys staying in close contact with business founders and entrepreneurs, he most cherishes his role as father to four true digital natives.


3 piece reclining living room set top grain leather reclining 3 piece living room set 3 piece reclining living room sets abbyson thompson 3 piece leather reclining living room sofa set.
3 piece reclining living room set 3 piece black living room set 3 piece leather reclining living room set 3 piece leather reclining sofa set.
3 piece reclining living room set 3 piece reclining living room set living room contemporary 3 piece reclining living room set lovely 3 piece leather reclining living room set 3 piece reclining living.
3 piece reclining living room set master furniture 3 piece reclining living room set 3 piece reclining sofa set ebello home northhampton 3 pc reclining sofa set chocolate brown.
3 piece reclining living room set reclining living room set in brown microfiber with power motion fairfax 3 piece top grain leather reclining living room set 3 piece leather reclining sofa set.
3 piece reclining living room set 3 piece reclining living room set enjoyable design ideas modest decoration up leather sofa abbyson calabasas 3 piece mesa camel reclining sofa set 3 piece reclining s.
3 piece reclining living room set 3 piece top grain leather power reclining living room set sedona reclining 3 piece leather living room set t 1155 3 piece power reclining sofa set.
3 piece reclining living room set homestead 3 piece steel sofa and recliner living set channing 3 piece top grain leather reclining living room set fairfax 3 piece top grain leather reclining living r.
3 piece reclining living room set furniture leather living room sets inspirational 3 piece leather power reclining sofa set fairfax 3 piece top grain leather reclining living room set channing 3 piece.
3 piece reclining living room set large picture of 3 reclining living room set 3 piece reclining living room sets sedona reclining 3 piece leather living room set.
3 piece reclining living room set sofa recliner package 3 piece leather reclining sofa set 3 piece reclining living room sets.
3 piece reclining living room set reclining 3 piece leather living room set ebello home northhampton 3 pc reclining sofa set chocolate brown 3 piece leather reclining sofa set.
3 piece reclining living room set 3 piece blue gray living room suite 3 piece leather reclining sofa set 3 piece reclining leather sofa set.
3 piece reclining living room set furniture banner burgundy leather air 3 piece reclining living room set 3 piece reclining living room sets t 1155 3 piece power reclining sofa set.
3 piece reclining living room set three piece living room set best of elegant 3 piece reclining living room set best home fairfax 3 piece top grain leather reclining living room set 3 piece reclining.
3 piece reclining living room set espresso 3 piece reclining living room set 3 piece leather reclining living room set sedona reclining 3 piece leather living room set.
3 piece reclining living room set living room reclining sofa 3 piece leather reclining living room set abbyson calabasas 3 piece mesa camel reclining sofa set.
3 piece reclining living room set overstuffed recliner oversize and 3 piece living room set rocker recliners ebello home northhampton 3 pc reclining sofa set chocolate brown 3 piece leather reclining.
3 piece reclining living room set mesa brown leather 3 piece reclining living room set fairfax 3 piece top grain leather reclining living room set abbyson calabasas 3 piece mesa camel reclining sofa s.
3 piece reclining living room set large picture of 3 power reclining living room set sedona reclining 3 piece leather living room set 3 piece leather reclining sofa set.
3 piece reclining living room set 3 piece brown leather reclining living room set 3 piece reclining sofa set fairfax 3 piece top grain leather reclining living room set.
3 piece reclining living room set 3 piece reclining living room set fairfax 3 piece top grain leather reclining living room set 3 piece leather reclining living room set.
3 piece reclining living room set silver 3 piece reclining living room set in grey from abbyson thompson 3 piece leather reclining living room sofa set sedona reclining 3 piece leather living room set.
3 piece reclining living room set furniture reclining living room set in gray 3 piece reclining living room sets 3 piece leather reclining living room set.


text:
The Game Ordered To Pay Sexual Battery Accuser $7.1 Million After Losing Appeal
Photo credit – Gabriel Olsen /Getty Images
It looks like The Game can finally put an incident from the last behind him.
However, it's going to cost!
Back in 2015, the West Coast rapper was involved in a sexual battery lawsuit with a model named Priscilla Rainey. She claims that he molested her while they were on a date, off-camera, while filming his reality show, She's Got Game. A default judgment was later declared in Rainey's favor after The Game didn't show up in court.
In 2016 a judge ruled that he would have to pay her the money, the rapper tried to challenge the judge's rulings and didn't succeed. In 2018 a warrant was issued for his arrest after he failed to submit his financial documents. He eventually handed them over and avoided jail time.
After losing the appeal, he must now pay Rainey $7.1 million! Reported on XXL, The Game hasn't commented on the situation as of right now.
He has a project that is supposed to drop in Nov.
Swizz Beatz Gushes Over Alicia Keys In A Bikini + Gifts Her A Birthday Dedication Song
Drake's Los Angeles Home Burglarized
Brice Gonzalez Of The EnkyBoyz Speaks Out Following His Fathers Passing
Lamar Odom Recalls Khloe Kardashian 'Beating Up' Woman She Caught Him Cheating With
Iggy Azalea Fans Expresses Disappointment In Her OnlyFan Content
Keyshia Cole Responds To Online User Who Says She & Ice Spice Are 'Twins' – 'That's Faith Evans'


text:
Home Car Launches Mercedes-Benz G 350 d now available in Malaysia, new entry-point to the...
Car Launches
Mercedes-Benz G 350 d now available in Malaysia, new entry-point to the G-Wagen
Aside from the launch of the GLB on Tuesday, Mercedes-Benz Malaysia also surprised everyone with the official unveiling of the G 350 d, making it the second G-Class variant available in our country – in addition to the G 63 – and the new entry-point to the current-generation Gelandewagen.
The Mercedes-Benz G 350 d is powered by the OM656 3.0 litre inline-six cylinder turbodiesel mill, which makes 286 hp and 600 Nm. Power is sent to all four wheels via a 9G-Tronic automatic transmission and a 40:60 torque split transfer case, for a 0-100 km/h time of 7.4 seconds, onward to a top speed of 199 km/h.
Mercedes-Benz says that the transmission is specifically tuned with a wide gear ratio to make driving more comfortable and quieter, while reducing fuel consumption. But most importantly, being a G-Wagen, it is also equipped with a low-range off-road reduction gear to make negotiating rough terrains easier with increased torque output at the wheels.
To help with comfort even more, the G 350 d also features active engine mounts – a first on a diesel engine in Mercedes-Benz's line-up – to significantly reduce engine noise and vibrations inside the cabin. The two mounts are set to soft at speeds below five km/h, but automatically stiffened up at higher speeds to improve driving dynamics.
As for looks, our local-specification G 350 d is equipped with the AMG Line exterior trim and AMG Night Package as standard, the latter include the 20-inch AMG multi-spoke light-alloy wheels, exterior protective strip with black trim inserts, darkened indicators, reversing lamps, and headlamps, while the radiator grille louvres, spare wheel ring, and bumper elements are painted in obsidian black.
The Stainless Steel Package is also standard on the Mercedes-Benz G 350 d, which includes running boards, spare wheel cover, door sills, and load sills guard, all made from stainless steel. Other exterior trim highlights include the Multibeam LED headlights, sliding sunroof, heated windscreen, brake callipers with Mercedes-Benz lettering, as well as a silver underguard.
On the inside, the G 350 d in Malaysia is fitted with the Exclusive Interior package, with the roof lining in black Dinamica microfibre, metal weave trim, red seat belts, red contrast stitching on black leather upholstery, as well as a Nappa leather multifunction sports steering wheel.
The widescreen infotainment display here runs the older Comand Online system instead of MBUX, though the Mercedes me connected services and telematics system is still present here. Sound is pumped through a Burmester surround sound audio system as standard.
On the safety and driver assistant front, the Mercedes-Benz G 350 d is fitted as standard with a 360-degree around view camera, Parking Assist with Parktronic, blind spot assist, autonomous emergency braking, adaptive cruise control with lane keeping assist, tyre pressure monitoring system, as well as an anti-theft protection package.
The Mercedes-Benz G 350 d is now available in Malaysia, fully-imported, with prices starting at RM999,888 (on the road, without insurance), making it almost RM500k cheaper than the Mercedes-AMG G 63 launched here back in 2018.
For the latest price list on Mercedes-Benz vehicles in Malaysia, following the Sales Tax Exemption announcement, click here.
Mercedes-Benz G 350 d
Mercedes-Benz Malaysia
Previous articleShell Malaysia introduces new Shell Helix Professional engine oil
Next articleVideo: Mercedes-Benz GLB 200, GLB 250 4MATIC, 5 Things
Believes that a car is more than just numbers and facts, it's about the emotions they convey. Any car can be the right car for someone, but he'll probably pick a hot hatch over anything else. Also find me on Mastodon.


I had an interesting discussion with a client the other day. It had to do with an executive on his team whose performance was lackluster and his behavior unacceptable. The executive had been given ample opportunity to change his leadership style and had chosen not to change. The conversation would have been fairly routine, except for two interesting points. The first point was that his company has a reputation for looking out for and taking care of its people. And the second point was that the executive in question has been with the company quite a while – well over a dozen years.
Every leader has an obligation to further the success of his or her organization, to develop others, to serve internal and external customers, and to act with integrity. In this particular case, the leader did the minimum necessary to keep his job, did not strive to bring out the best in his people, and did not look out for the best interests of his (internal) customers. He was not loyal.
Although my client felt the company should not terminate him (true to its culture), he also felt justified (rightly so) in removing him from his current position. Allowing him to remain in that role hampered the performance of the people on his team and slowed the success of the company.
Moving him into another role which leverages his skills and knowledge would better serve him, his team, and the company. Looking out for the greater good is as important as caring about a single individual, and leaving him in his current role would be a disservice to all involved.


Does Maria's Home offer the following services?
Does Cordero Residence offer the following services?
Does Blue Sky Group Home offer the following services?
Does Two Sisters Home Care offer the following services?
Does Prince Of Peace Elderly Care Facility offer the following services?
Does J.C.R. Elderly Care Corp offer the following services?