The annulment of the November 21 vote, as decided by the Supreme
Court on December 3, was based on the following findings (see full
text of judgment in Ukrainian):
[...] the Central Electoral
Commission did not analyze in plenary session the protocols of the
territorial electoral commissions summarizing the results of the vote
[...], did not verify the authenticity of said protocols, and
did not verify whether the other documents mentioned in article 83,
6, of the Law "On the election of the President of Ukraine," were
deposited with the Commission in the way prescribed by law, in their
In short: The Court is not satisfied that the vote results published on the national level correctly reflect the results gathered in the territorial commissions, or that Central Electoral Commission's work was based on complete and genuine documentation.
At the time when the Central Electoral Commission determined the result of the run-off vote [...], the Commission had not reviewed the declarations and the complaints against violations, by territorial electoral commissions, of the procedure for determining the vote results [...], and against the decisions taken by the territorial commissions taken in response to complaints, and the time limit for reviewing said complaints had not yet expired.
At the time when the Central
Electoral Commission determined the result of the run-off vote [...],
the courts of had not completed the review of timely submitted
against decisions or absence of decisions of territorial electoral
commissions, concerning the determination of vote results, and the time
limit for reviewing said complaints had not expired.
In short: The Central Electoral
Commission ignored protests, and determined the results of the
vote without waiting for the courts to review protests [note: the
Comission was competent for reviewing certain protests, the courts were
competent regarding other protests].
The requirements of articles
23, 24, 85 [of the Law "On
the election of the President of Ukraine" ], regarding the choice of
of electoral commissions, were not met
The requirements set of articles
68, 69, 70 regarding the participation of official observers in the
electoral procedure, were not met
The requirements of article 77
regarding vote outside voting stations [vote at home, for
the disabled; description here] were not met
The protocols of precinct
electoral commissions containing the results of vote were established
violation of the requirements of article 79
The transmission of documents to
territorial electoral commissions took place in violation of article 81.
The members of electoral commissions were not chosen lawfully, the
official observers was hindered, the voting at home procedures were
conducted unlawfully, the counting of ballots was conducted
at the local level in an unlawful way, and the results of counting were
transmitted in ways inconsistent with the lawful procedure.
The Court concludes as follows
possibility of determining the true will of the voters in a credible
way is excluded
and, based on this conclusion, calls a new vote for December 26.