The interim relief procedure initiated by the candidates whose votes were canceled is arousing a lot of interest and questions. How does this procedure work and what are the chances of success for applicants?
First of all, it is important to understand what a summary procedure is. This is a rapid procedure aimed at obtaining from the judge a provisional measure to protect interests at risk. In the case of interim relief, it is specifically a question of protecting a public freedom which would have been seriously affected in a manifestly illegal manner by an administrative decision.
The interim release procedure follows several stages. First of all, the party concerned files a request before the competent court, in this case the Council of State. This request is then notified to the defendant, who has the opportunity to provide his observations. Once these formalities have been completed, the case is scheduled for a public hearing, where the investigation is closed. In the case of interim relief, the judge must rule within 48 hours. It is also possible to appeal the order made by the summary judge.
The candidates concerned by the cancellation of their votes therefore appealed to the Council of State with the aim of obtaining a provisional measure to safeguard their allegedly violated public freedoms. This measure specifically aims to cancel the effects of the decision to cancel their votes. The request was notified to the Independent National Electoral Commission (CENI), which had the opportunity to present its observations. The case was then argued publicly before the judge, who is expected to issue his decision within 48 hours.
It is important to emphasize that the summary liberty procedure is an emergency procedure, which aims to protect public freedoms in danger. However, the success of the applications will depend on the candidates’ ability to demonstrate that the decision to cancel their votes seriously infringes their freedoms in a manifestly illegal manner. The judge will have to analyze the facts and arguments presented by the parties before making his decision.
In conclusion, the summary procedure initiated by the candidates whose votes were canceled constitutes an approach aimed at protecting their public freedoms. However, the outcome of these requests will depend on the ability of the applicants to demonstrate the seriousness of the attack on their freedoms in a manifestly illegal manner. Case to be continued, pending the decision of the summary judge.