First instance body dealing with electoral disputes

Law on the Election of the President of Mongolia (1993-02-15).

Chapter 9

Article 43 Settlement of Disputes relating to Presidential election

Any dispute relating to the Presidential election shall be settled by the Constitutional Court, court and/or General Election Committee within the jurisdiction and in accordance with procedure, as prescribed by laws.

http://www.ifes.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Election%20Law/1993/IFES_44/EL00547.pdf
 

OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission Final Report Presidential Election Mongolia (2013-06-26)

XII. COMPLAINTS AND APPEALS

The complaints and appeals process is primarily regulated by the PEL,which does not establish a single hierarchical structure of responsibility. In addition, the election dispute resolution is regulated by various other laws, including the Civil Procedure Law, Criminal and Civil Codes, Administrative Law and the Law on Petitions.

Different agencies and/or courts have jurisdiction to decide various election-related matters. Appeals against decisions of election commissions can be submitted to the superior election commission, which must address them within three days, or to the Administrative Courts (with the exception of GEC decisions). While the PEL is silent on the issue, the GEC informed the OSCE/ODIHR EOM that its decisions can be appealed to the Chingeltei district court in Ulaanbaatar and further to the Supreme Court, or to the Constitutional Court for matters pertaining complaints regarding voter registration are considered by the respective civil registration bodies, and decisions of the SRA can be appealed to the Administrative Court. Under the PEL, all other complaints and violations must be first investigated by the police and, on its recommendation, adjudicated by local courts. Under the laws governing the judicial system, complaints can also be filed and appealed to higher courts, which should adjudicate them within the standard time limits. Since these time limits can amount to several months, they do not provide for timely and effective redress within the electoral period, as required by paragraph 5.10 of the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document.

 Many complaints filed with the police or the AFCCP were also copied to the GEC and pertained to violations of campaign-related provisions; the EOM had no possibility to verify if and how they were dealt with and if they received judicial adjudication. The Capital City Prosecutor and the Prosecutor General’s representatives met with the OSCE/ODIHR EOM prior to election day and agreed to provide information. The only information subsequently received by the OSCE/ODIHR EOM was that 4 complaints were received in the provinces and 12 cases were received by the Capital City Police for investigation; of these, one was forwarded for full criminal investigation.

Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights,

http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/105150