CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 18 septembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s19646158 { width:117.75pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 6891/23 Deniz Syuleymanov AHMEDOV against Bulgaria (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 18   September 2025 as a Committee composed of:   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, President,   Mateja Đurović,   Vasilka Sancin , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 30   January 2023, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant was represented by Ms S. Ivanova, a lawyer practising in Sofia. The applicant’s complaint under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the ineligibility of convicted prisoners to vote in legislative elections was communicated to the Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) (see appended table below for further details). A complaint based on the same facts was also communicated under Article 14 of the Convention. THE LAW Complaints under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (ineligibility of convicted prisoners to vote in legislative elections) In the present application, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the applicant’s complaint is inadmissible. In particular, the Court notes that at the time when parliamentary elections were held on 2 October 2022, the applicant was in pre-trail detention in connection with criminal proceedings pending against him. In the capacity of a criminal defendant, however, he was not legally prevented from exercising his right to vote. In view of the above, the Court finds that this complaint is manifestly ill ‑ founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. Remaining complaints The applicant also complained under Article 14 of the Convention in relation to his complaint under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. The Court notes that the applicant has failed to substantiate his complaint that he had suffered any discriminatory treatment under Article 14 of the Convention with regard to any conventional right, including that under Article 3 of Protocol No.   1. This complaint is therefore manifestly ill ‑ founded. It follows that the application must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 9 October 2025.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article   3 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention (ineligibility of convicted prisoners to vote in legislative elections) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Type of restriction Election details 6891/23 30/01/2023 Deniz Syuleymanov AHMEDOV 1989   The applicant alleged, that as a convicted prisoner, he could not vote in parliamentary elections National parliamentary election, 02/10/2022