CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 9 octobre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .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 } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s29A3AC47 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sF43EBB0E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s9A177BD5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .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 } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block }       THIRD SECTION CASE OF SHASOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA (Applications nos. 3812/22 and 5 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 9 October 2025   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Shasov and Others v. Bulgaria, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, President   Mateja Đurović,   Vasilka Sancin , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 18 September 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in applications against Bulgaria lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.     The applicants were represented by Mr K. Kanev, chairman of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, a non ‑ governmental organisation based in Sofia. On 15 January 2016 the then President of the Fifth Section gave Mr   Kanev leave to represent the applicants in all pending and future cases in which he had been appointed to personally act as their representative (Rule   36 § 4 (a)   in fine   of the Rules of Court). 3.     The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS 4.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 5.     The applicants complained of their ineligibility, as convicted prisoners, to vote in legislative elections. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 6.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF ProtOCOL NO. 1 7.     The applicants complained of their ineligibility as convicted prisoners to vote in legislative elections. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 8.     The Court refers to the principles established in its case ‑ law regarding ineligibility to vote in elections (see, among other authorities,   Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2)   [GC], no.   74025/01 , §§ 56-71, ECHR 2005 ‑ IX; Scoppola v. Italy (no. 3)   [GC], no.   126/05 , §§ 81-87, 22 May 2012; and Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia , nos.   11157/04   and   15162/05 , §§   93 ‑ 100, 4   July 2013). The essence of these principles, reiterated in all of these key cases, is that when disenfranchisement affects a group of people generally, automatically and indiscriminately, solely on the basis that they are serving a prison sentence, irrespective of the length of the sentence and irrespective of the nature or gravity of their offences and their individual circumstances, it is not compatible with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 9.     In the leading case of Kulinski and Sabev v. Bulgaria, no. 63849/09, 21   July 2016, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 10.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. 11.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 12.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Tingarov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 42286/21, 10 October 2023), the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction in the present cases. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications admissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the ineligibility of the applicants as convicted prisoners to vote in legislative elections; Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 October 2025, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh   Acting Deputy Registrar   President     APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (ineligibility of convicted prisoners to vote in legislative elections) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Type of restriction Election details     3812/22 05/01/2022 (3 applicants) Konstantin Iliev SHASOV 1978 Boris Traykov ETROPOLSKI 1979 Krasimir Vasilev GEORGIEV 1981 Impossibility for the applicants, convicted prisoners, to vote in parliamentary elections   National parliamentary election, All applicants: 11/07/2021, 14/11/2021, All applicants except Mr Shasov: 02/10/2022, 02/04/2023     13657/22 10/03/2022 (4 applicants) Iliya Radev ROGACHEV 1966 Temelko Kirov ALEKSANDROV 1978 Tihomir Iliev BANKOV 1982 Pavel Dobrev TUHCHIEV 1974 National parliamentary election, 14/11/2021, 02/10/2022, 02/04/2023     5817/23 23/01/2023 (6 applicants) Georgi Petrov RUDOV 1964 Nikola Ivanov DOBREVSKI 1966 Iliyan Georgiev DOYCHEV 1992 Anton Lozanov KMETSKI 1985 Ivo Plamenov STOYANOV 1978 Georgi Todorov TINGAROV 1981 National parliamentary election, 02/10/2022, 02/04/2023     6381/23 31/01/2023 Petar Petkov VATEV 1965 National parliamentary election, 02/10/2022, 02/04/2023     24933/23 13/06/2023 Ivan Georgiev PACHELIEV 1982 National parliamentary election, 02/04/2023     29973/23 05/01/2022 (5 applicants) Nikola Ivanov DOBREVSKI 1966 Iliyan Georgiev DOYCHEV 1992 Anton Lozanov KMETSKI 1985 Ivo Plamenov STOYANOV 1978 Georgi Todorov TINGAROV 1981 National parliamentary election, 14/11/2021