CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 23 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 } .sD9DA4929 { margin-top:72pt; 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s1F0D29DD { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial } .s3D7A7B87 { 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .sCBECFB12 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial } .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 } .s39C42982 { width:99.74pt; 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 } .sAC521AF { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sD8E76205 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .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 RANGELOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA (applications nos. 49395/21 and 14 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 23 October 2025       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Rangelov and Others v. Bulgaria, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Canòlic Mingorance Cairat , President ,   Diana Kovatcheva,   Vasilka Sancin , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 2 October 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 Ms V. Radieva, a lawyer practising in Burgas. 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 in breach of the prohibition of discrimination. 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 principally 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. 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. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 12.     The applicants also complained under Article 14 of the Convention in respect of the same set of facts. Having regard to the conclusion above under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, the Court considers that while this complaint is admissible, no separate issue arises under Article 14 of the Convention in the circumstances of the present case (compare Hirst (no. 2) , §§ 87 and 89, and Anchugov and Gladkov , § 116, both cited above). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 13.     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 the applications disclose a breach of Article 3 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention concerning the ineligibility of convicted prisoners to vote in legislative elections; Holds that no separate issue arises under Article 14 of the Convention; Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 October 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Canòlic Mingorance Cairat   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     49395/21 27/09/2021 Tsvetan Georgiev RANGELOV 1961 Impossibility for the applicants, convicted prisoners, to vote in parliamentary elections National parliamentary elections, 04/04/2021     49396/21 27/09/2021 Ivan Nikolaev RIBOV 1979 National parliamentary elections, 04/04/2021     49397/21 27/09/2021 Emil Georgiev KOSTADINOV 1966 National parliamentary elections, 04/04/21     49398/21 27/09/2021 Asen Hristov ASENOV 1976 National parliamentary election, 04/04/2021     49657/21 27/09/2021 Todor Iliev DIMITROV 1970 National parliamentary elections, 04/04/2021     49659/21 27/09/2021 Biser Yavorov MILANOV 1978 National parliamentary elections, 04/04/2021     49661/21 27/09/2021 Hristo Atanasov ATANASOV 1959 National parliamentary elections, 04/04/2021     4598/22 11/01/2022 Ivan Georgiev KALAYDZHIEV 1976 National parliamentary elections, 11/07/2021     4605/22 11/01/2022 Encho Kostadinov ENCHEV 1970 National parliamentary elections, 11/07/2021   26386/22 13/05/2022 Eduard Dimitrov PAVLOV 1968 National parliamentary elections, 14/11/2021   26396/22 13/05/2022 Petar Mitev DEMIREV 1980 National parliamentary elections, 14/11/2021   26399/22 13/05/2022 Ivan Stoyanov IVANOV 1965 National parliamentary elections, 14/11/2021   30364/23 29/07/2023 Krasimir Tsvetkov KAMENOV 1974 National parliamentary elections, 02/04/2023   30366/23 29/07/2023 Ivan Tsvetanov IVANOV 1983 National parliamentary elections, 02/04/2023   30368/23 29/07/2023 Yuliyan Lyubomirov ZASHEV 1975 National parliamentary elections, 02/04/2023