CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 18 décembre 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 } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; 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 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; 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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 17719/15 Andrey Sergeyevich PAVLOV against Russia and 5 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 18   December 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 applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by some applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. 2.     The applicants’ complaints under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention concerning the ineligibility of convicted prisoners to vote in legislative elections were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW Joinder of the applications 3.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. Strike out of the part of application no. 34670/17 lodged by Mr   Ishevskiy 4.     Since no observations were submitted by the applicant in reply to those submitted by the Government, by letter dated 19 August 2021, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations   had expired on 7 January 2020 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s attention was drawn to Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The applicant received that letter on 25 February 2020. However, no response has followed. 5.     In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention and the Protocols thereto, the Court, in accordance with Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention, considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the complaints raised by Mr Ishevskiy in application no.   34670/17. 6.     Accordingly, this part of application no. 34670/17 should be struck out of the list. Complaint relating to the ineligibility of convicted prisoners to vote in legislative elections 7.     As to the remaining applicants and their complaints relating to their ineligibility as convicted prisoners to vote in legislative elections, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the applicants’ complaints are inadmissible. 8.     In its judgment   Anchugov and Gladkov   v. Russia , nos. 11157/04 and 15162/05, 4 July 2013, the Court found a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the blanket ban on voting rights imposed automatically pursuant to Article 32 § 3 of the Russian Constitution on all convicted offenders sentenced to detention. 9.     On 25 September 2019 the Committee of Ministers closed its supervision of this case (Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2019)240), having considered that the Russian authorities complied with the Court’s judgment referred to above. It noted that on 19 April 2016 the Russian Constitutional Court indicated that the federal legislator may optimise the criminal punishment system, so that certain forms of deprivation of liberty would not entail a deprivation of the right to vote. In 2017 a provision of the Criminal Code came into force and introduced a new form of punishment, that is community work, which may be imposed for the commission of offences of light or medium gravity or in case a serious offence committed for the first time. Community work involves the placement of convicted persons in "correctional centres", where detainees retain their right to vote. 10.     The Court reiterates that it has previously accepted that the imposition of the measure consisting in the deprivation of prisoners of their right to vote may not necessarily result from a court decision but could be based on legislative provisions. It further admitted that a restriction on prisoners’ vote can be conditional on the nature and the gravity of the offence committed (see Myslihaka and Others v. Albania , nos. 68958/17 and 5 others, §§ 67 and 70 ‑ 72, 24 October 2023). 11.     Turning to the present case, the Court notes that as indicated in the Appendix, the applicants were convicted and sentenced to different prison terms, ranging from seven years to life imprisonment. Given the seriousness of the offences committed, they were sent to serve their prison sentences to colonies with strict regime. The Court has previously accepted as compatible with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 the removal of the right to vote from prisoners convicted of serious offences warranting a particularly harsh sentence of imprisonment (see Scoppola   v. Italy (no. 3)   [GC], no. 126/05, §   107, 22/05/2012; Kalda v. Estonia (no. 2) , no. 14581/20, §§ 51 and 53, 6   December 2022; and compare and contrast with Söyler v.   Turkey , no.   29411/07, § 44, 17/09/2013).   It does not see any reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case. 12.     In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. 13.     In so far as some of the applicants refer to Articles 10 and 14 of the Convention, the Court notes that these complaints are based on the same facts and grievances as the complaint raised under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention. Having regard to its findings under the latter provision, the Court finds that no separate issue arises under Articles 10 and 14 of the Convention and thus no separate examination of these complaints is warranted ( see Anchugov and Gladkov , cited above, § 116). For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the part of application no. 34670/17 in respect of Mr   Ishevskiy out of its list of cases; Declares the complaints about the applicants’ ineligibility, as convicted prisoners, to vote in legislative elections, inadmissible; Decides that it is not necessary to examine separately the applicants’ complaints raised under Articles 10 and 14 of the Convention. Done in English and notified in writing on 22 January 2026.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article   3 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention (ineligibility of convicted prisoners to vote in legislative elections) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Conviction date (if available) Prison name Election details     17719/15 21/05/2015 Andrey Sergeyevich PAVLOV 1985       25/01/2005 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, upheld on 05/10/2005 by the federal Supreme Court (18 years’ imprisonment at a strict regime colony) IK-7, Krasnoyarsk region unspecified     48880/15 15/09/2015 Dmitriy Vasilyevich SALTSEV 1970       08/10/2009 Zheleznodorognyy District Court, upheld on 08/10/2009 by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court (7 years’ imprisonment) 21/04/2010 Sovetskiy District Court, upheld on 28/10/2010 by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court and on 13/05/2014 by the Presidium of the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court (8 years and 4 months imprisonment) In December 2019 the applicant informed the Court that he was released unspecified     6040/16 30/11/2015 Ruslan Rishatovich BEKMURZIN 1982       26/08/2008 Perm Regional Court, upheld on 28/08/2012 by the federal Supreme Court (life sentence) IK-18, Yamalo-Nenetskiy region unspecified     6266/17 13/12/2016 Zufar Karsheyevich ACHILOV 1958   Chetverikova Svetlana Yuryevna Gelendzhik unspecified (extorsion, 11 years’ imprisonment) IK-10, Saratov region IK-4, Stavropol region (since 2019) Elections to State Duma (2016 and 2021)     34670/17 05/04/2017 (3 applicants) Mikhail Georgiyevich CHASOVSKOY 1964   Dmitriy Yuryevich MASLOV 1987   Konstantin Viktorovich ISHEVSKIY 1977       unspecified IK-3, Irkutsk region Elections to State Duma (2016)     8405/18 29/01/2018 Nikolay Yuryevich BURTSEV 1988       09/03/2007, Perm Regional Court (life sentence) IK-18, Yamalo-Nenetskiy region different elections to State Duma