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. 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).

Outcome for Article P1-3: violation