FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 63852/11 Valentin Ivanov PETROV against Bulgaria and 2 other applications (see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 19 June 2018 as a Committee composed of:

Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, President, Yonko Grozev, Lado Chanturia, judges, and Milan Blaško, 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 the second and third applicants,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.

2. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Obretenov, from the Ministry of Justice.

A. The circumstances of the case

3. The applicant in the first case listed in the attached table was sentenced to eight-years imprisonment which he started serving in 2007. He was serving his prison sentence at the time of lodging his application with the Court. He was subsequently released on an unspecified date.

4. The applicants in the second and third cases listed are serving whole ‑ life imprisonment sentences in different prisons in Bulgaria. The second applicant has been serving his sentence since 1998 and the third applicant – since 2001.

B. Relevant domestic and international law

5. The relevant legal provisions concerning prisoners ’ right to vote have been set in the Court ’ s judgment in the case of Kulinski and Sabev v. Bulgaria , no. 63849/09 , §§ 10–22, 21 July 2016.

COMPLAINTS

6. All applicants complained under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about their impossibility to vote for legislature on the ground of being convicted prisoners effectively serving their sentences. The second applicant specified that he claimed a breach as a result of his being deprived of the right to vote in all elections since 1998.

THE LAW

7. Given their similar factual and legal background, the Court decides that the three applications should be joined pursuant to Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court.

8. The applicants relied on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention which reads as follows:

“The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.”

A. The parties ’ submissions

9. The applicants maintained their complaints. The second applicant emphasised that the best evidence of his willingness to vote in the numerous legislative elections since 1998 was his application to the Court.

10. The Government submitted that the complaints were inadmissible, given that they were of a blanket nature. In particular, the complaints did not refer to alleged breaches of the applicants ’ active electoral rights in respect of specific elections and there was no evidence that the applicants had manifested their will to vote in any concrete elections for the legislature, or had even intended to do so.

B. The Court ’ s assessment

11. With respect to the lack of possibility for convicted individuals serving effective prison sentences to vote in legislative elections in Bulgaria, the Court gave judgment in its leading case Kulinski and Sabev v. Bulgaria (no. 63849/09 , § 42, 21 July 2016). In that judgment it found a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 because of the applicants ’ inability to vote in a number of concrete past elections in respect of which they had made specific complaints before it within six months of the dates of those elections. The Court concluded that there had been a violation as a result of application to the facts of the case of Article 42 § 1 of the Bulgarian Constitution and the relevant provisions of legislation on elections to the Bulgarian and European Parliaments.

12. Furthermore, the Court has found in its decisions in Toner v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 8195/08, § 27, 15 February 2011 and McLean and Cole v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 12626/13, 11 June 2013, that, as there was no remedy for the alleged violation of the applicants ’ right to vote, the six-month deadline for lodging an application with the Court began to run on the date of the elections in which the applicants, convicted prisoners, had been unable to participate. It also pointed out in McLean and Cole , cited above, § 35, that the effect of the voting prohibition is only observed if actual legislative elections take place before the adoption at the national level of general measures stemming from the leading judgment on the matter. Also, the Court has concluded that complaints about inability to vote in specific elections have to be lodged by applicants with the Court within six months of the dates of such elections ( ibid , § 25 and § 37, and Dunn v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 566/10 and 130 others, § 19, 13 May 2014).

13. In the present case, the Court notes that none of the applicants attempted a domestic remedy before complaining to it. However, given that the prohibition for convicted serving prisoners to vote stemmed directly from the legislation, including the Constitution, and that there is no right of individual petition to the Constitutional Court in Bulgaria, the Court finds that the applicants were not required to have attempted any remedy as it was doomed to fail. The Court further notes the Government ’ s objection with respect to the lack of specification of the complaints (see paragraph 10 above), yet it finds that it is not necessary to examine this issue because, in any event, the applications are inadmissible as not complying with the six-month rule. Similarly to the cases Toner , McLean and Cole , and Dunn , all cited above, the Court finds that in order to comply with the time-limit set in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants were required to apply to the Court within six months from the elections in which they had been unable to take part.

14. The Court observes on this last point in respect of the first applicant that, after the start of his serving his sentence of imprisonment in 2007 and before the lodging of his application to the Court on 14 September 2011, the following legislative elections took place: to the European Parliament on 7 June 2009 and to the Bulgarian Parliament on 5 July 2009 . Therefore, the applicant lodged his related complaint with the Court outside the time ‑ period allowed by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.

15. The second applicant complained about his inability to participate in all legislative elections since he had started serving his prison sentence in 1998. The Court observes that the last legislative election which took place after the start of his serving his sentence of imprisonment and before his application to the Court was that to the Bulgarian Parliament on 12 May 2013. Consequently, as the second applicant applied to the Court on 29 November 2013, which was more than six months later, his related complaint was lodged outside the time-period allowed by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.

16. Finally, as regards the third applicant, the Court observes that the last legislative election which took place after his starting to serve his prison sentence in 2001 and before the lodging of his application on 5 January 2016 was the election to the Bulgarian Parliament on 5 October 2014. It finds accordingly that the third applicant lodged his application at the Court outside the time-period allowed by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.

17. To the extent that all three applicants ’ complaints may be understood to concern the legislative elections that took place after the lodging of their applications with the Court, the Court observes that they failed to lodge, within six months, specific complaints in respect of any of those elections.

18. Consequently, the applicants ’ complaints must be declared inadmissible, as being out of time, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

19. If the applicants ’ complaints were to be further understood as concerning their ineligibility to vote at future unspecified elections, the Court notes that, if the general measures stemming from the Court ’ s judgment in Kulinski and Sabev , cited above, are not implemented prior to any future legislative elections, it will be open to the applicants to lodge, within six months of the date of the election, a new application with the Court (see, similarly, McLean and Cole , cited above, § 37). In these circumstances, the Court concludes that the applicants ’ complaints are premature and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Declares the applications inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 12 July 2018 .

Milan BlaÅ¡ko Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer              Deputy Registrar President

Appendix

No.

Application no.

Lodged on

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence

Represented by

63852/11

14/09/2011

Valentin Ivanov PETROV

01/11/1953

Vratsa

79200/13

29/11/2013

Zhivko Georgiev GOSPODINOV

30/08/1963

Belene

Konstantin Grigorov PERPELIEV

3959/16

05/01/2016

Georgi Angelov YORDANOV

08/08/1978

Varna