Communicated on 16 May 2017

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 57868/16 Gencho Pavlov GENCHEV against Bulgaria lodged on 30 September 2016

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the impossibility for the applicant, suffering from a psychiatric disorder but not placed under guardianship, pursuant to the relevant provisions of domestic law, to exercise his vote in the Parliamentary elections which took place on 25 June 2005 as he was placed in a psychiatric hospital for a compulsory treatment at that time. On 3 June 2005 the director of the hospital had issued an order according to which only patients who were not under guardianship, had psychiatric ability and had an identity card could be included in the list of voters. On 15 June 2005 a medical commission assessed the applicant ’ s state of health and stated that he did not have the psychiatric ability to vote in the election. The applicant initiated civil proceedings for non-pecuniary damages under the Protec tion Against Discrimination Act against the hospital, the Ministry of Health and the prosecution services. By a final judgment dated 11 April 2016, the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant ’ s claims.

Relying on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, alone and together with Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the alleged interference with his right to vote was not provided by the Constitution and the applicable law and that he was subject to discrimination on the grounds of disability.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a breach of the applicant ’ s right under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to vote in free elections for the Bulgarian Parliament on 25 June 2005 regard being had to the hospital director ’ s order of 3 June 2005 and the medical assessment regarding his state of health and psychiatric ability of 15 June 2005 ? In particular:

( a) What was the legal basis for the decision to exclude from the list of voters patients who had suffered from psychiatric disorders but were not placed under guardianship?

(b) Did the exclusion of such voters pursue a legitimate aim?

(c) Was the decision to exclude the applicant from the list of voters proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued? In particular, was the applicant afforded sufficient safeguards to protect him against the adoption of an arbitrary decision?

2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

3. Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights on the ground of his disability or “ other status”, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1? In particular:

( a) Does the applicant ’ s psychiatric disorder constitute a disability or has it brought his situation within the term “other status” in Article 14 of the Convention?

( b) Has the applicant been subjected to a difference in treatment regarding the exercise of his right to vote in Parliamentary elections and, if so, what is the relevant group with whom he should be compared?

If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim and did it have a reasonable justification?