NIKIFOROV proti Bulharsku

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 16379/22
Ivan Marinov NIKIFOROV
against Bulgaria

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 2 October 2025 as a Committee composed of:

Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, President,
Diana Kovatcheva,
Vasilka Sancin, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 March 2022,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table.

The applicant was represented by Mr I. Yurukov, a lawyer practising in Sofia.

The applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 14 of the Convention concerning the ineligibility of convicted prisoners to vote in legislative elections were communicated to the Bulgarian Government (“the Government”).

THE LAW

1. Complaints under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (ineligibility of convicted prisoners to vote in legislative elections)

In the present application, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the applicant’s complaint is inadmissible.

In particular, following the Government’s submissions that the applicant could not be found in the records of the penitentiary administration on the basis of the personal data provided, on 6 November 2024 the Court forwarded those submissions to the applicant, asking him to comment. No reply was received.

In a letter of 25 February 2025, the Court’s Registry informed the applicant that the time-limit for receipt of the information indicated above had expired on 4 December 2024 and that no extension of time has been requested. The applicant’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case 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’s representative replied on 27 February 2025, stating that the applicant fully maintained his application and asked that it be examined. No further information or comments were provided in reply to the Government’s submissions above.

In view of the above, the Court finds that the applicant did not demonstrate that he had been personally affected by the situation complained of.

It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.

2. Remaining complaints

The applicant also complained under Article 14 of the Convention in relation to the same facts.

The Court has examined this complaint and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, this complaint does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention for the same reasons as indicated above.

It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 23 October 2025.

Viktoriya Maradudina Canòlic Mingorance Cairat
Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1

(ineligibility of convicted prisoners to vote in legislative elections)