Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KULINSKI AND SABEV v. BULGARIA

  Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-general (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Vote);No violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KULINSKI AND SABEV v. BULGARIA

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (13)Zitiert selbst (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 23.11.2010 - 60041/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2016 - 63849/09

  The Court next reiterates that it has already held that Article 13 does not go so far as to guarantee a remedy allowing a Contracting State's laws as such to be challenged before a national authority on the ground of being contrary to the Convention or to equivalent domestic legal norms (see Greens and M.T. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 60041/08 and 60054/08, §§ 90-92, ECHR 2010 (extracts), and Szabó and Vissy v. Hungary, no. 37138/14, § 93, 12 January 2016, and the authorities cited therein).

  60041/08 and 60054/08, § 98, ECHR 2010 (extracts); and Anchugov and Gladkov, cited above, § 122).

• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 37138/14

  Ungarns Anti-Terror-Gesetz ist menschenrechtswidrig

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2016 - 63849/09

  The Court next reiterates that it has already held that Article 13 does not go so far as to guarantee a remedy allowing a Contracting State's laws as such to be challenged before a national authority on the ground of being contrary to the Convention or to equivalent domestic legal norms (see Greens and M.T. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 60041/08 and 60054/08, §§ 90-92, ECHR 2010 (extracts), and Szabó and Vissy v. Hungary, no. 37138/14, § 93, 12 January 2016, and the authorities cited therein).
• EuGH, 06.10.2015 - C-650/13

  Ein Mitgliedstaat kann an der bei bestimmten Staatsangehörigen erfolgten …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2016 - 63849/09

  The Court of Justice of the European Union has examined, in the case of Thierry Delvigne v. Commune de Lesparre-Médoc and Préfet de la Gironde (C-650/13, EU:C:2015:648) the compatibility with Article 39 (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of the exclusion, by operation of French law, from those entitled to vote in elections to the European Parliament persons who were convicted of a serious crime.

• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9267/81

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2016 - 63849/09

  The formulation used in this Article to the effect that "The High Contracting Parties undertake", as opposed to the wording whereby "Everyone has the right" or "No one shall" which is found in nearly all the other substantive clauses of the Convention, does not reflect any difference of substance between this Article and the other provisions of the Convention and its Protocols (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, 2 March 1987, §§ 48-50, Series A no. 113).
• EGMR, 09.04.2002 - 46726/99

  PODKOLZINA c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2016 - 63849/09

  A wide range of purposes may therefore be compatible with this provision (see, for example, Podkolzina v. Latvia, no. 46726/99, § 34, ECHR 2002-II, § 34).
• EGMR, 04.07.2013 - 11157/04

  ANCHUGOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2016 - 63849/09

  11157/04 and 15162/05, §§ 36-46, 4 July 2013.
• EGMR, 27.10.2015 - 39951/08

  BRÂNDUSE v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2016 - 63849/09

  The Court has repeatedly read into this Article the existence of individual subjective rights of participation - the "right to vote" and the "right to stand for election to the legislature", as protected by the positive obligation of the State to effectively ensure those rights to individuals under its jurisdiction (see Scoppola (no. 3), cited above, § 81; Anchugov and Gladkov, cited above, § 93; and Brânduşe v. Romania (no. 2), no. 39951/08, § 44, 27 October 2015).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.06.2021 - 45660/17

  DIMOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  The relevant legal provisions concerning prisoners' right to vote have been set out in the Court's judgment in the case of Kulinski and Sabev v. Bulgaria, no. 63849/09, §§ 10 and 15-22, 21 July 2016.

  The applicants in the first and fourteenth applications emphasised that, just like in the case Kulinski and Sabev v. Bulgaria, (no. 63849/09, 21 July 2016), they had been deprived of the right to vote, in particular in relation to the elections indicated in their complaints.

• EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 63852/11

  PETROV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  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.

  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).

• EGMR, 26.10.2021 - 34591/19

  TOPLAK v. SLOVENIA and 1 other application

  They referred to cases in which the Court had ruled that the finding of a violation had been sufficient, such as Kulinski and Sabev v. Bulgaria, no. 63849/09, 21 July 2016, and Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia, nos.

• EGMR, 23.09.2025 - 1048/20

  HORA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  First, in the twenty years since the Hirst judgment was handed down, the Court has had the opportunity to develop, refine and apply its approach to the question of prisoners' right to vote (see, in particular, Scoppola, cited above; Anchugov and Gladkov, cited above; Söyler v. Turkey, no. 29411/07, 17 September 2013; Kulinski and Sabev v. Bulgaria, no. 63849/09, 21 July 2016; Myslihaka and Others, cited above; and Kalda, cited above).
• EGMR, 24.10.2023 - 68958/17

  MYSLIHAKA v. ALBANIA

  In the latter case, it will be for the legislature itself to balance the competing interests in order to avoid any general, automatic and indiscriminate restriction (see Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia, nos. 11157/04 and 15162/05, § 107, 4 July 2013, and Kulinski and Sabev v. Bulgaria, no. 63849/09, § 37, 21 July 2016).
• EGMR, 10.10.2023 - 42286/21

  TINGAROV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Rn. 6 The relevant legal provisions concerning prisoners' right to vote have been set out in the Court's judgment in the case of Kulinski and Sabev v. Bulgaria (no. 63849/09, §§ 10 and 15, 21 July 2016).
• EGMR, 23.10.2025 - 62531/19

  NESHKOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Rn. 8 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.
• EGMR, 06.12.2022 - 14581/20

  KALDA v. ESTONIA

  In the latter case, it will be for the legislature itself to balance the competing interests in order to avoid any general, automatic and indiscriminate restriction (see Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia, nos. 11157/04 and 15162/05, § 107, 4 July 2013, and Kulinski and Sabev v. Bulgaria, no. 63849/09, § 37, 21 July 2016).
• EGMR, 23.10.2025 - 16355/22

  SAKALIEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Rn. 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.
• EGMR, 23.10.2025 - 49395/21

  RANGELOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Rn. 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.
• EGMR, 09.10.2025 - 3812/22

  SHASOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 09.10.2025 - 49951/21

  KALAYDZHIEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 54446/07

  ISAKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA