I incorrectly predicted that there's no violation of human rights in GENCHEV v. BULGARIA.

Information

  • Judgment date: 2022-07-05
  • Communication date: 2017-05-16
  • Application number(s): 57868/16
  • Country:   BGR
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 13, 14, P1-3
  • Conclusion:
    Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Vote)
  • Result: Violation
    • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.69746
  • Prediction: No violation

  • Inconsistent


Legend

 In line with the court's judgment
 In opposition to the court's judgment
Darker color: higher probability
: In line with the court's judgment  
: In opposition to the court's judgment

Communication text used for prediction

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 Protection 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.

Judgment