ANATOLIY MARINOV v. BULGARIA JUDGMENT ensure the effective possibility of such access (see, Stanev, cited above, §§ 233-248 and § 258). In the present case, the first attempt, by the applicant, to secure the restoration of his legal capacity took place in 2015 and 2016 (paragraphs 7-9 above), while the legislative amendment allowing for direct access to a court was enacted after that time (in October 2017, see paragraph 15 above). It therefore appears that, although the Supreme Court of Cassation seems to have accepted the applicant’s argument that he had a right to direct access to court and enjoined the lower courts to continue the proceedings (paragraph 8 above), the Ruse Regional Court and the Veliko Tarnovo Court of Appeal nevertheless applied the legislation as it stood prior to the Stanev judgment (cited above). It follows that, by refusing to accept the applicant as a claimant in the proceedings for the restoration of his legal capacity, the domestic courts failed to apply the conclusions of the Stanev judgment. In other words, given the fact that the applicant attempted to request the restoration of his legal capacity (even though the applicable legislation still did not offer him direct access to a court), he gave the domestic authorities the opportunity to examine on the merits his legal status, but they refused to do so. Given those circumstances, the Court cannot accept the Government’s argument that the applicant was not diligent in his use of the remedy in question. 28. The Court also considers it relevant to observe that the essence of the applicant’s complaint is not that he was divested of his legal capacity, but that as a person in such a situation, he was barred from participating in any form of election in the country. An opportunity to seek the termination of his guardianship would constitute a solution that would directly address the issue of the applicant’s disenfranchisement only in the event that all criteria for the restoration of his legal capacity were present – even if those relevant for the question of the applicant’s right to vote would appear to have been fulfilled. That is so because the right to vote in elections is not specifically examined in proceedings to restore a person’s legal capacity; rather, it is an automatic consequence of the successful outcome of such proceedings. Accordingly, an unsuccessful attempt at lifting a person’s guardianship will lead to continued disenfranchisement, despite the fact that the issue of voting will not even be addressed by the respective court in such proceedings. The Court notes that the Government have not submitted examples of domestic case-law indicating that even where the domestic courts refused to lift a person’s legal incapacity, they nonetheless discussed separately the question of the right to vote and made a decision, where appropriate, whether any restrictions on that person’s right to vote should continue to be imposed. It appears that such a possibility would in principle be excluded by the courts on the basis of the relevant constitutional and legal domestic provisions (paragraphs 13-14 above). 29. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that, in the circumstances of the present case, the proceedings for the termination of guardianship were not 7