wiping out all the consequences of the interference in question, and compensation need not always equal the full value of the property (for recapitulation of the Court's practice see, for example, Todorova

sanctions differently the same offence on account of personal characteristics (or “status”) of the offender has been found to give rise to an issue under Article   14 of the Convention (see Paraskeva Todorova

the Republic of Bulgaria lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Bulgarian national, Ms Kalinka Todorova

  76973/01, 28 November 2006, and Anna Todorova v.   Bulgaria , no.   23302/03, § 73, 24 May 2011). 55.

eradicate all the consequences of the interference in question, and compensation need not always equal the full value of the property (for recapitulation of the Court’s practice see, for example, Todorova

  36889/18, §   86, 20 October 2020; and Miroslava Todorova v. Bulgaria , no.   40072/13, §   137, 19 October 2021).

However, Article 8 of the Convention applies not only when there are actual family links but also in the case of potential family relations or links that may develop (see   Todorova v.

    The Court has found Article 2 to be applicable in the context of road traffic accidents caused by private persons where the direct victim had died (see, among others, Anna Todorova v.

the Republic of Bulgaria lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Bulgarian national, Mrs Galina Todorova

    Mr Valeri Iliev Todorov (“the first applicant”) and Ms Vera Ilieva Todorova (“the second applicant”) are spouses.

the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by three Bulgarian nationals, Mr Dobromir Todorov Dimov, Mr Danail Todorov Dimov and Ms Vera Hristova Todorova