CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 9 septembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s35B69855 { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s795B4A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .s1F8486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff4040 } .sEB972D3E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .s55E5497F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s8FE8E970 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s20FC8552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s807BA660 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.16pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.34pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s469162F0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11.5pt } .s29A5A94F { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:20.17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:5.33pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s188932CB { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:23.09pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.41pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt; font-weight:bold } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s1E2B8B97 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sAA4C1130 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD2F9E735 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCB7284A { margin-left:14.97pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.33pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD2AD8A50 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8.5pt; font-style:italic } .sDEA351A4 { width:7.61pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s32D4D335 { width:5.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4196892D { width:3.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD7D0356 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s28D8D01E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sB00DFE03 { width:22.87pt; display:inline-block } .s8ADCD53C { width:135.42pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .sA1FB2B1E { width:107.94%; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5874D15 { width:7.2%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s19053B83 { width:26.72%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC3534C56 { width:22.46%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s34982FCC { width:17.18%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sCF5A01BE { width:26.44%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s76F04BBF { width:7.2%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF13B7223 { width:26.72%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5AE63BB8 { width:22.46%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3777304F { width:17.18%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s199BD2B8 { width:26.44%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } THIRD SECTION CASE OF ILAREVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA (Application no. 24729/17)   JUDGMENT This version was   rectified on 17 October 2025 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court. Art 8 (+ Art 14) • Positive obligations • Private life • Discrimination • Ineffective investigation into complaints of death threats, incitement to violence and hate speech, made on Facebook by private individuals against the applicants in connection with their work for the protection of the rights of migrants and minorities • Domestic authorities’ failure to make credible attempts to investigate • Scope of investigation unreasonably and artificially restricted • Non-compliance with requirement of effectively involving the applicants, as victims, in the investigation • Gravity of events downplayed • Legal provisions not objectively capable of preventing authorities from complying with their Convention responsibilities • States’ human rights obligations to act in order to protect fundamental rights apply as much online as they do offline • Failure to specifically engage with the prejudice at the origin of the threats • Applicants not provided with the required protection of their right to personal integrity • Manner in which criminal law mechanisms implemented deficient   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 9 September 2025   FINAL   09/12/2025   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Ilareva and Others v. Bulgaria, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Ioannis Ktistakis , President ,   Lətif Hüseynov,   Darian Pavli,   Diana Kovatcheva,   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,   Mateja Đurović,   Vasilka Sancin , judges , and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   24729/17) against 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 three Bulgarian nationals, Ms Valeria Ilareva (“the first applicant”), Ms Lidia Staykova (“the second applicant”), and Mr Krasimir Kanev (“the third applicant”), collectively the three referred to below as “the applicants”, on 24   March 2017; the decision to give notice to the Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) of the application; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 8 July 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns complaints about the domestic authorities’ failure to conduct an effective investigation into attacks on the applicants, made in connection with the applicants’ professional activities, by private individuals in the digital space. THE FACTS 2.     The three applicants were born on various dates as indicated in the appendix. They were represented initially by Ms M. Ilieva, a lawyer practising in Sofia associated with the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, and subsequently by Ms A. Kachaunova, a lawyer practising in Sofia with the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee [1] . 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms V. Hristova, from the Ministry of Justice. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. 5.     The applicants are three individuals involved with non-governmental organisations working for the protection of human rights, including refugees’ rights. events between 12 and 15 January 2015 6 .     On 12 January 2015, a Facebook user with the profile name P.G. shared a hyperlink leading to a publication on the site of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee which concerned, in particular, the nomination of the second applicant for the “Person of the Year”, a prize awarded annually by the organisation. This and some of the other Facebook profiles listed below were identified by full names. They appear with initials hereunder in line with the Court’s practice. The Government submitted that the comments on Facebook were related to the “refugee issue” widely discussed in society and contained verbal aggression towards the applicants. 7 .     Specifically, a user with the profile name G.U. posted a comment under the hyperlink which said: “Damn, how these monsters mock us? I am out of my skin with rage, that one has to be eliminated ... brother, I feel like shooting them, there are loads of vermin to eliminate!” 8.     On the same day the Facebook user P.G. shared a hyperlink to an interview given by the first applicant, under which he wrote: “Die, carrion. Cyanide for you and for all traitors to the nation.” 9.     The user G.U. commented underneath that: “I will skin this one alive, the treacherous bitch! Memorise the office and crumble!” 10.     On 13 January 2015, P.G. posted on his account a montage made up of pictures of the three applicants under a title “Freaks of the year”. He wrote underneath: “For this country and for so many years, countless heroes have shed their blood, and today the country is being ruined,   by various scumbags without a drop of Bulgarian blood – they are garbage and trash. They unleash the Taliban [fundamentalists] in our town, teach them how to trick and hide, drive them around in their private cars, lying to policemen to get away. They break our laws, helping each other to hide away in the forest, in lorries, they are teaching unwanted intruders. These are not people but carrion, who do not see the sick people in our land, so many poor people’s lives have ended, but they do not care about them since they are Bulgarians. The mosques and veils are everywhere, one can hardly hear Bulgarian spoken, our kids are being enslaved, they are barefoot for want of shoes. Our salaries are scant and measly they only cover food, water and taxes, the world is modern they say but the have-nots only exist. And the anti-Bulgarian beasts cover themselves with awards “Person of the Year” – oh, my heart is burning, and I want to tie them to a stake and whip them.” 11.     The following Facebook users commented underneath the above post: D.I. “Let lightning strike you and all pikeys ( мангали ) shake you,   For the national traitors, beatings and sex from admirers.” K.M. “”The Apostle said DEATH to the traitors!” P.P. “I say hang them at Parliament, exhibit them there as Christmas decorations   so that their bones hang there forever,   so that when new ones decide to join ... they think twice about their actions!” 12.     Facebook user K.M. wrote under the comment immediately above: “I vote FOR” Thereafter, Facebook user S.H. wrote: “Let’s not hang them...but smear honey over them   and tie them up in an ants’ nest in the forest ...   then just afterwards taking pleasure from that ... slowly, slowly, .....” 13.     Facebook user G.D.L. wrote: “... these whores are to be eliminated! They likely work for Mityo-the-eyes!” 14.     Facebook user D.N. wrote: “We need a list with their names and addresses” 15.     Facebook user with the name “Mister Bulgaria Holy Man” wrote under the comment immediately above: “Smart, Nilson, smart” 16.     This was followed by a comment by Facebook user I.N.: “death to these corrupt bastards” 17.     On 15 January 2015, Facebook user “Anton Proper-Massage” sent the following direct message to the second applicant via Facebook: “I continue to think that national traitors like you must be killed,   you do not deserve to live” 18 .     In a second message to the second applicant that user sent a picture of a woman with bloodied body and head, with a gun placed between her legs, to which he had added the words “go ahead”. Complaints by the applicants to the authorities 19 .     On 19 January 2015 the applicants, assisted by the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, complained to the Sofia District Prosecutor’s Office about the above posts on Facebook. In particular they stated that they had been targeted in those posts because of their work for the protection of the rights of minorities and migrants. The statements amounted to a call and incitement to violence, and included death threats to the applicants. They claimed that the posts comprised offences under several provisions of the Criminal Code (“the CC”), namely Article 144 (death threats), Article   162 § 1 (hate speech), and Articles   320 (incitement to crime) and 164 (incitement to religious hatred) (see paragraphs 66 and 68-72 below). The content of the posts was inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of the Convention, of which the applicants had been victims. The applicants pointed out that the posts had been “liked” 44 times as well as widely disseminated – the publication with the montage of photographs had been shared over 120 times in the course of only four days. They asked the prosecutor to act without delay since, if the posts in question were deleted, Facebook itself would only store them for a limited period of time, after which they would be deleted definitively. Criminal proceedings Actions of the Sofia District Prosecutor’s Office Initial steps 20 .     A Sofia district prosecutor issued a decision dated 28 January 2015 initiating criminal proceedings against a person unknown for an offence contrary to Article 162 § 1 of the CC (see paragraph 68 below). The decision set out the investigative steps to be undertaken by the investigating officer, which consisted in questioning of each of the three applicants as witnesses. 21 .     The first applicant was interviewed for the investigation on 16   February 2015, the second applicant on 17 March 2015 and the third applicant on 18 February 2015. They described coming across and reading the various threatening posts listed in paragraphs 6 to 18 above on their Facebook accounts. 22 .     The first applicant stated during her interview that she had been working as a lawyer specialising in immigration law for 14 years. On 13   January 2015 she had seen that she had been tagged in a post on her Facebook page. She emphasised how worried she had been about her safety when she realised that, if her name was typed into an internet browser, her office address popped up. She also referred to a link to a newspaper interview with her entitled “Refugees will turn into a threat if we do not help them integrate”, which had been shared by Facebook user P.G. on 12 January 2015. She claimed the posts incited people to murder her in a particularly aggressive way. She also informed the authorities that content found on a separate internet site, whose exact address she gave them during the interview, was identical to the posts shared by Facebook user P.G. She said it was likely that that site and the Facebook account of user P.G. were managed by the same person, who had given his full name and the name of the city in which he lived. 23.     The second applicant stated during the interview that she worked as a volunteer with the State Agency for Refugees and in a refugee camp in Bulgaria. Her activities were publicly known, she had given interviews about her work and she was active in a Facebook group called “Friends of Refugees” which was open to the public. She said that she did not know the person behind the Facebook user P.G. but had discovered cached versions of a site of his which contained a photograph of him and personal information about him. She had also received death threats via a direct message in Facebook sent by user “Anton Proper Massage”. She had taken screenshots of all of the above, which she would share with the authorities. Since 12   January 2015 she had been receiving sporadic messages by Facebook users who said they wished she were dead; she was not sure those were related to the posts in question. 24 .     The third applicant stated during the interview that he was the head of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee. In the context of the annual “Person of the Year” prize, which that organisation awarded each year, he had browsed the internet in order to see whether there were any reviews in connection with the award. He came across a publication on the Facebook account of user P.G., which was entitled “Freaks of the Year” and contained the names and photographs of himself and the other two applicants. He had been very worried to read a post under the above-mentioned publication which ended with “I want to tie them to a stake and whip them”. There were numerous other posts under that publication which threatened him and the other two applicants with death and one even inquired about their addresses. He did not know the person behind the Facebook user named P.G. He believed all the online threats targeting him and the other two applicants’ were made in connection with their work on the protection of refugees’ human rights, and were motivated by ethnic and racial intolerance. The publications by Facebook user P.G. resembled those on another Facebook site, whose title he provided. He had on occasion been threatened with death while walking in the street. 25 .     On 20 March 2015 an investigating officer from the Sofia Directorate of Internal Affairs made a written proposal to the prosecutor that the investigation be suspended for failure to identify the perpetrator of the offence. He observed that the law, the Electronic Communications Act, allowed an application for the disclosure of digital traffic data only in respect of serious offences, that was to say, those which attracted imprisonment of five years or more (see paragraph 80 below). Since the maximum penalty for the offence under investigation, namely under Article 162 § 1 of the CC, was four years’ imprisonment, it was impossible to apply for the disclosure of digital traffic data to identify the persons behind the publications referred to in the interviews. He referred in that connection to the decision of the Constitutional Court of 12 March 2015 (see paragraph 82 below in respect of that decision). Suspension of the investigation 26 .     In a decision dated 30 March 2015 the Sofia District Prosecutor’s Office suspended the criminal proceedings for failure to identify the perpetrator. The prosecutor observed that, since the authors of the comments in question had identified themselves either with pseudonyms or with commonly used names, it could not be said that the names they had chosen to display in Facebook corresponded to their real identity, especially because of the ease of making an account in Facebook. Consequently, given how the offence had been committed, the only way to identify the perpetrator would be to obtain disclosure of digital traffic data and the IP address from which the posts had been made, something which was not possible. He referred in that connection to the Constitutional Court’s decision (see paragraph 82 below). The prosecutor concluded that “at that point in time, all possible and lawful investigative steps and measures had been carried out” and the file had to be sent to the investigating police for them to continue searching for the perpetrator and to periodically report to the prosecutor on any results. 27.     On 21 May 2015 a police inspector approved an action plan comprising additional investigative steps, as follows: (1) maintaining ongoing cooperation with other departments in the Ministry of the Interior with a view to prompt receipt of any information which might lead to the identification of the perpetrator; (2) asking various informers in an appropriate manner to act in order to obtain information about the offence in question; (3) undertaking intelligence talks with active members of criminal groups, with an emphasis placed on people living or present in the vicinity of the incident scene; (4) on identifying perpetrators of offences similar to the one in question, checking whether they might also have been involved in this offence; (5) where individuals linked to the offence in question (for example witnesses) were identified, carrying out further interviews with them with a view to obtaining additional information about the offence; (6) on identifying the perpetrator, informing the prosecutor immediately for the purposes of continuing the criminal proceedings and bringing the individual criminal to justice. Actions by the applicants upon learning of the suspension 28.     At the end of September 2015, the applicants consulted the prosecutor’s database and learned that criminal proceedings had been opened following their complaint but suspended by the prosecutor on 30 March 2015. Since the decision suspending the proceedings had not been sent to them and they had not been informed of it otherwise, on 28 October 2015 they asked for a copy of it in their capacity as victims within the meaning of the law (on victims’ rights in the pre-trial proceedings, see paragraph 74 below). 29 .     A prosecutor from the Sofia District Prosecutor’s Office refused their request in a decision of 2 November 2015. He found that the offence under Article 162 § 1 of the CC was one in which there were no victims, as it had been directed against equality as a societal and legal concept. Even if the hypothesis that the offence had identifiable victims could be accepted, those victims would be the refugees themselves, not the applicants as they did not belong to that group. The applicants were therefore not entitled to a copy of the prosecutor’s decision they had asked for, nor were they entitled to be informed what investigative steps had been carried out. Actions of the Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office 30 .     The applicants challenged the above decision (of 2 November 2015) before the higher prosecutor, the Sofia City Prosecutor, who issued a decision on 1 February 2016. He observed that, following the applicants’ complaint that offences under several provisions of the CC had been committed (see paragraph 19 above), an investigation had been opened solely under Article   162 § 1 of the CC. The applicants had been questioned as witnesses (see paragraph 21 above) and no other investigative steps had been carried out. 31 .     The conclusion of the lower prosecutor that no victims could be identified in the context of offences under Article   162 § 1 and Articles 164 and 320 of the CC was correct, as “[this was] a notion derived from the new criminal law doctrine”. However, the information provided by the applicants during their questioning by the authorities also suggested that an offence under Article   144 § 3 of the CC had been committed. The investigation of that offence presented extraordinary difficulties, particularly because of the poor statutory basis for collecting evidence of digital traffic data set out in Article 159a of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”, see paragraph   83 below). In this case it was impossible to ask a court to order the collection of digital traffic data, since such a request could not concern a period of more than six months before the [date of] the request for such an order, which was clearly not sufficient to cover the period of the offence (see paragraphs 6 to 18 above). Moreover, orders could be made under this Article only in respect of serious offences, and only the one falling under Article   144   § 3 of the CC satisfied that condition. 32 .     Irrespective of the above, however, the lower prosecutor had to pursue efforts to investigate and to provide reasons for his decision in respect of all the offences complained of. Since that had not been done, it was necessary to make redress. 33 .     The Sofia City Prosecutor quashed the decision of 30 March 2015 (which had suspended the investigation, see paragraph 26 above) as wrong and unlawful, and ordered that copies of the decision of 1 February 2016 (see paragraph 30 above) be sent to the lower prosecutor, so that the investigation would be continued, and to the applicants. The applicants also had to be informed of their rights as victims in the context of the investigation under Article   144 § 3 of the CC. Further investigation ordered by the Sofia District Prosecutor’s Office Investigative measures 34 .     In a decision of 15 February 2016, a prosecutor from the Sofia District Prosecutor’s Office ordered that the following additional investigative measures be carried out by the investigating officers: (1) further interviews with the applicants, who had to be informed of their rights (as victims) in the criminal procedure (see paragraph 33 above) and (2) the identification of two individuals – P.G. (or P.P., born in Ruse in 1978) and G.U. through enquiries with the “Bulgarian Identity Documents” system and their questioning as witnesses. A time-limit of four months counting from 1 February 2016 was set. 35.     The three applicants were questioned again on 10, 12 and 22 March 2016 respectively. The second applicant said that the threats she had received via direct messages in Facebook, screenshots of which she had provided to the authorities already, were made by an individual whom she suspected had lived at that time somewhere in the United Kingdom and worked as a masseur. 36 .     On 29 February 2016 the investigating police officer from the Sofia Directorate of Internal Affairs (see paragraph 25 above) requested the relevant services to inform him of P.G.’s addresses, of any pending criminal proceedings against him and of efforts made to locate him. A picture of P.G. was also requested and he was identified with his personal identity number in addition to his name. A reply in a letter of 2 March 2016 said that none of the requested information was available in the Ministry of the Interior’s information systems. 37.     Apparently also on 29 February 2016, the same investigating police officer wrote to the Department for information and analysis of the National Investigation Service, asking whether G.U., identified by his personal identification number and name, was detained at that time, where and in connection with what offence if yes, and whether there were any other pending criminal proceedings against him. On 8 March 2016 the authorities provided to the investigating officer the latest information available in the police files about G.U. That included his picture (dating from 2013), his birthplace (the town of Ruse), his “permanent” address, dating from 2004, and his “current” address, dating from 2001 (both located in Ruse). It also listed measures taken against him by the authorities over the years (between 1983 and 2015), such as his being prohibited from leaving the country and being put on the list of people wanted by the national authorities. 38.     Summonses were issued in respect of P.G. and G.U., who were called for questioning as witnesses at the Sofia premises of the investigating authorities on 11 March 2016 and 28 March 2016 respectively. 39 .     A letter of 1 March 2016, signed by the investigating police officer (see paragraph 25 above) and addressed to the head of the police in Ruse, accompanied the summons in respect of G.U. The letter said that if the police did not find G.U. at the address given in the summons, the people at that address or neighbours should be asked about his whereabouts. Results had to be reported without delay. In a letter of 9 March 2016 a police officer from Ruse reported that he had visited the address and that G.U. was not to be found there. The officer said he had asked a third party about G.U.’s whereabouts but had been told that he had not lived there for a number of years. 40 .     A record of findings ( констативен протокол ), signed by the same investigating police officer (see paragraph 25 above) and dated 11 March 2016, noted as follows. The officer had spoken with P.G., who had been reached on a mobile telephone number, on four occasions between 29   February and 9 March 2016. The officer had explained to P.G. that he was being summoned by telephone, which was a legally valid method, to report to the authorities’ premises in Sofia to be questioned as a witness in connection with the criminal proceedings opened following the applicants’ complaints. P.G. had expressed unwillingness to do so unless a written summons was sent to him and his related expenses were reimbursed. P.G. did not turn up for questioning on 10 March 2016, having been invited by telephone the previous day. 41.     The summons issued in respect of P.G. was handed to him in person on 12 March 2016. He was summoned to report to the Sofia investigating authorities on 28 March 2016. 42.     The investigating officer also wrote, on 21 March 2016, both to the National Investigation Service and to the Chief Directorate for the Execution of Punishments at the Ministry of Justice, enquiring whether G.U. was detained at that time either awaiting trial or serving a sentence and, alternatively, whether he had been released recently from detention anywhere in the country. It is unclear whether he received a reply. 43 .     The material submitted by the Government in relation to the investigation carried out into the applicants’ complaints included an untitled and undated sheet of paper, which was however signed by the same investigating police officer mentioned above (see paragraph 25 above). That sheet appeared to be part of the record of an interview with P.G., who was named in it as a witness and who had also signed the record. In particular, it contained the following information. Several separate documents, or copies of such, had been handed to the witness who was asked to answer related questions. Those questions included: (a) whether he had a Facebook profile under the exact names – P.G. – and which displayed a specific picture of a statue of a lion taken from a particular telephone identified by the authorities by its brand and model; (b) whether he had created a separate internet site with a certain address; whether it was him in a photograph published on that site; and (c) whether publications of his were hosted on the site; and whether he had posted three particular posts related to the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee’s annual award (see paragraph 6 above). 44 .     The answers of the witness were as follows, listed in the order in which they were recorded: (a) as far as he could remember, neither of the two names – P. or G. – featured in his Facebook profile; (b) he might have made comments on Facebook about the third applicant whom he did not like; (c) he had had a Facebook profile with the picture showed to him but he could not remember for how long; (d) his Facebook profile which had that picture had been hacked numerous times; (e) he did not remember whether he had posted a specific comment showed to him relating to refugees; (f) it was indeed him on the photograph of the website showed to him, he had opened a site at around 2011 in order to post his own material, but he did not know the name of the site, other than that it contained the word “literature”, nor whether the name of the site showed to him was the one opened by him; (g) he specified that the site he had created contained poems and short stories written by him; (h) he might have shared a link, showed to him and entitled “Again that freak nominated for person of the year by the Bulgarian-hating xenophobic organisation Bulgarian Helsinki Committee”, on his Facebook profile but then he might not have done so, it was impossible to remember for sure; (i) he used to have another Facebook account whose profile picture was a statue of a lion and that profile had been hacked repeatedly; (j) he did not know anyone by the name G.U., neither whether he had among his “Facebook friends” a person with those names. 45 .     On 6 and 13 April 2016 the first and third applicants took cognisance of the investigating file in the proceedings opened into an offence under Article   162 § 1 of the CC. They did not object to the evidence that had been collected but reiterated their requests for further investigation. The first applicant referred to a specific 2011 sentence delivered by the Varna District Court (see paragraph 70 below), emphasising that it showed how it was possible to establish IP addresses and from there the identity of the people behind them, even in the context of an offence which did not qualify as serious. She suggested that the investigating officers in her case should make contact with the officers who had conducted the investigation in the case referred to and find out how they had gone about it. She also asked that P.G. be questioned again and asked to provide the IP address he was currently using and, if he were to provide that address, she wanted the authorities to carry out a search and seizure operation. Lastly, she asked the authorities to establish whether G.U. had been tried and sentenced, and whether he had left the country lawfully, and she asked them to obtain a Bulgarian court order asking the United Kingdom authorities to disclose his address (see on the last point also paragraphs 34 and 39 above). Suspension of the investigation 46 .     On 14 April 2016 the investigating police officer (see paragraph 25 above) filed an opinion on the case, giving reasons. He observed that the criminal proceedings had been opened against persons unknown under Article 162 § 1 of the CC in relation to the posts made in Facebook between 12 and 15 January 2015 (see paragraphs 6 to 18 above). The prosecutor’s instructions of 15 February 2016 (see paragraph 34 above) had been complied with. The individuals in question had been identified. It had been established from conversations with G.U.’s relatives that he lived in the United Kingdom. P.G. had been interviewed. He had neither confirmed nor denied whether he had posted the statements in question and whether the Facebook profile of interest to the authorities belonged to him. It was impossible to apply for the disclosure of digital traffic data, in view of the consequences of the Constitutional Court’s decision of 12 March 2015. In particular, since in accordance with Article 159a of the CCP (see paragraph 83 below) such a request could not concern a period of more than six months before the request for such an order, this was clearly not sufficient to cover the period of the offence (see paragraphs 6 to 18 above). Therefore, it would be futile to question P.G. a second time since, even if he were to provide his IP address, the authorities could not compare it with the address from which the posts were sent as they had no means of obtaining it. Lastly, there was no indication that an offence under Article 144 § 3 of the CC had been committed. The officer recommended that the investigation be suspended. 47 .     On 25 April 2016 the Sofia District Prosecutor suspended the investigation. 48 .     On the one hand, the prosecutor found that while it could indeed be concluded that offences under Articles 162 § 1, 164 § 1 and 320 of the CC had been committed, in view of the specific method of their commission, namely via the internet, it was necessary to seek the disclosure of digital traffic data about their authors’ IP addresses in order to be able to establish the identity of the perpetrators. The decision then repeated the reasoning on this point as discussed in paragraphs 25 and 26 above. The decision further stated that, as could be seen from what had already been said, all possible and lawful investigative measures had already been carried out, but it was impossible to establish with certainty who the perpetrators were, given the statutory limits on what could be ordered. 49 .     On the other hand, the decision continued, in respect of the offence under Article 144 of the CC, it had not been established that an act had been committed which met the nature and gravity of that offence. The vast majority of the comments made on Facebook did not contain a specific criminal threat but were rather negative assessments expressing their authors’ dislike of the applicants. Even if it were to be accepted that certain individual comments did contain direct threats towards the applicants, when they were examined in the context in which they had been made, those threats could not have provoked a justified fear that they would be carried out. The reason was that the threats had been made via the internet and the authors of the threats had not been certain that their statements would ever reach the persons targeted by them. The context, namely discussions on the internet, was indicative of the incidental and topical but short-lived ( злободневен ) character of the comments. That was also evidenced by the fact that, since the dates in question, the applicants had not been approached by the same individuals online nor had they been threatened directly by anyone else. A distinction had to be made between an uninhibited demonstration of antipathy and making a threat capable of provoking a feeling of immediate danger to life. Article 144 of the CC required there to have been some reason to believe that the threat might be implemented. The posting of semi-anonymous and general remarks during internet discussions by individuals who in all likelihood had never met the person at whom their threatening comments were targeted and who did not live in the same city (and sometimes even country) as them could neither cause a justified fear that they would be fulfilled nor suggest that the threat could materialise. The decision stated that it could be appealed against to the Sofia District Court in accordance with Article 244 § 5 of the CCP (see paragraph 78 below). Judicial review 50.     The applicants challenged the above decision in the Sofia District Court. 51.     The Sofia District Court declared their appeal inadmissible in a decision of 21 June 2016 which stated that it was final. 52 .     The court observed that the comments on Facebook were a form of verbal aggression towards people who supported the rights of refugees, and that that aggression could be seen as directly concerning the applicants. However, the proceedings opened under Article 162 § 1 of the CC had been suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. Notwithstanding the Sofia City Prosecutor’s quashing of the suspension and instructions in relation to the applicants’ complaint under Article 144 § 3 of the CC (see paragraphs   31 ‑ 33 above), no criminal proceedings in connection with the latter provision had been opened. The investigating authorities had interviewed the applicants and informed them of their rights as victims, without however specifying the offence. 53 .     The court found that the prosecutor’s decision (discussed in paragraphs 47-49 above) was not subject to judicial review and neither were the applicants entitled to appeal against it. The reason was that the offences for which the criminal proceedings had been opened did not presuppose the existence of a victim as such but protected the constitutionally established principle of equality before the law. 54 .     The court commented that the European Court of Human Rights had repeatedly held that racial violence damaged people’s dignity and that the authorities should be especially diligent in investigating it. In the present case, not all possible investigative measures had been carried out in order to establish the authors of the anti-refugees statements. 55.     Irrespective of the above, judicial review was strictly limited by the law. The court could therefore only examine whether a given procedural decision by a prosecutor to temporarily suspend proceedings was lawful. It could not give instructions to the prosecutor as to how to apply the law and gather evidence. It was exclusively within the prosecutors’ remit to decide what charges to bring and that decision was subject to appeal to the higher prosecutor but not subject to judicial review. Because of that the court could not pronounce on the applicants’ arguments that an offence under Article   144   § 3 of the CC had been committed against them. If the applicants considered that the prosecutor had in effect refused to open criminal proceedings, they could challenge such a refusal solely to the higher prosecutor, namely the Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office (see, in respect of the applicable legal framework, paragraphs 75 -77 below). Further proceedings by the prosecutors 56 .     Following a challenge made to the higher prosecutor by the applicants, in a decision of 16 September 2016 the Sofia City Prosecutor confirmed the lower prosecutor’s decision (discussed in paragraphs 47-49 above), fully accepting its reasoning as to the lack of evidence that an offence under Article 144 § 3 of the CC had been committed. 57 .     On 17 January 2017 the Sofia Appellate Prosecutor found the applicants’ challenge to the decision of 16 September 2016 inadmissible where it concerned offences under Articles 162 § 1, 164 § 1 and 320 of the CC. At the same time, he quashed the decision concerning the offence under Article 144 § 3 of the CC. He found that the district prosecutor should have either explicitly refused to open criminal proceedings into that offence (and such a decision could be appealed against before a higher prosecutor, see paragraphs 75-77 below) or terminated the proceedings if he had concluded that no such offence had been committed (which could be appealed against in court, see paragraph 79 below). The Sofia Appellate Prosecutor instructed the Sofia District Prosecutor’s Office to explicitly reach a decision in respect of the offence under Article 144 § 3 of the CC. 58 .     Following an objection by a prosecutor in the Sofia District Prosecutor’s Office, on 7 February 2017 the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor’s Office confirmed the decision of 17 January 2017. 59 .     On 14 February 2017 the same prosecutor from the Sofia District Prosecutor’s Office who had made the decision of 25 April 2016 to suspend the proceedings (see paragraphs 47-49 above) severed the proceedings concerning the complaints under Article 144 § 3 of the CC. In a decision of 21 February 2017, he refused to open criminal proceedings under that provision. That decision was for the most part a verbatim reproduction of the text of the decision of 25 April 2016 (see in particular paragraph 49 above). 60.     The applicants appealed before the higher prosecutor. On 1 June 2017 the Sofia City Prosecutor upheld the decision of 21 February 2017 as well ‑ reasoned and lawful, saying there had not been sufficient elements of a publicly-prosecutable offence present to initiate criminal proceedings. 61 .     The applicants appealed. On 25 July 2017 a prosecutor from the Sofia Appellate Prosecutor’s Office upheld the lower prosecutor’s decision. Referring to the posts complained about, she found that it had been justified to investigate whether an offence under Article 14