CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 17 février 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sCDED223E { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s24E6874 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s71604A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .s2D1013D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .s7DCF27B3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:8pt } .sD37EA1D5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:8pt } .s2E1B62A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center } .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 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .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 } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; 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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s329183A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .sE5EEB06B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3936C9DD { width:11.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sBB64854C { width:8.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s20FC8552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt } .sE8F2C496 { width:5.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7D18490B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5BDECA8 { width:5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s99272BBB { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s452883D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sAB798EC2 { width:3.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD62BB3FA { width:7.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9386A8B3 { width:0.44pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s716C64EA { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .sB435C42F { width:1.36pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF9B3189B { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify } .s6F9C7ED9 { margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s2FA28896 { margin-left:8.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:normal } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9CB9BE2 { 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-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s88BC2CC1 { 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-family:Arial } .s14AC500A { width:3.73pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s1E267BCE { line-height:113%; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .s72E2A2A7 { width:1.06pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD8E89A4 { 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-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .sF0C78780 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s5165BC52 { margin-left:17pt } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s31FAC864 { margin-left:17.05pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; list-style-position:inside } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s264C04A0 { margin-left:17.05pt; text-indent:-17.05pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sAE1ABF8F { width:36.89pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sEE48D15E { width:149.43pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s1E019DFF { width:46.56pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA49AD2E4 { width:177.11pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside } THIRD SECTION CASE OF KOFFI v. BULGARIA (Application no. 95/24)   JUDGMENT Art 3 (substantive) • Positive obligations • Violent assault on the applicant, in which he sustained serious injuries, by several football fans walking through the city centre after a match • Legislative and regulatory framework appeared to encompass the acts complained of • Domestic authorities’ plan of operations drawn up before the football match sufficiently thorough to serve as a basis capable of providing effective protection of the general public • Adequate assessment of risk • Imminent threats emanating from particular group of fans not apparent to police before the assault was perpetrated • Special diligence obligation not triggered • Higher level of preventive operational response vis-à-vis the particular group of fans in advance of the incident not called for on the basis of the information available at the time Art 3 (procedural) • Ineffective investigation into the assault which was not capable of leading to the establishment of the facts or a determination of the identity of persons responsible Art 14 (+ Art 3) • Discrimination • Domestic authorities’ failure to make specific efforts to investigate any potential racist motive behind the assault   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 17 February 2026   FINAL   17/05/2026   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Koffi v. Bulgaria, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Ioannis Ktistakis , President ,   Peeter Roosma,   Lətif Hüseynov,   Darian Pavli,   Diana Kovatcheva,   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,   Canòlic Mingorance Cairat , judges , and Milan Blaško, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   95/24) 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 a British national, Mr Leon François d’Assises Koffi (“the applicant”), on 14 December 2023; the decision to give notice to the Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning the alleged non-compliance by the authorities with their obligations to effectively respond to a racially motivated act of violence against the applicant by private parties, under Articles 3 and 14 of the Convention; the parties’ observations; noting that the British Government did not make use of their right under Article   36 §   1 of the Convention to intervene in the proceedings; Having deliberated in private on 25 November 2025 and 20 January 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last ‑ mentioned date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The application concerns the authorities’ alleged failure to (i) effectively investigate the perpetrators (several unidentified individuals) of an assault on the applicant which was allegedly prompted by racist motives and which caused serious injury, and (ii) put in place adequate operational measures with a view to preventing the assault. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Sheffield. He was represented by Ms A. Kachaunova, a lawyer practising in Sofia. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Dimitrova, of the Ministry of Justice. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. 5 .     On 29 September 2018 teams from the two biggest football clubs in Bulgaria, CSKA Sofia and PFC Levski Sofia, played a match at the National Stadium in Sofia. 6.     The National Stadium is located in the central part of town; its official address is 38 Evlogi and Hristo Georgievi Boulevard. That boulevard crosses (at an almost perpendicular angle) General Parensov Street, on which – at a distance of around 600 metres from the boulevard, and in immediate proximity both to 6 September Street and the headquarters building of the Ministry of the Interior – the applicant was assaulted (see paragraphs 26-33 below). 7.     Events such as the football match in question are, as a matter of practice, broadly publicised in advance in order to prompt people to take measures for their own safety and to avoid the area in proximity to the stadium. 8.     In order to prevent violence at and around major sporting events held in Sofia, the standard practice of the authorities is to divide the centre of the city into two areas during such events. The respective fans of opposing teams are allowed to reach the stadium and to exit and walk away from it through the different areas. This is done in order to prevent clashes between supporters of different teams. The Sofia police force assigns a significant number of police officers to the organisation of such events and engages officers from other towns as well.         The authorities’ Plan of operations 9 .     In preparation for the football match of 29 September 2018, the police authorities drew up a plan of operations. It was dated 28 September 2018, contained 39 pages and was approved by the head of the Sofia Directorate of Internal Affairs. 10.     The plan comprised information about the authorities’ plans and expectations regarding the football match scheduled to take place the following day. Those included an estimate that around 25,000 spectators would attend the event. The plan also stated that the stadium would be split into four distinct sectors – two of which would be assigned to fans supporting one of the teams, and two to fans supporting the other team. It listed the different streets in the city (both in the vicinity of the stadium and further away from it) designated as corridors for the movement of fans to and from the stadium on the day; it also specified that no mixing of the two groups of supporters would be allowed. The area where the events complained of subsequently unfolded (see paragraphs 26-33 below) was designated for Levski supporters. 11.     The plan stated that officers involved in ensuring security for the event would gradually occupy their posts from 11 a.m. onwards. External security arrangements in respect of the stadium were to be in place by 2 p.m., and internal security arrangements were to be ready by 2.30 p.m. 12 .     The plan specified that the level of risk associated with the event was estimated as one that posed a “high degree of public danger”. 13 .     The plan provided that a Temporary Operations Headquarters Committee ( временен оперативен щаб ) would be set up with the overall aim of maintaining public order and preventing the commission of crimes before, during and after the football match. That committee would comprise three named high-level officers (who would be in command of operations) and a further 20 named officers. It would be the responsibility of the officers in command to ensure the operational management of onsite law-enforcement forces and police resources. 14.     A total of 1,867 officers were to be engaged as security forces in respect of the event. 15.     The plan listed the preparations that were to be made. Those included: a meeting with the stadium’s management to discuss the list of the specific measures that it had to undertake with a view to ensuring the smooth running of the event; issuing instructions to the commercial establishments in the vicinity of the stadium not to sell alcohol; providing information to the media about the security arrangements put in place for the event; carrying out reconnaissance of the stadium with a view to setting up barriers and entry points; and sending letters to the Chief Secretary of the Ministry of the Interior with a view to involving in the security arrangements for the football match law-enforcement forces from different police directorates, as well as officers from the fire-safety and civil-protection authorities and the Mayor’s Office. 16.     For the purposes of security arrangements for the football match, the plan divided Sofia into 18 operational zones. It specified: the number of police officers to be deployed in each zone and their deployment within each zone (listing the names of the respective streets); the time at which officers were to take up their posts; and the names of the officer(s) responsible for policing each respective zone. 17 .     Some of the police teams deployed were to be armed with gas ‑ spraying devices and firearms capable of firing rubber bullets; others were to carry shields, helmets and batons. 18 .     It was also planned to set up mobile police units capable of reacting swiftly if incidents arose. Their tasks were to observe and monitor the areas assigned to them and “upon noticing any big groups of fans [that seemed] inclined to commit hooligan-inspired acts, to immediately report via radio the location of those groups and the direction of their movement”. 19.     At the end of the match, the police were to escort the crowds leaving the stadium. Reserve contingents of officers (the number of officers comprising each contingent was indicated) were to be formed and located at specifically identified points. 20 .     The plan also listed a number of areas in the city that had been identified (on the basis of operational information and related analysis) as potential “conflict points”. The area where the events complained of subsequently unfolded (see paragraphs 26-33 below), including the Sveti Sedmochislenitsi Church, was indicated as a likely conflict area. 21.     A specialised water-cannon machine was to be placed in front of the Turkish embassy on Vasil Levski boulevard, as would be 20 police officers. A further ten police officers were to be positioned around the Patriarch Evtimii statue. Both the Turkish embassy and the Patriarch Evtimii statue are located in the area between the National Stadium and the Ministry of the Interior building. 22 .     Moreover, five officers were to be deployed along each of eight different streets in the area, within sight of Vasil Levski Boulevard (which in turn lay almost parallel to and between Evlogi and Hristo Georgievi Boulevard and 6 September Street). The exact names of the streets where officers were to be located were listed, and those included General Parensov Street (where the assault on the applicant would take place). In addition, officers were to be placed at several intersections in the area, including the intersection between Vasil Levski Boulevard and General Parensov Street. 23 .     The plan was that groups of two to three officers would be stationed at the small park in front of Sveti Sedmochislenitsi Church and on 6   September Street with the task of keeping apart the fans of the two different teams and preventing conflict and breaches of public order. They were to be carrying shields, helmets and batons. 24 .     Teams of officers were to be formed and given the task of gathering operational intelligence over the whole city, prior to, during and after the football match. In particular, it was planned that four teams of two officers each would move around the area of Vasil Levski Boulevard and Graf Ignatiev Street. Three more teams (each comprised of the same number of officers) would cover the area between Vitosha Boulevard, Tsar Osvoboditel Boulevard, Rakovski Street and Graf Ignatiev Street. The teams would have to be vigilant in respect of particularly large groups of fans and, upon spotting such groups, would report their movements to their respective team leader. The teams’ tasks would also include the prevention of offences and disturbance to public order, the detection of individuals or groups likely to assault migrants, and the diffusing of potential conflict. All additional tasks that might arise were to be coordinated and resolved by the respective team leader. 25.     The plan also provided that special attention was to be paid to a number of locations identified as vulnerable and key. Those included Vasil Levski Boulevard and the other main corridors for movement of fans. Officers would have to be ready to organise themselves into mobile teams and to react, upon instruction, if an incident arose – including in neighbouring zones. 26 .     The gathering places of fans and the routes used by them for getting to and leaving the stadium were to be accorded particular attention. After the end of the match officers were to take up positions at public transport stops, as well as at train and coach stations. Fans who gathered together to walk in groups would be escorted by officers.       The assault on the applicant 27 .     On the evening of 29 September 2018, shortly after 7.30   p.m., the applicant and two of his acquaintances, A. and S., were walking on General Parensov Street in the immediate vicinity of the Ministry of the Interior building. They were moving from 6 September Street in the direction of Vasil Levski Boulevard (see paragraph 22 above), on the side of the small park in front of the Sveti Sedmochislenitsi Church. At that time the football match had already finished and fans were walking out of the stadium. 28.     The applicant and his companions noted that a large group of men were walking towards them. The men were moving along General Parensov Street from the direction of Vasil Levski Boulevard. The police had organised corridors via which the football fans could leave the stadium and move through the area around it, and the group that the applicant came across had been directed towards this particular corridor. 29 .     At 7:45:11 p.m. (as subsequently established on the basis of CCTV footage collected from the area in the course the investigation) several men from the crowd started chasing after the applicant and his friends. A. and S. ran towards the church. The applicant turned around in order to run in the opposite direction. A man came out from the crowd. He had very short hair and was dressed in a dark sweatshirt, lighter trousers and black trainers. He approached the applicant and kicked him. 30.     At 7:45:20 p.m. the applicant – who fell to the ground , was surrounded by a group of people who started kicking him. At 7:45:32 p.m. another man knelt next to the applicant and immediately after that a third man, dressed in a black t-shirt with an inscription in white lettering, kicked him. At 7:45:55   p.m. a few other persons approached the applicant, apparently with the intention of helping him. 31 .     At 7:47:00 p.m. police officers, who had been driving after the group of Levski fans in a police van, arrived at the scene. 32.     The group of fans was large: according to the applicant, as well as A. and S., it comprised around 40 to 70 people in it (see paragraphs 54 and 67 below); according to the police officers who were interviewed subsequently, it comprised around 150-200 people (see paragraphs 53 , 77 and 79 below). 33 .     Having noticed some agitation in the group, the police officers stopped the van and got off. Some of the fans pointed to the applicant, who was lying on the street, where a young man was trying to open his mouth. The applicant took a breath and regained consciousness. 34.     There is no information that the police officers actually saw the applicant, his friends or the perpetrators before the assault. The whole incident lasted less than two minutes. The officers called an ambulance, which arrived at around 8.10   p.m. 35.     The applicant went through several medical procedures in hospital that night. 36 .     A forensic medical report drawn up subsequently for the purposes of the investigation indicated that he had sustained the following traumatic injuries: concussion; a contusion on the left frontal area of the head; an abrasion and haematoma in the area of the left cheekbone; an open contusion wound on the left side of the lower lip; open contusions on the upper and lower eyelids of the left eye; a fracture of the ascending left-side branch of the lower jaw; the loss of the two front teeth; and the loosening of the left ‑ side incisor. The above-noted injuries had been sustained as a result of blows with blunt objects and could have been caused in the manner indicated in the witness statements. 37.     On 10 October 2018 the applicant underwent reconstructive surgery to his lower jaw. He left the country in November 2018, apparently for the United Kingdom.     The initial stage of the investigation: from the incident until the first suspension of the proceedings 38 .     An investigation was opened on the following day – 30   September 2018 – into the offence of causing moderate bodily harm (Article   129 §§   1 and 2 of the Criminal Code) – namely “a broken jaw [and] fractured teeth, without which chewing and talking is hampered”.    Interviews of the applicant and his companions      Interviews of the applicant 39 .     The investigation opened with the carrying out of the first investigative measure – an interview of the applicant as a witness. He stated that on the evening of 29 September 2018 at around 8 p.m. he had been walking with his friends A. and S. on a street whose name he did not know; however, he remembered that it had been undergoing roadworks. At some point he had seen a crowd of people dressed in black and wearing black hats with an inscription in white lettering. A. and S. had run away but someone from the crowd had managed to kick him in the head; he had then fallen to the ground. After that many other people had started kicking him in the head. He had heard them making monkey-like noises, signalling to him they considered him to be a monkey. He had thought that he would die. 40.     The next thing the applicant remembered was how – after he had regained consciousness – he had seen police officers, as well as A. and S., around him. A. and S. had accompanied him to a hospital. 41.     The person who had kicked him had been wearing a black mask, a grey jacket and a black T-shirt underneath. He had been the only person wearing grey – all the others had been in black. He had also been wearing black gloves. He had been around 170 cm tall with an athletic build. The other people who had kicked him had been between 20 and 40 years of age. Given that they had not been wearing masks, he was able to give a description of them; however, he was not certain he would be able to recognise them. 42.     In a subsequent interview on 26 October 2018, the applicant stated that as he and his friends had been walking along a street that had been undergoing roadworks, they had passed by a stationary police patrol car in which two officers wearing uniforms had been sitting. He, A. and S. had continued for about 100 metres after the car and had then turned right. Then he had seen a big group of men numbering around 50 to 75 around 100 metres ahead of them. Three or four men had been walking ahead of the group and had looked like the leaders. The people behind had all been dressed in black, and had been walking in lines, as if marching. Because of that and of the police car parked nearby, he had thought the men were all police personnel involved in some kind of training exercise. He had asked A. and S. whether the men were police, but A. and S. had gone quiet and had exchanged words in Arabic with each other – a language the applicant did not understand. 43.     The group had started marching directly towards the applicant. A man had stood right in front of the applicant with folded arms and hands in fists. The man had been young (around 20 years old), white, slightly taller than the applicant himself (who was 160 cm in height), and had been wearing a dark ‑ grey mask – through which only his eyes (light in colour) had been visible. He had been dressed all in grey and had been wearing grey mittens. He had been wearing sports shoes and he had been somewhat corpulent (since his body had shaken under his clothes with his movements). The applicant had taken up a similar stance, preparing to defend himself. 44.     Although the attention of the applicant had been primarily occupied by the man described above, he had noticed another – tall – man pass behind him. He had not taken a good look at him as he had been looking at the man in the mask. He had thought of running away and had turned around in order to take the road along which he had come and where he had seen the police patrol car. All of a sudden, the tall man had jumped and kicked the applicant on the right side of his face. The applicant had lost control and had fallen to the ground. The tall man had then kicked the applicant with a military-style leather boot on which there had been some kind of metal attachment, which the applicant had felt on his face. The applicant had felt piercing pain, and had then perceived a strong light. He had had the feeling of falling asleep, and had been no longer able to see anything, but had continued hearing what seemed to him to be monkey-like noises. Before passing out he had felt himself being kicked – sometimes in the body but mostly in the head. He remembered that none of his teeth had been dislodged by the initial kick in the face. 45.     When the applicant had regained consciousness, he had felt blood in his mouth and had been unable to open his left eye; his lips had been swollen and he had felt that he was missing teeth. At that point, he had been unable to remember his name or in which country he was and what had happened. When he had seen police officers around him, he had initially become frightened and had attempted to escape, thinking the assault on him was still ongoing. He had later understood that the officers were trying to help him. 46.     The applicant had drifted in and out of consciousness, so his memories of that period were not clear. He had been turned away by some hospitals, and had then been taken by taxi by his friends A. and S. to the main hospital, where he had been admitted as an inpatient. He had continued to feel very strong pain. He had remained for quite a few days in the hospital, where his jaw had been operated on and an implant placed in the right side of his face, next to his ear. 47.     The applicant had thought the group of men who had assaulted him looked like an army, as nothing about them had remotely reminded him of football. The man who had kicked him first had been around 180 cm tall with white skin, had been well-built, and had been about 30 years old, but as he had been unable to see him well, he could not be sure about that description. 48.     At the time of his interview the applicant had not yet consulted a dentist, and did not know how much tooth implants would cost him; in any case, he did not have any money (including money to buy food that did not need to be chewed). 49.     Both before the assault on him and afterwards, the applicant had seen the same man several times standing outside of his home, usually smoking and looking at him in a hostile manner. The man had had a tattoo on his right calf, in red, yellow and green colours. The tattoo had resembled the anarchist sign and had looked something like a football. The man had had tattoos on his other leg and arms, as well as on his body – as could be seen when his T ‑ shirt had lifted. 50.     Earlier on the same day that the interview took place (26   October 2018), the applicant had seen the same man (with the tattoos described above), accompanied by another man. They had been standing looking arrogantly at him, as if they wanted to say something. The applicant and a friend had walked near to where the two men had been standing. The men had not done anything but the applicant had felt afraid for his life. The applicant estimated the height of the man with the tattoos at about 180 ‑ 190   cm; the man had had light brown, short hair, a moustache and possibly a light beard, and had had a muscular physique. The other man had been about 160 cm tall, dark-haired and “friendly-looking”. The applicant would be able to recognise both men if he ever saw them again. 51 .     The applicant stated that he was not leaving his home unaccompanied, was not riding on public transport, and was afraid to go out alone. 52.     After giving interviews to the media, he had come across many people who had treated him badly. One person had refused to sell him cigarettes; another had thrown him out of a shop that sold spectacles. Someone had set up a Facebook group called “@LEONKOFFIMONKEY” ( sic ).      Interview of A. 53 .     On 9 October 2018 A. and S. (see paragraph 27 above) were interviewed. 54 .     According to A., he and his friend S. had been in each other’s company on the evening of 29 September 2018, when the applicant had rung him to suggest that they all meet up. A. and S. had agreed and had met the applicant shortly after 7.30 p.m. next to a branch of McDonald’s across from the main courthouse. They had decided to go to S.’s apartment, which was not far away. They had walked along Vitosha Boulevard, continued onto a street that had been undergoing roadworks and turned left next to a small park situated in front of Sveti Sedmochislenitsi Church. When they had reached the Ministry of the Interior building, they had turned right and had started walking along General Parensov Street, where he had seen a group of men. A. stated that there had been “many of them – around 40 or 50”. All had been dressed in black clothes with an inscription in white lettering. The group had been at a distance of around 50 metres from A. and his companions. 55.     The men had been walking “normally” towards A., S. and the applicant, but when they had drawn closer they had started running towards them. One of the men in the group – without saying a word – had kicked the right side of the applicant’s face. He had watched the applicant fall to the ground face down; then men had gathered around the applicant. 56.     A. had run down General Parensov Street and had turned left at the end of it, around the Ministry of the Interior building. S. had run too, but had turned right, towards the church. Neither A. nor S. had suffered physically at the hands of the group of men, even though some of them had chased A. 57.     About two or three minutes later A. had rung S. and had suggested that they go back to the applicant, since A. had thought that the applicant might die. That telephone call had taken place at 7.48 p.m. 58 .     A. and S. had returned to the scene of the assault and had seen police officers there. The applicant had been lying on his left side. He had been surrounded by blood; two of his teeth had been lying on the pavement. The applicant had been conscious but disoriented and had repeatedly asked A. what had happened and where he was. 59 .     About 40 minutes later an ambulance had arrived. A. and S. had accompanied the applicant in it. Staff at the first hospital to which the applicant had been taken had cleaned his swollen eye and had told him he was fine and free to leave. A. and S. had accompanied him to another hospital, where he had been admitted as an inpatient. 60 .     When A. had first seen the men in the group he had thought that they were police officers, since they had all been dressed in black. The man who had kicked the applicant in the face had been about 180 cm tall, had looked between 20 and 30 years old, had had a trimmed beard (chestnut brown) in colour and had been wearing a baseball cap and a black long-sleeve T ‑ shirt with an inscription in white lettering. A. stated that he would be able to recognise him if he saw him again. 61 .     A. was certain that the applicant had been assaulted because of the colour of his skin, which was black. He had felt that “something might happen as the men in the group had been looking at them threateningly”. A. had not personally heard any noises such as those indicated by the applicant, but had learned subsequently from the applicant that, while he had been on the ground and the men had been kicking him, they had been making monkey-like noises.      Interview of S. 62 .     According to S. (see paragraph 53 above), he had been out with his friend A. on the evening of 29 September 2018 when he and A. had met the applicant at around 7.30 p.m. next to a McDonald’s branch on Vitosha Boulevard. S. had invited them to accompany him to his flat, which was right next to the Turkish embassy, so that he could cook for them. The information that S. provided in his statement about the route they had taken corresponded to that provided by A. (see paragraph 54 above). 63.     S. and A. had run ahead while the applicant had tried to run in the direction from which he had been walking. When S. had looked back he had seen a man kick the applicant with his right leg on the right side of his face. The man had been around 185 cm tall, burly and white, and had looked to be aged between 20 and 30. He had had a well-trimmed beard (dark in colour) and had been dressed in a black T-shirt with long sleeves and an inscription in white lettering. S. said that he would be able to recognise the man if he saw him again. 64.     S. stated that he had not seen the applicant fall. Two boys aged around 17 or 18 had tried to block his way, but had not succeeded. S. would be able to recognise one of them (who had been blond, with light, “sparkling” eyes and very white skin) if he saw him again. S. had run, turning right towards the church. He had been very frightened. He had waited behind something like a fence with a piece of scrap metal in his hands (which he had picked up off the ground, in case anyone had followed him). 65 .     According to S. the assault on the applicant had definitely been on racial grounds, namely he had been attacked because of the colour of his skin. 66 .     S. submitted that at 7.48 p.m. A. had rung him to suggest that they both return to the scene of the incident in order to check on the applicant. Upon going back, S. had found A. next to the applicant. There had been many police officers there too – at least fifteen of them. 67 .     The rest of the information that S. provided in his statement corresponded to that provided by A. (see paragraphs 58-60 above).    Interviews of police officers      Officer P.G. 68 .     On 24 October 2018, P.G., a police officer, was interviewed as a witness. According to his statement, he had been on duty between 11 a.m. and 11 p.m. on 29   September 2018, taking part in the security arrangements put in place in connection with the football match between CSKA-Sofia and PFC Levski Sofia that day. At around 7.30 p.m., together with six other colleagues, he had been in a police van escorting a group of around 200 Levski fans who had been leaving the stadium after the game and moving away from it along General Parensov Street. 69.     Officer P.G. stated that the group had comprised “among the more passionate” fans; almost all of them had been dressed in dark clothes, and some had been wearing baseball caps. The police van had followed the group to the corner of General Parensov Street and 6 September Street. While the van had been following behind the group on General Parensov Street, in the immediate vicinity of the Ministry of the Interior building, P.G. had seen the group of fans become agitated and some of its members begin moving in the opposite direction to that in which the group had been heading. 70.     The van had stopped immediately and Officer P.G. had been the first officer to step out of it. People from the group had begun gesticulating at the officers, calling on them to come and see what had happened. The officers had walked through the group. Officer P.G. had seen a group of people gathered on the pavement across, trying to help a person who was lying on the ground on his side. That person had been unconscious. Someone had been trying to help him by attempting to open his mouth to facilitate his breathing; as a result, the injured person had managed to take a breath and had regained consciousness. 71 .     Officer P.G. submitted that the people who had been helping the victim had stood up while the officers had been administering first aid to the victim; they had then left the scene before the officers could establish their identities. 72.     When the injured person had lifted his head from the pavement, Officer P.G. had noticed a large swelling on his left eye; he had also been missing two front teeth, which the officers had later found on the pavement. There had also been bloodstains on the asphalt. The injured person had been visibly disoriented. Officer P.G. had not spoken to him, but the injured person had been a foreigner whose identity had later been established as that of the applicant. 73 .     Officer P.G. stated that police officers had called for an ambulance without delay, via the Duty Office of the Sofia Directorate of Internal Affairs ( Дежурен център на СДВР ). The ambulance had arrived at about 8.10   p.m. 74.     The identity of two individuals, A. and S., had been established on the spot; they had turned out to be friends of the applicant who had been accompanying him. They had left the scene in the ambulance together with the applicant. 75.     P.G. noted that there was a police post near the place where the applicant had been lying – specifically, towards the entry to the parking area of the Ministry of the Interior building.      Officer N.Sh. 76.     On 25 October 2018, N.Sh. – the police officer who had been driving the above ‑ mentioned van (see paragraph 68 above) – was interviewed as a witness. The information provided in his statement (which contained slightly less detail than that provided by Officer P.G.) corresponded to the account given by Officer   P.G. It included the statement indicated in paragraph   71 above. Officer   N.Sh. specified that the left cheek bone of the applicant had been swollen and the skin on it torn. There had also been blood on the applicant and on the ground around him. He spoke English and French, but incoherently. Some of his teeth had been kicked out and the attending doctor had collected two teeth from the ground. 77 .     According to Officer N.Sh., the police van in which he had been sitting at the time of the incident in question had been moving behind the group. The group had been made up of about 150-200 individuals. 78.     Officer N.Sh. noted that near to the scene of the incident there was a police post.      Officers B.B., Z.D. and A.M. 79 .     On 1 November 2018 officers B.B., Z.D. and A.M. – all of whom had been in the van described in paragraph 68 above – were interviewed as witnesses. Their statements corresponded to the accounts provided by officers P.G. and N.Sh. 80.     All three officers specified that they had reported the incident to the Duty Operations Office ( ОДЦ/Оперативен дежурен център ) and had called an ambulance.      Officer B.A. 81.     In a letter of 6 November 2018, replying to a written request for information (regarding the officers who had been on guard duty ( наряд ) in the area around the Ministry of the Interior building, on General Parensov Street and 6   September Street between 7.00 p.m. and 8.00 p.m. on the day of the incident) from the Sofia Directorate of Internal Affairs of 25   October 2018, an officer from the gendarmerie directorate in the national police provided information (namely, the names, rank and units to which they were attached). According to that information, Officers I.K., I.A. and B.A. had been on guard duty between 7   p.m. and 8 p.m. in the area of the Ministry of the Interior building, on General Parensov Street and 6 September Street. 82 .     On 23 November 2018 Officer B.A. was interviewed as a witness. 83 .     According to his statement, he had been on duty between 8 a.m. and 8   p.m. on 29 September 2018 (together with two of his colleagues – officers   I.A. and I.K). The duty that had been assigned to him had been to stand next to the Ministry of the Interior building; between 1 p.m. and 8   p.m. that day, he had been posted at the barrier on General Parensov Street (on the side of the small park in front of Sveti Sedmochislenitsi Church). 84.     He stated that there had been a football match on that day between CSKA Sofia and PFC Levski Sofia. After the game had ended many fans had left the stadium and moved along General Parensov Street. At about 7.40   p.m. or 7.45 p.m. two boys from the group of fans had been visibly concerned about something and had started shouting. They had been calling for help, shouting that a person had fallen down and that it looked as though he had hit his head on the ground. Officer B.A. had told them to calm down and that he was going to call an ambulance. 85 .     Officer B.A. had immediately reported to the officer on duty by telephone what had happened and had not left his post. 86 .     He had not personally seen where the applicant was and had not known who he was or what had happened. 87 .     Officer B.A. stated that two police vans had been following behind the main group of fans. Officers from the van had asked him what had happened and he had told them what he had been told by the people who had been calling for help. He did not know what had happened after that as his shift had ended at 8 p.m. and he had been replaced in his post by a colleague. 88 .     Officer B.A. specified that only he had been on duty outside the Ministry of the Interior building during the incident. Officers I.A. and I.K. had both been inside the Ministry of the Interior building. 89.     He had learned from his colleagues that an ambulance had subsequently arrived. He had remained under the impression that the applicant was one of the fans and had only later learned from news reports that he was a British citizen.    Other investigative measures 90.     On 5 October 2018 the applicant’s lawyer asked that the applicant be allowed to join the pre-trial criminal proceedings as a civil party in his quality of a victim. She also requested that the CCTV footage from the nearby building be included in the case file. On 12 October 2018 the prosecutor ordered that this be done. 91 .     On 25 October 2018 the investigating officer requested from the authorities a copy of the plan of operations drawn up for the event (see paragraphs 9-26 above) and information regarding the police officers who had been on duty on the day of the applicant’s assault. 92.     By 21 November 2018 the investigator had: interviewed the applicant; ordered a detailed expert medical report and requested medical documentation in respect of the applicant; obtained and added to the case file the CCTV footage from the cameras on the Ministry of the Interior building and on a nearby bank; ordered a report on that footage; and interviewed witnesses. 93 .     On 11 February 2019 a police officer who had watched the CCTV footage (see paragraph 29 above) said that he recognised one of the leaders of the group – a certain G. The police interviewed G. on 14 May 2019. He denied participating in the assault or seeing who had done it. He refused to participate in person in an identification parade. 94 .     On 14 February 2019 an expert submitted a report on the CCTV footage. The report concluded that owing to poor light conditions the faces of the perpetrators could not be identified. 95.     On 21 May 2019 the investigating officer conducted a photo identification procedure featuring G. and three other individuals. S. was invited to identify the person, from among the ones whose pictures were shown to him, to whom S.’s earlier statements related (see paragraphs 62-67 above) and to explain the basis on which he had recognised him. S. stated that he did not recognise anyone among the photographs shown to him. S. was interviewed again on the same date. The interviewing officer enquired after A.’s whereabouts, but S. said that he did not know where A. was. 96 .     On 28 May 2019 the investigating officer presented the collected evidence to the applicant’s lawyer. The lawyer requested that two individuals be interviewed, namely: a certain S.A. (a former football player of Serbian origin who had played for a well-known Bulgarian football club), because he had published racist comments on Facebook regarding the applicant and had claimed involvement in the attack on him; and another individual (someone bearing the nickname “Uporit” (meaning “tenacious”), who had posted a comment in the online newspaper Dnevnik under an article about the assault. The latter had stated, in particular: “I walked down Parensov Street a few minutes after the attack. The black man was sitting on the sidewalk with [a] smashed face, and a few cops were scratching their heads next to him. I passed by again half an hour later and saw the same situation – the man was STILL sitting on the sidewalk and the cops were STILL scratching their heads. What an effective police force we have!” The lawyer indicated that enough elements showed that the violence against the applicant had been motivated by racist considerations and the assault should be investigated under the offence criminalised in Article 162 § 2 of the Criminal Code, namely inflicti