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

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; 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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; 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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .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 } .s2058AE06 { font-variant:small-caps; text-transform:none } .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 } .sCBF2D345 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .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 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sB00DFE03 { width:22.87pt; display:inline-block } .sCEDB100B { width:137.09pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }     THIRD SECTION CASE OF KOSTOVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA (Applications nos. 10637/22, 23157/22 and 43728/22)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 17 February 2026   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kostova and Others v. Bulgaria, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Peeter Roosma , President ,   Diana Kovatcheva,   Canòlic Mingorance Cairat , judges , and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: application nos. 10637/22, 23157/22 and 43728/22 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”), respectively on 17 February 2022, 3 May 2022 and 7 September 2022 , by three Bulgarian nationals, namely: Ms Elena Dimitrova Kostova (“the first applicant”), who was born in 1966, lives in Sofia and was represented by Mr   M. Ekimdzhiev, Ms K. Boncheva and Ms T. Ekimdzhieva, lawyers practising in Plovdiv; Mr Petar Zhelyazkov Politov (“the second applicant”), who was born in 1971, lives in Plovdiv and was represented by Ms   S.   Stefanova, a lawyer practising in Plovdiv; and Ms Stanka Manasieva Mihaylova (“the third applicant”), who was born in 1951, lives in Gorna Oryahovitsa, is a lawyer and was self-represented; the decisions to give notice, on different dates, of the applicants’ complaints about the authorities’ failure to effectively investigate their allegations of having been ill-treated by private individuals, and of the first applicant’s complaint about having been made to bear the defendant’s costs in the private criminal proceedings the applicant had brought, to the Bulgarian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agents, respectively Ms   M. Tsocheva, Ms V. Hristova and Ms M. Ilcheva, from the Ministry of Justice, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 27 January 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The applications concern the applicants’ allegations under the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention (they invoke also Article   13, and the third applicant also Article 8). They claim that the authorities failed to promptly deal with their complaints of having been assaulted by private individuals, and that resulted in expiration of the applicable limitation periods and failure to bring the perpetrators to justice. The first applicant also complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that she had been made to bear her assailant’s costs in those proceedings. Kostova v . Bulgaria, Application n o . 10637/22 2 .     The applicant was assaulted on 28 June 2016 by X, a private individual. A forensic medical certificate of 29 June 2016 recorded several haematomas on the applicant’s upper lip, left upper arm and right forearm. It stated that the injuries could have been sustained at the time and manner described by her. She complained to the police about the incident on the same day, identifying X as the perpetrator. 3 .     On 17 August 2016 the Sofia District Prosecutor refused to open criminal proceedings, considering the offence privately prosecutable. The applicant was not notified of that refusal. 4 .     On 15 March 2018 the applicant complained anew to the prosecutor, indicating she had not received any information concerning her 2016 complaint (see paragraph 2 above); she received no reply to that complaint. 5 .     On 10 September 2018 she enquired in writing about developments in the proceedings into her June 2016 complaint. On 28 September 2018 she was given a copy of the prosecutor’s refusal. The higher prosecutor confirmed the refusal on her appeal on 12 November 2018. 6 .     On 22 October 2018 the applicant brought private criminal proceedings against X. She complained that, in addition to the injuries recorded in the medical certificate (see paragraph 2 above), the attack had caused her recurring dizziness, enduring balance problems and disturbed sleep. On 12   November 2018 and 11 January 2019, respectively, the Sofia District Court left the complaint without examination, indicating to the applicant what she needed to clarify within seven days. She complied. 7.     On 1 April 2019 the court set a first hearing for 23 May 2019 which was adjourned for invalid summoning of the parties. On 5 July 2019 a hearing was postponed, due to the defendant’s absence, until 3 October 2019, when the court refused to join the applicant’s civil claim to the criminal proceedings. Hearings were then held on 21 November and 10   December 2019, and on 13 February 2020 when the court fined an expert for failing to appear. On 16 March 2020 the court set a hearing for 14   May 2020 which did not take place. On 3 July 2020 a hearing was set for 11 August 2020 when it was postponed to 17 September 2020. 8 .     On 17 September 2020 the Sofia District Court found X guilty of having caused the applicant minor bodily harm under Article 130 § 2 of the Criminal Code. X was sentenced to imprisonment of four months, suspended for three years, and to pay the applicant’s costs. On 11 October 2020 the court delivered its reasoning. 9.     X appealed. On 29 December 2020 X argued that the absolute limitation period for criminal prosecution had expired on 28 December 2020. 10.     On 12 March 2021 the Sofia City Court upheld the factual findings and legal reasoning in the lower court’s judgment. Noting that the reasons for expiry of the absolute limitation period were immaterial, the court found that that period had ended. It quashed the lower court’s judgment and terminated the proceedings. 11.     The applicant appealed unsuccessfully before the Supreme Court of Cassation (final judgment of 30 August 2021). She was ordered to pay a total of BGN   3,186 (around EUR 1,630) in costs to X. 12.     The applicant brought tort proceedings against X, which were pending as of July 2025. Politov v . Bulgaria, Application n o . 23157/22 13 .     On 7 April 2014, while performing his duties as a municipal official, the applicant was hit in the face by a private individual, Y. The applicant complained to the police on the same day, identifying the perpetrator. A medical certificate issued to the applicant the following day recorded that he had sustained a lacerated contusion wound on the bridge of the nose, traumatic swelling with bruising and soreness around the wound. 14 .     In May 2014 the Plovdiv District Prosecutor opened criminal proceedings against Y for causing minor bodily harm from hooligan motives (Article   131 § 1(12) of the Criminal Code). The prosecutor terminated the proceedings on 12 July 2017, considering that the facts corresponded to the privately prosecutable offence of inflicting minor bodily harm under Article   130 § 1 of the Criminal Code. The applicant appealed. 15 .     On 20 October 2017 the Plovdiv District Court quashed the decision, finding that the prosecutor had failed to investigate and pronounce on the publicly prosecutable offence under Article 131 § 1(1) of the Criminal Code. Thereafter, the prosecutor suspended the proceedings five times, four of which were quashed by the court which returned the case to the prosecutor with mandatory instructions each time. 16 .     On 16 November 2021 the Plovdiv District Prosecutor terminated the proceedings since the absolute limitation period for the offence under Article   131 § 1(1) had expired on 7 October 2021. 17.     In civil proceedings the applicant had in the meantime initiated against Y (final judgment of 18 March 2020 of the Plovdiv Regional Court) he was awarded BGN 800 (about EUR 400), plus interest, for the attack. 18.     He was also awarded BGN 3,000 (about EUR 1,500) in proceedings for damages against the State for excessive length of the criminal proceedings (final judgment of 29 April 2025 of the Supreme Court of Cassation). Mihaylova v . Bulgaria, Application n o . 43728/22 19 .     On 13 March 2018 the applicant, a lawyer, complained to the prosecutor that, on 7 March 2018, Z (whom she identified by name) had beaten her in Gorna Oryahovitsa. A medical certificate issued to the applicant on 8 March 2018 had recorded that she had sustained a contusion, oedemas and numerous hematomas on the head, as well as a wound to the face, and was bleeding from the nose. 20 .     All prosecutors in Gorna Oryahovitsa recused themselves due to their professional connection with the applicant. On 14 June 2018 the file was sent to the Svishtov District Prosecutor who opened criminal proceedings on 28   June 2018 under Article 131 § 1(12) of the Criminal Code, into causing minor bodily harm from hooligan motives. 21 .     On 13 February 2019 the Svishtov District Prosecutor suspended the investigation, finding that no publicly prosecutable offence had been committed. In April 2019 the applicant was informed of the suspension and that she could lodge private criminal proceedings. She challenged the suspension before the Svishtov District Court, which sent the case to the Gorna Oryahovitsa District Court in which all judges recused themselves. On 14   June 2019 the Supreme Court of Cassation transferred the case to the Veliko Turnovo District Court which upheld the suspension in a final decision of 11 July 2019. On 11 September 2020 the Svishtov District Prosecutor terminated the criminal proceedings. 22.     On 17   July 2019 the applicant lodged a private criminal complaint before the Veliko Turnovo District Court in relation to the same attack. That court found it was not competent to hear the case and on 18 July 2019 transferred it to the Gorna Oryahovitsa District Court, which in turn raised a jurisdiction question before the Supreme Court of Cassation. On 11   September 2019 the Supreme Court of Cassation sent the case to the Veliko Turnovo District Court which acquitted Z on 15 January 2020. 23.     The applicant appealed. On16 July 2020 the Veliko Turnovo Regional Court quashed Z’s acquittal and remitted the case to the Veliko Turnovo District Court for a new examination. 24.     After all judges at the Veliko Turnovo District Court had recused themselves, the Supreme Court of Cassation sent the case to the Omurtag District Court on 6 October 2020. In a final decision of 9 July 2021, the latter court terminated the private criminal proceedings and remitted the case back to the public prosecution, for investigating the publicly prosecutable offence of hooliganism, under Article 325 § 1 of the Criminal Code. 25.     On 10 December 2021 the Veliko Turnovo District Prosecutor refused to open criminal proceedings. 26 .     The applicant appealed. On 2 August 2022 the Veliko Turnovo Regional Prosecutor confirmed the refusal to open criminal proceedings. He observed that the offence under Article 325 § 1 of the Criminal Code was absorbed by the offence under Article 131 § 1(12) of the Criminal Code (see   paragraph 20 above). For so long as the 11 September 2020 decision (see   paragraph 21 above) terminating the criminal proceedings into the latter offence was not invalidated, it represented an obstacle to the opening of new criminal proceedings into the same acts. It was likewise impossible to open criminal proceedings under Article 325 § 1 of the Criminal Code, since the relevant limitation period had expired. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION 27.     The Court will examine the applications jointly in a single judgment, due to their similar subject matter. 28.     Being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see   Radomilja and   Others   v. Croatia   [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 114 and 126, 20 March 2018), the Court will examine the applicants’ complaints solely under Article 3 of the Convention. 29.     The general principles on the threshold required to be met for a complaint to fall under Article 3 have been set out, inter alia , in M.S. v.   Italy (no.   32715/19, § 109, 7 July 2022). The Court finds, contrary to the Government’s submissions on this point, that the treatment to which the applicants were subjected reached the minimum level of severity required under Article 3, which provision is applicable to their complaints. 30.     The Government argued that the first and third applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies: the first applicant’s tort claim was pending, so her complaint to the Court was premature, and the third applicant had not lodged a tort claim. Also, the first applicant’s failure to inform the Court of the initiated tort claim constituted abuse of the right to application and the second applicant’s compensation in civil proceedings had resulted in a loss of his victim status or in the matter being resolved. The Court dismisses these objections as effective deterrence against attacks on the physical integrity of a person requires efficient criminal-law mechanisms (see, among many other authorities, Sandra Janković v. Croatia , no. 38478/05, § 36, 5 March 2009, and Stoev and Others v. Bulgaria , no. 41717/09, § 50, 11 March 2014), and the applicants brought different criminal proceedings. 31 .     The Government’s objection that all applicants’ complaints are manifestly ill-founded, and that the first applicant lost her victim status, as she had showed no interest in the proceedings for over two years (see paragraphs 3-4 above), are so closely connected to the substance of the complaints that the Court joins them to the merits. 32.     The complaints are not inadmissible on any other grounds and must therefore be declared admissible. 33.     The general principles on States’ duty to conduct effective investigations into arguable allegations of ill-treatment under Article 3 of the Convention have been set out, inter alia , in   Kosteckas v.   Lithuani a (no.   960/13, §§ 40-41, 13 June 2017) and M.S. v.   Italy (cited above, §§   136 ‑ 37). 34.     The applicants did not delay complaining to the authorities about having been ill-treated by private individuals, who they identified in their complaints (see paragraphs 2, 13 and 19 above, and distinguish from M.A. v   Iceland , no. 59813/19, § 69, 26 August 2025). 35.     As to the first applicant, she was not notified, contrary to the law (see   X and Others v.   Bulgaria [GC], no. 22457/16, § 118, 2   February 2021), of the prosecutors’ refusals to open criminal proceedings. She enquired about the developments in 2018 (see paragraphs 4 and 5 above), more than two years before the expiry of the relevant limitation period ( compare, mutatis mutandis , Velev v. Bulgaria , no. 43531/08, § 59, 16 April 2013), so she had not lost interest in the proceedings. She promptly brought private criminal proceedings once informed of the refusal to publicly prosecute (see paragraph 6 above). The approximately three months which passed after 22   October 2018 before the applicant definitively clarified her complaint before the court (see paragraph 6 above) could not decisively affect the investigation’s effectiveness, contrary to the Government’s assertions. 36.     The proceedings opened into the applicants’ complaints were not factually or legally complex. 37.     The way in which the different authorities, prosecutors and judges alike, conducted the investigations into the applicants’ complaints of ill ‑ treatment was neither swift nor sufficiently diligent despite the requirements of the situations. What is at issue is not the length of the limitation periods as such but whether the authorities took all reasonable steps to investigate the applicants’ allegations with the expediency required by the applicable limitation periods, in order to ensure practical and effective protection (see M.A. v. Iceland , cited above, § 66). 38.     In the first applicant’s case, the prosecutor had not timely notified her of the refusal to open proceedings; although she brought a private prosecution as soon as she had been apprised of the refusal, more than two years before the expiry of the relevant limitation period, it took the first ‑ instance court two years to render a decision after multiple postponements of hearings, without the applicant’s fault. The second-instance court did not remedy the accumulated delay (see on this point, mutatis mutandis , Kosteckas, cited above, § 44) and, although the defendant had been convicted and sentenced at first instance (see paragraph 8 above), the proceedings were ultimately terminated for expiry of the limitation period. 39.     In the second applicant’s case, the prosecutor took more than three years to opine that the acts complained of did not correspond to a publicly prosecutable offence (see paragraph 14 above). After a court had quashed that decision, the prosecutor investigated for further four years (see paragraph 16 above) – during which the court again quashed his decisions suspending the investigation four times – without reaching a conclusion before the limitation period expired. 40.     The third applicant’s complaint was mailed between various instances of the prosecution and courts for over four years (see paragraphs 21-26 above), without a final decision taken until the limitation period expired. 41 .     The above-described course of action led to outcomes of the criminal proceedings in all three applications which lacked the deterrent effect capable of ensuring the effective prevention of unlawful acts such as those complained of (compare İbrahim Demirtaş v. Turkey , no. 25018/10, § 35, 28   October 2014). In addition, the first applicant was further required to pay the defendant’s costs despite the proceedings having been discontinued due to no fault of hers. The purpose of providing effective protection against acts of ill-treatment cannot be achieved where the criminal proceedings are discontinued owing to the fact that the prosecution has become time-barred and where this has occurred, as in the present cases, as a result of the actions of the relevant State authorities and through no fault of the applicants (compare, mutatis mutandis , Kosteckas , cited above, § 44, and Isaković Vidović v. Serbi a , no. 41694/07, § 64, 1 July 2014). 42 .     The Court rejects the Government’s inadmissibility objections previously joined to the merits (see paragraph 31 above) and finds that there has been a violation of the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of all three applicants. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATION UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 43.     The first applicant also complained under Article 1 to Protocol   No. 1 to the Convention about having been made to bear the defendant’s costs in the private criminal proceedings she had brought. Having regard to its findings above (see paragraphs 41-42 above), the Court considers that no separate issue arises under this provision. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 44.     The first applicant claimed: EUR 15,000 in non-pecuniary damages; EUR   4,022.5 in costs and expenses before the Court, of which EUR   3,780 in legal fees and EUR 242.5 for translation and postal expenses; and EUR   3,846.47 for costs and expenses in the domestic proceedings, including the costs she had been made to pay to the defendant. 45.     The second applicant claimed: EUR 20,000 in non-pecuniary damages; and EUR 2,350.47 for costs and expenses before the Court, of which EUR 2,160 for legal fees. 46.     The third applicant claimed pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, and costs and expenses, asking the Court to determine them in line with established practice. 47.     The Government contested the claims as unsubstantiated and excessive. 48.     The applicants must have sustained non-pecuniary damage as a result of the violation found. The Court, having regard to the relevant circumstances in each application and ruling in equity, awards in respect of non-pecuniary damage EUR 5,000 to the first and third applicants each and EUR   3,500 to the second applicant (in view of the domestic award), plus any tax that may be chargeable. 49.     The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage claimed by the third applicant, and rejects her related claim. 50.     Having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court awards: (a) to the first applicant EUR 1,242.5 for the proceedings before the Court, of which EUR 242.5 to be paid directly to the law firm Ekimdzhiev and Partners and EUR 1,000 to be paid to the applicant; and EUR 3,769.79 for costs and expenses in the relevant domestic proceedings, to be paid to the applicant, plus any tax that may be chargeable to her; and (b) to the second applicant EUR   1,155.3 for the proceedings before the Court under all heads, of which EUR   232.99 to be paid directly to his legal representative and the remainder to the applicant. The Court makes no award for costs and expenses in respect of the third applicant self-representing, as this time does not represent costs actually incurred by her, and she did not submit documents evidencing other costs. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Decides to join to the merits part of the Government’s inadmissibility objections and rejects them; Declares   the applications admissible;   Holds that there has been a violation of the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of all applicants and that no separate issue arises under Article 1 to Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in respect of the first applicant; Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the following amounts: (i)   in respect of non-pecuniary damage and plus any tax that may be chargeable: EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) to the first and third applicant each; and EUR 3,500 (three thousand five hundred euros) to the second applicant; (ii)   EUR 5,012.29 (five thousand and twelve euros and twenty-nine cents) in respect of costs and expenses to the first applicant plus any tax that may be chargeable to her, of which EUR   4,769.79 (four thousand seven hundred sixty-nine euros and seventy-nine cents) to be paid to the first applicant and EUR 242.5 to be paid directly to the law firm Ekimdzhiev and Partners; (iii)   EUR 1,155.3 (one thousand one hundred and fifty-five euros and thirty cents) in respect of costs and expenses under all heads to the second applicant, plus any tax that may be chargeable to him, of which EUR 232.99 to be paid directly to his legal representative and the remainder to be paid to the applicant; (b)   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points; Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 17 February 2026, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.     Olga Chernishova   Peeter Roosma   Deputy Registrar   President