CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 août 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } Published on 16 September 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 10637/22 Elena Dimitrova KOSTOVA against Bulgaria lodged on 17 February 2022 communicated on 30 August 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application chiefly concerns the applicant’s complain under the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention (she also relies on Article 13) of the ineffective criminal investigation into her complaint about having been assaulted by a private individual, X, causing her haematomas on the upper lip, left upper arm and right forearm, as well as recurring dizziness and balance problems. In particular, she claims that the prosecution and the courts alike failed to act promptly on her complaint, which led to the expiry of the relevant limitations period. She also complains under Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 to the Convention that she had been made to bear the costs of X in those proceedings. The applicant was assaulted in her home on 28 June 2016 and the following day she complained to the authorities. On 17 August 2016 the Sofia District Prosecutor refused to open criminal proceedings, considering that the alleged offence had to be characterised as an infliction of minor bodily injuries, which was privately prosecutable. It would appear that the applicant was not notified of that refusal until September 2018, when she enquired about developments in the proceedings.   In October 2018 she appealed before the higher prosecutor who confirmed the refusal in November 2018. Also in October 2018, the applicant brought private criminal proceedings against X in court. On 17 September 2020 the Sofia District Court sentenced X to a suspended sentence of 4-months imprisonment, having found her guilty of causing the applicant minor bodily injuries. Upon X’s appeal, in a judgment of 12 March 2021 the Sofia City Court terminated the proceedings as the absolute limitation period had lapsed and ordered the applicant to pay around 800 euros (EUR) in costs to X. The applicant appealed on points of law but the Supreme Court of Cassation dismissed her appeal on 30 August 2021. The applicant was further ordered to pay EUR 750 in costs incurred by X in the latter proceedings. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Bearing in mind the applicant’s complaint and having regard to the procedural protection under Article 3 of the Convention (see, among others, X and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 22457/16, § 177 and 184-90, 2 February 2021; Stoev and Others v. Bulgaria , no.   41717/09, §   42, 11 March 2014, and Kosteckas v. Lithuania , no.   960/13, §   40, 13 June 2017), was the investigation conducted in the present case by the domestic authorities effective in accordance with the above provisions? 2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1, on account of the fact that the domestic courts ordered her to reimburse the defendant for the costs of those proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis , National Movement Ekoglasnost v. Bulgaria , no. 31678/17, §§ 70-1 and 83-4, 15   December 2020, with further references, and Musa Tarhan v.   Turkey , no.   12055/17 , §§ 72-3, 23   October 2018)?