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. 43728/22 Stanka Manasieva MIHAYLOVA against Bulgaria lodged on 7 September 2022 communicated on 30 August 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the authorities’ alleged failure to effectively investigate and bring to justice the perpetrators (two private individuals, X and Y) of an attack on the applicant’s physical integrity that had caused her several injuries on the head. It raises issues under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. In August 2018 the applicant complained to the prosecutor of having been beaten, in March 2018, by X and Y in an attempt to kill her. Criminal proceedings were opened into her complaint but, in a decision of 13 February 2019, the competent district prosecutor suspended the these proceedings, finding that only a privately prosecutable offence of light bodily harm had been committed. In September 2020 the prosecutor terminated the criminal proceedings. In the meantime, following the prosecutor’s indication, the applicant had brought private prosecution proceedings in court. In a final decision of 9 July 2021, the Omurtag District Court terminated the private prosecution proceedings and remitted the case back to the public prosecution, for investigation into the offence of hooliganism (Article 325 §   1 of the Criminal Code) which was publicly prosecutable. On 10 December 2021 the district prosecutor refused to open criminal proceedings. The applicant appealed before the regional prosecutor, who confirmed that decision on 2 August 2022. The latter found that, for so long as the September 2020 decision terminating the criminal proceedings was not invalidated, it represented an obstacle to opening new criminal proceedings into the same offence. That decision further stated that the possibility to open criminal proceedings into a publicly-prosecutable offence under Article 325 §   1 of the Criminal Code had been extinguished, since the limitations period for starting such proceedings had expired. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Bearing in mind the applicant’s complaint and having regard to the procedural protection under Article 3 and/or Article 8 of the Convention (see, among others, X and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 22457/16, § 177 and 184-90, 2 February 2021; Kosteckas v. Lithuania , no.   960/13, §   40, 13 June 2017, and, mutatis mutandis, Valiulienė v. Lithuania ,   no.   33234/07 , §§ 72-7 and 87, 26 March 2013), was the investigation conducted in the present case by the domestic authorities effective in accordance with the above provisions? The Government are invited to submit to the Court the whole file of the different proceedings opened into the applicant’s complaint.