CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 janvier 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s687C5D7E { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sF9195E13 { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCA1147F8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s23690770 { width:109.9%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sB7332552 { width:7.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s39CACFB2 { width:37.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4AD95A31 { width:17.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6F78692C { width:14.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7EE5DD62 { width:22.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sAB89BB78 { width:7.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s6490D3FD { width:37.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s4942F35C { width:17.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s2CE17B60 { width:14.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s94D2B4D8 { width:22.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s5FFF0A78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:2pt } Published on 16 February 2026 THIRD SECTION Application no. 44683/22 Rusi Ivanov MILEV and Others against Bulgaria lodged on 14 September 2022 communicated on 28 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     On 22 March 2021, the first applicant notified Burgas Municipality that he intended to organise a march to celebrate “Pride Month” between 4 and 6.30   p.m. on 15 May 2021. On an unspecified later date, an association opposing the initiative notified the municipality that it intended to organise a counter-demonstration at the same time not far from the spot where the march was due to take place. 2.     Over the course of the following weeks, local political and civic actors called for the march to be banned, and groups opposing the march engaged in public campaigning against it. 3.     On 14 May 2021, the day before the march was due to take place, the police warned the first applicant that the route might have to be altered and that proceeding with the march would depend upon directions from the officer responsible for its safety. The police also cautioned a representative of the counter-demonstrators not to infringe public order. 4.     At approximately 4 p.m. on 15 May 2021, about 30 people, including the nine applicants, assembled for the march. A group of about 200   counter‑demonstrators gathered nearby, advanced towards the marchers, and engaged in abusive shouting while throwing stones, bottles, and smoke bombs. One counter‑demonstrator breached the police cordon between the two groups and set fire to a Pride flag. The police then instructed the march participants to disperse. 5.     About a month and a half later, on 28 June 2021, the man who had set fire to a Pride flag was given an administrative fine. 6.     In July 2021, the first applicant asked the prosecuting authorities to open a criminal investigation into the conduct of the people who had tried to stop the march from taking place as planned. He alleged, in particular, that their actions before and during the event, taken as a whole, could be seen as constituting the offence of unlawfully disrupting a rally under Article   174a   §   1 of the Bulgarian Criminal Code. 7.     The Burgas district prosecutor’s office refused to open a criminal investigation, in particular on the basis that the flag burning had not prevented the march from taking place but had simply expressed the views of those opposed to it. Following an appeal by the first applicant, the Burgas regional prosecutor’s office upheld that decision, chiefly on the basis that the flag burning had amounted to an unconventional but legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of expression. Following a further appeal by the first applicant, the Burgas appellate prosecutor’s office likewise upheld the refusal to open a criminal investigation, agreeing with the reasons given by the lower prosecutor’s offices and adding that the flag burning had been too trivial to warrant a criminal prosecution. Following a further appeal by the first applicant, on 28 June 2022 the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor’s Office likewise upheld the refusal to open criminal proceedings, agreeing with the reasons given by the lower prosecutor’s offices. 8.     The applicants complain under Article 11 of the Convention, alone and taken in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, that the authorities did not carry out an effective investigation into the alleged disruption of the march in which they took part. They also complain under Article 13 of the Convention that they did not have an effective remedy in that respect. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the authorities have a positive obligation under Article 11 of the Convention, alone and taken in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, to investigate effectively the alleged disruption of the march in which the nine applicants took part (see, mutatis mutandis , Ouranio Toxo and Others v. Greece , no. 74989/01, § 43, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Promo Lex and Others v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 42757/09, § 23 in fine , 24   February 2015; and Association ACCEPT and Others v. Romania , no.   19237/16, § 141 in fine , 1 June 2021)? If so, did they comply with that obligation? 2.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy in respect of the alleged breach of Article 11 of the Convention, alone and taken in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? APPENDIX No. Names Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Rusi Ivanov MILEV 1997 Bulgarian Burgas 2. Milena Stoyanova ATANASOVA 1990 Bulgarian Burgas 3. Dimitar Petrov BOGDANOV 1977 Bulgarian Sofia 4. Natasha Ognyanova DOBREVA 1980 Bulgarian Sofia 5. Liliya Peycheva DRAGOEVA 1990 Bulgarian Sofia 6. Vladislav Veskov PETKOV 1987 Bulgarian Sofia 7. Apostol Stoychev STOYCHEV 1970 Bulgarian Burgas 8. Lyubomir Angelov VALKOV 1972 Bulgarian Burgas 9. Simeon Plamenov VASILEV 1983 Bulgarian Sofia