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 no. 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 no. 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 no. 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.

Outcome for Article 3: violation