Published on 22 July 2024
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 95/24
Leon François d’Assises KOFFI
against Bulgaria
lodged on 14 December 2023
communicated on 3 July 2024
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the authorities’ alleged failure to effectively investigate the perpetrators (several unidentified private individuals) of an assault on the applicant, who is of Ivory Coast origin and British nationality, allegedly committed with racist motivation. The applicant also complains that the authorities did not put in place adequate operational measures with a view to preventing the attack. The case raises issues under Article 3 and Article 14 in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention. The applicant also invokes Article 13 of the Convention.
Specifically, in the evening of 29 September 2018 the applicant, who was peaceful walking with two acquaintances, was attacked in the street in the immediate vicinity of the Ministry of the Interior’s headquarters in Sofia, by what would appear to have been a sizeable group of football fans roaming about in the streets after the end of a football match. He was allegedly repeatedly hit and kicked on the face and body, as a result of which he drifted in and out of consciousness, sustained numerous wounds, had two front teeth kicked off, needed a transplant to his face and suffered from strong pain and lasting fear thereafter.
An investigation was opened on the following day, into the offence of causing medium bodily harm (Article 129 § 2 of the Criminal Code). On 5 October 2018 the applicant’s lawyer asked that the applicant be granted leave to join the (pre-trial) criminal proceedings as a civil party. The investigation was subsequently modified in respect of the offence investigated, the prosecutor having found that it corresponded to medium bodily harm inflicted out of hooligan motivation (Article 131 § 1 (12) of the Criminal Code).
The prosecutor twice suspended the investigation (decisions of July 2020 and December 2021). The Sofia District Court each time (in September 2020 and December 2021) quashed the suspension and remitted the case for further investigative measures, indicating the major omissions and directing that they be redressed (by spelling out the investigative acts that needed to be carried out). The prosecution did not proceed as instructed by the court; the prosecutors also did not carry out those same investigative acts when they were requested by the applicant’s lawyer (decision of July 2021).
In September 2022 the applicant’s lawyer wrote to the prosecution, prompting them to investigate more diligently and speedily; she received a reply the same month, in essence stating that the investigation was in process and that - once it was completed - the applicant and his lawyer would be duly informed of all steps undertaken and would be given an opportunity to see all materials collected in the case. The applicant’s lawyer further wrote to the district prosecutor and the Prosecutor General in February 2023, enquiring about whether the court’s instructions to the prosecution had been complied with and also about the time-frame of their expected completion. The applicant received no reply. On 30 March 2023 the Office of the Supreme Prosecution of Cassation sent a reply on half a page. The letter indicated that, while no grounds for imposing disciplinary sanctions on the supervising prosecutors had been established, it has been recommended to examine whether there were grounds for seeking disciplinary sanctions in respect of the investigating police officers since the investigation had been ineffective at times.
In October 2023 the applicant’s lawyer brought a claim for damages against the State authorities, under section 2(b) of the State and Municipalities Responsibility for Damage Act, seeking compensation for damage caused by the excessive length of the criminal proceedings which the applicant had joined as a civil party.
No further information is available on file in terms of developments in either set of proceedings.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Having regard to the procedural protection from ill-treatment, even when inflicted by private persons (see, among many other authorities, Beganović v. Croatia, no. 46423/06, § 70, 25 June 2009), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
2. Have the authorities taken all reasonable steps to investigate any possible racist motivation behind the attack on the applicant, as required by Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 3 (see, among other authorities, Abdu v. Bulgaria, no. 26827/08, §§ 44-46 , 11 March 2014, and Škorjanec v. Croatia, no. 25536/14, §§ 53 and 57, 28 March 2017)?
3. Have the authorities put in place adequate preventive operational measures to mitigate the risk of attacks in the context of football fans’ violence? The Government are requested to submit information concerning the legislative and administrative framework for the deterrence against such violence and to comment on whether at the material time it was being effectively implemented.