CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 novembre 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 } Published on 25 November 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 38615/21 Zhenya Todorova KOSTADINOVA against Bulgaria lodged on 26 July 2021 communicated on 8 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was criminally prosecuted for inflicting a minor bodily injury to her husband. The first-instance court heard several witnesses and, in a judgment of 12 November 2020, acquitted the applicant. Upon appeal, and without hearing anew the witnesses, in a final judgment of 3 February 2021, the Stara Zagora Regional Court reversed the lower court’s judgment, found the applicant guilty as charged, waived her criminal liability, imposed on her an administrative fine amounting to 1,000 Bulgarian levs (BGN), equivalent of 511 euros (EUR), and ordered her to pay a compensation for non-pecuniary damages to her husband as well as to reimburse his legal and court fees. Relying on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the criminal proceedings against her were not fair since the Regional Court reversed the lower court’s judgment without hearing anew the witnesses. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the applicant’s conviction by the Regional Court, after acquittal by the lower court, compatible with the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, considering that her conviction was based on the appellate court’s reconsideration of the facts established by the first-instance court without a direct examination of the witnesses (see Manolachi v. Romania , no.   36605/04, §§ 39-50, 5 March 2013, Júlíus Þór Sigurþórsson v. Iceland , no. 38797/17, §§ 30-44, 16 July 2019, and Dan v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 2) , no. 57575/14, §§ 47-68, 10   November 2020)?