I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in MILADINOVA v. BULGARIA.


  • Judgment date: 2023-02-07
  • Communication date: 2017-09-11
  • Application number(s): 31604/17
  • Country:   BGR
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 6, 6-1
  • Conclusion:
    Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria
    (Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies
    Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings
    Article 6-1 - Access to court)
    Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage
    Pecuniary damage
    Just satisfaction)
  • Result: Violation

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.605049
  • Prediction: Violation
  • Consistent


 In line with the court's judgment
 In opposition to the court's judgment
Darker color: higher probability
: In line with the court's judgment  
: In opposition to the court's judgment

Communication text used for prediction

On 27 May 2014, the district prosecutor terminated criminal proceedings conducted against the applicant on the grounds that it had not been proved that the latter had committed a crime.
On 28 August 2014, relying on that decision the applicant brought an action for damages under the State and Municipalities Responsibility for Damage Act (“the SMRDA”) against the prosecuting authorities for unlawful prosecution.
By a decision of 12 February 2015 the regional public prosecutor’s office quashed the decision for termination of the criminal proceedings against the applicant and ordered their resumption.
By a judgment of 15 July 2015 the Kustendil District Court rejected the civil action for damages considering that because the criminal proceedings were pending the applicant’s civil claims had been brought prematurely.
On 2 March 2016 the Kustendil Regional Court upheld this judgment.
By a decision dated 26 October 2016, the Supreme Court of Cassation refused the applicant’s request for leave-to-appeal.