5.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Vidin. 6.  At the relevant time he worked as an electrical engineer on a ship on the Danube river. At about 9 p.m. on 3 January 1992, while the ship was anchored in Passau, Germany, and the crew were celebrating a birthday onboard, one of them, Mr V.M., who had been drinking alcohol, showed the others a gas pistol he had bought. He put the muzzle close to the first mechanic’s head and then went out of the cabin. A few seconds later a shot was heard and V.M. entered the cabin, saying that he had shot the second mechanic. The others admonished him not to play with the pistol, as he could blind somebody. However, V.M. turned towards the applicant and told him that he “[would] be next”. The applicant warned him not to play with the pistol, but V.M. aimed at him, laughing. The applicant tried to hide his face and went out of the cabin and back in several times. V.M. continued to laugh and shot the applicant in the face, from a distance of about 50 or 60 centimetres. The applicant was blinded and felt numb in his nose, mouth and chin. His glasses were covered with powder. 7.  On the next morning the applicant was taken to a hospital in Passau to undergo treatment. He had a number of black disfiguring scars on his face. 8.  The applicant brought the matter to the attention of the Bulgarian prosecuting authorities on 2 June 1993. On 14 December 1993 the Vidin District Prosecutor’s Office opened a criminal investigation into the incident and in December 1993 and January 1994 in the investigator in charge of the case interviewed several witnesses. 9.  On 1 February 1994 V.M. was charged and questioned. 10.  On 11 February 1994 the investigator concluded that V.M. had wilfully caused the applicant intermediate bodily harm, contrary to Article 129 § 1 of the 1968 Criminal Code (see paragraph 26 below), and recommended that he be committed for trial. 11.  No further procedural steps were undertaken until 15 May 1998, when the Lom District Prosecutor’s Office, to which the case had been transferred in February 1994, submitted an indictment against V.M. to the Lom District Court, accusing him of negligently inflicting intermediate bodily harm on the applicant, contrary to Article 133 of the 1968 Criminal Code (see paragraph 26 below). 12.  In the meantime, in 1994, November 1995 and January 1996, the applicant contacted the Lom District Prosecutor’s Office and requested that the case be processed faster. In 1996 and 1997 he also complained about the delay to the Montana Regional Prosecutor’s Office. 13.  The first hearing before the Lom District Court, listed for 3 November 1998, was adjourned because the witnesses and an expert witness did not appear. 14.  The hearing took place on 23 February 1999. The court accepted for examination a civil‑party claim which the applicant had lodged the previous day, and gave him leave to take part in the proceedings as a private prosecuting party alongside the public prosecutor. Noting that V.M. was ill, the court adjourned the case. 15.  A hearing scheduled for 15 April 1999 failed to take place because V.M. was ill and none of the witnesses had appeared. 16.  A hearing listed for 23 February 2000 was also adjourned because V.M. was absent. The court found that he was evading the proceedings and ordered his detention. 17.  A hearing listed for 5 July 2000 started as planned, but was adjourned because it emerged that V.M. had not received a copy of the indictment. 18.  The next hearing was held on 20 September 2000. The court once again accepted for examination the applicant’s civil‑party claim and gave him leave to take part in the proceedings as a private prosecuting party alongside the public prosecutor. The applicant’s counsel complained that the proceedings were protracted and on this ground requested the recusal of the panel examining the case. The court turned down his request. It adjourned the case because most of the witnesses were absent. 19.  The next hearing took place on 18 January 2001. The public prosecutor asked the court to discontinue the proceedings because the applicable limitation period had expired. The applicant objected, saying that the court should deal with this request only after hearing the witnesses and forming a more definite view on the proper legal characterisation of V.M.’s act, which was highly relevant for determining the applicable limitation period. The court decided to discontinue the proceedings, finding that the limitation period for prosecuting the offence allegedly committed by V.M. had expired. The offence had been allegedly perpetrated on 3 January 1992, the investigation had been instituted on 14 December 1993, V.M. had been charged on 1 February 1994, and no procedural steps had been taken until 15 May 1998, when he had been indicted. The charges against him were under Article 133 of the 1968 Criminal Code, which provided for up to one year’s imprisonment or forced labour. By Article 80 § 1 (5) of the same Code, the prosecution of the alleged offence was barred following the expiration of two years after its commission (see paragraphs 27 and 28 below). 20.  Upon the appeal of the applicant, in a decision of 14 June 2001 the Montana Regional Court quashed the discontinuation and remitted the case. It found, inter alia, that the lower court had correctly adopted the legal characterisation of the offence given in the indictment. However, that court had, in breach of the rules of procedure, omitted to ask V.M. whether or not he wished to benefit from the expiration of the limitation period or preferred to be tried. 21.  At a hearing held on 14 November 2001 the Lom District Court, having heard V.M.’s declaration that he wanted to avail himself of the expiration of the limitation period, again decided to discontinue the proceedings, giving the same reasons as earlier. 22.  The applicant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the court had erred by blindly accepting the legal characterisation of the offence given in the indictment instead of examining it independently. There were serious indications that V.M. had perpetrated his act wilfully and not negligently, as asserted in the indictment. 23.  In a decision of 22 April 2002 the Montana Regional Court upheld the lower court’s decision. It found that it had not erred by examining the case in line with the legal characterisation of the offence set out in the indictment and by ruling that the offence of which V.M. had stood accused could no longer be prosecuted. It was evident that the limitation period had lapsed even before the indictment had been submitted to the court. The lower court had omitted to spot this at the outset, but later had rightly discontinued the proceedings on that ground. 24.  The applicant appealed on points of law, arguing that the legal characterisation of the alleged offence – and hence the applicable limitation period – had been incorrect, as there were indications that V.M. had perpetrated his act wilfully. 25.  In a final judgment of 20 January 2003 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the lower court’s decision. It found that at the time when V.M. had been indicted the absolute limitation period for prosecuting the offence – three years – had already expired. The court did not comment on the legal characterisation of the offence.