5.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Oryahovo. 6.  On 13 June 2002 he, his son and his brother were attacked by a group of men and beaten with bats and metal rods. The applicant was left unconscious with a traumatic brain injury and broken skull and a dislocated finger. Both injuries, necessitating his hospitalisation for several days, were classed as intermediate bodily harm under Bulgarian law. 7.  On the same day the police opened criminal investigation and carried out an inspection of the scene of the attack. In the next few days they interviewed the applicant and the other victims, as well as witnesses including suspected participants in the incident. 8.  The applicant, his son, and his brother explained that the family had made a living out of collecting snails and had been in a dispute with K.K., who had been buying them. On 13 June 2002 the applicant and the other victims were in his son’s car, looking for K.K. to discuss the situation. They found him, accompanied by about fifteen other men in four cars. The men were carrying metal rods and bats. The applicant, who was the first to approach them, was hit by K.K. in the face. The others then proceeded to hit him until he fell to the ground. His brother was also attacked, receiving several blows and a broken arm. His son remained in the car and managed to lock the doors, but the car was heavily damaged. The attack took place at a bus station in front of onlookers. 9.  A man named T.K. said that in the days preceding the attack, members of the applicant’s family had been threatening K.K. On 13 June 2002 he heard K.K. call friends he did not know. After gathering, the group left in their cars to look for the applicant and his family. When they found them, K.K. had a short exchange with the applicant and the two groups then started to fight. K.K.’s friends were carrying bats. T.K. stated that he had not participated in the fight, and had attempted to pull K.K. away. He had not seen who had started it. 10.  When interviewed as a suspect on 14 June 2002, K.K. refused to explain what had happened. 11.  On 14 June 2002 the police investigator appointed an expert with the task of making an assessment of the injuries sustained by the applicant. The parties did not provide the Court with a copy of that report. 12.  On 24 and 25 July 2002 the investigator in charge of the case requested information from the police on any links the parties might have had with criminal groups, on T.K. and K.K., and on several other suspected participants in the attack. The information provided showed, in particular, that T.K. had various previous convictions. 13.  The parties did not inform the Court of any other investigative actions taken at that stage. 14.  In a decision of 2 December 2002 a prosecutor from the Oryahovo regional prosecutor’s office stayed the criminal proceedings, reasoning that some of the perpetrators of the attack had not been identified. That decision was quashed on an unspecified date by the Oryahovo District Court. It appears that K.K. was charged after this date for his participation. 15.  On 21 March 2003 the prosecutor discontinued the proceedings against K.K., considering that the charges against him had not been proven. Once again this decision was quashed by the Oryahovo District Court. 16.  On 31 October 2005 the prosecutor once again stayed the criminal proceedings on the grounds that the perpetrators had not been identified. Following an appeal by the applicant, that decision was quashed on 4 March 2006 by the Oryahovo District Court. It was noted, in particular, that in a letter dated 19 April 2004, not presented to the Court, the Vratsa regional prosecutor’s office had acknowledged that the investigator had not done what had been necessary to find the perpetrators, and that no action in that regard had subsequently been taken. Accordingly, there were no grounds to stay the proceedings. 17.  On 9 June 2006 the investigator once again interviewed the applicant and his son. The applicant gave the names of four of the attackers, including K.K. and T.K. His son stated that one of them had had a tattoo on his right arm. 18.  The parties did not inform the Court of any other action taken between then and 18 February 2009, when the case was sent by the investigator to the prosecutor with a proposal to indict K.K. and T.K. On 2 December 2009 the Oryahovo district prosecutor’s office indicted the two men, having separated the material concerning the remaining attackers, who had not been identified, into a new case file. 19.  On 20 April 2012 the Oryahovo District Court convicted the two accused of causing bodily harm to the applicant, and ordered them to pay 10,000 Bulgarian levs (BGN) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The parties did not provide a copy of that judgment’s reasoning. 20.  Following an appeal, the District Court’s judgment was quashed on 9 October 2012 by the Vratsa Regional Court, which remitted the case to the prosecution. It considered that the proceedings had been flawed by a number of procedural breaches at the pre-trial and trial stages. In particular, the prosecutor had failed to accurately describe in the indictment the relevant factual circumstances and roles played by each of the accused, seeing that there had been other unidentified participants in the attack. In addition, the District Court had not examined some discrepancies in the evidence collected, and its reasoning had not been thorough and consistent. 21.  Following the judgment above, the Oryahovo district prosecutor’s office reintegrated the material concerning the unidentified attackers into the original case file. Considering that the case could only properly be examined once all of the perpetrators had been identified and accused, in a decision of 3 December 2012 the prosecutor in charge once again ordered a stay of the criminal proceedings. He instructed the head of the local police directorate to continue the search for the remaining perpetrators. 22.  The applicant appealed against this decision, but it was upheld on 18 December 2012 by the Oryahovo District Court. 23.  Following inquiries by the prosecution, in letters of 8 April and 25 June 2013 and 24 March 2014 the local police directorate stated that none of the persons searched for had been identified.