6.  On 29 May 1998 the first applicant married V.D. On 7 January 2003 their son, the second applicant, was born. 7.  In 2006 V.D. initiated divorce proceedings, of which allegedly the first applicant, who was then living in Greece, was not aware. In a judgment of 21 July 2006, which became final on 11 October 2006, the Sofia District Court granted the divorce between the first applicant and V.D. and granted the latter residence rights in respect of the second applicant. The first applicant was granted contact rights for two hours twice a month in V.D.’s presence. 8.  After the divorce, V.D. and the child lived with the third applicant, V.D.’s mother. On 9 February 2006 V.D.’s partner Y.S. moved in with them. On an unspecified date at the end of 2006 or the beginning of 2007 V.D. and Y.S. had a son. 9.  In the summer of 2007 V.D., Y.S. and the children moved out of the third applicant’s home. 10.  In the application to the Court the third applicant stated that during a visit to her house on 24 August 2007 the child told her that his anus hurt. He shared with her that in the evenings Y.S. would come to his bed, put his finger in his anus, and touch his anus, penis and nipples, which were painful. When he told his mother she confronted Y.S., but he replied that it had been just a game. After that Y.S. threatened the child that if he told anyone else, he would beat and punish him. 11.  On the evening of 26 August 2007 the child again complained to his grandmother, the third applicant, that his anus hurt and asked her to take him to a doctor. 12.  The same evening the third applicant, in a telephone conversation, informed the second applicant’s doctor about the situation. Apparently, the second applicant himself told the doctor that his anus hurt because his “dad” [Y.S.] had put his finger there. 13.  On the following morning the second applicant was examined by a surgeon, who established that there were injuries to his anus. 14.  Meanwhile, having been informed about the situation by the third applicant, the first applicant arrived in Bulgaria on 30 August 2007. 15.  On an unspecified date, the third applicant found a CD with family photos on two of which the child was naked on the toilet. During the criminal investigation (see paragraphs 16-33 below) the third applicant submitted that she found the CD in her apartment where the photos had been taken. She also alleged that Y.S. had taken the photos. During her questioning in that connection V.D. stated that she herself had taken the photos with the family camera. 16.  On 27 August 2007, following the third applicant’s complaint, criminal proceedings were opened at first against an unknown perpetrator and later against Y.S. for sexual assault (блудство). On 28 August Y.S. was remanded in custody, but on 31 August 2007 was released on bail. 17.  On 27 August 2007 a forensic medical examination of the child was carried out upon a prosecutor’s order. The doctor found injuries to the child’s anus and concluded that these injuries might have resulted from penetration with a finger. An additional medical expert opinion stated that the injuries could also have been inflicted by penetration with a finger or by constipation. 18.  In an opinion of 29 August 2007, requested by the child’s mother, V.D., a doctor concluded that there were no injuries to the child’s anus. 19.  On 31 August 2007 the police department informed social services about the alleged abuse and recommended that action be taken under the Child Protection Act. 20.  In the period between 27 August 2007 and March 2008 at least eleven expert opinions and assessments were sought and a number of witnesses were questioned. Polygraph tests were conducted on Y.S. and the third applicant. The results of these tests were inconclusive. 21.  In a forensic psychiatric expert opinion of 30 August 2007 two experts concluded that the second applicant’s statements were unreliable and that he was easily influenced by the adults in the family. 22.  In a psychological opinion of 4 September 2007 an expert held that the second applicant’s story about the alleged abuse by Y.S. was tenable. 23.  In another expert opinion, carried out at the request of Lozenets District Social Assistance Office (“the Lozenets SAO”), of 4 October 2007, a doctor concluded that there were no signs of abuse on the second applicant and advised that no further psychological consultations and medical tests in respect of this issue be carried out, as they could have a negative impact on him. 24.  Between 13 November 2007 and February 2008 a forensic psychiatric expert assessment of Y.S.’s personality, a complex psychiatric and sexological expert assessment of Y.S., a psychological and psychiatric expert assessment of the grandmother, a forensic medical expert opinion of the child and an expert opinion on the CD with the photographs (see paragraph 15 above) were obtained. In the latter expert opinion, the expert noted that the CD contained family photos on two of which the child was sitting on the toilet naked. The expert concluded that the photographs had no pornographic content. 25.  In an expert opinion of 4 February 2008 five experts concluded that the second applicant’s testimony was unreliable and that he could not be credited as a witness because he lived in a world of fantasy and was easily influenced by other people. 26.  In an order of 28 February 2008 a prosecutor from the Sofia district public prosecutor’s office, after making an assessment of the conclusions of the expert opinions and the witness statements, discontinued the proceedings for lack of sufficient evidence that an offence had been committed. 27.  On appeal by the first and third applicants, on 18 March 2008 the Sofia District Court quashed the prosecutor’s order and remitted the case to the prosecution for further investigation. The District Court held, inter alia, that the order lacked sufficient reasoning, that the evidence was inconclusive and that the expert opinions did not exclude the possibility of abuse. It also declared the third applicant’s appeal inadmissible, because as the grandmother, she did not have standing to appeal against the discontinuation order. 28.  On an appeal by the prosecutor’s office, in a decision of 1 July 2008 the Sofia City Court upheld the lower court’s decision. The court found that the evidence in the case was inconclusive, as the parties involved had given conflicting statements and some of the expert reports had reached contradictory conclusions. The court pointed out the importance of the testimony of the second applicant’s doctor, who had confirmed the telephone conversation of 26 August 2007, the words used by the child to describe what had happened, and certain contradictions in V.D.’s statements. It also mentioned the apparent conflict between the adults in the family. The City Court noted that the presence of two irreconcilable versions of the events required a careful assessment of the statements and thorough analysis of the situation. It further gave detailed instructions as to the necessary additional actions to be taken, which included further questioning and expert opinions. 29.  In accordance with the Sofia City Court’s instructions on 26 August 2008 a prosecutor from the Sofia district public prosecutors’ office ordered additional investigative actions to be carried out, which included questioning the child’s doctor (see paragraph 12 above) and the surgeon who issued the certificate of 27 August 2007 (see paragraph 13 above), and commissioning of expert opinions on the credibility of the child’s story, the grandmother’s attitude towards the child and the nature of the child’s injuries. He also ordered the investigator to report the case to the prosecutor every thirty days. 30.  After the remittal of the case at least six more expert opinions were carried out and a large number of witnesses were questioned, thus the total number of the expert opinions and assessments in the preliminary investigation reached at least eighteen and the number of the witnesses questioned was approaching forty. 31.  In an expert opinion of an unspecified date a forensic doctor, a paediatrician and a surgeon specialising in paediatrics, who had examined the second applicant on 24 September 2008, concluded that there were injuries to his anus which could have been inflicted in the way described by him and that it was unlikely that those injuries had been caused by constipation. 32.  In a psychological expert opinion of 15 October 2008 two psychologists and a psychiatrist concluded that the grandmother did not have an “unnatural attachment” or an obsession with the child, but that the latter’s story about the alleged abuse could have been influenced by the grandmother. 33.  In an expert opinion of 12 November 2008 two child psychiatrists and three child psychologists concluded that the second applicant had reproduced previously heard phrases and was susceptible to influence and inculcation. The experts did not find any indication of sexual abuse. 34.  In an order of 20 January 2009 a prosecutor from the Sofia district public prosecutor’s office ordered two expert opinions to be sought on the CD with the child’s photographs, and the grandmother to be questioned in that connection. 35.  In an expert opinion of an unspecified date three experts concluded that the injuries on the second applicant’s anus could have been inflicted by the insertion of hard objects, such as a thermometer or a fingernail when inserting the thermometer. 36.  Between January and April 2009 a complex psychiatric and sexological expert assessment of Y.S. and the two expert opinions on the CD with the photographs were obtained (see paragraph 34 above). In the latter two opinions the experts concluded that the photographs had been taken in March and April 2006 with a SAMSUNG camera, that the CD had not been tampered with and that the inscription on the CD had not been done by V.D. 37.  During the proceedings at least forty witnesses were questioned. Among the witnesses were relatives, friends and acquaintances of the third applicant and V.D., as well as doctors, experts and social workers. The third applicant, V.D. and Y.S. were questioned several times. V.D. and Y.S. denied the allegations of abuse, the mother stating that the child had never complained to her about such abuse. The third applicant’s mother and brother testified that initially the relations between her, V.D. and Y.S. had been good but then conflicts arose and after the couple and the children moved out of the third applicant’s apartment, she wanted to keep the child with her and did everything possible to separate him from his mother and Y.S. Other witnesses, friends of the third applicant, stated that they had heard about the alleged abuse from the grandmother and that at some point V.D. had started preventing the third applicant from seeing the child. Y.S.’s former partner testified that she had never seen any signs of physical or sexual abuse in him and that he had never shown any unhealthy interest in her underage daughter, who used to live with them. The social workers testified that there was no indication of sexual abuse in respect of the second applicant. 38.  On 27 April 2009 and 8, 11 and 15 September 2009 one of the father’s representatives, Mrs T.Ch., was presented with the materials and findings of the preliminary investigation. She made comments and requests for further investigative actions, which were dismissed on 5 October 2009 as manifestly ill-founded and unnecessary. 39.  In an order of 5 October 2009 a prosecutor from the Sofia district prosecutor’s office discontinued the proceedings for lack of sufficient evidence of an offence. The prosecutor relied, inter alia, on the statements of the social workers who had been involved in the second applicant’s case and who considered that there had been no indication of sexual abuse in respect of the second applicant, as well as on the statements of the witnesses and the conclusions of the expert opinions obtained in the course of the proceedings. He noted in particular that V.D. repeatedly denied the allegations of abuse, the social workers saw no indications of abuse, the photographs on which the child was naked in the bathroom had no pornographic content and none of the individuals questioned had actually witnessed any abuse, most of them having heard about the allegations of abuse from the grandmother. 40.  On 24 November 2009 one of the father’s representatives, Mrs B.B., appealed. She contested the interpretation of the evidence and the findings of the prosecutor and pointed out that the findings of the investigation had not been presented to her. 41.  In a decision of 4 May 2010 the Sofia District Court, after examining the expert opinions and the evidence gathered, concluded that there was not sufficient evidence that an offence had been committed, and upheld the discontinuation, endorsing the prosecutor’s reasoning. The court relied, inter alia, on the conclusions of the psychological expert opinion of 25 January 2009, which stated that the child was easily influenced by others and that his behaviour did not indicate sexual abuse. It also noted that all instructions for further investigative actions given by the courts and the prosecutors had been complied with. 42.  Meanwhile, on 18 January 2010 the other representative of the father, Mrs T. Ch., had also appealed against the discontinuation order of 5 October 2009. Apparently, however, her appeal had not been forwarded to the Sofia District Court, which in its decision of 4 May 2010 had examined only the appeal by Mrs B.B. Following complaints by Mrs T.Ch., in a decision of 10 January 2011 the Sofia District Court quashed the discontinuation of the proceedings and ordered Mrs T.Ch.’s appeal to be heard. 43.  The parties have not informed the Court about the outcome of the proceedings. 44.  On 4 September 2007 the first applicant initiated proceedings under the Protection Against Domestic Violence Act (“the PADVA”) requesting that the Sofia District Court impose an injunction and remove Y.S. from the family home. 45.  In a decision of 5 September 2007 the Sofia District Court discontinued the proceedings, finding that Y.S. could not be the respondent in these proceedings because, as simply a cohabitant of one of the parents, he was not among the persons explicitly listed in section 3 of the PADVA in respect of whom such proceedings could be conducted. 46.  On 28 September 2007 the third applicant initiated proceedings under the PADVA and requested an “order for immediate protection” to be issued and the second applicant’s mother, V.D., to be obliged to take actions to protect the child from the alleged abuse, including removing him from his current home. In an order of 28 September 2007 the Sofia District Court discontinued the proceedings, finding that:
“the circumstances described in the claim do not disclose domestic violence under... the PADVA.” 47.  On 29 August 2007 the third applicant requested the Lozenets SAO to issue an order to remove the child from his current home. On 31 August 2007 officials from the Lozenets SAO met the father and the grandmother. On the same day the director of the Lozenets SAO issued an order placing the second applicant with his father. 48.  V.D. appealed against this order. In an order of 13 September 2007, served on the first applicant on 23 June 2008, the director of the Sofia Regional Social Assistance Office (“the RSAO”) quashed the order, finding breaches of the required form and procedure. She found, inter alia, that the order lacked sufficient reasoning and that the social services had failed to prepare an assessment of the effect which the removal would have on the second applicant. In conclusion, the director held that the order was not in the best interest of the child and remitted the case to the Lozenets SAO for further work. 49.  On 4 July 2008 the first applicant appealed before the Sofia Administrative Court through the RSAO. He alleged that the RSAO had never forwarded his appeal to the court. It appears that he did not file it directly with the Administrative Court either. 50.  On 24 January 2008 the third applicant requested the Sofia district public prosecutor’s office to initiate court proceedings for removal of the second applicant from his current home under section 26 (2) of the Child Protection Act. 51.  Her request was refused, by an order of 30 January 2008. On appeal, on 29 February 2008 the Sofia city public prosecutor’s office upheld the refusal. The Sofia appellate public prosecutor’s office did the same, in a final order of 30 July 2008. The prosecutors took into account the findings of the criminal proceedings against Y.S., which had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that abuse had taken place, and the opinion of the social services of 30 July 2008, that removal of the child from his current home would have a negative effect on his psychological and emotional development. 52.  On 17 March 2008 the first applicant initiated proceedings under section 26 of the Child Protection Act, requesting the Sofia District Court to place the child with the grandmother. Later in the proceedings he amended his request to include his parents and the child’s aunt among the families where the child could be placed. 53.  In a decision of 7 July 2008, after holding a hearing, the District Court discontinued the proceedings, as the first applicant had failed to pay the additional court fee, noting that the fee had been paid under the wrong case number. The first applicant’s lawyers appealed against the discontinuation, claiming that the wrong case number had been indicated in the summons sent to him in May 2008. 54.  On 14 July 2008 the first applicant’s lawyer requested the correction of a mistake in the transcript of the hearing of 7 July 2008, which was granted on 27 November 2008 after a hearing had been held. Thereafter the appeal procedure against the discontinuation of the proceedings continued. 55.  In a decision of 24 March 2009 the Sofia City Court quashed the decision for discontinuation of the proceedings and remitted the case to the District Court for examination on the merits. The City Court held that under Article 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure it was for the court to scrutinise the carrying out of all necessary procedural actions, therefore, in the present case, instead of discontinuing the proceedings the District Court should have informed the first applicant that the court fee had been paid under the wrong case number, and ordered him to pay it under the correct number. 56.  On 13 April 2009 the first applicant paid the court fee under the correct case number and the proceedings continued. 57.  Hearings were held on 8 July, 10 August and 28 September 2009. 58.  In a judgment of 26 November 2009 the Sofia District Court dismissed the action, holding that removing the child from his current home was a measure of last resort, which should be taken only after all other means of protecting him within his family environment had failed. In the case at hand these means had not been exhausted. 59.  On an appeal by the first applicant of 8 February 2010, the Sofia City Court examined the expert opinion of 27 August 2007 and the medical certificate of 29 August 2007 (see paragraphs 17 and 18 above) and commissioned a forensic psychiatric and psychological expert opinion on the effects which abuse could have on the second applicant. It admitted to the case file materials from the criminal proceedings against Y.S., the proceedings for deprivation of parental rights (see paragraphs 82-85 below), the social services reports and conclusions given in these proceedings, and a number of other items of written evidence. It also heard as witnesses all relatives who had agreed to receive the child at their home, social workers and other specialists. On 2 and 7 July, 26 September and 23 October 2009, and 2 March and 24 April 2011 social services prepared reports on the material conditions at the child’s current place of residence and on the conditions in the residences of the individuals who were ready to receive him in their homes. In these reports and at a court hearing of 7 March 2011 the social workers concluded that the material conditions in the second applicant’s current home were good, that he was receiving adequate and sufficient care and attention, and that his placement with other relatives would have a negative effect on his sense of security and emotional stability. 60.  In a final judgment of 17 May 2011, relying on the evidence gathered and the conclusions of the social services, the Sofia City Court upheld the previous court’s judgment and refused to remove the second applicant from his current residence. The court held, inter alia, that it had not been proved that sexual abuse had taken place and that not all means of working with the second applicant and providing protection within his current family had been exhausted. It further noted that in similar situations the authorities should act in the best interest of the child and not in the interest of its parents or other relatives. 61.  At the end of August 2007 the Lozenets SAO was notified of possible abuse and started working on the case (see paragraphs 19 and 47 above). 62.  On 11 September 2007 the grandmother lodged a complaint with the State Child Protection Agency, which had a governing and controlling function in the field of child protection, notifying them of the allegation of abuse and requesting assistance with the interim removal of the second applicant from his current home. 63.  On 15 September 2007 the latter forwarded the grandmother’s request to the Lozenets SAO, instructing it to undertake certain measures in order to establish whether there was a risk to the second applicant if he remained in his current home, and also for information on the scheduled actions and the progress of the case. 64.  Meanwhile, on 5 and 27 September 2007 social workers visited the child’s home and met him and his mother, V.D. 65.  On 27 November 2007 a social report was drafted, recommending that the second applicant and his mother have family counselling and psychological help. 66.  Between 20 December 2007 and 20 February 2008 the child and V.D. received regular family counselling and psychological assistance. 67.  On 18 January 2008 the director of the State Child Protection Agency sent a letter to the director of the State Social Assistance Agency (“the SSAA”) in connection with the grandmother’s complaint of 11 September 2007. She pointed out that the report from the Lozenets SAO did not contain an assessment of the risk of abuse and that there was not sufficient information to confirm that the second applicant was not at risk in his current home. She recommended the assignment to the case of one more social worker from another Social Assistance Office, in order to guarantee objectivity of the work in the case. 68.  In that connection, on 21 and 22 February 2008 the State Child Protection Agency carried out an inspection and gave instructions for the future handling of the case. 69.  On 1 July 2008 the child and his mother were referred to an association for counselling and psychological help. During the counselling period at least two reports on the second applicant’s and his mother’s psychological state of health were carried out. Their conclusions showed no signs of sexual or physical abuse. The second applicant also started attending sessions with a speech therapist. 70.  The child and his mother continued to be involved in a number of special programmes for counselling and psychological advice in connection with the allegations of abuse and the conflict between the members of the child’s extended family. 71.  Between May and October 2009 social services prepared several reports and opinions, including those requested by the domestic courts, examining the various proceedings under the Family Code and the Child Protection Act initiated by the applicants. They also held a number of meetings, which included meetings with the child and his mother, V.D., with the child’s teacher, and with his doctor. On several occasions social workers paid impromptu visits to the second applicant’s home, monitoring his development and the relations between him, his younger brother, V.D. and Y.S. 72.  The conclusions of numerous reports prepared by the social authorities were that the environment in the child’s home was “peaceful and harmonious”, his development was normal, all his needs were being adequately met, the material conditions in which he lived were good, and V.D. and Y.S. were open to receiving help from the social authorities. Removing the child from his present home would negatively affect his emotional stability and his sense of security. 73.  During their work with the second applicant psychologists prepared at least six reports assessing the risk of abuse in respect of this applicant. The conclusions were that there was no evidence that such a risk existed. 74.  It appears that at the end of 2010 a proposal was made to discontinue the active work with the second applicant and his family as the child had overcome the stressful situation and did not need further social assistance. It is not clear whether or when the active social work was discontinued. 75.  On 21 May 2008 the first applicant complained to the Sofia RSAO that the work of the Lozenets SAO was slow and inefficient, and requested that an order be issued for the removal of the child from his current home. 76.  In a letter of 10 June 2008 the director of the Sofia RSAO replied that two departments, the Lozenets SAO and the Slatina SAO, were working together on the second applicant’s case; that the child protection authorities had to act in the best interest of the child, and that their efforts were concentrated on re-establishing relations between the members of the family. The director pointed out that the Sofia RSAO could remove the child from his current home only after the relevant authorities had sufficient proof that abuse had taken place. She further expressed a concern about the second applicant’s psychological and emotional state, with regard to the fact that he was involved in and influenced by the conflict between the members of his family. 77.  It appears that in June 2008 the first and second applicants met in the presence of social workers. 78.  On 21 August 2008 the first applicant requested the Slatina SAO to give him certain information on the case, and sought assistance with the re‑establishment of personal contact between him and the second applicant and between the latter and his relatives on his mother’s side. 79.  On 21 November 2008 the Lozenets SAO organised a meeting between the first applicant, the latter’s mother, the third applicant, V.D.’s lawyer and a number of social workers. During the meeting it was established that the first applicant had not seen the second applicant since June 2008 and that V.D. did not allow such contact. 80.  At the end of February 2009 the first applicant reiterated his request to the State Agency for Child Protection for assistance with scheduled contact with the second applicant. 81.  The parties have not submitted information as to the steps taken in that connection after this date. From the materials in the Court’s possession, however, it appears that meetings between the first and second applicants have taken place. Thus, for example, in November 2008 and the spring of 2009 they met at the second applicant’s home. 82.  On 28 March 2008 the third applicant initiated proceedings under Article 70 (2) of the Family Code, claiming that V.D. had denied her contact with the second applicant and requesting the Sofia District Court to take measures which would allow her contact with him. In a judgment of 15 June 2009 the Sofia District Court granted the third applicant contact rights once a month for four hours. The court noted the strained relationship between the third applicant and V.D. and the fact that the third applicant had not been in contact with the child for about two years. It is not clear whether this judgment was appealed against. 83.  The parties have not submitted information as to whether contact has been re-established between the child and his grandmother since that judgment and prior to the latter’s death. 84.  On 11 September 2007 V.D. initiated proceedings to deprive the first applicant of parental rights. In a judgment of 8 June 2008 the Sofia District Court dismissed the claim as manifestly ill-founded. On appeal, on 28 April 2009 this judgment was upheld by the Sofia City Court, which held that the exercising of parental rights by both parents was of major importance for the second applicant’s development. It is not clear whether the parties appealed further. 85.  Meanwhile, on an unspecified date the first applicant initiated proceedings to deprive V.D. of parental rights and for full parental rights in respect of the second applicant. In a judgment of 17 March 2011 the Sofia District Court dismissed the first applicant’s action. It is not clear whether this judgment was appealed against.