Communicated on 21 March 2018

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 69725/10 Dimitar Georgiev DIMITROV against Bulgaria lodged on 4 November 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Dimitar Georgiev Dimitrov , is a Bulgarian national, who was born in 1959 and lives in Pazardzhik . He is represented before the Court by Mr V. Stoyanov , a lawyer practising in Pazardzhik .

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On 24 August 2008 the applicant suffered injuries in a traffic accident.

The police in Pazardzhik opened criminal proceedings against another participant in the accident. Officer D. was initially in charge of the investigation, but subsequently the case was transferred to Officer I.

The criminal proceedings were discontinued on 24 November 2008 by a prosecutor of the Pazardzhik District Public Prosecutor ’ s Office, with a conclusion that it had been the applicant and not the other participant who was responsible for the accident; no criminal offence had thus been committed as it had been only the applicant who had suffered injuries as a result.

The above decision was upheld with finality on 26 January 2009 by the Pazardzhik Regional Court.

In the meantime, the applicant, dissatisfied with these developments, showed the documents in his possession to the local newspaper Videlina , which on 29 January 2009 published an article on the investigation, entitled “The absurd history of a traffic accident”.

The article criticised the police and the prosecution for their handling of the case, referring on several occasions to arguments put forward by the applicant in his appeal against the prosecutor ’ s decision of 24 November 2008 (see above). It thus contained the following paragraph:

“And also, the last police officer to investigate the case [Officer I.] stated plainly on 18 September that he had taken the case from [Officer D.] because [the other participant in the accident] had been a personal friend of his since 20 years. The appeal in which all this is described is dated 12 December 2008.”

On 19 February 2009 the Pazardzhik District Public Prosecutor ’ s Office refused, upon a complaint by Officer I., to open criminal proceedings against the applicant for false accusation of a criminal offence.

In July 2009 Officer I. initiated a private prosecution of the applicant, claiming that the paragraph quoted above of the article of 29 January 2009 had defamed him, implying that he had abused his office.

In a judgment of 7 December 2009 the Pazardzhik District Court convicted the applicant for defamation, finding that his allegations, disseminated through the press, were untrue. It sentenced him to a fine of 2,500 Bulgarian levs (BGN, the equivalent of approximately 1,280 euros – EUR) and public reprimand, and ordered him to pay an additional BGN 2,500 in non-pecuniary damage to Officer I., plus default interest as of 29 January 2009.

Upon appeal by the applicant, in a final judgment of 11 June 2010 the Pazardzhik Regional Court upheld the conviction and the sentence. It also reached the conclusion that the applicant ’ s impugned statement was untrue, in particular as it had been shown that the case concerning the traffic accident of 24 August 2008 had been transferred to Officer I. by his superior and after Officer D. had gone on leave. Accordingly, the applicant had disseminated through the press untrue and defaming allegations, as his statements had implied that Officer I. had abused his official position.

Enforcement proceedings were opened against the applicant subsequently. Even though he made some payments towards his debt, in January 2015 the total amount owed by him, including the fine payable to the State, the damages awarded to Officer I., the interest accrued and costs and expenses, was BGN 8,089.55 (the equivalent of EUR 4,140).

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

The relevant domestic law and practice have been summarised in the Court ’ s judgment in Marinova and Others v. Bulgaria , nos. 33502/07 and 3 others, §§ 41-44, 49-51 and 54-57, 12 July 2016 ).

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that his conviction and sentence in relation to the newspaper article of 29 January 2009 breached Article 6 and Article 10 of the Convention.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention, on account of his conviction for defamation which is the subject of the present application?