Communicated on 7 December 2016

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 68242/16 Haralambi Borisov Anchev against Bulgaria lodged on 11 November 2016

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Haralambi Borisov Anchev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Sofia.

A. The circumstances of the case

2. The facts of the case have been set out in the Statement of facts in application no. 38334/08, notice of which was given to the Bulgarian Government on 15 November 2016.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

3. The relevant domestic law has likewise been set out in the Statement of facts in application no. 38334/08.

4. Here, it should just be added that by Article 32 § 1 of the Constitution, everyone has a right to protection against, inter alia , infringement of his or her honour, dignity and good name.

5. When examining defamation claims, the Bulgarian courts have noted that those rights are enshrined in that provision, and on that basis held that their infringement can be a tort (see реш. № 358 от 23.02.2015 г. по в. гр. д. № 3719/2014 г., САС, and реш. № 1376 от 07.01.2016 г. по в. гр. д. № 1173/2016 г., САС). The Supreme Court of Cassation made a similar statement in a case concerning unauthorised filming (see реш. № 878 от 16.06.2006 г. по гр. д. № 721/2005 г., ВКС, IV-Б г. о.).

COMPLAINTS

6. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the two 2014 decisions to expose him as a collaborator of the former security services were disproportionate.

7. The applicant also complains under Article 13 of the Convention that the possibility to seek judicial review of those decisions was not an effective remedy, as he could not challenge the factual basis for the Commission ’ s finding that he had been a collaborator of the former security services.

8. Lastly, the applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the administrative courts did not duly review the reliability of Commission ’ s finding and the evidence underlying that finding, or the necessity of the decisions to expose him in his individual case. In his view, he was thus deprived of effective access to a court and of a fair trial.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the alleged interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for his private life necessary in a democratic society, within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention?

2. Did t he applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 8 of the Convention, as required by Article13?

3. Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? More specifically, did the applicant have effective access to a court and a fair trial in the proceedings for judicial review of the two 2014 decisions to expose him as a collaborator of the former security services?