Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 99

July 2007

Peev v. Bulgaria - 64209/01

Judgment 26.7.2007 [Section V]

Article 10

Article 10-1

Freedom of expression

Unlawful dismissal of a civil servant following a search of his office in apparent retaliation for a letter he had published in the press criticising the chief prosecutor: violation

Article 8

Article 8-1

Respect for private life

Civil servant’s office sealed off and searched following a letter he had published in the press criticising the chief prosecutor: violation

Facts : The applicant was employed as an expert by the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor’s Office (SCPO). Following the death by suicide of a prosecutor colleague who had alleged that the chief prosecutor and his entourage were harassing and exerting improper pressure on him, the applicant considered resigning and to that end prepared two draft letters which he kept in a drawer of his office desk. However, he eventually decided not to resign and sent a letter to two daily newspapers and the Supreme Judicial Council making a number of grave accusations against the chief prosecutor and urging the authorities to investigate. One of the newspapers published the letter. On the evening preceding publication, a prosecutor from the SCPO sealed off the applicant’s office and ordered the duty police officer not to allow the applicant to enter the building as he had been dismissed. The applicant was subsequently informed that his resignation letter had been brought to the attention of the chief prosecutor and that his resignation had been accepted. Some days later, the applicant was allowed into the office to collect his personal belongings. He discovered that it had been searched and that certain items, including the draft resignation letters, were missing. The prosecuting authorities refused to open criminal proceedings. However, the applicant brought a civil action for unlawful dismissal and obtained an order for his reinstatement and an award of compensation. Although he was not in fact reinstated in his former position as the department for which he had worked had been abolished in the interim, he did succeed in obtaining a post with a similar body.

Law : Article 10 – Admissibility – On the question whether the quashing of the applicant’s dismissal, accompanied by an award of compensation and his appointment to another post, had deprived him of victim status within the meaning of Article 34, the Court noted that the termination of his employment was only part of the alleged interference with his freedom of expression. Further, the purpose of the domestic proceedings had been to give effect to the applicant’s labour rights, not to protect his freedom of expression as such. Therefore, even if the judgments in his favour had provided some redress, they had not acknowledged expressly or in substance the alleged violation of Article 10. Likewise, while the applicant’s appointment to a similar position about three years after the termination of his employment had no doubt mitigated the damage, there was no indication that it had been intended as an acknowledgment of and redress for his Article 10 grievance: victim status upheld .

Compliance – The sequence of events appeared significant, with the applicant’s office being sealed off shortly after the publication of his letter containing the accusations against the chief prosecutor and his dismissal being engineered on the basis of material obtained during the search. The string of measures taken against him thus appeared to have been a result of that publication and so an interference with his

freedom of expression. Since the Court had already found the search to be unlawful and the domestic courts had ruled his dismissal unlawful, that interference had not been “prescribed by law”.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 8 – The applicant had a “reasonable expectation of privacy”, if not in respect of his entire office, at least in respect of his desk and filing cabinets. In view of the national courts’ finding that the person who had carried out the search had had access to the Courts of Justice building and was apparently connected to the chief prosecutor before whom the material obtained during the search was later brought, there was no reason to assume that the search was carried out by persons in their private capacity. The search thus amounted to interference by a public authority with the applicant’s private life. The Government had not sought to argue that there were any provisions in domestic law at the relevant time to regulate the circumstances in which the SCPO could search the offices of its employees outside the context of a criminal investigation. The interference was therefore not “in accordance with the law”.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 13 (in conjunction with Articles 8 and 10) – The Government had failed to show that any remedies existed in respect of the unlawful search. The domestic proceedings in which the applicant had challenged his dismissal had concentrated on the resignation issue and had not discussed the substance of his freedom-of-expression grievance. Those proceedings therefore did not amount to an avenue whereby he could vindicate his freedom of expression as such and no other remedy had been suggested by the Government.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 41 – EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes