DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE VEHABOVIĆ

I regret that I am unable to subscribe to the view of the majority that there has been a violation of Article 10 in this case.

When comparing it with the cases of Handzhiyski v. Bulgaria (no. 10783/14, 6 April 2021) and Sinkova v. Ukraine (no. 39496/11, 27 February 2018), it is easy to note that all three cases relate to very similar situations, one that can be characterised as an “artistic performance pointing out social, economic and political issues” and the other one constituting purely “political protest”.

Notwithstanding all the similarities, the majority have reached different conclusions, i.e. differing here once again from those in Sinkova .

I have difficulty sharing the position that has been adopted in the present case, and without wishing to open a discussion on the values attached to statues and monuments in general, I feel bound to say that while we are not able to change history, we can properly evaluate it. We have witnessed many occasions on which historic monuments in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and so on, have been desecrated or completely destroyed for various reasons, but the motives were always a difference of opinion about the values that these monuments represented. Such behaviour is not acceptable. On the other hand, there are still monuments that glorify events, battles or persons promoting uncivilised actions or aims like slavery, or rulers who committed terrible atrocities during the colonial age, and so forth, but what makes a significant difference is the historical context of these events or personalities. What is acceptable to one person might be unacceptable to another, but one thing is certain – no one can change history and those events and personalities should be evaluated in their particular historical context.

In the context of the present case, it is the duty of the authorities to protect those monuments that are in place today in so far as they are still there. It is up to them also to decide whether these monuments should be left standing in public places, but in the meantime there is a necessity to act according to the law. In protecting them the authorities should also properly evaluate acts by individuals that publicly mock statues and monuments and what they represent, in the light of the “necessary in a democratic society” test.

This different approach to the process of evaluating the facts in the present case, in relation to the two cases mentioned above, points once again to some inconsistency on the part of the Court in dealing with similar cases, and this will not serve to enhance its public image.

[1] Anti-government resistance fighters active on the territory of Bulgaria between June 1941 and September 1944, affiliated with the Bulgarian Communist Party and supported by, inter alia , the Soviet Union, whose troops occupied Bulgaria in September 1944.

[2] On 5 September 1944 the Soviet Union declared war on Bulgaria, and on 8 September 1944 the Soviet Army entered the country without facing resistance and occupied it until December 1947.