Published on 10 July 2023

THIRD SECTION

Applications nos. 64543/17 and 766/19 Svetla Todorova PETROVA against Bulgaria and Valeri Nikolov PETKOV against Bulgaria lodged on 26 August 2017 and 21 December 2018 respectively communicated on 22 June 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applications concern the applicants’ liability (criminal or civil) for complaints or criticism regarding public officials.

In application no. 64543/17, the applicant, an employee of a social services department, complained to the head of that department and the director of the Agency for Social Assistance about alleged harassment on the part of her direct superior. After verifying the situation, these officials rejected the complaints. Subsequently the applicant’s superior successfully sued her in private criminal proceedings. Thus, in a final judgment of the Yambol Regional Court of 16 March 2017 the applicant was found guilty of defamation, as she had untruthfully stated in her complaints referred to above that her superior had been harassing her. The applicant was relieved from criminal liability and imposed an administrative fine of 1,000 Bulgarian levs (BGN), equivalent of 511 euros (EUR); she was ordered to pay her superior another BGN 1,000 in damage.

The applicant in application no. 766/19, who contested a construction permit granted to his neighbours (which was eventually quashed), complained in letters addressed to the Ministry of Public Works and a building control authority from actions of M.Y., chief architect of the applicant’s town. The applicant stated in particular that M.Y. had been making “deceitful statements” in the proceedings concerning the permit. When M.Y. brought a tort action against the applicant, claiming that the above-mentioned letters had impinged upon his dignity and professional authority, the applicant was ordered, in a final judgment of the Razgrad Regional Court of 2 August 2018, to pay BGN 1,500 (EUR 767) in damage, plus interest and costs.

Both applicants complain under Article 10 of the Convention (the applicant in application no. 766/19 relies in addition on Article 6 § 1) of having been punished for the above mentioned complaints and criticism.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention, and if so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2 (see Marinova and Others v. Bulgaria , nos. 33502/07 and 3 others, 12 July 2016)?