CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 novembre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 28 November 2022   THIRD SECTION Application no. 34496/19 Lyubomir Ivanov AVDZHIYSKI against Bulgaria lodged on 21 June 2019 communicated on 10 November 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s conviction for defamation. On 13 April 2017 the applicant, as a representative of an opposition political party, attended a meeting of the Municipal Council of Dupnitsa where the dire financial situation of a municipally-owned hospital was being discussed. The applicant made a statement, alleging that such a situation was due to the actions a certain Dr P., employed in a privately-owned hospital, who had served as head of a local health authority between 2010 and 2014; according to the applicant, during this period Dr P. had imposed numerous fines and taken other decisions regarding the municipal hospital, creating a “hole” of 600,000 Bulgarian levs (BGN, the equivalent of 308,000 euros – EUR) in its budget. The applicant’s statement was allegedly based on media publications. Following proceedings initiated upon a private criminal complaint by Dr   P., the applicant was convicted for defamation in a final judgment of the Kyustendil Regional Court of 21 December 2018. The courts found in particular that the fines and other sanctions decided upon by Dr P. as a head of the health authority had been significantly lower than what the applicant had stated, that the applicant had implied abuse of office on the part of the claimant, and that the impugned statement was thus defamatory. The applicant was sentenced to a fine of BGN 1,000 (EUR   510), and ordered to pay Dr P. BGN 2,000 (EUR 1,020) in damage. The applicant complains that his conviction was in breach of Article 10 of the Convention, seeing that his impugned statement had been made in the context of an important public debate, that he had acted in good faith relying on publications in the media, and that the imposition of a sanction in criminal proceedings was excessive. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES   Did the applicant’s conviction for defamation amount to a violation of his right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article   10 of the Convention?