CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 mars 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sEAE3FFDB { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sF9195E13 { margin-top:24pt; 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } Published on 25 March 2024 THIRD SECTION Application no. 35645/20 Radoslav Svetoslavov STOYANOV against Bulgaria lodged on 7 August 2020 communicated on 7 March 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The applicant describes himself as a well-known LGBTI-rights activist and an openly gay man. He works for the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, and has in that capacity lodged a number of complaints with the Commission for Protection Against Discrimination in relation to various matters. 2.     On 12 January 2014 Mr M.B., a well-known journalist, was hosting a television show. In the course of the show Mr M.B. and his two guests, the actor Mr A.S. and the politician Mr A.D., criticised the applicant for having lodged a complaint against Mr M.B. with the above-mentioned Commission. They made a number of negative comments about him, in particular his sexual orientation, and about homosexuals in general. 3.     In April 2016 the applicant brought a claim against Mr M.B. under section 71(1) of the Protection Against Discrimination Act 2003. He alleged that Mr M.B.’s statements during the show and the way in which they had been presented had amounted to a form of discriminatory harassment within the meaning of section 5 of the Act, and sought a court order against Mr M.B. to publish the operative provisions of the (impending) judgment against him and desist from harassing the applicant, plus 15,000 Bulgarian levs (BGN   –   7,669 euros (EUR)) in non-pecuniary damages. 4.     In April 2017 the Sofia District Court found that some, but not all, of Mr M.B.’s statements could be characterised as discriminatory harassment against the applicant, and that the applicant was hence entitled to a court order in the terms sought by him. It also awarded him BGN 1,500 (EUR 767) in non-pecuniary damages (see реш. № 103926 от 27.04.2017 г. по гр. д. №   24475/2016 г., СРС ). 5.     Both the applicant and Mr M.B. appealed against that judgment. Mr   M.B. challenged the judgment as a whole. The applicant challenged the decision to dismiss in part his claim for damages. In December 2018 the Sofia City Court upheld the judgment, fully agreeing with its reasoning (see реш.   №   8055 от 20.12.2018 г. по в. гр. д. № 1476/2018 г., СГС ). 6.     Mr M.B. appealed on points of law. Having admitted the appeal for examination, on 29 November 2019 the Supreme Cassation Court quashed the Sofia City Court’s judgment and dismissed the claim as a whole. It held that Mr M.B.’s statements could not be characterised as discriminatory harassment against the applicant within the meaning of section 5 of the 2003 Act, and that journalistic freedom of expression extended to negative value judgments (see реш. № 263 от 29.11.2019 т. по гр. д. № 1177/2019 г., ВКС, IV г. о. ). 7.     The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention, alone and taken together with Article 14 of the Convention, that the manner in which the Bulgarian courts dealt with his claim against Mr M.B. – in particular, the Supreme Court of Cassation’s decision to dismiss the claim as a whole – was in breach of their positive obligations under those provisions. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was the manner in which the Bulgarian courts dealt with the applicant’s claim against Mr M.B. in breach of Article 8 of the Convention, alone or taken together with Article 14 of the Convention? In particular, did those courts, and in particular the Supreme Court of Cassation, strike a proper balance between the applicant’s rights under those provisions and Mr M.B.’s right to freedom of expression?