CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 mars 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sEAE3FFDB { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s20FDDAE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCA1147F8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; 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 } Published on 2 April 2024 THIRD SECTION Application no. 37693/20 Valya Encheva SIDEREVA against Bulgaria lodged on 21 August 2020 communicated on 13 March 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The applicant was employed as an equipment operator in a coal mine. In July 2015 she drew up a complaint against her manager in which she alleged, inter alia , that he had been harassing her because she had turned down his sexual advances. She addressed that complaint to the Prime Minister, the Minister for Energy, the president of the Parliament’s Energy Committee, and the Commission for Protection Against Discrimination. 2.     In August 2015 the Commission for Protection Against Discrimination opened proceedings against the applicant’s manager and the company operating the mine pursuant to the complaint. Having examined the complaint in full adversarial proceedings, in October 2015 the Commission dismissed it. It found, inter alia , that there was no evidence to sustain a finding that the applicant’s manager had been harassing her, sexually or otherwise. 3.     In May 2019 the applicant’s manager brought a claim for damages against her in relation to the complaint that she had made against him. 4.     In October 2019 the Radnevo District Court allowed the claim. It ordered the applicant to pay her manager 5,000 Bulgarian levs (BGN – equivalent to 2,556 euros (EUR)), in respect of non-pecuniary damage; BGN   500 (EUR 256), in respect of pecuniary damage (the lawyer’s fees that her manager had incurred in connection with the proceedings before the Commission for Protection Against Discrimination); interest on those sums; and BGN 929.17 (EUR 475.08) in respect of the costs that her manager had incurred in the proceedings for damages. The court found, in particular, that the applicant’s complaint had been baseless and meant solely to harm her manager, and had indeed harmed his career, reputation and psychological well-being (see реш. № 135 от 17.10.2019 г. по гр. д. № 343/2019 г., РСР ). 5.     The applicant appealed against that judgment, challenging in some detail the court’s analysis of the evidence and its findings of fact and law. 6.     In a final judgment of 21 February 2020, the Stara Zagora Regional Court upheld the lower court’s judgment and ordered the applicant to pay her manager an additional BGN 800 (EUR 409) in respect of the costs that he had incurred in the appeal proceedings. It repeated nearly word for word the reasons given by the lower court with respect to the merits of the case (see реш. № 69 от 21.02.2020 г. по гр. д. № 1651/2020 г., СЗОС ). 7.     In March 2020 an enforcement agent sent an attachment notice to the applicant’s bank with a view to enforcing the judgments against her. The notice specified that by 5 March 2020 the total amount of the applicant’s judgment debt came to BGN 11,676.87 (EUR 5,970.29). 8.     The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that the courts allowed her manager’s claim for damages against her, and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that as a result of that she became liable to pay him a considerable sum. She also complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (relying also on Article 13 of the Convention) that those proceedings were unfair because the courts did not give proper reasons for their judgments against her – in particular the Stara Zagora Regional Court, which did not give its own reasons for upholding the lower court’s judgment but simply copy-pasted the reasons given by the lower court. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression “prescribed by law” and “necessary in a democratic society” within the meaning of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention (see Sofranschi v. Moldova , no.   34690/05, §§ 26-34, 21 December 2010; Siryk v. Ukraine , no. 6428/07, §§ 31-48, 31 March 2011; Bargão and Domingos Correia v. Portugal , nos.   53579/09 and 53582/09, §§ 30-44, 15 November 2012; and Marinova and Others v. Bulgaria , nos. 33502/07 and 3 others, §§ 79-95, 12 July 2016)? In particular, could that interference be regarded as proportionate in the light of the factors set out in paragraph 86 of Marinova and Others (cited above)? 2.     Were the proceedings against the applicant fair, as required by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? Specifically, did the courts duly address the points she submitted for their consideration, seeing in particular that the reasons that the Stara Zagora Regional Court gave for upholding the lower court’s judgment repeat nearly word for word – save for a brief paragraph at the end – those given by the lower court, and appear to have in effect been copy-pasted from them (see Helle v. Finland , 19 December 1997, § 59, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VIII; Hirvisaari v. Finland , no. 49684/99, §   32, 27   September 2001; and Tatishvili v. Russia , no. 1509/02, § 62, ECHR   2007-I)?