Published on 17 July 2023
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 60342/19
Kremena Goshova Budinova and Ognyan Isaev Isaev
against Bulgaria
lodged on 8 November 2019
communicated on 30 June 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The two applicants, both of whom are of Roma ethnic origin and work as freelance journalists, are actively engaged with the protection of the rights of Roma people in Bulgaria (for the first applicant, see Budinova and Chaprazov v. Bulgaria, no. 12567/13, § 9, 16 February 2021).
On 17 December 2014 and 11 March 2015 respectively Mr Valeri Simeonov – at that time leader of the political party National Front for the Salvation of Bulgaria and chairman of the parliamentary group of the coalition United Patriots, of which his party was a member (later, between May 2017 and November 2018, Mr Simeonov was Deputy Prime Minister) – made two statements in the Bulgarian Parliament. Both statements concerned the alleged criminality and lawlessness of a large part of the Roma community in Bulgaria, its allegedly systemic failure to pay taxes and utility bills, and its alleged abuse of social-assistance programmes.[1]
In April 2016 the applicants brought a claim under section 71(1) of the Protection from Discrimination Act 2003 against Mr Simeonov. They alleged that his statements had been meant to stir up fear and hatred and to stereotype negatively Roma people, and had thus amounted to harassment and incitement to discrimination towards the two of them, and sought an injunction against Mr Simeonov to refrain from such acts in the future. The applicants relied on, inter alia, Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention. In July 2017 the Burgas District Court partly allowed their claim, finding that portions of Mr Simeonov’s statements had indeed amounted to harassment and incitement to discrimination (see реш. № 1151 от 31.07.2017 г. по гр. д. № 7094/2016 г., БРС).
In November 2017 the applicants pointed out that the court had failed to rule in relation to certain portions of Mr Simeonov’s statements, and asked it to supplement its judgment. In December 2017 the Burgas District Court supplemented its judgment, ruling that the portions of the statements in issue had not amounted to discrimination or incitement to discrimination (see реш. № 2021 от 11.12.2017 г. по гр. д. № 7094/2016 г., БРС).
Both Mr Simeonov and the applicants appealed; the applicants’ appeal concerned the supplemental judgment as well. In May 2018 the Burgas Regional Court dismissed the applicants’ claim as a whole, holding that Mr Simeonov’s statements had not constituted incitement to discrimination or harassment. Despite the strong language used by him, the statements had not targeted Roma in general but had highlighted unlawful activities by some members of the Roma community, and Mr Simeonov’s aim had been to draw attention to certain pressing social problems rather than disparage the Roma community as a whole. There was, moreover, no evidence that the statements had affected the applicants personally (see реш. № 390 от 18.05.2018 г. по в. гр. д. № 280/2018 г., БОС).
The applicants appealed on points of law. The Supreme Court of Cassation partly accepted the appeal for examination – so far as it related to the concept of “harassment” within the meaning of section 5(1) of the 2003 Act and paragraph 1(1) of the Act’s additional provisions (see опр. № 21 от 09.01.2019 г. по гр. д. № 3203/2018 г., ВКС, III г. о.). On 19 June 2019 the court held – chiefly with reference to the case-law of the administrative courts on the point – that, for there to be “harassment” within the meaning of the above-mentioned provisions, there had to be both unwanted conduct (for instance in the form of a public statement) and specific negative consequences of that conduct in the personal sphere of the people complaining of it, such as a refusal to employ them, let accommodation to them, provide them goods or services, or the uttering of specific threats against them. On that basis, the court dismissed the applicants’ claim, finding no evidence that Mr Simeonov’s statements, which had concerned only part of the Roma community, had targeted the applicants or had specifically affected them (see реш. № 2 от 19.06.2019 г. по гр. д. № 3203/2018 г., ВКС, III г. о.).
The applicants complain under Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention that the courts dismissed their claim against Mr Simeonov. The applicants also complain under Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the courts gave racist reasons for dismissing their claim.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Are Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention applicable? In particular, did Mr Simeonov’s statements at issue in the case affect the applicants’ “private life” (see Budinova and Chaprazov v. Bulgaria, no. 12567/13, § 63, 16 February 2021)?
2. If so, was the dismissal of the applicants’ claim against Mr Simeonov in breach of the positive obligations flowing from Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention in such situations (see, mutatis mutandis, Budinova and Chaprazov, cited above, §§ 87-95)?
[1]. The applicant in no. 38741/19, Asenov v. Bulgaria (the proceedings in which are being conducted simultaneously with those in the present case) complained against Mr Simeonov in relation to the first of those statements to the Commission for Protection from Discrimination under section 50 of the Protection from Discrimination Act 2003.