CASE OF SAPUNDZHIEV v. BULGARIA

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF SAPUNDZHIEV v. BULGARIA

(Application no. 30460/08)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

6 September 2018

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Sapundzhiev v. Bulgaria,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, President,
Yonko Grozev,
Lado Chanturia, judges,
and Milan Blaško, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated in private on 10 July 2018,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in an application (no. 30460/08) against the Republic of Bulgaria lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Bulgarian national, Mr Leonard Dimitrov Sapundzhiev (“the applicant”), on 30 April 2008.

2.  The applicant was represented by Mr G.D. Georgiev, a lawyer practising in Ruse. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms V. Hristova, of the Ministry of Justice.

3.  On 11 October 2016 the complaint concerning the sanctions imposed on the applicant for having complained to the authorities and for having publicly exhibited posters critical of another individual’s business was communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court.

THE FACTS

I.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Silistra.

A.  Background

5.  In 2003 an individual installed a printing company in a building situated in close proximity to the building where the applicant was living with his family. Shortly after the printing company began operating, the applicant and his family started resenting the nuisance it was causing. In particular, they found the constant smell of ink and solvents intolerable; also, they were continuously disturbed by the vibrations caused by the printing machines, which reverberated through the walls of their dwelling. Moreover, as time went by, the applicant’s young daughter developed an allergy, which the applicant believed was due to the chemicals used in the printing process and had to take daily medication to keep it under control.

B.  Complaints to the authorities and their related action

6.  Between July 2006 and August 2007, the applicant turned to several State institutions, including regional branches of the hygiene and epidemiological inspectorate, the public health directorate at the Ministry for Health, the regional building inspectorate, the mayor of Silistra and the prosecution service. He complained to them in writing about the nuisance caused by the printing company. He claimed that the latter was operating contrary to a number of legal requirements found in different ministerial regulations. He also asked the authorities for help in forcing the printing company to cease its operations.

7.  More specifically, the chronology of his correspondence with the authorities can be traced as follows.

1.  Complaints and replies in 2006

8.  On 15 August 2006, the director of the regional agency for public health (Регионална инспекция за опазване и контрол на общественото здраве – hereafter “the public health agency”) informed the applicant that on 10 August 2006 two junior inspectors from the agency had visited the printing company in question. He did so in a brief one-paragraph letter in reply to a complaint made by the applicant on 31 July 2006. The inspectors had established during that visit that two printing machines (without specifying their type, power or capacity) were operating at that time in the printing company and that this number was in line with the requirements set out in Regulation No. 7 of 1992 of the Ministry for Health. The letter invited the applicant to propose a day and time for the measuring of the noise generated by the printing company.

9.  Two days later, on 17 August 2006, the applicant together with three of his neighbours complained in writing to the public health directorate at the Ministry for Health that the printing company was operating in contravention of relevant legal requirements. On 22 August 2006, the applicant and the same three neighbours wrote again to the same directorate expressing concern about and dissatisfaction with the manner in which the measurements in respect of noise and air pollution had been taken on 18 August 2006. In particular, two individuals who had not shown any credentials had turned up and measured the noise with a machine which had not reacted to sudden high-pitched noises but was set up to measure only background noise. Furthermore, when the applicant had invited the inspectors to also measure the purity of the air, one of them had opened the window, sniffed the air and stated that it was not that bad and that, in all likelihood, it would turn out to be within the relevant norms when measured. The applicant further stressed in the letter that the printing company was operating in close proximity to inhabited dwellings, whereas according to the relevant regulations this was prohibited within less than 50 metres of such buildings.

10.  The applicant and his three neighbours also wrote to the building inspectorate on 23 August 2006, complaining that the printing company’ premises had been built in contravention of the relevant construction norms.

11.  On 25 August 2006 the Ministry for Health wrote to the public health agency, asking that a check be carried out and the applicant informed of the results accordingly. On 29 August 2006 the Ministry for Health issued an instruction to the owner of the printing company, inviting him to bring the noise levels generated by his business within the limits stipulated in the relevant regulations.

12.  On 30 August 2006, apparently in reply to the applicant’s letter of complaint of 31 July 2006, the head of the public health agency informed the applicant that: the chemical agents identified at the work stations at the printing company in question were within the limits listed in Regulation No. 13 of 2003 for the protection of individuals exposed to chemical agents at their work station; the noise reaching the applicant’s home when the windows were open, as well as the dwelling of one of his neighbours, was not in conformity with the requirements of Regulation No. 6 of 2006; and that instructions had been issued to the owner of the printing company to ensure that the noise levels produced by his business were brought within the legal limits.

13.  On 5 October 2006 a representative of the Ministry for Health wrote to the applicant informing him that staff from the public health agency had carried out two checks at the printing company; neither the dates of those checks, nor any further details about them were mentioned. The letter then read that on 18 August 2006 officials had measured the reverberating noise and the chemical agents produced at the printing company. As the noise levels had been found to be beyond the legal limits, the owner had been instructed to lower them by 29 October 2006.

14.  On 27 October 2006 the applicant and his three neighbours wrote to the Ministry for Health, expressing their dissatisfaction with the reply they had received on 5 October 2006. They reiterated that the printing company was surrounded on three sides by inhabited dwellings, in which a number of small children lived. They referred to point 393 of Regulation No. 7 of 1992, which prohibited the installation of printing houses less than 50 metres from inhabited buildings and to the fact that the owner of the printing company had not obtained an agreement from any of his neighbours for installing his business at that location. They pointed out too that the noise levels had not been lowered, contrary to the authorities’ instructions, and stressed that the record which they had signed on the day when the noise measurements had been taken had indicated 58 decibels (dB) and not 38 as stated in the record included in the file. They asked once again that the authorities order the printing company to cease its operations on the ground that they were in breach of point 393 of Regulation No. 7 of 1992.

2.  Complaints and replies in 2007

15.  On 20 August 2007 the applicant and four of his neighbours wrote to the regional inspectorate for the environment and water in Ruse (Регионална инспекция за околната среда и водите). They stated that, although the printing company had been apparently functioning on the basis of a lawful permit since 2003, given that it was located in a densely populated area, in their opinion, this was inappropriate. The letter then listed the exact name of the machines operating at the printing company and the type of ink used. The applicant and his neighbours further pointed out that, according to Regulation No. 7 of 1992 of the Ministry for Health, printing houses had to be located at least 50 metres from inhabited dwellings and that the printing company in question was joined on three sides to the complainants’ dwellings. The printing business in question had been formally registered as “a workshop for printing services with up to two work stations” and not as a “printing house”; in this way it had successfully circumvented the legal requirements applicable to printing houses, despite the fact that the notice exhibited at its entrance read “printing house” (печатница).

16.  The letter further stated that in reality, for a number of consecutive years, more than two people had been working at the printing house at any given time. The applicant and his neighbours had learned from the staff that no antidote was being given to them; this was obligatory as protection against carcinogens present in printing inks and solvents used to clean the machines (up to ten times a day on a busy day). The authors of the letter then wondered whether they as well as the people living in the immediate vicinity of the printing house should also have been taking such antidotes. The applicant’s daughter had developed an allergy towards some of the chemicals used by the printing house and was taking daily medication called Zertec. Whenever the door of the printing house was opened a pungent smell entered directly into the bedroom of the applicant’s children, the window of which was situated directly opposite it at about seven metres’ distance.

17.  Like the staff at the printing company, the applicant and his neighbours suffered frequently from headaches, their washing turned grey whenever it was hung to dry and the noise produced by the machines when operating was unbearable. In particular, at the house of one of the applicant’s neighbours the noise was so loud it was as though an earthquake had started every time the guillotine was operating. The applicant and his neighbours had sought a copy of the original record signed at the time the noise had been measured but had not received one. The letter concluded that the residents whose dwellings adjoined the printing company were doomed to bringing up their children for the foreseeable future in an environment of noise and chemicals, without any guarantee for their health and normal development. One of the staff working for several years at the printing company had developed a brain tumour, which was a source of serious worry for everyone in the vicinity. The applicant and his neighbours were also worried that the owner did not wish to hear any suggestion of moving his printing business away, but insisted that it was harmless as he preferred to profit from the commercial advantages a central location offered. The letter’s authors then invited the authorities to carry out an unannounced nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometry in order for the community to learn about the poisons they were being exposed to, as well as to proceed with closing down the business. They enclosed a copy of the 810 signatures collected in support of their cause.

18.  On 10 September 2007 the head of the Ruse regional inspectorate for the environment and water wrote to the applicant in reply to the letter of 20 August 2007. The reply stated that two experts sent by the inspectorate had carried out a check on 30 August 2007 at the printing company in the presence of its owner. The conclusions of that check were that the printing company was operating on the basis of a permit issued by the building authorities on 25 July 2003. The type of operation – offset printing on sheets of paper – was not among the operations listed in Annex I of Regulation No. 7 of 2003 on limiting emissions of volatile organic compounds released into the environment as a result of the use of solvents in certain installations. Lastly, the noise emissions had been measured at 49.7 dB, which was lower than the legal limit of 60 dB to be found in Annex II – Table 2, point 2 of Regulation No. 6 of 26 June 2006.

C.  Posters exhibited in the applicant’s own shop

19.  In addition to his appeals to the above-mentioned institutions, the applicant decided to attract public attention to his dispute with the printing company. He produced some posters for that purpose, calling on the community in the town of Silistra to express support for the termination of the printing company’s operations. The text on the posters claimed that the printing company had been licensed in breach of the relevant legal requirements and that the pollution it was causing was harmful to the people living in the vicinity. The posters also listed parts of three regulations issued by the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Regional Development and concerning sanitary requirements and, protection of public health in an urban environment.

20.  The applicant exhibited the posters described above on the windows of his own shop, which was situated close to both his home and the printing company. The posters were exhibited between 12 December 2006 and 22 February 2007, and within a little over a month the applicant had collected more than 800 signatures from individuals in support of his cause.

D.  Proceedings for defamation brought against the applicant

21.  On an unspecified date the owner of the printing company, V.V., brought defamation proceedings against the applicant under Article 147 of the Criminal Code 1968. V.V. complained in particular that the applicant’s actions had damaged his printing business and his personal reputation.

22.  The applicant’s three neighbours, who together with the applicant had been continuously complaining to the authorities, submitted a signed declaration in support of the applicant. They stated that, irrespective of all the different permits which the printing company might have obtained from the authorities, this did not change the fact that it was causing a chemical and noise-related nuisance to the community on a daily basis.

1.  Proceedings before the Silistra District Court

23.  On 5 June 2007 the Silistra District Court found the applicant guilty of libel. It held that he had defamed V.V. by complaining in writing to various institutions about the latter’s printing operations and by printing and publicly disseminating material which claimed that the business was operating unlawfully. Contrary to the requirements of Article 147 of the Criminal Code 1968, the applicant had not submitted proof showing that his complaints to the authorities and the claims he had made in the posters were true. While officials from the Ministry of Health had indeed established that the noise emitted by the printing business had been beyond the authorised limits, the authorities had instructed its owner to bring it within the relevant norms and had given him a deadline, with which he had complied. The court then stated that, as seen from a chemical agents inspection report of August 2006 and from the subsequent explanations of the person who had carried out the check, it was clear that measurements had been taken throughout the working process at the printing premises and that the level of the chemical agents measured was not above the norms.

24.  As to the claim that the printing business had been set up in breach of Regulation No. 7 of 2003, that was impossible as the said regulation had become applicable as of 13 January 2004, whereas the printing business had been lawfully operating since 25 July 2003. In respect of the claim that Regulation No. 7 of 1992 had also been breached, the court found that while point 393 of that regulation indeed provided that printing houses had to be at least fifty metres away from inhabited dwellings, this only concerned “printing houses”, while the business in question had been registered as a “workshop for printing services and a shop with an office”, and the printing-house regulations did not apply to workshops.

25.  The allegation that the applicant’s daughter had developed an allergy had also remained entirely unproven, given that the applicant had presented as evidence only a medical document stating that she was suffering from “bronchitis”. The court went on to say that “every biological parent of average intelligence whose child was frequently ill had to know that respiratory ailments were the most frequent ones in early childhood”.

26.  The court concluded that, given that the applicant’s claims were factually wrong, they had inevitably damaged the printing business owner’s reputation. That amounted to defamation, which was in breach of the law and had to be sanctioned. The court then waived the applicant’s criminal liability and imposed on him an administrative penalty in the form of a fine in the amount equivalent to 250 euros (EUR). It further partially upheld the claimant’s civil claim submitted in the criminal proceedings and ordered the applicant to pay EUR 500 for non-pecuniary damages to V.V. and EUR 20 in court fees.

2.  Proceedings before the Silistra Regional Court

27.  Following an appeal by the applicant, the Silistra Regional Court upheld the first-instance court’s findings in a final judgment of 30 October 2007. It observed that the relevant authorities had carried out a number of inspections at the printing business in question in response to the applicant’s complaints. Contrary to the applicant’s allegations, none of those checks had established either a breach of the relevant legislation or the existence of pollution caused by the printing company. Despite this, the applicant had continued to disseminate false and discrediting information about V.V. by exhibiting posters on the windows of his own shop.

28.  The court agreed with the finding at first instance that the applicant could not be absolved from responsibility as he had been unable to prove the veracity of his allegations. It further found that the punishment had been neither excessive nor unfair and, if anything, it had been too lenient.

II.  RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW

29.  Article 45 of the Constitution of 1991 provides that citizens have the right to make complaints, proposals and petitions to the authorities.

30.  Article 147 of the Criminal Code 1968 provides as follows:

“1.  Any person who disseminates an injurious statement of fact about another or imputes an offence to him or her shall be punished for defamation by a fine ranging from three to seven thousand levs, as well as by a public reprimand.

2.  The perpetrator shall not be punished if he or she proves the truth of the said statement or imputation.”

THE LAW

I.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION

31.  The applicant complained that he had been fined and ordered to pay damages in relation to the complaints he had made to various competent public authorities, as well as for expressing his concerns and his own opinion on posters in his shop. He claimed that that was in breach of his right to freedom of expression as provided for in Article 10 of the Convention, which reads, insofar as relevant, as follows:

“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. ...

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”

32.  The Government contested that argument.

A.  Admissibility

33.  The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B.  Merits

1.  The parties’ positions

34.  The applicant stated that he had not sought to smear V.V.’s reputation but merely to point out publicly the legal provisions which the latter had breached, with the sole purpose of protecting his health and that of his children. The defamation proceedings brought against him had demonstrated that he had been denied his freedom of expression, despite the broad public support which his actions had received in his town. Both the fine imposed on him and the compensation he had been ordered to pay to V.V. had caused him and his family acute psychological stress and had resulted in permanent damage to his health. For the past seven years he had been regularly taking medication for high blood pressure. He needed that medication because every time he looked out of his window he was exposed to the sight of the printing house, the operation of which he perceived as an injustice.

35.  The Government submitted that they had asked the Prosecutor General in January 2017 to inform them about the prospects of reopening the criminal proceedings against the applicant at the domestic level. They had referred in their request to the Court’s judgment in the case of Marinova and Others v. Bulgaria (nos. 33502/07, 30599/10, 8241/11 and 61863/11, 12 July 2016). The Prosecutor General had replied in February 2017 that there were no grounds for reopening the applicant’s case, in particular because his conduct had consisted not only of making complaints to the competent authorities, in respect of which he could claim protection under Article 10 of the Convention, but also of public dissemination of injurious statements, which was not covered by the protection of that Convention provision.

36.  The Government in turn reiterated the above position in their observations before the Court, acknowledging that part of the applicant’s actions, namely his complaints to various authorities, were protected under Article 10 of the Convention. However, they emphasised that the applicant’s conduct had also involved the public dissemination of damaging statements in respect of a third party. Such action was not covered by the protection of Article 10 and the sanctions that had been imposed were justified as they fell within the permissible limitations on the right to freedom of expression, had pursued a legitimate aim, namely protection of the rights of others, and had been proportionate to the applicant’s conduct in the circumstances of the case.

37.  The Government stressed that freedom of expression could not be exercised by smearing the good name and reputation of another, in the present case that of V.V. The applicant had been unable to prove the veracity of his allegations and the domestic courts had rightly punished him for this conduct.

2.  The Court’s assessment

(a)  General principles

38.  The general principles concerning freedom of expression and its limits, reiterated many times by the Court since its judgment in Handyside v. the United Kingdom (7 December 1976, Series A no. 24), have been summarised more recently in the cases of Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, §§ 124-27, ECHR 2015 and Medžlis Islamske Zajednice Brčko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], no 17224/11, §§ 75-77, 27 June 2017.

39.  In cases where individuals have been found guilty of defamation for complaints they had made to the authorities about irregularities in the conduct of officials, the Court has examined the proportionality of the interference by considering in particular the following main elements: the nature of the statements and the exact manner in which they were communicated; the context in which they were made; the extent to which they affected the officials concerned; and the severity of the sanctions imposed (see Marinova and Others, cited above, § 86 with further references). In the context of cases concerning disparaging comments made in respect of third parties who were private individuals, as opposed to public officials, the Court has upheld the right to impart, in good faith, information on matters of public interest, even where this involved damaging statements about private individuals (see Bodrožić v. Serbia, no. 32550/05, § 46, 23 June 2009, and Tešić v. Serbia, nos. 4678/07 and 50591/12, § 62, 11 February 2014).

40.  The Court has also held that there existed a strong public interest in enabling even small and informal groups, and individuals, outside the mainstream to contribute to the public debate by disseminating information and ideas on matters of general public interest such as health and the environment (see Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 89, ECHR 2005‑II). Furthermore, the Court has repeatedly held that the exercise of certain Convention rights may be undermined by the existence of harm to the environment and exposure to environmental risks, and that individuals have the right to effectively enjoy their home and private life (see, among others, Di Sarno and Others v. Italy, no. 30765/08, § 104 with further references, 10 January 2012). More generally, individuals have a right to enjoy a healthy and protected environment (see, among other authorities, Tătar v. Romania, no. 67021/01, § 112, 27 January 2009).

(b)  Application of these principles to the present case

41.  The Court observes that the final judgment against the applicant, by which he was found guilty of defamation and ordered to pay a fine and damages to the victim, constituted an interference with his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention. Although the law that was applied was accessible to the applicant, the Court finds that it does not have to pronounce on the question whether that law was sufficiently clear and whether the consequences of its application were foreseeable (compare with Marinova and Others, cited above, § 82) because in any event, it finds that the interference was not necessary in a democratic society.

42.  To start with, the applicant had expressed his grievances by exercising his constitutional right to make complaints to the authorities (see paragraph 29 above). He was also exercising the possibility in a democratic society governed by the rule of law for a private person to report an alleged irregularity in the conduct of another to an authority competent to deal with such an issue (see, mutatis mutandis, Marinova and Others, cited above, § 89).

43.  As regards the manner in which the applicant’s statements were communicated to the relevant authorities, the Court observes that they were in the form of written complaints which the applicant did not make public (see paragraph 8-18 above). Accordingly, the protection enjoyed by V.V. under Article 8 of the Convention has to be weighed not in relation to the interests of the freedom of the press or of open discussion on matters of public concern under Article 10, but rather against the applicant’s right to report irregularities to a body competent to deal with such complaints (see, similarly, Sofranschi v. Moldova, no. 34690/05, § 29, 21 December 2010). The Court finds that, given that the letters were not made public, their potentially negative impact on V.V.’s reputation, if any, was quite limited (see, similarly, Bezymyannyy v. Russia, no. 10941/03, § 42, 8 April 2010).

44.  As to the nature of the applicant’s statements, they referred to specific provisions of relevant secondary legislation which he considered had been breached by the printing business. The tone and type of the applicant’s complaints to the authorities changed in parallel with the partial responses he was receiving from them: in 2006 he was making claims about unlawful printing operations, whereas in the second half of 2007 his statements were primarily expressing his concern about people’s well-being and health (see paragraphs 15-17 above). His letters contained expressions of his discontent with the situation but did not contain aggressive, denigrating or insulting comments towards the individual owner of the printing business. He raised the issue of pollution (air and noise) and its danger for people’s health; he limited his statements to the professional activities of the business owner and their consequences for the residential environment and the well-being of the community.

45.  With regard to the particular context, the Court observes that the complaints were made in an attempt to draw the authorities’ attention – and provoke the reaction of officials – to the business operation which the applicant considered was polluting the environment and damaging people’s health. This was clearly a matter of public interest (see paragraph 40 above), demonstrated also by the fact that most of the applicant’s letters had been co-signed by three or four of his neighbours (see paragraphs 9, 10, 14–17 above).

46.  As to the damage caused by those complaints, the domestic courts did not examine that aspect in detail. Instead, they concluded that because the claims were factually wrong, they inevitably damaged the reputation of the owner of the printing business, which amounted to the punishable offence of defamation.

47.  For the reasons examined above, the Court finds that no pressing social need for the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression was convincingly demonstrated as regards his complaints to the authorities.

48.  At the same time, the Court is mindful of the fact that by the time the applicant had displayed the posters in his shop – namely mid-December 2006 – he had been informed by the relevant authorities that the chemical agents’ levels in the air around his home were within the applicable legal norms (see paragraph 12 above). Despite that, he continued to display the posters for about two months (see paragraph 23 above), claiming in them that the people living in the vicinity of the printing business were being systematically poisoned by the chemicals it was emitting. The Court finds on this point that, since the applicant pursued his campaign by publicly persisting with the above-mentioned claims while knowing that there was no justification for them, some form of an appropriate sanction for this conduct would not have been incompatible with the Court’s standards under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention.

49.  With respect to the severity of the sanction effectively imposed on the applicant the Court observes that, although the domestic courts ultimately waived his criminal liability, he was still tried in fully-fledged criminal proceedings, was found guilty of a crime and, ultimately, ordered to pay an amount of money (EUR 770 in all), which in view of the applicant’s personal situation was not insignificant. The Court finds that this risked having the effect of stifling complaints before relevant authorities, as well as dissuading all public expression on issues about environmental protection and people’s health and well-being.

50.  Having regard to the above considerations, and particularly bearing in mind the authorities’ failure to demonstrate convincingly the pressing social need for an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression in respect of his complaints to the authorities as well as the severity of the sanction imposed on him, the Court finds that the interference in question was not “necessary in a democratic society”.

51.  There has therefore been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.

II.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

52.  Article 41 of the Convention provides:

 “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

A.  Damage

53.  The applicant claimed 845 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, which corresponded to the principal amount (EUR 770, see paragraph 26 above) which the courts had ordered him to pay for having defamed V.V., plus the interest accumulated on that amount as he had been unable to pay it in due time (EUR 75). The applicant also claimed non-pecuniary damages without specifying the amount.

54.  The Government submitted that the claim in respect of pecuniary damage was unsubstantiated and unreasonably high. As regards the claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage, they stated that any award that might be made should only be in respect of the violation found.

55.  The Court observes that it found a breach of Article 10 of the Convention in the present case as a result of the penalty imposed on the applicant and, therefore, the applicant is in principle entitled to the repayment of the sums that he has paid in fines, damages and costs as a result of the judgment against him (see, among other authorities, Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, §§ 75 and 77, ECHR 1999-III, and Marinova and Others, cited above, § 118). The Court therefore awards the applicant EUR 845 in respect of pecuniary damage.

56.  As regards non-pecuniary damage, the Court considers that, given the circumstances of the case, the finding of a violation is sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant.

B.  Costs and expenses

57.  The applicant also claimed EUR 500 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court in the form of a legal fee paid to his lawyer.

58.  The Government pointed out that the applicant’s claim related only to the legal fee. Therefore any award by the Court should be in an amount comparable to what was usually awarded.

59.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 500 covering the costs of legal fees for the proceedings before the Court.

C.  Default interest

60.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.  Declares the application admissible;

2.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;

3.  Holds that the finding of violation is sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant;

4.  Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into Bulgarian levs at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:

(i)  EUR 845 (eight hundred and forty-five euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage;

(ii)  EUR 500 (five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement, simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period, plus three percentage points;

5.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 September 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Milan BlaškoGabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer
Deputy RegistrarPresident

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy