FIFTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 20147/06
by Stefan CHOLAKOV
against Bulgaria and Sweden
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 1 June 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Renate Jaeger,
Karel Jungwiert,
Rait Maruste,
Mark Villiger,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 May 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Stefan Dimitrov Cholakov, is a national of Bulgaria and Sweden who was born in 1944 in Bulgaria and lives in Växjö, Sweden.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On an unspecified date before 1989 the applicant left Bulgaria. Later, he settled in Sweden and obtained Swedish nationality. Although he appears to live predominantly in Sweden, he also regularly spends time in Bulgaria, where he is politically and socially active.
1. Arrest of the applicant in 2005
On 11 July 2005 the applicant was demonstrating outside the Parliament building in Sofia, carrying placards with messages like “I want to be BG Prime Minister” (“Аз желая да съм Мин. Председател на БГ”) and “From King to President, we'll cut them all down” (“От цар до президент всичко ще сечем”). He was approached by several police officers and arrested for having breached public order. He was taken to a police station where he remained for several hours.
He was once again questioned in relation to those events on 11 August 2005.
It appears that the applicant has not challenged the lawfulness of the arrest, as he was entitled to under the relevant provisions of the Ministry of the Interior Act.
2. Conviction of the applicant for minor hooliganism in 2007
On 1 November 2007 the applicant was campaigning in the centre of Vratsa in support of one of the candidates in the upcoming local elections. He had chained himself to a metal column and was using a megaphone to call out the following slogans to passers-by: “All of them are criminals” (“Всички са престъпници”), “The prosecutor is a mafioso” (“Прокурорът е мафиот”), “The mayor is a mafioso” (“Кметът е мафиот”) and “A mass of political prostitutes” (“Политическа проститутска маса”).
The applicant was approached by several police officers who cut the chain he had used to chain himself up, drew up a report of an act of minor hooliganism and arrested him. The applicant signed the report, objecting in writing that he had done nothing wrong. He was brought to the Vratsa District Court where he was charged with an offence of minor hooliganism under the 1963 Decree on Combating Minor Hooliganism (see “Relevant domestic law” below).
The applicant was sentenced the very same day. He had a lawyer. On the basis of the evidence collected, the Vratsa District Court established that he had uttered the slogans described above and “other expressions” aimed at the police in Vratsa and the prosecution authorities. These amounted to “indecent expressions, uttered in a public place in front of many people” and to “[showing an] offensive attitude towards public bodies” within the meaning of section 1 of the Decree on Combating Minor Hooliganism. Therefore, the applicant was found guilty of minor hooliganism under that decree. Considering as an aggravating circumstance the fact that that the expressions above had been uttered “deliberately, publicly, with a megaphone, in breach of public order in the centre of Vratsa”, the Vratsa District Court sentenced the applicant to ten days' deprivation of liberty.
That judgment was final and enforced immediately. The applicant remained detained in the police station in Vratsa until 11 November 2007.
3. Restitution proceedings
The applicant's grandfather owned several plots of land around Vratsa, which were expropriated after 1945. It appears that after the adoption of the denationalisation legislation in Bulgaria in the beginning of the 1990s the applicant and the heirs of his late uncle disagreed as to who was entitled to have the property rights to the land restored. The applicant did not file a civil action to solve the dispute, as he was entitled to. Instead, he appealed against an administrative decision adopting a plan of the area (a technical stage in the restitution procedure which did not involve the determination of any substantive rights) allotting some plots to his uncle's heirs. In a final judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 7 February 2006 the applicant's appeal against the above-mentioned decision was dismissed, the courts finding that he did not have locus standi to challenge it.
4. Relevant events in Sweden
In 2004 or 2005 the applicant applied for a job at Växjö University but was unsuccessful. Apparently, he initiated proceedings to establish that he had been discriminated against on the basis of his Bulgarian origin, but was unsuccessful.
On an unspecified date the applicant brought an action against two Swedish companies concerning the interruption of his access to the Internet. The action was dismissed on unspecified grounds.
B. Relevant domestic law
The Decree on Combating Minor Hooliganism was adopted in 1963. Its section 1(2) defines minor offences of hooliganism as, inter alia, “indecent expressions, uttered in a public place in front of many people”, or “[showing an] offensive attitude towards citizens or public bodies”.
The Decree provides for an expedited procedure for judging minor offences of hooliganism, which has been described in more detail in the Court's judgment in the case of Borisova v. Bulgaria (no. 56891/00, §§ 21‑26, 21 December 2006).
COMPLAINTS
1. In his first letter to the Court dated 17 May 2006 the applicant complained against Bulgaria about his arrest on 11 July 2005.
2. On 7 December 2006 the applicant further complained against Sweden that he had been unsuccessful and discriminated against in his application for a job at Växjö University.
3. Then, on 20 December 2006 he complained against Bulgaria about the court decisions in the administrative proceedings concerning his grandfather's former land.
4. In a letter dated 22 November 2007 the applicant complained against Bulgaria about his conviction for an act of minor hooliganism on 1 November 2007. He argued that the conviction had breached his right to freedom of expression because he had been expressing his opinion. Furthermore, he contended that the proceedings which had led to his conviction had been unfair because the record of the court hearing on 1 November 2007 had not been correct and because the Vratsa District Court had not been impartial.
5. Lastly, on 12 June 2008 the applicant complained that he had been unsuccessful in the proceedings he had brought in Sweden in relation to the interruption of his Internet access.
THE LAW
A. Complaint against Bulgaria in respect of the applicant's conviction on 1 November 2007 and his ensuing deprivation of liberty
The applicant complained that he had been convicted and detained for an offence of minor hooliganism for having made statements against the authorities.
The Court considers that the complaint falls to be examined under Article 10 of the Convention, which reads 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. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. 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.”
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
B. Remainder of the applicant's complaints
The Court has examined the remainder of the applicant's complaints as submitted by him. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant's complaint against Bulgaria concerning his conviction for an offence of minor hooliganism on 1 November 2007 and his ensuing deprivation of liberty;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Stephen PhillipsPeer Lorenzen
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy