Communicated on 22 January 2018
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 66614/11
Yanko Stamenov DOLAPCHIEV
against Bulgaria
lodged on 30 September 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Yanko Stamenov Dolapchiev, is a Bulgarian national, who was born in 1949 and lives in Sofia. He is represented before the Court by Ms R. Yosifova, a lawyer practising in Sofia.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
At the relevant time the applicant was working as a journalist. He specialised in covering the work of the local municipal authorities in Sofia.
1. The applicant’s article
In 2008 the applicant received a copy of a note addressed to several municipal bodies in Sofia, prepared by a former employee of a municipally‑owned company which was in charge of managing some of the markets in the city. Referring to specific dates, names and other facts, the employee reported on a number of alleged wrongdoings of the company director, Z.I.
In order to verify these allegations, the applicant interviewed two other former employees of the company and members of the municipal council. Considering that the allegations appeared to be true, he wrote an article about them.
The article, published on 8 August 2008 in the newspaper the applicant was working for, Ikonomicheski zhivot, was entitled “Municipal amnesia”. The subtitle stated that the company at issue had been “drained of its assets”, but “nobody has been punished”.
The article mentioned that on 24 July 2008 Z.I. had been dismissed from the post of director of the company, which she had taken in June 2007. From the beginning the article referred to the note presented to the municipal authorities and mentioned it regularly afterwards, even quoting parts of it. The applicant also quoted his other sources, even though he did not always reveal their names.
The article presented some of the wrongdoings for which Z.I. was allegedly responsible. It stated for example that the director had appointed consultants who had received generous remuneration for little work or no work at all, that she had entered into other disadvantageous contracts, that during this period of time the company had unnecessarily purchased two luxury cars and that its revenues had otherwise been misspent. It was further explained that, in a move of “obvious squandering” (“очевидно прахосничество”), Z.I. had created many unnecessary posts in the company. Furthermore, she had dismissed many of the company’s employees, on some occasions outsourcing their tasks to other companies, which at the end had cost more; the applicant called these actions “shady affairs” (“далавери”).
The article concluded as follows:
“The big question is what will happen. There has been no response to the [former employee’s] note. [A deputy mayor] promised to municipal councillors that the matter would be inquired into, but has apparently forgotten his word. Everybody could find today that this is justified, because the fact that [Z.I.] is no longer a director can be considered to be an effective punishment. A new [managing[ board has been appointed, but it is almost identical to the previous one which consented to all of her frivolities ... That is why there is scarce hope that anyone will dig into the affairs of [the company].”
2. Criminal proceedings against the applicant
In September 2008 Z.I. initiated a private prosecution of the applicant, alleging that his article had defamed her and had suggested that she had committed criminal offences.
In a judgment of 10 June 2010 the Sofia District Court (hereinafter “the District Court”) found the applicant guilty of defamation, aggravated on two grounds, namely since it had been made through the press and as it concerned a public official in relation to the exercise of her duties. The District Court referred in particular to the following expressions used in the article: “nobody has been punished”, “obvious squandering”, “shady affairs”, as well as the article’s concluding paragraph. It considered that in that way the applicant had attributed to Z.I. criminal offences, namely appropriation and abuse of office, and had made defamatory statements.
As to the suggested offences, the District Court pointed out that Z.I. had never been convicted on any such ground, nor had the matter been the subject of criminal investigation. Moreover, the applicant had made statements of facts which he had known to be untrue. The applicant had only “seemingly” relied on the initial note discussing Z.I.’s supposed mismanagement, as he had presented the note’s allegations in his own words and had not only commented as a journalist, but had also expressed his personal judgment.
The District Court set aside the applicant’s criminal liability but imposed an administrative penalty on him – a fine of 2,500 Bulgarian levs (BGN, the equivalent of 1,275 euros (EUR)). It also ordered him to reimburse BGN 550 (the equivalent of EUR 280) for Z.I.’s expenses in the criminal proceedings.
The applicant lodged an appeal. He relied in particular on Article 10 of the Convention and his right to freedom of speech, and pointed out that in a democratic society the press acted as a “public watchdog” and had a duty to report on matters of public interest. He argued that he had acted as a responsible journalist, as he had verified the allegations against Z.I. through additional sources.
In a final judgment of 8 April 2011 the Sofia City Court upheld the lower court’s finding as to the applicant’s guilt, but reduced his fine to BGN 1,000 (the equivalent of EUR 510). It endorsed the District Court’s reasoning, adding that Z.I. had shown part of the allegations against her to be untrue, presenting documents showing that some of the contracts mentioned in the article had been concluded after an assessment of the available offers.
B. Relevant domestic law
The relevant domestic law has been summarised in the case of Bozhkov v. Bulgaria (no. 3316/04, §§ 28-32, 19 April 2011).
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that the judgment against him for defamation breached his right to freedom of expression. He points out that he is a journalist and was writing on matters of undeniable public interest. He argues that a judgment such as the one against him would restrain freedom of journalistic investigation.
QUESTION
Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention, on account of the judgment for defamation which is the subject of the present application?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy