Published on 15 July 2025
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 23496/21
Lilyana Zhelyova KOVACHEVA
against Bulgaria
lodged on 29 April 2021
communicated on 27 June 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. On 6 January 2019 a fight took place in the village of Voyvodinovo between several Roma and a non-Roma member of the armed forces. Later that day, members of the local population gathered to protest about the incident; they were subsequently joined by members of extremist groups. Fearing for their safety, over the following two days the Roma inhabitants of the village left it (for details, see Paketova and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 17808/19 and 36972/19, §§ 5-9, 4 October 2022).
2. On 8 January 2019 the Deputy Prime Minister in charge of public order and safety (who was also Minister of Defence) arrived in the village and announced, among other things, that all unlawfully built homes in the Roma neighbourhood would be demolished (for details, see Paketova and Others, cited above, §§ 10-14). He also stated, as broadcast on the national television on the same day, and as cited by several other media in the following days:
“Gypsies in Bulgaria have become tremendously brazen. A few days ago, they beat up a policeman, now a member of the military. This cannot continue and the tolerance of Bulgarian society has run out.”
3. In January 2019 the applicant complained about that statement to the Commission for Protection from Discrimination. She alleged that it had amounted to harassment towards her as a Roma person and to incitement to discrimination against Roma in Bulgaria, in beach of the relevant provisions of the Protection from Discrimination Act 2003.
4. In October 2019 the Commission dismissed the complaint. It noted that the statement had not been directed against the applicant specifically, and that, despite her subjective perception of it, it had merely expressed disapproval towards serious offences perpetrated by Roma rather than hatred towards the whole ethnic group. The statement had not exceeded the permissible limits of freedom of expression, and could not be seen as harassment or incitement to discrimination (реш. № 511 от 14.10.2019 г. по преп. № 8/2019 г., КЗД).
5. The applicant sought judicial review. In February 2020 the Sofia City Administrative Court dismissed her claim, finding that the Commission had applied the 2003 Act correctly (реш. № 1330 от 25.02.2020 г. по адм. д. № 13036/2019 г., АдмС-София-град).
6. The applicant appealed on points of law. On 29 October 2020 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the lower court’s judgment. It held, in particular, that the 2003 Act, properly construed, did not concern statements such as the one in issue, relating to undefined classes of people. Nor was there evidence that the statement had led to the creation of a negative environment for the applicant, which was also a necessary element of the concept of harassment under the Act. The statement could not be seen as incitement to discrimination either (реш. № 13471 от 29.10.2020 г. по адм. д. № 8595/2020 г., ВАС, V о.).
7. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the manner in which the administrative courts, in particular the Supreme Administrative Court, decided the case, deprived her “private life” of protection from hostile speech. She further complains under Article 13 of the Convention that the Supreme Administrative Court’s judgment deprived her of an effective remedy in respect of hostile speech. Lastly, she complains under Article 14 of the Convention that as a result of that she fell victim to discrimination.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Are Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention applicable? In particular, did the statement at issue in the case affect the applicant’s “private life” (see Budinova and Chaprazov v. Bulgaria, no. 12567/13, §§ 63 and 69, 16 February 2021, with further references)?
2. If Articles 8 and 14 are applicable, was the dismissal of the applicant’s complaint in relation to that statement in breach of the positive obligations flowing from those provisions (see Budinova and Chaprazov, cited above, §§ 87-95), or deprive her of an effective remedy, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention?