CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 30 novembre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s88D564B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border:0.75pt solid #000000; padding:1pt 4pt } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s586AA269 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8C49A017 { margin-left:5.65pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sCD7D0356 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sCBF2D345 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2A91C753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s96FD6997 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s7CAC83C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sED360BAA { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s5C494981 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sAD1DAC71 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD06F0BDA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid } .sADD4F530 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sD235C05 { width:205.98pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }     FOURTH SECTION CASE OF GENOV AND SARBINSKA v. BULGARIA (Application no. 52358/15)         JUDGMENT Art 10 • Freedom of expression • Unjustified conviction and fine for spray-painting a monument connected to communist regime in the context of political protest   STRASBOURG 30 November 2021 FINAL   28/02/2022     This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Genov and Sarbinska v. Bulgaria, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Tim Eicke, President ,   Yonko Grozev,   Faris Vehabović,   Iulia Antoanella Motoc,   Armen Harutyunyan,   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges , and Andrea Tamietti, Section Registrar , Having regard to: the application (no. 52358/15) 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 two Bulgarian nationals, Mr Asen Georgiev Genov and Ms Tsvetelina Ognyanova Sarbinska (“the applicants”), on 8 October 2015; the decision to give the Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) notice of the complaint under Article 10 of the Convention concerning the applicants’ conviction of hooliganism for spray-painting a public monument and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 19 October 2021, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The two applicants, a popular blogger and a political activist, were found guilty of hooliganism and fined for spray-painting a monument to “partisans” on the anniversary of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, in the context of nation-wide protests against a government chiefly supported by the Bulgarian Socialist (former Communist) Party, the dominant political force during the communist regime in Bulgaria. The case concerns the question whether that was compatible with their rights under Article 10 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2.     The applicants were born in 1969 and 1973 respectively and live in Sofia. They are represented before the Court by Mr M. Ekimdzhiev and Ms   K. Boncheva, lawyers practising in Plovdiv. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms B. Simeonova of the Ministry of Justice. BACKGROUND TO THE CASE The 2013-14 anti-government protests 4 .     In April 1990 the Bulgarian Communist Party (“BCP”), which had been the dominant political force in the country between 1946 and 1989, throughout the communist regime, renamed itself Bulgarian Socialist Party. 5 .     Following parliamentary elections on 12 May 2013, on 29 May 2013 a new government was formed, led by Mr Plamen Oresharski and chiefly supported in Parliament by Coalition for Bulgaria whose main member was the Bulgarian Socialist Party. 6 .     On the evening of 14 June 2013 a wave of demonstrations against that government erupted in various cities and towns throughout the country. At   first, the demonstrators’ main grievance was the appointment on the same date of Mr Delyan Peevski, a wealthy businessman, media-owner and member of Parliament from the political party Movement for Rights and Freedoms, as chairman of the State Agency for National Security. The nomination was formally made by the Prime Minister, Mr Oresharski, and was approved in Parliament with the votes of seventy-eight members from Coalition for Bulgaria (out of a total of eighty voting) and of all thirty-six members from the Movement for Rights and Freedoms. 7 .     One of the main slogans of those protests became the question “Who?”, interpreted to mean “Who proposed Mr Peevski for that post?”. 8 .     On 19 June 2013 the chairmen of the parliamentary groups of “Coalition for Bulgaria” and the Movement for Rights and Freedoms proposed to Parliament to revoke Mr Peevski’s appointment, citing the vigorous public reaction to it. All one hundred and twenty-eight members of Parliament present voted in support of the proposal, and it was adopted. 9 .     In spite of that, the daily protests continued until about mid-January 2014. In an opinion poll carried out in late November and early December 2013, forty-three per cent of the respondents supported those protests, and forty per cent were of the view that they should continue; twenty-two percent declared that they would themselves participate in them. In another opinion poll carried out during the same period by another agency, forty-one per cent of the respondents said that the best political solution for the country would be for that government to resign and for new parliamentary elections to take place (see Handzhiyski v. Bulgaria , no. 10783/14, § 5, 6   April 2021). Several months later, in July 2014, Mr Oresharski’s government stepped down. The applicants’ political activism and role in those protests 10 .     Both applicants took part in those protests and were active members of the informal organisation “Protest Network” which was coordinating them. 11 .     The first applicant, a blogger, was also frequently posting public comments and videos about the situation in Bulgaria on his Facebook page and YouTube channel, and was thus quite well known in Bulgarian society. 12 .     The second applicant is an architect by profession. During the communist regime her grandfather, an activist of the Bulgarian Agrarian People’s Union, spent five years in a labour camp on account of his political views. In 2015 the second applicant ran for municipal councillor in Sofia on the ticket of the Reformist Block, an electoral alliance formed in December 2013 and existing until 2017. SPRAY-PAINTING OF THE “PARTISAN” MONUMENT 13 .     At about 4 a.m. on 7 November 2013 – anniversary of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution – the two applicants and four other people were near the central office of the Bulgarian Socialist Party in Sofia. At about   4.40   a.m. they were spotted by three police officers and tried quickly to move away. The officers saw that a monument standing in front of the building, put there in the 1970s and consisting of seven metal figures representing “partisans” [1] , had been freshly spray-painted in rose and magenta (the heads in rose and the bodies in magenta), and had the words “WHO? BCP–SHAME! WHO!” written in rose spray-paint on its base. 14 .     Two of the officers followed the applicants and the four other people who were with them, and intercepted the group two blocks away from the monument. The officers saw that the second applicant wore latex gloves and held two spray-cans. They also noticed that in his bag the first applicant had four spray-cans, two pairs of latex gloves and a protective face-mask. The applicants handed those items to the officers. In reply to a question what they were doing there, they said that they had gone out for a walk and a coffee. 15 .     The officers took the applicants and their four companions to a police station. The applicants agreed to have their hands and clothes swabbed for samples; their companions refused. The applicants remained under arrest for about twenty hours. 16 .     It was later established that the applicants’ clothes and shoes, as well as the face-mask found in the first applicant’s possession, bore traces of the same spray-paints as the ones used to paint over and write on the monument. 17 .     The spray-paint was later cleaned from the monument. There is no evidence in the case file about who did that or how much effort or cost it entailed (see also paragraph 29 below). CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE APPLICANTS At first instance 18.     The same day, 7 November 2013, the authorities opened criminal proceedings against the applicants in relation to the above events. In   February 2014 they were charged with hooliganism contrary to Article   325 § 1 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 34 below). 19 .     In June 2014 the prosecuting authorities brought the applicants to trial. They maintained the charges, but proposed to the Sofia District Court to waive the applicants’ criminal liability and replace it with administrative penalties, in application of Article 78a § 1 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 41 below). Counsel for each of the applicants argued, inter alia , that they had duly exercised their right to freedom of expression. 20 .     On 31 October 2014 the Sofia District Court acquitted the applicants (see реш. от 31.10.2014 г. по н. а. х. д. № 11698/2014 г., СРС). 21 .     The court found that the available evidence did not categorically show that it had been them, rather than any of the four other people also present at the scene, who had spray-painted the monument. But even if it had been established that this had been done by the applicants, their act had not amounted to hooliganism. In the light of the applicants’ explanations, the act was rather to be seen as a non-verbal expression of political views. The applicants’ right to freedom of expression, protected under both Article   10 of the Convention and Article 39 of the 1991 Constitution (see paragraph 33 below), had thus been engaged. Political expression enjoyed heightened protection, and that comprised also the form in which it had been made. It was not for the criminal courts to assess the views advocated by the applicants or the monument’s artistic or historical value. What mattered was whether the interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression would pursue a legitimate aim and would be proportionate to attain it. That required a balancing exercise. In view of the context in which the applicants had painted the monument (widespread anti-government protests and an intense public debate about the legacy of the communist regime, in particular the fate of the monuments remaining from it), and the reasons for which they had done so (to express their disapproval of the political party in power during that regime), their act could not be qualified as hooliganism. Holding otherwise would amount to using penal repression for political ends. 22 .     The court went on to note that the applicants had impaired someone else’s artistic work and property, and could thus be held liable to restore the status quo ante and make good the damage resulting from their act. But the proceedings against them, being conducted on charges of hooliganism rather than of property damage, did not concern that point. The question who owned the monument was hence irrelevant. On appeal 23 .     The prosecuting authorities appealed. However, when the Sofia City Court heard the appeal, the prosecutor appearing on behalf of the prosecution did not support it, and instead argued that the lower court had been correct to acquit the applicants. In response to the appeal, counsel for the applicants reiterated, inter alia , that the applicants had duly exercised their right to freedom of expression. In the course of the appeal hearing the first applicant presented letters from Sofia’s regional governor and Sofia Municipality attesting that the monument was neither State- nor municipally-owned. 24 .     In a final judgment of 31 July 2015 (реш. № 882 от 31.07.2015 г. по н. а. х. д. № 5398/2014 г., СГС) a three-judge panel of the Sofia City Court by a majority quashed the lower court’s judgment and found the applicants guilty of hooliganism contrary to Article 325 § 1 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 34 below). It waived their criminal liability and replaced it with administrative fines of 1,500 Bulgarian levs (BGN) (equivalent to 767 euros (EUR)) each (see paragraphs 19 above and 41 below). It also ordered each of the applicants to pay the Ministry of Internal Affairs BGN 452.57 (equivalent to EUR 231.40) in respect of costs incurred in the pre-trial proceedings. 25 .     The court held that the available evidence, although circumstantial, was sufficient to find that it had been the two applicants, rather than any of their four companions, who had spray-painted the monument. In particular, the police officers who had intercepted them had stated that the paint on the monument had been fresh; the investigation had found on the applicants cans of spray-paint and traces of the same paint as the one used to paint the monument; and it had been established that when intercepted by the officers both applicants had had on them latex gloves, and the second applicant also a protective face-mask (which had also borne traces of the same paint). All of that unequivocally showed that they had themselves carried out the spray-painting. 26 .     The court went on to say that the applicants’ act had amounted to hooliganism. Hooliganism could take various forms; one of them was wantonly painting public monuments. Such conduct was contrary to public order and revealed a wish on the part of the applicants to demonstrate that they did not feel bound by generally accepted rules of proper conduct. Even if it could be accepted that they had not damaged the monument, their act had been contrary to morals, and could thus properly be characterised as hooliganism within the meaning of the former Supreme Court’s and the Supreme Court of Cassation’s case-law. Who owned the monument was irrelevant in this respect, since hooliganism was an offence against public order, not against property. Nor was it relevant what the monument stood for or how it was being perceived by the public, or that the legislature had declared the communist regime criminal (see paragraphs 42 to 44 below). What mattered was that the monument was part of the country’s cultural heritage. 27 .     It could not be accepted that the applicants had sought to express their views publicly, since they had carried out their act at night, and had then attempted to flee, to deceive the police officers who had intercepted them, and more generally to conceal their participation in the events. All of that denoted an intent to scandalise society and demonstrate contempt toward it rather than to express one’s views on a matter of public importance. The questions what the monument represented, what kind of artistic, cultural or historical value it did or did not have, and how some sectors of the population felt about it were irrelevant; what mattered, again, was that the target of the applicants’ act was part of the country’s cultural heritage. 28 .     The interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression was not in breach of Article 10 of the Convention or Article 39 of the 1991 Constitution (see paragraph 33 below), both of which permitted such interferences. One had to express oneself in an overt way to enjoy protection under those provisions, and not by means of criminal acts. People were of course entitled to engage in political protest, but not when that took the form of a criminal offence. 29 .     As regards the punishment, the court noted, in particular, that neither of the two applicants had a previous conviction or waiver of criminal liability, and that their act had not caused pecuniary damage (since no evidence had been presented about how much it had cost to clean the monument and who had covered that cost). The applicants’ criminal liability therefore had to be waived under Article 78a § 1 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 41 below), and replaced by administrative fines. Since neither the applicants’ act nor they themselves presented a high degree of dangerousness, the fines were to be fixed towards the minimum: BGN 1,500 (equivalent to EUR 767) each. 30 .     One of the three judges who heard the appeal dissented. According to her, the evidence did not permit a categorical conclusion that it had been the applicants who had spray-painted the monument. Six people altogether had been present at the scene, and the only reason why charges had been brought only against the applicants was that they had allowed the police to swab their clothes and hands, whereas the other four had refused. Moreover, it could not be said that by spray-painting the phrase “WHO? BCP–SHAME! WHO!” on the base of the monument the applicants had showed overt disrespect toward society and had thus engaged in hooliganism. They had merely expressed their views about the monument and about a past political regime perceived by the bulk of the population in a negative way. Holding otherwise ran counter to Article 10 of the Convention. Steps taken to collect the fines imposed on the applicants 31 .     In 2016 the National Revenue Agency opened enforcement proceedings against the first applicant in relation to the fine and the costs which he had been ordered to pay (see paragraph 24 above). He paid them in six instalments between February 2017 and June 2020. 32 .     In 2015 the National Revenue Agency opened enforcement proceedings against the second applicant as well, and in November 2017 froze some of her bank accounts. According to a letter from the Agency presented by the Government, the second applicant had paid part of the fine and costs which she had been ordered to pay; the letter did not set out the exact sums. The second applicant did not provide any evidence on that point. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK THE CONSTITUTION 33 .     Article 39 of the 1991 Constitution provides: “1.     Everyone is entitled to express an opinion or to publicise it through words, written or oral, sound, or image, or in any other way. 2.     This right shall not be used to the detriment of the rights and reputation of others, or for the incitement of a forcible change of the constitutionally established order, the perpetration of a crime, or the incitement of enmity or violence against anyone.” THE CRIMINAL OFFENCE OF HOOLIGANISM 34 .     Article 325 § 1 of the 1968 Criminal Code makes it an offence (hooliganism) to carry out indecent actions which grossly infringe public order and show overt disrespect toward society. The penalty on conviction is up to two years’ imprisonment or probation, coupled with a public reprimand. 35 .     The former Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Cassation have held that even acts not carried out in public can be qualified as hooliganism, so long as they have or could become known to others (see пост. № 2 от   29.06.1974 г. по н. д. № 4/1974 г., ВС, Пл., point 5; реш. № 656 от   17.09.1991 г. по н. д. № 533/1991 г., ВС, II н. о.; реш. № 387 от   30.09.2009 г. по н. д. № 407/2009 г., ВКС, III н. о.; and реш. № 175 от   22.05.2012 г. по н. д. № 2934/2011 г., ВКС, II н. о.). 36 .     It does not appear that, apart from the applicants’ case, there has ever been a final conviction under Article 325 § 1 in relation to the profaning of a public monument. 37 .     On 9 September 2013 a well-known poet and journalist was charged with painting a rose circle over the monument of the Soviet Army in Sofia, but on 25 October 2013 the prosecuting authorities discontinued the criminal proceedings against him on the basis that his act had not amounted to hooliganism because, although infringing public order, it had not done so “grossly” (an account of those proceedings may be found in реш. № 4029 от 19.06.2018 г. по гр. д. № 2159/2017 г., СГС, and реш. № 1265 от   01.05.2019 г. по в. гр. д. № 6142/2018 г., САС). 38 .     On 7 September 2014 (about ten months after the applicants’ act) three people were arrested in Sofia for spray-painting the words “occupiers” and “conquerors” on the monument of the Soviet Army, on suspicion that this had amounted to hooliganism contrary to Article 325 § 1. One of the arrestees sought judicial review of his police detention. While those proceedings were pending, in January 2015 the prosecuting authorities discontinued the concurrent criminal investigation against him. They found, with reference to the Court’s rulings under Article 10 of the Convention in Murat Vural v. Turkey (no. 9540/07, 21 October 2014) and Shvydka v.   Ukraine (no. 17888/12, 30 October 2014), that it had not been wrongful to spray-paint the monument, and that this had therefore not amounted to an offence. On the back of that discontinuance, in June 2015 the Sofia City Administrative Court annulled the police detention order (see реш. № 3885 от 05.06.2015 г. по адм. д. № 9173/2014 г., АдмС-София-град). On an appeal by the police, however, in January 2017 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed that judgment and dismissed the judicial review claim. It held, inter alia , that the police had been entitled to suspect that the arrestees’ act had amounted to hooliganism. The court went on to note that the spray-painting had impaired the monument, that the detention had lasted less than twenty-four hours, and that the arrestee had not specified the reasons which had prompted his act, which had to be seen as a protest against a political regime (the communist regime in Bulgaria) which had ceased to exist more than twenty-five years previously. In those circumstances, the police detention could not be seen as a measure disproportionately restricting his right to freedom of expression. It was unhelpful to draw automatic comparisons with Turkey and Ukraine because the political situations there were vastly different (see реш. № 363 от   12.01.2017 г. по адм. д. № 10527/2015 г., ВАС, V о.). 39 .     In December 2103 and January 2014 a local politician in Blagoevgrad was found guilty of “minor hooliganism” – which in Bulgaria is outlawed by a 1963 Decree – in relation to his having placed a cap and a sack on a statue in the centre of the town where he lived (see Handzhiyski , cited above, §§ 7-19 and 22-23). 40 .     In November 2018, when Marine Le Pen, president of the French political party Rassemblement national , was in Sofia to take part in an international conference organised by a Bulgarian political party, a university student spray-painted in English the words “REFUGEES WELCOME! LE PEN GO HOME” on the base of the monument of the Soviet Army in Sofia. He was charged with hooliganism contrary to Article   325 § 1, and convicted at first instance and given a BGN 2,000 (EUR 1,023) administrative fine instead of a criminal penalty (see прис. от   11.11.2019 г. по н. о. х. д. № 474/2019 г., СРС). On appeal, the Sofia City Court overturned the conviction and acquitted the student, holding, for reasons similar to those given by the Sofia District Court in the present case (see paragraphs 21 and 22 above), that his act had not amounted to hooliganism (see прис. № 260026 от 12.10.2020 г. по в. н. о. х. д. №   2843/2020 г., СГС). Following an appeal by the prosecution, in July   2021 the Supreme Court upheld the acquittal (see реш. № 73 от   26.07.2021 г. по н. д. № 259/2021 г., ВКС, III н. о.). It held, with reference in particular to Handzhiyski (cited above), that the spray-painting had been reversible and had not damaged the monument. The student had moreover not impinged on the monument’s symbolic message, but had simply used it as a vehicle to convey his message – which was political speech on a matter of public interest even though he was not a politician or a member of a political party – to a larger audience. It followed that even an administrative penalty was not necessary in a democratic society with respect to that act, and that the act could not be characterised as hooliganism contrary to Article 325 § 1 of the Criminal Code, or even as minor hooliganism contrary to Article 1 § 3 (former § 2) of the 1963 Decree (see paragraph 39 above). REPLACING CRIMINAL PENALTIES WITH ADMINISTRATIVE ONES 41 .     By Article 78a § 1 of the Criminal Code, the courts must replace criminal liability with an administrative penalty – a fine ranging from BGN   1,000 to BGN 5,000 (EUR 511 to EUR 2,556) – if (a) the criminal offence of which the accused has been convicted is punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment or a lesser penalty, in respect of a wilful offence; (b) the accused has not previously been convicted of a publicly prosecutable offence or had his or her criminal liability waived and replaced by an administrative penalty; and (c) any pecuniary damage caused by the offence has been made good. ACT DECLARING THE COMMUNIST REGIME CRIMINAL 42 .     In 2000 the National Assembly passed an Act Declaring the Communist Regime in Bulgaria Criminal. 43 .     Section 1(1) of that Act proclaimed that the Bulgarian Communist Party had come to power on 9 September 1944 with the help of a “warring hostile power” [2] and in breach of the (then in force) 1879 Constitution, and section   1(2) declared that that party had been responsible for governing the country between 9 September 1944 and 10 November 1989. 44 .     Section 3(1) proclaimed the communist regime, deemed to be in power between the two above dates, to be “criminal”, and section 3(2) branded the Bulgarian Communist Party a “criminal organisation ... aimed at supressing human rights and the democratic system”. THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION 45 .     The applicants complained about the judgment finding them guilty of hooliganism for spray-painting the monument and the ensuing fines. They relied on Article 10 of the Convention, which provides, so far as relevant: “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. ... 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 parties’ submissions The applicants 46.     The applicants emphasised the participation of “partisans” in acts of terrorism and diversion before the occupation of Bulgaria by the Soviet Army in September 1944, and their role in the repressions which had engulfed the country after that. They also underlined the role of the Bulgarian Communist Party (later Bulgarian Socialist Party) in the country’s history before, during and after the communist regime. 47.     The applicants went on to point out that (a) the monument at issue did not represent specific persons but “partisans” in general, which in their view meant that acts directed against it could not affect the memory of specific individuals, and that (b) the act for which they had been sanctioned had been part of the wave of anti-government protests in 2013-14. They had not destroyed or seriously damaged the monument, and had spayed words of protest – not insulting in themselves – on the monument’s base rather than on the sculptures of the partisans themselves. 48.     The severity of the sanctions against the applicants – which had in any event been quite harsh, both in terms of their potential consequences in case of future offending and in terms of quantum – did not ultimately matter, because it had not at all been necessary to interfere with their right to freedom of expression by way of a criminal prosecution. This followed not only from Article 10 of the Convention but also from the manner in which the Bulgarian Constitutional Court had construed Article 39 of the 1991 Constitution (see paragraph 33 above). The applicants’ case highlighted a broader issue: that Bulgarian law, as construed by the criminal courts, did not duly differentiate between legitimate political protest and hooliganism. It was puzzling that decades after the fall of the communist regime the courts still conflated those notions, and saw legitimate political protest as hooliganism without inquiring into its goals or symbolism. 49.     It was unclear how the applicants’ conviction had contributed to public safety, or how their act had been inimical to morals, especially in view of the prevailing state of public opinion at the time. That act’s furtive character could not be held against them. If they had acted overtly, the police would have stopped them from painting over the whole monument and thus prevented them from fully articulating their intended symbolic message. Moreover, they would have probably incurred heavier sanctions if they had painted the monument in full public view. They had proceeded covertly to avoid unconstitutional repression against them. It also had to be borne in mind that both of them were politically active, especially with regard to issues relating to the former communist regime. 50.     The form of expression was also protected under Article 10 of the Convention, and it was not for the State to assess its legitimacy – a point not properly assessed by the majority of the Sofia City Court. The Government 51 .     The Government submitted that Article 10 of the Convention did not apply. The applicants’ act had amounted to vandalism, and after their arrest they had tried to distance themselves from it. Even though during their trial they had argued that the act had amounted to a form of political protest, they had not admitted to in fact having carried it out. Moreover, they had never been prevented from manifesting their political views in other ways, and had been found guilty of hooliganism rather than of expressing their opinion. 52.     Even if Article 10 of the Convention applied, the interference with the applicants’ rights under that provision had been lawful and justified. The legal basis for the interference had been accessible and foreseeable, and the interference had been intended – as apparent from the terms of Article 325 §   1 of the Criminal Code and the reasons given by the Sofia City Court (see paragraphs 24 to 29 and 34 above) – to protect public safety and the rights of others and to prevent crime. 53.     The interference had also been “necessary in a democratic society”, for several reasons. The first was the nature of the applicants’ act. They had, after careful preparation, covertly painted a monument which formed part of the country’s cultural heritage. Even the first-instance court, which had acquitted them, had noted that they had impaired the monument’s appearance and artistic value. The appellate court had underlined their efforts to conceal their act, which showed that they had not sought to express their views openly. Such vandalism against the country’s heritage was outlawed not only in Bulgaria but in all Contracting States; it could not be equated to acts which profaned public monuments without affecting their physical integrity. 54.     Secondly, at the time the applicants had not been journalists or politicians. Their participation in the anti-government protests could not entitle them to express their political views in any way they saw fit. Their conviction had not stopped them from airing those views; it had simply signalled that it was inacceptable to do so through acts of vandalism. Indeed, both applicants had later gone on to take an active part in public life. 55.     Thirdly, the court which had convicted the applicants had analysed the specifics of the case, had responded to all points raised by them, and had properly balanced the competing interests. 56.     Lastly, the applicants had been given moderate administrative fines rather than harsh criminal punishments, and nothing suggested that those fines had been too onerous for them to pay. The Court’s assessment Admissibility 57 .     The Government’s contention that Article 10 of the Convention does not apply (see paragraph 51 above) concerns the compatibility of the complaint ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a), and thus the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Since there is no special reason to defer examining that issue until the merits stage (contrast Studio Monitori and Others v. Georgia , nos.   44920/09 and 8942/10, § 32, 30 January 2020, and Centre for Democracy and the Rule of Law v. Ukraine , no. 10090/16, § 55, 26 March 2020), it must be taken up as an admissibility point (compare with N.Š.   v.   Croatia , no. 36908/13, § 60, 10 September 2020, citing Denisov v.   Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, § 93, 25 September 2018). 58 .     The applicability of Article 10 of the Convention turns on whether the conduct for which the applicants were convicted of hooliganism – spray-painting a monument standing in front of the central office of the Bulgarian Socialist Party and writing the words “WHO? BCP–SHAME! WHO!” with spray-paint on its base (see paragraph 13 above) – can be regarded as “expression” within the meaning of that provision. 59 .     Considered in its proper context, that conduct can be so regarded. The applicants were active anti-government protesters who carried out their act in the course of prolonged protests against the government in power, chiefly supported by that political party (see paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 above). They combined (a) a symbolic act (the painting of the “partisan” statues in rose and magenta on the anniversary of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution – see paragraph   13 above) intended to mock a monument associated with that party (which was not only providing core parliamentary support for the government in power, but had also overwhelmingly voted in favour of the nomination which had sparked the anti-government protests) with (b) a query addressed to that party and the government (the words written on the monument’s base) about the person or persons who had in reality come up with that nomination. It is thus plain that through their act – irrespective of how it was characterised under Bulgarian criminal law – the applicants sought to engage in political protest, and “impart” their “ideas” about that political party and its record (see, mutatis mutandis , Handzhiyski v. Bulgaria , no. 10783/14, § 45, 6 April 2021, with further references). The stealthy character of their act and their subsequent attempt to conceal their participation in it cannot alter that conclusion. Holding otherwise would be tantamount to saying that authors publishing anonymously, for instance under a pen name, enjoy for that reason no protection under Article 10 of the Convention. The manner in which the applicants proceeded rather concerns the question – should it be reached – whether it was “necessary in a democratic society” to interfere with their rights under that provision. 60 .     It follows that Article 10 of the Convention applies and that the applicants’ complaint under that provision is compatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 §   3   (a). 61.     The complaint is, furthermore, not manifestly ill-founded or inadmissible on other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. Merits (a)    Existence of an interference 62 .     The applicants’ conviction of hooliganism for having spray-painted the monument and the resultant fines can be regarded as interference, in the form of a “penalt[y]”, with their right to freedom of expression (see, mutatis mutandis , Handzhiyski , cited above, § 46). 63.     It is true that the applicants did not overtly admit that it had been them who had spray-painted the monument, and attempted to conceal their participation in that (see paragraphs 14 in fine and 27 above). A question might hence arise about whether there was at all interference with the exercise of their right to freedom of expression. The fact remains, however, that their conviction of hooliganism was directed at activities falling within the scope of freedom of expression. That conviction must therefore be regarded as interference with their exercise of that right. Holding otherwise would be tantamount to requiring the applicants to acknowledge the act of which they stood accused, whereas the right not to incriminate oneself, although not specifically set out in Article 6 of the Convention, is a generally recognised international standard which lies at the heart of the notion of a “fair hearing” under that provision. Moreover, not accepting that the conviction constituted an interference on the ground that the applicants denied involvement in the act in respect of which that conviction was handed down would lock them in a vicious circle depriving them of the protection of the Convention (see Müdür Duman v. Turkey , no. 15450/03, §   30, 6 October 2015; İmrek v. Turkey , no. 45975/12, § 29, 10 November 2020; and Kilin v. Russia , no. 10271/12, § 55, 11 May 2021). (b)    Whether the interference was justified 64.     Such interference is compatible with Article 10 of the Convention only if it was “prescribed by law” and was “necessary in a democratic society” to attain one or more of the aims referred to in its second paragraph. (i)       “Prescribed by law” 65 .     The interference, which was based on Article 325 § 1 of the Bulgarian Criminal Code (see paragraph 34 above), can be seen as having been “prescribed by law”. 66 .     It is not for the Court to say whether the Sofia City Court properly characterised the applicants’ act as hooliganism within the meaning of that provision. The Court is not a court of appeal from the national courts, and the scope of its task when assessing whether an interference was in line with domestic law, and thus “prescribed by law”, is subject to limits inherent in the subsidiary nature of the Convention: the Court cannot gainsay the way in which the national courts have interpreted and applied domestic law except in cases of flagrant non-observance or arbitrariness (see Yordanova and Toshev v. Bulgaria , no. 5126/05, § 41, 2 October 2012, and Nenkova-Lalova v. Bulgaria , no. 35745/05, § 54, 11 December 2012). The majority of the panel of the Sofia City Court which dealt with the applicants’ case on appeal explained in enough detail why, unlike the lower court and the dissenting judge, they were of the view that the applicants’ act had amounted to hooliganism within the meaning of Article 325 § 1 of the Bulgarian Criminal Code (see paragraph 26 above). It cannot be said that their ruling on the point was arbitrary or manifestly contrary to that provision (see, mutatis mutandis , Nenkova-Lalova , cited above, § 54). The applicants’ argument that when interpreting the provision those judges did not pay proper heed to their right to freedom of expression, as laid down in Article 39 the Bulgarian Constitution (see paragraph 33 above) and Article   10 of the Convention, concerns the necessity of the interference rather than its lawfulness. 67 .     Nor can it be said that Article 325 § 1 of the Bulgarian Criminal Code (see paragraph 34 above) was insufficiently foreseeable to the applicants. It is true that that provision defines the offence of hooliganism in broad terms. But in this case the applicants, though furtively, resorted to a provocative gesture likely to infringe public order and disturb or insult some of the people who later saw the spray-painting or learned about it. It can thus be accepted – in particular in the light of the pre-existing case-law of the former Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Cassation under Article 325 § 1 (see paragraph 35 above) – that the applicants’ act could reasonably be characterised by the Bulgarian courts as hooliganism within the provision’s meaning (see, mutatis mutandis , Shvydka v. Ukraine , no.   17888/12, § 39, 30 October 2014, and Handzhiyski , cited above, § 46). Indeed, the very fact that the applicants acted by stealth and attempted to avoid detection after their act (see paragraphs 13 and 14 above) tends to suggest that they were aware of the possibility of incurring criminal liability in relation to it (see, mutatis mutandis , Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC], no.   27510/08, § 138, ECHR 2015 (extracts)). Although the profaning of public monuments had until their case apparently never been adjudged to be hooliganism contrary to Article 325 § 1 (see paragraphs 36 to 39 above), the Sofia City Court’s judgment against them cannot be seen as a sudden and unforeseeable change in case-law (see, mutatis mutandis , Perinçek , cited above, § 138). (ii)     Legitimate aim 68 .     It can further be accepted that the interference pursued the legitimate aims of protecting morals – as held by the Sofia City Court (see paragraph   26 above) – as well as the rights of others (see Handzhiyski , cited above, § 47). Indeed, the general public have an interest in preserving cultural heritage (see Margulev v. Russia , no. 15449/09, § 37, 8 October 2019). 69 .     There is, however, no indication that the interference sought to protect specifically the property rights of the monument’s owner, whose identity remains unclear (see paragraph 23 in fine above). Both the Sofia District Court and the Sofia City Court underlined that that aspect of the case lay outside the scope of the criminal proceedings against the applicants (see paragraphs 22 and 26 in fine above), and the Sofia City Court also noted that no evidence had been led about how much it had cost to clean the monument and who had covered that cost (see paragraph 29 above). 70 .     Nor does it appear that the interference was intended to protect “public safety”. The applicants’ act was peaceful and was carried out surreptitiously in the early hours of the morning (see paragraph 13 above). Nothing suggests that it was likely to cause public disturbances, or that when convicting the applicants the Sofia City Court had that in mind (see, mutatis mutandis , Handzhiyski , cited above, § 47). It is true that that court held that the applicants’ act had been contrary t