CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 27 juin 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sE207830C { margin-top:54pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s88D564B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border:0.75pt solid #000000; padding:1pt 4pt } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s3E9356B0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:8pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; 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 } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s2A91C753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C494981 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s807BA660 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.16pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.34pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sECF8538A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .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 } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA6765C01 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-11.3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFA550501 { width:6.3pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3CAF9CA4 { width:8.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sEB3FA797 { width:8.43pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC2E086EB { width:36.89pt; display:inline-block } .s871A718A { width:136.42pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s77C3FB1E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }   THIRD SECTION CASE OF ZHABLYANOV v. BULGARIA (Application no. 36658/18)     JUDGMENT   Art 10 • Freedom of expression • Removal of a Deputy Speaker of Parliament for speeches and behaviour justifying repressions of the communist regime • Distinction between removal from professional posts and from political posts as that held by the applicant • Statements not deserving the heightened protection normally accorded to expression on public-interest issues • Necessity of measure assessed against backdrop of post-WWII history of Bulgaria and totalitarian nature of communist regime • States which had experienced communist repressions under a special moral responsibility to distance themselves from them • Removal symbolic and preventive rather than punitive • Measure “necessary in a democratic society”   STRASBOURG 27 June 2023   FINAL   27/09/2023   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Zhablyanov v. Bulgaria, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Pere Pastor Vilanova , President ,   Jolien Schukking,   Yonko Grozev,   Armen Harutyunyan,   Georgios A. Serghides,   Peeter Roosma,   Andreas Zünd , judges , and Milan Blaško, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no. 36658/18) 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 Valeri Mirchev Zhablyanov (“the applicant”), on   25   July 2018; the decision to give the Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) notice of the complaint concerning an alleged interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; and the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 30 May 2023, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case chiefly concerns two questions under Article 10 of the Convention. The first is whether the removal of a Deputy Speaker of the Bulgarian Parliament from his post on account of public statements of his can be seen as “interference” with his right to freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 § 1, in particular in the light of the nature of that post. The second question is whether that removal, which was chiefly based on a statement justifying “the People’s Court” – an extraordinary criminal tribunal   operating during the first year of the communist takeover of Bulgaria in 1944-48 – may be seen as meeting the requirements of Article 10 § 2, and in particular, to have been “necessary in a democratic society”. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Sofia. He was 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 S. Sobadzhieva of the Ministry of Justice. THE APPLICANT’S ELECTION AS DEPUTY SPEAKER 4 .     In March 2017 the applicant was elected as a member of Bulgaria’s Parliament – the National Assembly – on the ticket of the Bulgarian Socialist Party (until April 1990, the Bulgarian Communist Party). [1] 5 .     At its first plenary sitting in April 2017, the newly elected Assembly adopted special rules of procedure for the election of its Speaker and Deputy Speakers. According to those rules, there were to be five Deputy Speakers – one for each of the parties or coalitions whose candidates had been elected as members of the Assembly (see paragraph 46 below) – and they were to be voted on en bloc rather than one by one. The parliamentary group of the Bulgarian Socialist Party, which held eighty out of the 240 seats, nominated the applicant. He, as well as the other four Deputy Speakers (one for each of the other four parliamentary groups), was elected by 235 votes, with no votes against and no abstentions. THE APPLICANT’S STATEMENTS IN ISSUE About the treaty with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 6 .     At its plenary sitting on 18 January 2018, the National Assembly debated a proposal by the government to ratify a “Treaty of friendship, good-neighbourliness and cooperation” concluded in August 2017 between Bulgaria and (as it then was) the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. After reports on the treaty were presented by members of the two parliamentary committees tasked with analysing it, nine members of the Assembly, including the applicant, were given the floor to speak about it. 7 .     The applicant noted at the outset that he would speak in his personal capacity as member of the Assembly. He went on to criticise the manner in which the treaty had been concluded, as well as some of its clauses and language – which in his view revived the doctrine of “Macedonism”, in particular because the treaty recognised Bulgarians and Macedonians as two separate peoples speaking different languages. The applicant also expressed concern about the effect of a clause whereby the two States undertook to “take effective measures to counter hostile propaganda” against each other. 8 .     The applicant continued: “[S]uch treaties, voted upon in such a light-hearted manner, without grasping their content, without taking into consideration our nation’s historical value, our self-consciousness and the perspective for Bulgaria’s development, the perspective for us to be a factor in Europe and the Balkans. Precisely such treaties! Because they tear apart our national consciousness, because the nation is a spirit – not cheap labour at Europe’s construction sites. The nation is a spirit, the nation is self-consciousness, the nation is an understanding of our own worth, as a people within this whole union – and we are frivolously selling all of that! We are selling it to the South-East, we are selling it to the West, and on top of that we are explaining that this is wise policy. This is cheap wheeling and dealing, dear colleagues – political, geopolitical, and I do not wish to use other qualifications – wheeling and dealing of the lowest order! This is not State policy.   ... Dear colleagues, the treaty is a stillborn, the treaty is a fabrication! The treaty is an apotheosis of the Atlantic ambitions of the Balkans, [advanced] to the detriment of the peoples, just like the series of treaties signed a hundred years ago, when Bulgaria lost territories and walked into several national catastrophes. ...” 9 .     Immediately after the debate the Assembly ratified the treaty. About the commemoration of the victims of the communist regime 10 .     At the outset of the National Assembly’s plenary sitting on 1 February 2018, a member from GERB ( Граждани за европейско развитие на България ), the political party which held the highest number of parliamentary seats and which was the main member of the ruling coalition, proposed a minute of silence to commemorate the victims of the communist regime. [2] In his speech, that member – a former mayor of Plovdiv – mentioned in particular the thousands of people sentenced to death, life imprisonment and long terms of imprisonment by “the People’s Court” . [3] 11 .     A member from the political party Movement for Rights and Freedoms ( Движение за права и свободи ) then proposed that the minute of silence be dedicated also to the Turks and Muslims in Bulgaria who had suffered repressions under the communist regime. 12 .     The applicant spoke immediately after those two members, on behalf of the parliamentary group of the Bulgarian Socialist Party. He got down from his Deputy Speaker’s seat and went to the parliamentary tribune, and made the following statement: “I will express regret for the way in which Bulgarian parliamentarism is developing after thirty years of almost democratic political experience. I consider that the Bulgarian Socialist Party cannot be put in the dock, for one simple reason: because it was the party which led the armed fight against fascism and monarcho-fascism in Bulgaria. I wish to focus on concrete historical facts rather than the literary fiction that we have heard to some degree. On 1 November 1943 the foreign ministers of the Soviet Union, the United States of America and the United Kingdom signed the Secret Protocol of the Moscow Conference, point 18 of which explicitly set out a declaration about the responsibility of the Hitlerites for their atrocities and the political responsibility of fascism. This declaration was published, and expressly specified that it was without prejudice to the case of the major war criminals whose offences had no particular geographical localisation and who were to be punished by the joint decision of the governments of the Allies – point 18, 1 November 1943. During the Crimean Conference, held between 4 and 11 February 1945, the leaders of the three Allied States – the Soviet Union, the United States of America and the United Kingdom – reaffirmed the decision of the Moscow Conference, and after that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Winston Churchill, made the following statement: ‘It would be best to shoot all war criminals and fascists, together with the main criminals, whenever they are caught.’ During the same conference, the statement of Joseph Stalin was as follows: ‘Please, before the shooting I insist that they nonetheless be tried.’ The decision for the Nuremberg trial, as well as for the trials held in Europe, outside the territory of Germany, was taken by the international organs and conferences of the Allies. The home-made interpretations of former municipal and town mayors about the fight against fascism would hardly be understood outside the borders of the localities which they ruled. Thank you for your attention.” 13 .     After his speech, the applicant went back up to his Deputy Speaker’s seat, and the Speaker invited all members to observe a minute of silence to “commemorate the victims of communism and the victims of the Revival Process ”. [4] As the Speaker and all the members of parliament were rising from their seats for the minute of silence, the applicant, who again went down to the parliamentary tribune, took the floor and interjected that he proposed to also “commemorate the victims of fascism – the tens, the hundreds of shot partisans, soldiers in the Patriotic War [5] ...”. The Speaker admonished the applicant that the minute of silence was already under way, and that “[it was] 1 February”. The applicant carried on “... hanged and killed in the prisons of the State Safety. [6] To commemorate Geo Milev [7] , Joseph Herbst [8] ...”, which prompted the Speaker to cut off the applicant’s microphone. The Speaker reiterated “One minute of silence for the victims of the communist regime and the victims of the Revival Process! It is 1 February, colleagues!” The applicant, who had already moved down to the parliamentary floor, shouted at her “... and for the victims of fascism!”, and she continued “Please, bow your heads, one minute of silence to commemorate the victims”. After that all the members of the Assembly, including the applicant, stood silent for one minute. About “the People’s Court” 14 .     In a declaration issued on 13 February 2018 in protest against the holding of a torch march commemorating a lieutenant-general assassinated in Sofia by communist partisans on 13 February 1943, the Bulgarian Socialist Party proclaimed, inter alia , that “the People’s Court” [9] had been required by the Allied Powers in the Second World War, and had been “necessary and inevitable wartime justice”. Shortly after publication of the declaration, the party’s press officer clarified that the party’s bureau had not approved its text but had simply asked for it to be prepared. According to some media, the declaration had been drawn up by the applicant, who at that time was a member of that bureau. In a television interview given two days later, on 15   February 2018, the chairman of the party’s parliamentary group said that the statement about “the People’s Court” did not represent the party’s official position, and that the publication of the declaration with the “out-of-place” sentence about that court had been a “misunderstanding”, but declined to answer whether it had been the applicant who had caused that sentence to be put in. 15 .     In his submissions to the Court, the applicant denied being the author of that sentence but stated that he was nonetheless against “one-sided assessments” of “the People’s Court”. REMOVAL OF THE APPLICANT FROM THE POST OF DEPUTY SPEAKER 16 .     On 15 February 2018 GERB’s parliamentary group called on the applicant to resign from the post of Deputy Speaker, citing his conduct on 1   February 2018 and the statement about “the People’s Court” (see paragraphs 10-14 above). They stated that members of the Bulgarian Socialist Party’s parliamentary group had acknowledged that the statement – which they qualified as “offensive to the whole Bulgarian people” – had been written by the applicant, and warned that if he did not accept political responsibility for his actions and resign, they would seek to remove him. 17 .     The same day, in response to a question by a journalist to explain why he had characterised “the People’s Court” as “necessary and inevitable wartime justice”, the applicant said that it was a number of international documents rather than him that had characterised it like that, and urged all of the journalists present to “read and check” that, adding that those documents “even characterised it as mandatory”. Proposal for the applicant’s removal from his post 18 .     On 20 February 2018 eighty-one Assembly members, mainly from GERB (see paragraph 10 above), proposed that the applicant be removed from the post of Deputy Speaker. Citing the three incidents described in paragraphs 6 to 14 above, they asserted that he had systematically abused his powers within the meaning of Rule 5 § 1 (2) of the Assembly’s Rules (see paragraph 48 (b) below). In their view, his statement on 18 January 2018 that the treaty with (as it then was) the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia was “wheeling and dealing of the lowest order”, “a stillborn” and “a   fabrication” had “disparaged all efforts of the two States throughout a period of twenty years to achieve good neighbourly relations and mutual understanding”. The applicant’s actions on 1 February 2018 had infringed Rule 155 § 1 of the Assembly’s Rules (see paragraph 53 below) and parliamentary decorum, and had impeded the commemoration of the victims of the communist regime and of “the Revival Process”. [10] The “linking” of the applicant’s name with the declaration about “the People’s Court” [11] had “discredited the National Assembly as an institution and [had] directly impinged on its authority”, whereas in his capacity as Deputy Speaker the applicant had a duty to uphold the Assembly’s institutional and political authority. He deserved to bear political responsibility for that declaration and be stripped of his “representative functions” as Deputy Speaker. Debate and vote on the proposal 19 .     The following day, 21 February 2018, the National Assembly debated the proposal. The debate began with a presentation of the proposal by a member of parliament from GERB. 20 .     When he was given the floor for a personal statement, the applicant pointed out, inter alia , that he had merely exercised his constitutional right to express his views, not only in his personal capacity but also in his capacity as representative of the people who had voted for his political party, and that he occupied the post of Deputy Speaker in his capacity as a member of that party. Most of the remainder of his speech was devoted to his views on the question whether fascism had existed in Bulgaria before 9 September 1944 and on the role of “the People’s Court” in the country’s history. He said, in particular: “The question about the historical truth will not be resolved and we harbour no illusions on the point. No illusions should be entertained. The positions are clear, the truth – likewise. The victims are a fact. The monuments, half-destroyed in the oblivion of time, unite again on 2 June [12] the combatants against fascism in Bulgaria. This is known by our whole party. Not because of something else, but because those monuments stand on the bones of people killed unlawfully – beheaded, burned, cut to pieces by the fascist executioners of Bulgaria. And this conviction and sentence was given precisely against those executioners, and it chimes with the dozens, hundreds and thousands of convictions and sentences handed down in Europe, by the courts in France   – more than ten thousand convictions, by the courts organised in the United Kingdom, even in Italy, in Trieste, against the high command of the German army, against the war criminals, against the political head-choppers, against those who tried to behead freedom and democracy in Europe, who you now pretend to protect.” 21 .     Another member from GERB who spoke after the applicant noted that his statements justifying “the People’s Court” were contrary to section 2(1)(3) of the Act Declaring the Communist Regime in Bulgaria Criminal (see paragraph 71 below). 22 .     The leader of the applicant’s political party, the Bulgarian Socialist Party, stated, inter alia , that the applicant’s removal from his post would be in breach of the Assembly’s Rules and his constitutional right to freedom of expression. She also said that her party had no intention of proposing another Deputy Speaker, and would wait for the applicant to be reinstated by the Constitutional Court or by “the European Court”. 23 .     Another member from GERB pointed out, inter alia , that in 1998 “the People’s Court” had been “quashed as unlawful” (see footnote 3 above) and that in 2000 the communist regime had been officially declared criminal (see paragraphs 69-72 below). For his part, the chair of GERB’s parliamentary group stated, inter alia , that the Bulgarian Socialist Party was entitled to nominate another Deputy Speaker, and noted that it had waived that right. 24 .     The proposal to remove the applicant from the post of Deputy Speaker was adopted by 110 votes to seventy-one. There were no abstentions, but the members for the Movement for Rights and Freedoms had left the sitting before the vote, saying that they disagreed with the proposal. CHALLENGE AGAINST THE REMOVAL BEFORE THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT The course of the proceedings 25 .     Nine days later, on 2 March 2018, sixty members of the National Assembly asked the Constitutional Court to declare the applicant’s removal from the post of Deputy Speaker contrary to the provisions of the 1991 Constitution guaranteeing the rule of law (Article 4 §§ 1 and 2), political pluralism (Article 11 § 1), freedom of thought (Article 37 § 1), freedom of belief (Article 38), freedom of expression (Article 39), and the freedom of members of the Assembly to be guided solely by the Constitution, the laws, and their personal convictions (Article 67 §§ 1 and 2 – see paragraphs 40-41 below). They also argued that the removal had been in breach of the constitutional provision authorising the Assembly to adopt its own rules (Article 73 – see paragraph 42 below). They argued that none of the three acts for which the applicant had been reproached had engaged Rule 5 § 1 (2) of the Assembly’s Rules (see paragraph 48 (b) below). Each of those acts had been carried out in his capacity as a regular member of the Assembly rather than as its Deputy Speaker, and had moreover been a legitimate exercise of, inter alia , his constitutional right to freedom of expression as such a member. He could not be sanctioned for having duly availed himself of that right. 26 .     On 22 May 2018 the Constitutional Court accepted the request for examination and invited the applicant and the Assembly to intervene in the proceedings and make written submissions. Neither the Assembly nor the applicant did so. Judgment of the Constitutional Court 27 .     Having examined the case on the papers, on 6 November 2018 the Constitutional Court dismissed the request by seven votes to five (see реш.   №   16 от 06.11.2018 г. по к. д. № 4/2018 г., обн. ДВ, бр. 95/2018 г. ). Majority judgment 28 .     The majority held that it was implicit in Article 76 § 3 of the 1991 Constitution (see paragraph 39 below) that the terms of office of the National Assembly’s Speaker and Deputy Speakers could be terminated prematurely; the grounds on which that could be done had not been set out in the Constitution itself, but in the Assembly’s Rules. Since the Speaker and the Deputy Speakers were internal organs of the Assembly rather than fully-fledged State authorities, they had no “mandate” – a term used in the 1991 Constitution solely with respect to State authorities. It was not a coincidence that the Rules spoke not of premature termination of their mandate but of premature removal from their post. The resolution for the applicant’s removal had set out its legal basis, as well as the facts which in the view of the members who had voted for it had justified the application of Rule 5 (see paragraph 48 below). 29 .     By Article 67 § 2 of the 1991 Constitution (see paragraph 41 below), members of the Assembly had to comply with the Constitution and the laws. That applied even more for the Speaker and the Deputy Speakers. According to the resolution for his removal, the applicant had infringed Rule 5 § 1 (2) of the Assembly’s Rules by systematically ( системно ) abusing his powers (see paragraph   48   (b) below). In the specific case, the systematic character ( системността ) of his conduct did not have a simply quantitative dimension. A law gave expression to the values synthesised by the members of Parliament on behalf of the people, which meant that each act running against that law could in a sense bear the hallmarks of an attack on the system of social values enshrined in it. It had to be pointed out in that connection that in 2000 the Assembly had passed an Act Declaring the Communist Regime in Bulgaria Criminal (see paragraphs 69-72 below). Though purely declaratory, that Act reflected Bulgarian society’s assessment of that period in the country’s history. The basis for characterising the applicant’s conduct as “a systematic abuse of his powers” in the resolution for his removal had been that this conduct had run against the value choice expressed in section   2(1)(3) of that Act by the members of Parliament on behalf of the people. The statement which the majority in the Assembly had understood as having been written by the applicant – that “the People’s Court” had been “necessary and inevitable wartime justice” – had run counter to that section, which had condemned “the unprecedented reprisals against ... all innocent [people] convicted by the so-called ‘People’s Court’” (see paragraphs 14 and   18 above, and paragraph 71 below). The statement had thus also infringed Article 67 § 2 of the Constitution (see paragraph 41 below). 30 .     The Assembly’s resolution and the reasons in the proposal for it showed, moreover, that on 1 February 2018 the applicant had violated parliamentary decorum, in breach of Rule 155 § 1 of the Assembly’s Rules (see paragraph 53 below), which had the force of law. Regular members were amenable to disciplinary sanctions for such breaches; a Deputy Speaker, who had a heightened duty to uphold the Assembly’s authority, had to bear additional liability for them. It was irrelevant that when engaging in that conduct the applicant had not acted in his capacity as Deputy Speaker, since he had a general duty to behave in a collected and reasonably balanced way conducive to upholding the Assembly’s authority. Dissenting opinions (a)    First dissenting opinion 31 .     In a dissenting opinion, one judge said that since Deputy Speakers remained members of the Assembly, their freedom to express themselves could not be curbed more than that of any other member, so long as their statements did not run counter to the Constitution and the laws. That was demanded by the constitutional principle of pluralism. It followed that a Deputy Speaker would systematically abuse his powers or fail to carry out his or her duties within the meaning of Rule 5 § 1 (2) of the Assembly’s Rules only if he or she failed to comply with the duties laid down in Article 77 of the 1991 Constitution (see paragraphs 36, 38 and 48 (b) below). The removal of a Deputy Speaker which did not properly fall under that Rule was contrary to the constitutional principle of the rule of law. 32 .     It was true that on 1 February 2018 the applicant had deliberately violated parliamentary decorum and had impeded the carrying out of the Speaker’s duties, in breach of his constitutional duty to assist the Speaker. That conduct had fallen squarely within the ambit of Rule 5 § 1 (2). But the other two acts for which he had been reproached had not. They had amounted to an exercise of the right of any Assembly member freely to express his or her views, regardless of whether they were true or acceptable to others. The applicant’s statements about the treaty and “the People’s Court” had had nothing to do with his constitutional functions as Deputy Speaker. Since those two acts could not have fallen foul of Rule 5 § 1 (2), the applicant’s failure to carry out his duties had not been “systematic”. His removal from his post had therefore been unconstitutional. (b)    Second dissenting opinion 33 .     In a common dissenting opinion, four other judges emphasised that the applicant could be removed prematurely from his post only under the conditions laid down in Rule 5 § 1 (2) of the Assembly’s Rules (see paragraph   48 (b) below) rather than on the basis of political expediency. If the removal did not meet those conditions, it was contrary to the rule of law. An abuse by the applicant of his powers or a failure by him to carry out his duties as Deputy Speaker could only relate to the exercise of his specific powers and duties under Article 77 of the 1991 Constitution and Rule 8 of the Assembly’s Rules (see paragraphs 36, 38 and 43-45 below). None of the three incidents of which he had been charged with a view to his removal had concerned those specific powers and duties, since during each of them he had acted in his capacity as a regular Assembly member rather than purporting to speak on behalf of the Assembly’s management, and had simply exercised, on each of those occasions, inter alia , his constitutional right to freedom of expression. It was moreover doubtful whether he had been the author of the statement about “the People’s Court” in his political party’s declaration. His actions had not therefore engaged Rule 5 § 1 (2), which in addition required the Deputy Speaker’s misconduct to be “systematic” – a notion which could not be construed in the way the majority had done (see paragraph 29 above). That meant that the removal had no proper factual basis, and was hence contrary to the rule of law and unconstitutional. It had in effect been a political sanction imposed by the parliamentary majority in response to the applicant’s views. The removal was thus in breach of the applicant’s constitutional right to freedom of expression, which was particularly extensive for members of the Assembly. Neither the majority’s judgment nor the resolution for the applicant’s removal had elucidated why it had been justified to interfere with that right. REMAINDER OF THE APPLICANT’S TERM IN THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY 34 .     The applicant remained a member of the National Assembly until the end of its term in March 2021. In September 2020 he left the parliamentary group of the Bulgarian Socialist Party and served the remainder of his term as an independent member of the Assembly. ELECTION OF A NEW DEPUTY SPEAKER IN THE APPLICANT’S STEAD 35 .     On 10 July 2019 the parliamentary group of the Bulgarian Socialist Party nominated another member of parliament from that group, Mr K.V., as Deputy Speaker. He was elected without debate, by 106 votes to four, with four abstentions. He remained in that post until the end of the National Assembly’s term in March 2021. On 30 June 2019 the applicant had been removed from the executive bureau of the Bulgarian Socialist Party. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK 1991 CONSTITUTION Provisions relating to the National Assembly’s Deputy Speakers 36 .     By Article 77 § 1 and Article 78 of the 1991 Constitution, the National Assembly’s Speaker: (a) represents the Assembly; (b) calls it; (c) proposes agendas for its sittings; (d) presides over those sittings and ensures their orderly conduct; (e) certifies the Assembly’s acts; (f) publishes those acts; and (g) organises the Assembly’s international relations. He or she may also give permission to arrest or criminally charge a member when the Assembly is not in session (Article 70 § 1). If the Vice-President of the Republic is unable to replace the President (in case of death, incapacity or resignation), the Speaker may act as President ad interim (Article 97 § 4). 37 .     The Constitutional Court has clarified that the Speaker’s powers with respect to the Assembly’s core functions (enacting legislation and controlling the executive) did not exceed those of any other member. Although the Speaker enjoyed special political prestige, he or she had no right to a veto or to a casting vote, or special prerogatives to propose legislation in addition to those of any other member. The Speaker was thus not an independent State authority in the traditional sense, even though he or she certified the Assembly’s acts and could exceptionally act as President of the Republic ad   interim (see реш. № 16 от 10.11.1992 г. по к. д. № 25/1992 г., КС, обн.   ДВ, бр. 94/1992 г. ). 38 .     The Deputy Speakers assist the Speaker and carry out the functions which he or she has entrusted to them (Article 77 § 2). 39 .     The Speaker and the Deputy Speakers must be elected at the first sitting of each new National Assembly (Article 76 § 3). The Constitution does not fix their term of office. Provisions governing the mandate of National Assembly members 40 .     Article 67 § 1 provides that members of the National Assembly represent not only their constituents but the whole nation, and that they cannot be bound by an imperative mandate. 41 .     By Article 67 § 2, members of the Assembly must act solely on the basis of the Constitution and the laws, as well as their personal convictions. RULES OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY 42 .     By Article 73 of the 1991 Constitution, the organisation and business of the National Assembly are governed by the Constitution itself and by rules adopted by the Assembly. The forty-fourth National Assembly, whose term began in April 2017 and ended in March 2021, adopted its rules on 27 April 2017, and they came into force on 2 May 2017. Provisions relating to the Assembly’s Deputy Speakers 43 .     Rule 8 § 1 of the 2017 Rules enumerates the Speaker’s functions. 44 .     Rule 8 § 2 provides that the Deputy Speakers assist the Speaker and carry out the functions which he or she has delegated to them. The Deputy Speakers preside the Assembly alongside the Speaker; he or she fixes which ones among them do so each week (Rule 8 § 3). One of the Deputy Speakers presides whenever the Speaker steps down to take part in the parliamentary debates (Rule 8 § 6). 45 .     If the Speaker decides permanently to delegate one of his or her functions to a Deputy Speaker, he or she must do so in writing (Rule 8 § 4). If the Speaker is absent, he or she must authorise one of the Deputy Speakers to replace him or her; if he or she fails to do so, the replacement is ensured by the Deputy Speaker nominated by the largest parliamentary party or coalition (Rule 8 § 5). 46 .     Ever since 1991, the tradition has been for each parliamentary group to have one Deputy Speaker – a position enshrined in special rules adopted by each successive Assembly in 1991, 1995, 1997, 2001, 2005, 2009, 2013, 2014, 2017 and 2021. 47 .     The Deputy Speakers’ remuneration is 45% higher than that of regular members (Rule 6 § 1 of the Assembly’s 2017 Financial Rules). Provisions relating to the removal of Deputy Speakers 48 .     By Rule 5 §§ 1 and 2 of the 2017 Rules, Deputy Speakers may be removed from their post before the end of their term of office if: (a)     they resign (Rule 5 § 1 (1)); (b)     one-third of the Assembly’s members propose their removal owing to   (i) an objective impossibility for them to carry out their duties, (ii)   a   “systematic ( системно ) abuse of their powers”, or (iii) a “systematic ( системно ) failure to carry out the duties [falling] within the ambit of their competence” (Rule 5 § 1 (2)); (c)     the parliamentary group which has nominated them proposes their removal (Rule 5 § 1 (3)); or (d)     they leave that parliamentary group or are excluded from it, or that group ceases to exist (Rule 5 § 2). 49 .     In situations under (a) and (d) above, the removal is simply announced rather than debated and voted on, whereas in situations under (b) and (c) it is put to a vote, which must be preceded by a hearing of the person concerned. The proposal for the removal is accepted if supported by more than half of all members present (Rule 5 §§ 3 and 4). 50 .     All earlier Rules of the National Assembly adopted under the 1991 Constitution (in 1991, 1995, 1997, 2001, 2005, 2009, 2013 and 2014) contained similar provisions. 51 .     In 1992 a group of members of the Assembly challenged the provisions then in force before the Constitutional Court with the argument that the premature removal of the Speaker could not be regulated in the Assembly’s Rules. The court dismissed the challenge, holding that Article 73 of the 1991 Constitution (see paragraph 42 above) authorised the Assembly to regulate itself by means of those Rules; this included the premature removal of its Speaker. That solution was fully in line with the Speaker’s constitutional role (see paragraph 36 above) and was similar to the way the matter was regulated in the constitutions of many other European States (see   реш. № 16 от 10.11.1992 г. по к. д. № 25/1992 г., КС, обн.   ДВ,   бр.   94/1992 г. ). 52 .     A 1998 amendment to Rule 5 introduced the possibility to remove a Deputy Speaker without a vote if the parliamentary group which nominated him or her ceases to exist (see paragraph 48 (d) in fine above). A group of members of the Assembly challenged the amendment before the Constitutional Court with the argument that it was contrary to the constitutional principle of the rule of law. The court dismissed the challenge, reiterating that under the 1991 Constitution the Assembly could regulate its internal organisation autonomously; this included the grounds on which it could remove its Speaker or Deputy Speakers and the procedure to be followed in such cases (see реш. № 13 от 04.06.1998 г. по к.   д.   №   11/1998   г., КС, обн. ДВ, бр. 67/1998 г. ). Provisions relating to parliamentary behaviour 53 .     By Rule 155 § 1 of the 2017 Rules, the behaviour of Assembly members must be based on esteem for the Assembly’s authority and respect towards other members and outsiders; it must not impede normal parliamentary business or order in the Assembly building. LEGAL PROVISIONS AND CASE-LAW RELATING TO “THE PEOPLE’S COURT” Legal basis for “the People’s Court” 54 .     “The People’s Court” was established by a decree ( наредба-закон ) – entitled “Trial by a People’s Court of those guilty of dragging Bulgaria into the [Second] World War against the allied peoples and the misdeeds connected therewith” – which was adopted by the Government on 30   September 1944, and was published and came into force on 6 October 1944. By Article 1 of the decree, its task was to try (a) government ministers who had been in office between the beginning of 1941 and 9 September 1944; (b) members of parliament from the twenty-fifth National Assembly (the term of which had lasted from February 1940 to 23 August 1944); and (c) “other civilian or military persons” for the offences set out in Article 2 of the decree. 55 .     Article 2, as initially worded and amended in late November 1944, provided that the following categories of persons were punishable by an unspecified term of imprisonment, a life sentence or death, as well by a fine: (a)     persons who had after 1 January 1941 “exposed the security of the State or placed the people’s interest in jeopardy, either by making international treaties with belligerent States or by deciding to declare or conduct a war” (point 1); (b)     persons in positions of authority who had after 22 June 1941 “ordered acts infringing Bulgaria’s neutrality towards the Soviet Union and ha[d] thereby aggravated Bulgaria’s international position” (point 2); (c)     persons in positions of authority who had, “in connection with the declaration and conduct of the war with England and the United States of America, failed to carry out their duties by taking due and timely measures to protect the people and the State from moral and material impairment” (point   3); (d)     persons who had after 1 January 1941 “within the old borders of the country, in Macedonia, Thrace or elsewhere used their links with the authorities or the belligerent States, or their office, to procure for themselves or someone else an illicit pecuniary gain” (point 4); (e)     persons who had “been in the service of Germany or its allies and, while carrying out that service, had actively and substantially contributed to the carrying out of that State’s policies to the detriment of the Bulgarian people” (point 5); (f)     persons who “had during the same period sent [Bulgarian] troops to Yugoslavia and Greece, so as to persecute the people-liberation troops of those countries, as well as those commanding military persons who had, through their actions or omissions, become a cause for the endangerment of [the Bulgarian] troops” (point 6); (g)     persons who had “in the country or outside it, ordered, encouraged or committed murders, serious bodily injuries, arsons, burglaries, robberies and torture in connection with the domestic or foreign policies put in place by the governments after 1 January 1941” (point 7); (h)     persons who had “voluntarily served the police, the gendarmerie or the army and had given them information concerning the safety or important interests of partisans or other people-liberation fighters” (point 8); (i)     “investigators, prosecutors and judges who in the course of preliminary investigations or trials or through their decisions ha[d] demonstrated manifest bias and gross overzealousness with a view to supporting the terror, lawlessness and violence carried out against the people” (point 9); (j)     persons who had “in the country or out of it, from 1 January 1941 to 9   September 1944, by their actions, writings, words or otherwise, actively and substantially contributed to the commission or carrying out of the above acts, or to the persecution of the Jews” (point 10). 56 .     By Article 4 § 2 of the decree, all or part of the convicted person’s assets were to be forfeited. 57 .     “The People’s Court” was also competent to try, convict and sentence people who had died, even if the death had occurred before he or she had been charged (Article 4 § 3). 58 .     “The People’s Court” consisted of two types of judges: “people’s judges”, elected by the regional committees of the Fatherland Front [13] , and judges appointed by the Minister of Justice (at that time, a representative of the Bulgarian Workers’ Party (communists), subsequently the Bulgarian Communist Party – see footnote 1) from among the judges and lawyers in the country (Article 6 § 1). Its panels were likewise constituted by the Minister of Justice: (a) central panels consisting of thirteen judges (four appointed and the rest elected), to try “the regents, government ministers, members of parliament, palace advisors, and high-ranking spiritual and military persons”, and (b) regional panels consisting of one appointed judge and four elected judges (Article 7). The court had a chief people’s prosecutor and other prosecutors, all appointed by the government on the proposal of the Minister of Justice (Article 5 § 1). 59 .     “The People’s Court” had to set down all of its cases for trial “within