CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 12 mai 2026

.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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; 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 } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sEC28DD31 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sF9E8C072 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sD375925E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7B1E7B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sBCAAD286 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; color:#000000 } .s3013787D { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .s67F06EFC { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; color:#000000 } .s93C080AE { width:11.44pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .sB85C84E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .sBFF0F0D0 { width:7.55pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .sC8FA9E5A { width:8.67pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .sEA6B6AEA { width:5.89pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .s19606355 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:68.05pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .s33B337 { width:8.66pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .sD5295FC2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; line-height:12pt } .s3A4CBDAC { width:4.78pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .s57F719EC { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:102.05pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; line-height:12pt } .s6FDE9054 { width:8.12pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .s25C0B3F0 { width:5.9pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .s4DA599D8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:119.05pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; line-height:12pt } .s1D4448C5 { width:4.56pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .sD855ACD8 { width:4.59pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .sB19A71B8 { width:5.34pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .s52402734 { width:4.77pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:Arial; color:#000000; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; 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 } .sD0A217A5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3936C9DD { width:11.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sDBF374D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5BDECA8 { width:5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3BF0B6C7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sBB64854C { width:8.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sE8F2C496 { width:5.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6B38CF35 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7C9EDFAD { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s71220C2D { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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 } .s695E2BCF { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .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 } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .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 } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3CAF9CA4 { width:8.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sEB3FA797 { width:8.43pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s1B1D10B4 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7B868B6A { width:9.85pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s334EC797 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sB5B0CEA { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sB14747E6 { margin-left:17pt; page-break-inside:avoid } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF0C78780 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .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 } .sAE1ABF8F { width:36.89pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sEE48D15E { width:149.43pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s1E019DFF { width:46.56pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA49AD2E4 { width:177.11pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside }   THIRD SECTION CASE OF ASEN ASENOV v. BULGARIA (Application no. 38741/19)     JUDGMENT   Art 14 (+ Art 8) • Discrimination • Positive obligations • Private life • Supreme Administrative Court’s failure to secure compliance with positive obligation to afford redress to Roma applicant for extreme negative stereotyping statements made by leader of political party • Art 14 (+ Art 8) applicable as statements’ negative impact reached required level considering characteristics of group, content of statements, their form, context and reach, as well as author’s position and status • Failure to adequately assess statements and to engage in a balancing exercise between competing rights at stake in line with criteria laid down in Court’s case-law   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 12 May 2026   This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION THE FACTS I.   BACKGROUND A.   The applicant B.   Mr Valeri Simeonov II.   MR SIMEONOV’S STATEMENTS AT ISSUE IN THE CASE III.   PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE PROTECTION FROM DISCRIMINATION ACT 2003 A.   Before the Commission for Protection from Discrimination 1.   Course of the proceedings 2.   The Commission’s decision (a)   The decision itself (b)   The separate opinion B.   Judicial review of the Commission’s decision 1.   Proceedings before the Burgas Administrative Court (a)   Course of the proceedings (b)   Judgment of the Burgas Administrative Court 2.   Proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court (a)   Course of the proceedings (b)   Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK I.   BULGARIAN DOMESTIC LAW A.   Constitutional provisions and case-law under those provisions B.   The Protection from Discrimination Act 2003 1.   Prohibition of discrimination and harassment (a)   Statutory provisions (b)   Case-law under those provisions (i)   On the relation between the concepts of direct discrimination and harassment (ii)   In relation to public statements about Roma as a group (α)   Case-law of the Supreme Administrative Court (β)   Case-law of the Supreme Court of Cassation 2.   Remedies for infringements of the Act (a)   Proceedings before the Commission for Protection from Discrimination and follow-up claims for damages (b)   Proceedings before the civil courts (c)   Possibility of choosing between proceedings before the Commission and proceedings in the civil courts II.   EUROPEAN UNION LAW THE LAW I.   ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 8 AND 14 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Admissibility 1.   Victim status (a)   The parties’ submissions (b)   The Court’s assessment 2.   Applicability of Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention (a)   The parties’ and the third-party intervener’s submissions (b)   The Court’s assessment (i)   General principles (ii)   Application of those principles (α)   Characteristics of the group (β)   Content of the statements (γ)   Form, context and reach of the statements, and position and status of their author (δ)   Conclusion 3.   Conclusion regarding the admissibility of the complaint B.   Merits 1.   The parties’ and the third-party intervener’s submissions 2.   The Court’s assessment (a)   General principles (b)   Application of those principles II.   APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Damage B.   Costs and expenses 1.   The applicant’s claim and the Government’s comments on it 2.   The Court’s assessment (a)   Lawyer’s fees (b)   Translation costs OPERATIVE PROVISIONS   In the case of Asen Asenov v. Bulgaria, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Ioannis Ktistakis, President ,   Peeter Roosma,   Lətif Hüseynov,   Darian Pavli,   Diana Kovatcheva,   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,   Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, judges , and Milan Blaško, Section Registrar , Having regard to: the application (no. 38741/19) 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 Asen Martinov Asenov (“the applicant”), on 15   July 2019; the decision to (a) give the Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) notice of the complaints under Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention that (i)   by quashing a decision of the Commission for Protection from Discrimination in relation to statements that a politician had made about Roma in Bulgaria, the Supreme Administrative Court had deprived the applicant’s private life of protection from hostile speech, and that (ii) the reasons given by that court had demonstrated disregard towards the protection of the rights of minorities; and   (b)   declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the decision to conduct the proceedings in the case simultaneously with those in Budinova and Isaev v. Bulgaria (no. 60342/19); the observations by the respondent Government and the observations in reply by the applicant; the comments by the European Roma Rights Centre, which had been granted leave to intervene in the proceedings; Having deliberated in private on 31 March 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The applicant, a Roma rights activist, complained to the Commission for Protection from Discrimination about statements concerning Roma made by a politician in Bulgaria’s Parliament. The Commission upheld the complaint, finding that parts of the politician’s speech had constituted harassment towards the applicant, but following a claim for judicial review by the politician, that decision was quashed by the Supreme Administrative Court. The main issue before the Court is whether the way in which the Supreme Administrative Court dealt with the case was in line with Bulgaria’s positive obligations under Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in Shumen. He was represented by Mr A. Kashamov, a lawyer practising in Sofia. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms V. Hristova of the Ministry of Justice. I.         BACKGROUND A.    The applicant 4.     The applicant is of Roma ethnic origin. B.    Mr Valeri Simeonov 5 .     At the relevant time, Mr Valeri Simeonov was the leader of the political party the National Front for the Salvation of Bulgaria, founded in 2011, which the applicant described as nationalist; Mr Simeonov was one of the main founders of that party. In the parliamentary elections in October 2014, the party ran as part of a coalition named Patriotic Front. Nineteen of the coalition’s candidates were elected as members of Parliament. Mr   Simeonov was among them, and became chairman of the coalition’s parliamentary group. 6 .     Later, in 2016, the National Front for the Salvation of Bulgaria allied itself with two other parties – Ataka [1] and the VMRO-Bulgarian National Movement – and formed a coalition called United Patriots. At the parliamentary elections in March 2017, that coalition secured 27   parliamentary seats. Between May 2017 and November 2018, Mr   Simeonov was Deputy Prime Minister. 7 .     Mr Simeonov was also the owner of SKAT, a cable television channel. According to the applicant, SKAT was “known for expressing radical opinions that have repeatedly been perceived as extreme and imbued with intolerance towards minority groups”. [2] II.       M r SIMEONOV’S STATEMENTS AT ISSUE IN THE CASE 8 .     At the beginning of the plenary sitting of the Bulgarian Parliament on   17   December 2014, before it could proceed with its agenda for the day, Mr   Simeonov, speaking from the rostrum, made the following speech on behalf of his parliamentary group (see paragraph 5 in fine above): “In less than 20 days, Bulgarian society has witnessed several brutal criminal acts committed by members of the Roma ethnic group against minors, as well as against medical personnel during the performance of their official duties. The cases have stunned and shocked the public with their brutality, impudence and sense of impunity. On 5 December, a 12-year-old student with a mild form of intellectual disability was raped in the school of the village of [D.], the [B.] region, and the rapist was of Roma origin, a repeater in the eighth grade from the same school. The child victim was admitted to the multi-disciplinary hospital in [B.] with numerous lacerations and haemorrhages. A few days later, a brutish mob of Gypsies from the illegal ghetto held an unauthorised rally in the centre of the village and demanded the resignation of the mayor of the village, [I.A.], as strange as this may sound. On 30 November, in the village of [V.], the [B.] region, Dr [I.M.], an emergency worker, was beaten by Gypsies while performing her duties in an attempt to save a human life. On this occasion, a distinguished Bulgarian minister, [P.M.], stood up against the cowardly disregard and mockery of the honour of the profession. Naturally, he was denounced by the impudent – I will spare you the details – [Movement for Rights and Freedoms]. [3] Thank you. These three cases out of hundreds of similar ones in recent years are yet another shameful piece of evidence of the destructive processes in Bulgarian society over the past 20 years. It is indisputable that a large part of the Gypsy ethnic group live outside of any laws, rules and human norms of conduct. For them, the laws do not apply; taxes and fees are incomprehensible concepts – bills for electricity, water, [and] social and health insurance have been replaced by the belief that they have only rights, but no duties or responsibilities. For them, theft and robbery have become a way of life, lawbreaking   – a norm of conduct; giving birth to children – a profitable business at the expense of the State, caring for the next generation; and the educating of minors in begging, prostitution, theft and drug trafficking. The Gypsy barons impose a model of existence that is radically opposite to the rules in Bulgarian society. Bulgaria is facing the abyss of an ethnic crisis. Two opposing and mutually exclusive worlds are facing each other in our tormented homeland: the world of the poor pensioners who nevertheless pay their bills, who hang from homemade nooses attached to the ceilings on account of illness and lack of money, and the world of brutalised thieves and rapists, drunk beyond recognition after receiving monthly child and social benefits. Everything said so far would serve as a good breeding ground for the numerous human rights organisations of Roma, Helsinki, sorosoid and neoliberal origin as a basis for accusations of racism, ethnic discrimination and all sorts of crimes that they would charge against me and the Patriotic Front. However, this would be inaccurate, untrue and hasty. Because the truth is that Bulgarian society and the State are facing a serious problem which must be overcome decisively and by applying the full force of the law. The law that the great Levski [4] said should be the same for everyone, regardless of ethnicity. The question remains, what are the reasons for part of the Gypsy ethnic group becoming a destroyer of statehood and the laws? Why have the people who, during the time of socialism 25 years ago, worked, sent their children to school and contributed to the creation of public good now turned into brazen, arrogant and brutalised humanoids, demanding the right to wages without working, demanding sickness benefits without being sick, child benefits for children who play with pigs in the street and maternity benefits for women with the instincts of street bitches? What led our dark-skinned compatriots to believe that everything is owed to them, that everything is permitted to them, and that everyone is obliged to feed, clothe and give them medical treatment for free? The answer to these questions would explain the root causes and would show us how to solve this difficult problem. And this answer has its political projection or, as the representatives of [the Movement for Rights and Freedoms] would put it ‘exactly’, they have their own political vector. For the second decade now, Bulgarian society has been subjected to a sinister political experiment, comparable only to the one implemented in 1917 at the beginning of the Bolshevik uprising in Saint Petersburg. Following the same model, [the Movement for Rights and Freedoms] has usurped the right to be the sole representative of the Gypsy ethnic group, promising it political representation and minority privileges, without any obligations. Fulfilling its hellish goal of dividing and antagonising Bulgarian society after the successes achieved among the illiterate Turkish population, in 2005 the deified leader of the pro-Turkish party [Ahmed Doğan] promised the Gypsies in [S.] that they would not pay for electricity if they voted for [the Movement for Rights and Freedoms]. In 2009, in parallel with the promises of not paying for water and electricity, [the Movement for Rights and Freedoms] propagandists also applied a new method of winning Gypsy votes – direct purchase. The local elections in 2011, the parliamentary elections in 2013 and 2014, and the European elections in 2014 were totally manipulated and led to catastrophic processes of distortion of the election results. In parallel with the creation of Bulgarian levs stolen from the State and municipal budgets, [the Movement for Rights and Freedoms] propagated hysterical hatred of the Bulgarian ethnicity and instilled primitive xenophobia and self-isolation among the Turkish and Gypsy ethnicities. At the same time, the leaders of the criminal political economic clique demonstrated their closeness to the dictatorial and anti-people regime of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, now President, and, until recently, Prime Minister of the Republic of Turkey. The one who drowned the mass protests against the trampling of democracy and civil liberties in Turkey in blood in 2013; the one who sent tanks and aircraft against the Kurds fighting for their freedom; the one who is the exponent of Turkey’s neo-Ottoman claims towards its Balkan neighbours, and the one who two days ago declared: ‘Europe should mind its own business.’ Here is the root of evil, herein lies the reason for the instilled hatred, in the brutal screams ‘Death to the Bulgarians’ and the bloodied knives, irons and axes. Herein lie the fear, pain and tears of our parents and children, the humiliation, grief and feeling of powerlessness of the Bulgarian doctors, policemen, social workers and teachers. Here, the root of evil is in the Bulgarian Parliament! As well as in the vile collusion of Bulgarian parties with the criminal mafia [the Movement for Rights and Freedoms], depending on the momentary distribution of forces. Therefore, Bulgaria has no chance if the Bulgarian politicians do not let go of their political shortsightedness and do not cut short their unprincipled agreements in the name of power with the most sinister creation of the so-called transition [5] ! There is no chance, no chance if we do not rely on patriotism, unity and the rage to survive! The Patriotic Front will take the requisite legislative measures to guarantee the security of State officials, as well as to heighten the criminal liability, including the imprisonment of brazen lawbreakers and their patrons. Long live Bulgaria!” 9 .     Reacting to statements made by two members of parliament from the Movement for Rights and Freedoms in response to his speech, Mr   Simeonov said: “At no point in my address did I speak about the entire ethnic group, but about a part of that ethnic group – the one that breaks the law, kills, rapes, steals. I am sorry if the gentleman who spoke before me considers himself to be affiliated with that part of the ethnic group. I am sorry! I believe that he has reason to feel offended and to consider himself affiliated with that part of the ethnic group that brutally breaks the law, tramples on the ... dignity of all its fellow citizens and compatriots, because ... I saw him with my own eyes the other day coming to work ... with two Volvo cars and stopping on a restricted parking space.” III.     PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE PROTECTION FROM DISCRIMINATION ACT 2003 A.    Before the Commission for Protection from Discrimination 1.      Course of the proceedings 10 .     In January 2015 the applicant complained about parts of Mr   Simeonov’s speech to the Commission for Protection from Discrimination under section 50 of the Protection from Discrimination Act 2003 (see paragraph 62 below). He alleged that they had revealed racism towards the Roma community, had disparaged all its members, and could stir up hatred towards Roma and result in discrimination against them. In that connection, he pointed out that (a) the speech had been broadcast by nearly all national media outlets, and that (b) Mr Simeonov had made the speech in his capacity as a member of parliament, which had made it possible for him to reach a wider audience. In the applicant’s view, Mr Simeonov had acted wilfully as he had been aware of the consequences of his statements – that they would motivate a wide audience towards discrimination on an ethnic basis and ethnic hatred. The applicant added that as a Bulgarian national of Roma ethnic origin he had felt discriminated against and insulted, because he was not a “brazen and arrogant creature and a brutalised humanoid demanding the right to wages without working, demanding sickness benefits without being sick, [or] child benefits for children who play with pigs in the street”, and because his mother or wife did not have “the instincts of street bitches” (those being words featuring in Mr Simeonov’s speech – see paragraph   8 above). 11 .     In his response to the complaint, Mr Simeonov stated that he had never had personal contact with the applicant, or infringed or called for the infringement of his rights on ethnic grounds. The applicant’s impressions were subjective and based on a skewed reading of his speech, out of its proper context. If seen in its entirety rather than on the basis of the selective passages reported in the media, that speech had clearly not concerned the whole Roma community but only that segment of it which broke the laws and social norms of conduct, failed to take care of their children, abused social assistance and engaged in crime. There was no reason for the applicant, who evidently did not conduct himself in that manner, to feel any association with such people. He had, moreover, not pointed to any specific ways in which the speech had affected him or a group to which he belonged. 12 .     The Commission heard the case in March, April and September 2016. 2.      The Commission’s decision (a)    The decision itself 13 .     On 29 March 2017 a three-member panel of the Commission found that the following parts of Mr Simeonov’s speech had amounted to harassment against the applicant contrary to paragraph 1(1) of the additional provisions of the Protection from Discrimination Act 2003 (see paragraph   49 below): “In less than 20 days, Bulgarian society witnessed several brutal criminal acts committed by members of the Roma ethnic group against minors, as well as against medical personnel during the performance of their official duties. The cases have stunned and shocked the public with their brutality, impudence and sense of impunity   ... The question remains, what are the reasons for part of the Gypsy ethnic group becoming a destroyer of statehood and the laws? Why have the people who ... now turned into brazen, arrogant and brutalised humanoids, demanding the right to wages without working, demanding sickness benefits without being sick, child benefits for children who play with pigs on the street and maternity benefits for women with the instincts of street bitches?” 14 .     The Commission fined Mr Simeonov 1,000 Bulgarian levs (equivalent to 511 euros) and directed him to refrain from such acts in the future (see реш. № 119 от 29.03.2017 г. по пр. № 24/2015 г., КЗД ). 15 .     The Commission first pointed out that according to its earlier decisions, reporting events involving individual members of an ethnic community in a way that stigmatised or attributed blame to that community as a whole through generalisation amounted to discrimination. In such situations, the question whether the facts to which the statements referred had taken place was irrelevant, because sweeping generalisations, qualifications and insinuations about an entire group based on the specific acts of its members was in itself discriminatory. 16 .     The Commission then observed that in his speech Mr Simeonov had deliberately opted for the word “Gypsy”, which conjured up negative stereotypes and was laden with prejudice. The linking of that ethnic group with serious crime stirred up hatred towards the group and fed the negative stereotypes about it; no law-enforcement authority collected or published statistics about the ethnicity of those engaging in crime. There was thus no basis for Mr Simeonov’s strongly-worded allegations, according to which only Roma attacked emergency medical personnel. He had furthermore branded them as outlaws, linking their ethnicity with criminality without any reference to specific data, and had thus expressed a value judgment. That sort of negative stereotyping and aggressive portrayal of the Roma community as a whole had amounted to unwanted conduct based on one of the grounds listed in section 4(1) of the Protection from Discrimination Act 2003   – ethnicity (see paragraph 47 below) – and had created a hostile environment. The statements had thus amounted to harassment on the basis of ethnicity, and therefore to discrimination contrary to section 5 of the Act read in conjunction with paragraph 1(1) of the Act’s additional provisions (see paragraphs   48-49 below). 17 .     It was true that the statements had amounted to an exercise of Mr   Simeonov’s constitutional right to freedom of expression. That right was, however, not absolute, and could be restricted under Articles 39 § 2 and   57 §   2 of the Constitution (see paragraphs 42-43 below). The position under international law, in particular Article 10 of the Convention, was the same: the right to freedom of expression was not absolute, and its exercise carried with it special duties and responsibilities. In particular, it did not include the advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred. The standing rules of parliament also prohibited those sorts of statements. 18 .     In that connection, it had to be borne in mind that according to the preamble of the Constitution, human dignity was an overarching principle, and that it was specifically protected under Article 4 § 2 and Article 32 § 1 of the Constitution (see paragraphs 38, 39 and 41 below). It was also protected under international law. The prohibition of discrimination in Article 6 § 2 of the Constitution and section 4(1) of the Protection from Discrimination Act   2003 (see paragraphs 40 and 47 below) was one of the means of ensuring its protection. Discrimination in the form of harassment contrary to section   5 of that Act read in conjunction with paragraph 1(1) of the Act’s additional provisions (see paragraphs 48-49 below) specifically targeted human dignity, which was why the prohibition of such harassment was a legitimate restriction of freedom of expression. Human dignity could also be affected by disparaging statements about a group, in particular an ethnic group, with which the victim identified. 19 .     In the light of all that, it had to be accepted that Mr Simeonov had exercised his freedom of expression in a manner conflicting with the general principle of protection of human dignity. He could not therefore benefit from the constitutional protection of that freedom. 20 .     An act of discrimination was particularly serious when its author was a public figure entrusted with public duties such as Mr Simeonov. The place where his statements had been made – the rostrum of Parliament – had been an additional aggravating factor, since that had led to larger publicity owing to the direct broadcasting of the statements on a public television channel and their reporting by all media. 21 .     By contrast, Mr Simeonov’s statement, which had not been addressed to any particular person, had not amounted to incitement to discrimination under paragraph 1(5) of the additional provisions of the Protection from Discrimination Act 2003 (see paragraph 50 below). (b)    The separate opinion 22 .     One of the panel’s members wrote a separate opinion in which she expressed disagreement with the reasons given for the decision. According to her, Mr Simeonov’s statements had not targeted the entire Roma ethnic community but only that segment of it which had engaged in attacks against emergency medical personnel. She added that in a democratic society the right to disseminate information concerned not only information which would be received favourably or with indifference, but also information which could offend, shock or disturb a sector of the population or a group of people. Bulgarian society was familiar with Mr Simeonov’s vivid and colourful manner of expression, and with his peculiar choice of words in relation to the topics on which he spoke. There was no doubt that many of the things that he had said could have been put in more moderate and uncontroversial terms, especially bearing in mind the high parliamentary position that he held and the publicity his statements attracted. It was thus necessary to give him instructions about the language that he should use. B.    Judicial review of the Commission’s decision 1.      Proceedings before the Burgas Administrative Court (a)    Course of the proceedings 23 .     Mr Simeonov sought judicial review of the Commission’s decision. 24 .     The applicant made no submissions in reply to Mr Simeonov’s claim. For its part, the Commission argued that it was ill-founded. Neither the applicant nor the Commission appeared or were represented at the hearings before the Burgas Administrative Court. (b)    Judgment of the Burgas Administrative Court 25 .     In March 2018 the Burgas Administrative Court dismissed Mr   Simeonov’s claim (see реш. № 564 от 23.03.2018 г. по адм.   д. №   1786/2017 г., БАС ). 26 .     The court held, in particular, that the Commission had correctly applied the Protection from Discrimination Act 2003. In his speech, Mr   Simeonov had used disparaging language towards Roma. His remarks had been insulting and had debased and dehumanised the Roma community. Since they had concerned not only the specific perpetrators of criminal offences, but also the manner of living and communal habits of the community, they had been capable of creating a hostile environment for all of its members. It had to be accepted that, regardless of the purpose of the statement, it had amounted to discrimination in the form of harassment. For an act to constitute harassment under paragraph 1(1) of the Act’s additional provisions (see paragraph 49 below), the perpetrator did not have to intend to create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment – it was sufficient for the act to be of such a nature as to cause that effect. 27 .     The court went on to say that the Commission had been correct to hold that Mr Simeonov’s statements could not benefit from the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. The fine imposed by the Commission and the directions that it had given had also been correct, and had fully corresponded to the gravity of Mr Simeonov’s act. 28 .     Lastly, the court held that there was no need to deal with Mr   Simeonov’s submission that his statements could not be characterised as incitement to discrimination, since the Commission had already made such a finding. 2.      Proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court (a)    Course of the proceedings 29 .     Mr Simeonov appealed on points of law. 30 .     Mr Simeonov argued, in particular, that it remained unclear how one could harass or discriminate against someone else by way of a public statement without naming that person or having any contact with him or her. Nor was it clear how his speech had actually affected the applicant or his dignity; neither the applicant’s complaint to the Commission nor the Commission’s decision had contained any specific assertions in that regard. The findings of the Commission and of the Burgas Administrative Court on those points had been wholly based on the applicant’s subjective perceptions. Under the decision issued by the Commission and the Burgas Administrative Court, anyone could claim to be the victim of discriminatory harassment from any statement that he or she disliked. 31 .     Mr Simeonov went on to submit that members of parliament did not have to back up their statements with official data, and that their freedom of expression was enshrined in the Constitution, which made them immune from criminal liability for their statements inside Parliament. The statements that they made there could not be characterised as discriminatory harassment. Neither the Commission nor the Burgas Administrative Court had properly explained how they could be viewed in such a way. 32 .     Neither the applicant nor the Commission made submissions in reply   to the appeal. The Supreme Administrative Court heard the appeal in October   2018; neither the applicant nor the Commission appeared or were represented. (b)    Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court 33 .     In January 2019 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the Burgas Administrative Court’s judgment and the Commission’s decision (see реш.   №   636 от 15.01.2019 г. по адм. д. № 7229/2018 г., ВАС, V о. ). 34 .     The court started by noting that discriminatory treatment in the form of harassment was a separate type of discrimination defined in section 5 of the Protection from Discrimination Act 2003 read in conjunction with paragraph 1(1) of the Act’s additional provisions (see paragraphs   48-49 below). The analysis of that definition showed that that type of discrimination consisted of unwanted conduct related to a characteristic protected under section 4(1) of the Act (see paragraph 47 below) and was either intended to cause or had caused negative consequences consisting of the infringement of the dignity of, and the creation of a negative environment for, the target of the harassment, who also had to have a protected characteristic. That was not the case of the applicant. As evident from his complaint to the Commission (see paragraph 10 in fine above), he did not identify with the segment of the Roma population described in Mr   Simeonov’s statements. Those statements had not referred to specific people, and the Protection from Discrimination Act 2003, properly construed, did not concern such statements, relating to undefined groups of people – including when they were members of a specific race, sex, interest group, or a religious, ethnic or other sort of social community. 35 .     It had to be noted in that connection that Mr Simeonov had not intended to cause negative consequences specifically for the applicant. Nor had he infringed the applicant’s dignity or created a negative environment for him. Properly construed, paragraph 1(1) of the Act’s additional provisions (see paragraph 49 below) referred to a specific environment: a business, a workplace, a specific institution, university, school, religious temple, house, and so on. No such environment had been identified with respect to the applicant. The lower court had been incorrect to hold that Mr   Simeonov’s statements had been capable of creating a hostile environment for all those of “Gypsy ethnicity”. 36 .     The court went on to say that by finding that general statements about reprehensible conduct by an ethnic group could provoke negative attitudes towards all its members, the Commission had engaged in “aggressive moralising”. Its finding that the negative stereotyping of the Roma community had created a hostile environment was puzzling. The Commission had thereby impermissibly pitted two ethnic groups against one another, by prohibiting the victims of crime from informing the public (irrespective of the manner in which that had been done) that they had been the victims of crime at the hands of people from another ethnic, religious or other social group. The Commission’s conclusion that Mr Simeonov had misused his freedom of expression could not be accepted either, since he had neither targeted anyone in particular nor sought to stir up hatred. That had been clear from his speech; his manner and style of expression had not been themselves an opinion, but simply the form in which that opinion had been presented, which had been a matter of personal choice. Freedom of expression included the possibility of airing all sorts of opinions, irrespective of whether they were correct, benevolent, agreeable, polite, non-racist, non-xenophobic, and so on. Holding otherwise would amount to censorship, which was impermissible in a democratic State. 37 .     The Commission’s finding that prohibiting discrimination in the form of harassment had amounted to a constitutionally permissible restriction of freedom of expression had been based on an impermissibly extensive interpretation of Article 39 § 2 of the Constitution (see paragraph 42 below). The tension between the anti-discrimination legislation and civil liberties could not be resolved to the detriment of the latter, as that would stray from the aims of that legislation – to ensure equality before the law, equality of treatment and effective protection against discrimination – and transform it into a tool for restricting, suppressing and controlling the right to express one’s opinion. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK I.         BULGARIAN DOMESTIC LAW A.    Constitutional provisions and case-law under those provisions 38 .     The third clause of the preamble to the 1991 Constitution reads: “Elevating to the rank of supreme principle the rights of the human being, [his or her] dignity and security ...” 39 .     Article 4 § 2 of the Constitution states, inter alia , that Bulgaria “guarantees the life, dignity and rights of the individual”. 40 .     Article 6 § 2 of the Constitution provides for equality before the law in the following terms: “All citizens shall be equal before the law. There shall be no restrictions of rights or privileges on grounds of race, nationality, ethnic identity, sex, origin, religion, education, opinions, political affiliations, or personal, social or property status.” 41 .     Article 32 § 1 enshrines the right to protection of one’s private life and dignity in the following terms: “Citizens’ private life shall be inviolable. All shall be entitled to protection against unlawful interference with their private ... life and against infringements of their honour, dignity or good name.” 42 .     Article 39 § 1 provides that everyone is entitled to express an opinion and publicise it through words (whether written or oral), sounds or images, or in any other way. Under Article 39 § 2, that right may not be “exercised to the detriment of the rights and reputation of others, or for incitement to ... enmity or violence against anyone”. 43 .     Article 57 § 2 contains a general limitation clause under the terms of which: “It shall not be permissible to abuse rights or exercise them to the detriment of the rights or legal interests of others.” 44 .     Under Article 69, members of parliament bear no criminal liability for opinions that they have expressed. 45 .     In defamation cases against members of Bulgaria’s Parliament, the Sofia Court of Appeal and the Sofia City Court have expressly held that the   immunity conferred by Article 69 of the Constitution does not extend   to   civil liability (see реш. № 189 от 04.02.2013 г. по в. гр.   д. №   2576/2012   г., САС , appeal on points of law not admitted for examination by опр. № 1124 от 09.10.2013 г. по гр. д. № 4805/2013 г., ВКС, IV   г.   о. , and реш. № 8588 от 16.12.2019 г. по гр. д. № 16536/2018 г., СГС , upheld in its relevant part by реш. № 10098 от 26.01.2021 г. по в. гр.   д. №   584/2020   г., САС , appeal on points of law not admitted for examination by опр. № 60529 от 22.06.2021 г. по гр. д. № 1424/2021 г., ВКС ). The Bulgarian courts have thus allowed claims for damages in respect of statements made by members of Bulgaria’s Parliament from the rostrum (see реш.   № 1614 от 22.03.2011 г. по гр. д. № 12757/2009 г., СГС , upheld by реш.   № 1843 от 22.11.2012 г. по в. гр. д. № 1710/2012 г. , САС , appeal on points of law not admitted for examination by опр. № 1081 от 25.09.2013   г. по гр. д. № 2120/2013 г., ВКС, IV г. о. ). B.    The Protection from Discrimination Act 2003 46 .     The Protection from Discrimination Act was enacted in 2003 and came into force on 1 January 2004. According to the explanatory notes to the Government bill which led to its enactment (no. 202-01-61), it was intended to transpose into Bulgarian law, inter alia , Council Directive   2000/43/EC of   29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (see paragraph 67 below). The Bulgarian Parliament’s Committee for European Integration’s report on the bill, presented at its first reading on 10 July 2003, noted the same thing. 1.      Prohibition of discrimination and harassment (a)    Statutory provisions 47 .     Section 4(1) of the Act prohibits any direct or indirect discrimination on the basis of sex, race, nationality, ethnicity, human genome, citizenship, origin, religion or belief, education, convictions, political affiliation, personal or social status, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, property status, or on any other grounds established by law or by an international treaty to which Bulgaria is party. 48 .     Under section 5, harassment based on any of the grounds listed in section   4(1) – as well as sexual harassment, or incitement to discrimination, persecution and racial segregation – is deemed to constitute discrimination. 49 .     Paragraph 1(1) of the Act’s additional provisions defines “harassment” as any unwanted conduct motivated by the grounds listed in section   4(1) – whether expressed through physical gestures, words or otherwise – that either is intended to infringe or results in the infringement of the dignity of the