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

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s1DE56E2F { width:7pt; 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 } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s6F863F49 { width:6.51pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .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 } .sA79CBE53 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 BUDINOVA AND ISAEV v. BULGARIA (Application no. 60342/19)       JUDGMENT   Art 14 (+ Art 8) • Discrimination • Positive obligations • Private life • Domestic civil courts’ failure to secure compliance with positive obligation to afford redress to Roma applicants 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 engage in a balancing exercise between competing rights at stake   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 applicants B.   Mr Valeri Simeonov II.   MR SIMEONOV’S STATEMENTS AT ISSUE IN THE CASE A.   Speech on 17 December 2014 B.   Speech on 11 March 2015 III.   PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE PROTECTION FROM DISCRIMINATION ACT 2003 A.   Before the Burgas District Court 1.   Course of the proceedings 2.   Judgment of the Burgas District Court 3.   Supplementing judgment of the Burgas District Court B.   Before the Burgas Regional Court 1.   Course of the proceedings 2.   Judgment of the Burgas Regional Court C.   Before the Supreme Court of Cassation 1.   Course of the proceedings 2.   Judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation 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.   Exhaustion of domestic remedies (a)   The parties’ submissions (i)   The Government (ii)   The applicants (b)   The Court’s assessment (i)   First limb of the Government’s objection (ii)   Second limb of the Government’s objection 4.   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.   ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 AND 14 OF THE CONVENTION III.   APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Pecuniary damage 1.   The applicants’ claim and the Government’s comment on it 2.   The Court’s assessment B.   Non-pecuniary damage C.   Costs and expenses 1.   The applicants’ claims 2.   The Government’s comments on the claims 3.   The Court’s assessment (a)   General points (b)   Domestic costs and expenses (c)   Costs and expenses in the proceedings before the Court OPERATIVE PROVISIONS   In the case of Budinova and Isaev 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. 60342/19) 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 two Bulgarian nationals, Ms Kremena Goshova Budinova and Mr Ognyan Isaev Isaev (“the applicants”), on 8 November 2019; the decision to (a) give the Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) notice of the complaints (i) under Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention that the courts had dismissed the applicants’ claim under the anti-discrimination legislation against a politician in relation to statements that he had made about Roma in Bulgaria, and (ii) under Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention that the courts had given racist reasons for dismissing that claim; and (b) declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the decision to conduct the proceedings in the case simultaneously with those in Asen Asenov v. Bulgaria (no. 38741/19); the observations by the respondent Government and the observations in reply by the applicants; 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 two applicants, both Roma rights activists, brought a civil claim under the anti-discrimination legislation against a politician in relation to   statements about Roma that he had made in Bulgaria’s Parliament. The first-instance court partly allowed the claim, finding that parts of the politician’s speeches had constituted harassment towards the applicants, but that ruling was overturned by the appellate court, whose judgment was in turn upheld by the Supreme Court of Cassation. The main issue before the Court is whether the way in which Bulgaria’s civil courts dealt with the case was in line with Bulgaria’s positive obligations under Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2.     The two applicants were born in 1970 and 1986 respectively and live, respectively, in Sofia and the village of Varbitsa, the Shumen Region. Both of them were represented by Ms I. Savova, a lawyer practising in Sofia. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms B. Simeonova of the Ministry of Justice. I.         BACKGROUND A.    The applicants 4.     The two applicants are of Roma ethnic origin; both are freelance journalists and Roma rights activists. 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 applicants described as ultra-nationalist; Mr Simeonov was one of the main founders of that party. At 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 which the applicants described as conservative-nationalist. [2] II.       M r SIMEONOV’S STATEMENTS AT ISSUE IN THE CASE A.    Speech on 17 December 2014 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.” B.    Speech on 11 March 2015 10 .     At the beginning of the plenary sitting of the Bulgarian Parliament on 11   March 2015, again before it could proceed with its agenda for the day, Mr   Simeonov, speaking from the rostrum, made another speech on behalf of his parliamentary group (see paragraph 5 in fine above). 11 .     Mr Simeonov began by reminding parliament of a terrorist bombing which had occurred in March 1985, when militants from a pro-Turkish separatist movement had detonated a device on a train, killing seven people and injuring nine. He then listed other bombing and sabotage attempts carried out by the same movement between 1983 and 1985, emphasising that the targets had been ordinary civilians and asserting that the attacks had sought to fuel fear and ethnic hostility in Bulgaria. He then recounted how, with private donations, he and his television company (see paragraph 7 above) had helped erect a memorial for the victims of the bombing and noted that at the commemoration of its most recent anniversary in March 2015 almost all political parties, with the notable exception of the Movement for Rights and Freedoms, had paid their respects to the victims. By contrast, that party had once celebrated an unlawful monument glorifying the convicted bombers, thus – as Mr Simeonov framed it – continuing the terrorists’ real mission of sowing fear, hatred and ethnic confrontation, and of dividing Bulgarian society in the service of a foreign State. Mr Simeonov’s speech continued with the following: “Today, the majority of Bulgarian Muslims already see the true colours of [the Movement for Rights and Freedoms]; they experience first-hand the lawlessness, feudalism and mafia-style dependencies it fosters. For this reason, [Movement for Rights and Freedoms] emissaries have turned to influencing and isolating another minority – the Roma – aiming to set them against the State, the laws, society and the rest of Bulgaria’s citizens. You will recall the stormy reaction caused by the declaration that I read here on   17   December 2014 on behalf of the Patriotic Front. In it, I stated that [the Movement for Rights and Freedoms] had usurped the right of the sole representative of the Gypsy ethnic group, promising them only privileges, without any obligations. A part, I repeat, a part of the people from this ethnic group, a part who 25 years ago were working, were sending their children to school, were contributing to the creation of public good, have now turned into impudent, arrogant and brutalised humanoids, ready to kill in order to rob a few [Bulgarian] levs. We were accused of xenophobia, racism and all sorts of other drivel because we told   the truth and defended a worthy Bulgarian minister. The strong united forces   of   sorosoids, Helsinki mafia, third-rate [Movement for Rights and Freedoms] State security informants howled to the high heavens, but I would nevertheless repeat that Bulgaria is facing the abyss of an ethnic crisis – two opposing mutually exclusive worlds are facing each other in our tormented homeland. Now, two months later, the attacks on medical teams in Gypsy neighbourhoods have not stopped, the robberies and beatings of lonely retired people are commonplace, but Bulgarian society, even though half-asleep from psalms about tolerance, erupted against the brutal murders, committed in recent days, of the 64-year-old [S.I.] from [P.] and the   23-year-old [V.Z.], brutally murdered in [V.T.], in order to have 25 [Bulgarian] levs stolen from her. At the same time, the defenders of European values were wailing all over the media about a [Movement for Rights and Freedoms] sport-utility vehicle being set on fire, and MPs from that unconstitutional party in [B.] tried to portray a fight between pupils in a school as discrimination and racism. Why, dear guarantors of the ethnic peace, do you not go to [V.T.] and [P.] to give a lecture against xenophobia and racism against Bulgarians? In autumn, will you still be explaining to the semi-literate voters that they have rights and only rights in the Bulgarian State, and that everyone is obliged to pay for their electricity, water, taxes, social benefits and child benefits, and support the children that they have given birth to and have irresponsibly abandoned? Will you still fan the flames of ethnic division and opposition, and enjoy the clashes of protesters with the police, as happened in [K.]? Do you not understand that the political sabotage that you are carrying out has given rise to mass popular discontent and has led to your complete political isolation? Quit playing the ethnic card! The ethnic groups in the Bulgarian State do not need intermediaries. Bulgarian society is mature enough to solve its problems without your insidious interference. I know that the first nonsense that [the Movement for Rights and Freedoms] will spread is that the Patriotic Front is trying to exploit the situation, but, unlike your MPs, who are stirring up hatred out of a simple clash of pupils in [B.], we did not go to [P.] or [V.T.]. We are here, and we do not pretend that we do not see the serious problems in Bulgarian society. On the contrary – that is why we are MPs: to protect the people and find solutions to the problems. In this regard, the Patriotic Front will insist on a public register of these 700, or I do not know how many more, convicted persons still at large who are wandering around Bulgaria. We will insist on the tightening of pre-trial detention measures in the Code of Criminal Procedure in the spirit of those proposed by the Chief Prosecutor. We will insist on the pre-arrangement of the discussion on life imprisonment without parole and, last but not least, in response to the people’s demands – we will demand a broad public discussion about the death penalty. Thank you for your attention. Long live Bulgaria!” III.     PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE PROTECTION FROM DISCRIMINATION ACT 2003 A.    Before the Burgas District Court 1.      Course of the proceedings 12 .     In April 2016 the applicants brought a claim against Mr   Simeonov under section 71(1) of the Protection from Discrimination Act 2003 (see paragraph 71 below). They alleged that parts of his two speeches (see paragraphs 8-11 above) had amounted to racist expression and had been intended to negatively stereotype the Roma community and stir up fear of and hatred towards it. The speeches had thus constituted both harassment and incitement to discrimination – as defined in, respectively, paragraph 1(1) and paragraph 1(5) of the Act’s additional provisions (see paragraphs   56-57 below) – towards them as members of that community. They urged the court to enjoin Mr Simeonov to refrain from such statements in the future. In support of their claim, the applicants relied on, inter alia , Articles 8 and   14 of the Convention. 13 .     In response, Mr Simeonov observed that he had never had personal contact with the applicants. He argued, in particular, that, as could be seen from a proper reading of his speeches as a whole (rather than of isolated passages in them), he had not sought to argue that Roma were criminals, or to ascribe certain characteristics to all Roma, but only to specific groups of people who had engaged in crime. Nor had he called for discrimination against Roma. He had simply aired his views on issues of public concern, in his capacity as a member of Parliament, and had not targeted anyone in particular. The applicants had mischaracterised his statements based on their own skewed and subjective perceptions of them. There was no allegation or evidence that his statements had affected them in a tangible way. 14 .     The Burgas District Court heard the case in April, May and July   2017. 2.      Judgment of the Burgas District Court 15 .     In July 2017 the Burgas District Court partly dismissed and partly allowed the applicants’ claim. It found that only parts of Mr   Simeonov’s speeches had amounted to harassment and thus to discrimination, and enjoined him to refrain from such conduct in the future (see реш.   №   1151 от   31.07.2017 г. по гр. д. № 7094/2016 г., БРС ). 16 .     In the court’s view, the parts of the speeches which had amounted to harassment under paragraph 1(1) of the additional provisions of the Protection from Discrimination Act 2003 (see paragraph 56 below) were: ( a )     in the first speech (see paragraph 8 above), (i) the passage starting with the phrase “It is indisputable that a large part of the Gypsy ethnic group   ...” and ending with the phrase “... drunk beyond recognition after receiving monthly child and social benefits”, and (ii) the passage starting with the phrase “Why have the people who during the time of socialism ...” and ending with the phrase “... everyone is obliged to feed, clothe and give them medical treatment for free”; and ( b )     in the second speech (see paragraph 11 above), the passage starting with the phrase “In it, I stated that [the Movement for Rights and Freedoms] had usurped the right of the sole representative ...” and ending with the phrase   “... ready to kill in order to rob a few [Bulgarian] levs”. 17 .     According to the court, those passages had infringed human dignity and had created an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. Even though they had not concerned the entire Roma community, any person of Roma ethnic origin could have felt affected by them. The preamble to the Bulgarian Constitution (see paragraph 45 below) and many international instruments elevated human dignity to a “supreme principle”, and the prohibition against discrimination was one of the means to ensure the protection of that dignity. 18 .     By contrast, the parts of the speeches in which Mr Simeonov had referred to specific offences had not amounted to harassment or incitement to discrimination. In them, he had just cited facts already reported in the media and had aired his views about them. Seen as a whole, those passages had merely sought to bring to light a serious social problem and express Mr   Simeonov’s position about it. 3.      Supplementing judgment of the Burgas District Court 19 .     In November 2017 the applicants alerted the Burgas District Court that it had not ruled on their assertion that Mr Simeonov’s statements had amounted to incitement to discrimination under paragraph 1(5) of the additional provisions of the Protection from Discrimination Act 2003 (see paragraph   12 above and paragraph 57 below), and asked it to supplement its judgment. 20 .     In December 2017 the Burgas District Court acknowledged that it had failed to rule on that claim and supplemented its judgment. In its supplementing judgment, it examined again the passages which it had seen as harassment (see paragraph 16 above), and found that they could not additionally be seen as incitement to discrimination, since they had not amounted to direct and wilful encouragement, instructions or pressure to practise discrimination. The fact that they had been made by a member of parliament from the rostrum of Parliament and had been widely covered by the media could not alter that conclusion. On that basis, the court dismissed that claim (see реш. № 2021 от 11.12.2017 г. по гр. д. №   7094/2016   г., БРС ). B.    Before the Burgas Regional Court 1.      Course of the proceedings 21 .     Both the applicants and Mr Simeonov appealed against the July   2017 judgment of the Burgas District Court (see paragraphs 15-18 above). 22 .     The applicants argued that the parts of the speeches referring to specific offences could not be seen as a neutral analysis. On the contrary, they had contained many extreme qualifications, and had been meant to manipulate the public and to pit Bulgarians and Roma against one another. The Burgas District Court had artificially isolated those passages from the remainder of the speeches. It had also failed to engage with the applicants’ Convention-based arguments, and had erred by not finding that the statements had amounted to incitement to discrimination as well. 23 .     Mr Simeonov reiterated the points that he had made before the Burgas District Court (see paragraph 13 above). He also argued that that court had failed to properly explain the basis for its conclusions about the passages which it had seen as harassment, and for analysing them differently from the remainder of his speeches, which the court had considered inoffensive. For Mr   Simeonov, his speeches as a whole had amounted to a proper exercise of his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention. The court had not been decisive about how they had been subjectively perceived by the applicants. 24 .     When the Burgas District Court gave its supplementing judgment (see paragraph   20 above), the applicants appealed against it as well, referring to the arguments in their initial appeal (see paragraph 22 above). 25 .     In his response to the applicants’ appeal, Mr Simeonov argued that, in particular, this Court’s case-law under Article 10 of the Convention made it clear that the applicants’ claim should be dismissed. 26.     In March 2018 the Burgas Regional Court joined the appeals against the initial judgment and the supplementing one. It heard the case in April   2018. 2.      Judgment of the Burgas Regional Court 27 .     In May 2018 the Burgas Regional Court overturned the lower court’s decision to allow part of the applicants’ claim and upheld its decision to dismiss the other part (see реш. № 390 от 18.05.2018 г. по в. гр.   д. №   280/2018 г., БОС ). 28 .     The court held that Mr Simeonov’s speeches, taken as a whole and read in their proper context, had not amounted to incitement to discrimination. He had not engaged in such incitement in any shape or form, and emphasised that his remarks had only concerned part of the Roma community – the part suffering from serious social problems. It was true that he had resorted to an overly expressive style to describe those problems. However, he had not ascribed them to some innate criminal proclivity of the Roma community or part of it, but to the governmental policies. He had contrasted the current social situation of that part of the Roma community with its situation in the past, which he had assessed positively. He had analysed certain events and facts, but there was no evidence that he had done so with a view to inciting discrimination against the Roma. 29 .     The court also analysed in some detail paragraph 1(1) of the additional provisions of the Protection from Discrimination Act 2003 (see paragraph   56 below). It observed that harassment under that provision could take two forms: (a) conduct undertaken with the direct aim and special intention of infringing someone’s dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment (a form that the court branded “formal harassment”), and (b) conduct which in fact resulted both in such an infringement of dignity and in the creation of such an environment (a form that the court branded “result harassment”). The court emphasised that both of those elements – infringement of dignity and the creation of a negative environment – needed to be present. 30 .     On that basis, the court agreed with the lower court that the parts of the speeches in which Mr Simeonov had referred to specific offences had not amounted to harassment (see paragraph 18 above). As regards “formal harassment”, there was no evidence that he had intended to harass Roma or create a negative environment for them. The content of those passages did not in itself suggest such an intent. He had not linked all Roma to the offences which he had described, or opined that all Roma had criminal proclivities. On the contrary, he had emphasised their social problems and the responsibility of recent governments and certain political parties for those. As for “result harassment”, it could be accepted that the applicants’ dignity had been infringed by the expressions “brutish mob of Gypsies” and “part of that ethnic group – the part that breaks the law, kills, rapes, steals”, which they had, by their own assertions, seen as humiliating for all Roma and them personally. However, the applicants had not produced evidence, even non-conclusive, that those phrases had created an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for Roma and them in particular. The media publications to which they had referred had not described negative social views engendered by the speeches. 31 .     The same, however, applied to the parts of the speeches which the lower court had seen as harassment (see paragraphs 16-17 above), under the form of “result harassment”. It was true that the comparisons and labels used by Mr Simeonov could be viewed as insulting and as thus having infringed the applicants’ dignity. But the applicants had not produced evidence that those statements had caused the environment in which they lived, socialised, worked or rested to turn negative for Roma or them in particular. The media publications to which they had referred had not described negative social views engendered by the statements. The mere content of the statements could not lead to a presumption that that environment had worsened, as incorrectly accepted by the lower court. 32 .     Those parts of the speeches had not amounted to “formal harassment” either. Despite Mr Simeonov’s style of expression, it could not be accepted that he had intended to harass Roma or create a negative environment for all of them or the applicants in particular. The purpose of his speeches had been different: to outline the deep social and everyday problems of part of the Roma community and point to the reasons for that situation. The content of the speeches did not permit a conclusion that Mr Simeonov had sought to persuade his listeners that all Roma were as described on account of their ethnic origin, or that he had wished to insult or humiliate them, or to provoke a negative social reaction against them. On the contrary, he had attributed the current situation of part of the Roma community solely to the way in which the country had been governed during the past two and a half decades and the faulty influence and practices of certain political parties. C.    Before the Supreme Court of Cassation 1.      Course of the proceedings 33 .     The applicants appealed on points of law. 34 .     The applicants argued that their appeal ought to be admitted for examination because the way in which the Burgas Regional Court had approached the case had raised two points of law which the Supreme Court of Cassation had not had the opportunity to address: ( a ) whether, if a court had established that unwanted conduct based on a protected characteristic had infringed someone’s dignity, that person also had to show that the conduct had created an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for him or her, and ( b ) if such further evidence was required, what did it have to consist of. The applicants went on to say that the appeal ought to be admitted for examination because the Burgas Regional Court’s judgment was manifestly erroneous. 35 .     On the merits, the applicants submitted that by expecting them to adduce further evidence about their specific environment in relation to their allegations of harassment, the Burgas Regional Court had disregarded the manner in which hostile speech really worked and had rendered the legal protection against it ineffective. But even if that court’s position was to be taken as correct, the applicants had produced such evidence, in the form of anti-Roma internet comments sparked by Mr Simeonov’s statements which they had enclosed with their statement of claim. Those comments clearly showed that his statements had created an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for all Roma and for them in particular. The Burgas Regional Court had disregarded those comments. 36 .     The Burgas Regional Court had also erred by refusing to accept that Mr   Simeonov’s comments had amounted to incitement to discrimination. Its ruling had been inconsistent with that of the Supreme Administrative Court in a similar case relating to homophobic statements. It was irrelevant that Mr   Simeonov had pointed to the reasons for the difficult social situation of Roma and spoken positively about their past conduct. His extreme choice of words had vilified them, had portrayed them as disgusting and dangerous, and had directly encouraged the existing negative attitudes towards them. That had been evident from the very terms of his statements. 37 .     In his response to the merits of the applicants’ appeal, Mr   Simeonov essentially reiterated the points that he had made earlier in the proceedings (see paragraphs 13, 23 and 25 above). 38 .     In January 2019, the Supreme Court of Cassation admitted the applicants’ appeal for examination only in so far as it related to the concept of harassment within the meaning of paragraph 1(1) of the additional provisions of the Protection from Discrimination Act 2003 (see paragraph   56 below). It noted that the applicants had not formulated any questions in relation to the concept of incitement to discrimination (see paragraph   57 below), which meant that that aspect of their appeal could not be admitted for examination (see опр. № 21 от 09.01.2019 г. по гр. д. №   3203/2018 г., ВКС, III   г.   о. ). 39 .     The Supreme Court of Cassation heard the case in March 2019. At the hearing, the applicants asked it to make a prelimi