CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 mars 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 26 March 2020 Published on 8 June 2020   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 105/14 I.B. against Bulgaria lodged on 20 December 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s conviction under Article 159 (1) of the Criminal Code for the creation for his personal use of three pictures considered pornographic. The pictures showed the naked bodies of two women aged 18 and 20 at the time of the events and were taken with their consent. With a final judgment of 28 June 2013 the Supreme Court of Cassation found the applicant guilty and convicted him to periodical meetings with a probation officer for one year ( пробация ). QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was there a sufficiently clear legal basis for the applicant’s conviction, as required by Article 7   §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the national law at the material time formulated with sufficient precision to enable the applicant to foresee the consequences which the creation of the pictures in question could entail? Was the offence of creation of pornographic material under Article 159 (1) of the Criminal Code clearly defined in the national law? In particular, could Article 159 (1) of the Criminal Code be understood as defining the creation of pornographic material for personal use without the intention of its distribution as an offence? Finally, did the national law as in force at the material time define with sufficient precision what constituted “pornographic material” and which acts amounted to “unlawful” as opposed to lawful creation of such material?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life within the meaning of Article   8   §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2?   3.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression within the meaning of Article   10   §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2?   4.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Articles   7, 8, and 10, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?