CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 mai 2021

.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 }   Published on 17 May 2021   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 56862/15 Zhivko Tonchev TONCHEV and Others against Bulgaria lodged on 11 November 2015 communicated on 2 May 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a complaint, under Article 9 of the Convention, about a breach of the applicants’ freedom of religion as a result of the dissemination of allegedly false and derogatory information concerning the applicants’ religion (Evangelical Christianity) by the municipal authorities to the schools in Burgas municipality. The applicants further complain, under Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 9, that they were victims of discrimination in the enjoyment of their freedom of religion as a result of the dissemination of the information in which they were presented as being “dangerous” in comparison to other religious groups in Bulgaria. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of religion, within the meaning of Article 9 § 1 of the Convention, as a result of the dissemination, in annexes to a letter of 9 April 2008, sent by representatives of the municipality to schools in Burgas, of allegedly derogatory and false information about the applicants’ religion (see Leela Förderkreis e.V. and Others v. Germany , no. 58911/00, § 84, 6 November 2008)? 2.     If so, was that interference prescribed by law, did it pursue a legitimate aim and was it necessary in terms of Article 9 § 2 of the Convention? 3.     In their exercise of the freedoms protected under Article 9 of the Convention, were the applicants victims of discrimination in relation to their religion, in breach of Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 9?