CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 20 avril 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   227 20.4.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT RAICHINOV v. BULGARIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Raichinov v. Bulgaria (application no. 47579/99).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 23   euros (EUR) for pecuniary damage, EUR 2,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Hristo Peshev Raichinov, is a 70-year-old Bulgarian national who lives in Sofia. At the relevant time he was head of the Ministry of Justice’s division responsible for financial and logistical support for the judicial system.   On 15 December 1993 the applicant attended a meeting of the Supreme Judicial Council as he usually did when budgetary matters were discussed. The deputy Prosecutor-General, Mr   S., was also present. At some point during the meeting, the applicant said “You have decided to have financial matters dealt with by Mr S. For me he is not a clean person …”. He then added “I can prove this”. The Prosecutor-General, who was at the meeting, immediately requested an inquiry be carried out with a view to opening criminal proceedings against the applicant.   The Sofia District Prosecutor’s Office indicted the applicant and Sofia District Court convicted him of insulting an official in public, finding that the above remark had impinged on Mr S.’s dignity. It sentenced the applicant to a public reprimand and a fine of 3,000 old Bulgarian levs (BLG). The higher courts upheld the conviction and the sentence. Mr S. was not a party to the proceedings and did not file a claim for damages.   The applicant paid the fine but the public reprimand was never enforced because the relevant limitation period had expired.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 8 January 1999 and declared partly admissible on 1 February 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   The applicant complained that he had been convicted for having voiced his personal opinion about the deputy Prosecutor-General and that this was in breach of his right to freedom of expression. He relied on Article 10.     Decision of the Court   The Court noted that the victim of the insult was a high ‑ ranking official and that, while not limitless, the bounds of acceptable criticism geared toward him were wider than in relation to those of a private individual. The Court observed that the applicant’s remark was made in front of a limited audience, at a meeting held behind closed doors and did not pose any threat or hinder Mr S. in the performance of his official duties. The negative impact, if any, of the applicant’s words on Mr S.’s reputation was therefore quite limited.   Furthermore, the Court found that the applicant’s opinion of Mr S. expressed, as it was, during a meeting, could be construed as forming part of a debate on a matter of general concern, which called for enhanced protection under Article 10. It was also noted that the remark was apparently based on material which the applicant offered to produce in corroboration.   Another important factor was that the applicant was not subjected to a civil or a disciplinary sanction, but instead to a criminal penalty. The Court noted that the criminal proceedings against the applicant were instituted on the insistence of Mr   S.’s superior, the Prosecutor ‑ General, and that Mr S. did not participate as a party to them and did not make a claim for non ‑ pecuniary damages against the applicant, as he might have done. In that connection, the Court noted that the relevant provisions of the Bulgarian Criminal Code were later amended and at present provided that insult is privately prosecutable in all cases without exception.   The Court also found that, given that the applicant’s remark was made in the course of an oral exchange and was not made in writing, the reaction of the Prosecutor-General and the ensuing conviction was disproportionate. The Court reiterated that the dominant position which those in power occupy made it necessary for them to display restraint in resorting to criminal proceedings, particularly where other means were available for replying to the unjustified criticisms of their adversaries. The applicant’s resulting sentence, while being in the lower range of the possible penalties, was still a sentence under criminal law, registered in the applicant’s criminal record.   The Court concluded that the restriction on the applicant’s right to freedom of expression failed to answer any pressing social need and could not be considered necessary in a democratic society. There had therefore been a violation of Article 10.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.