This document summarizes a case handled by the Commission for Protection Against Discrimination in Bulgaria. The case involved statements made by the Mayor of Ovcha Kupel district on a radio broadcast opposing a proposal to temporarily house 150 Roma families in the neighborhood. The Mayor's statements compared Romas to cows and dung and claimed they were incapable of living civilly with others. This prompted a discrimination complaint. The equality body investigated, held public hearings, and ultimately ruled the Mayor's statements constituted harassment on the basis of ethnicity and violated anti-discrimination laws. The Mayor was fined and instructed to apologize. The decision was upheld on appeal. The case established precedents for the equality body to rely on constitutional protections and international law

1. EQUINETLegal Training
CONFLICTS BETWEEN THERIGHTTO
EQUALTREATMENT
ANDOTHERFUNDAMENTALRIGHTS
12-13September2011, Vienna(Austria)
29.10.15
1

2. Interethnic Initiative fo r Human Rights Fo undatio n versus
Plamen Yo rdano v, Mayo r o f district Ovcha Kupelwithin
Metro po litan Municipality
1. TheFacts
2.The actionstaken by theequality body
3. Thedecision of theequality body/ court
4. Lessonslearnt
5. Useful
29.10.15
2
COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION , BULGARIA

3. І.The facts
1. Architect-in-Chief’s proposal – temporarily to settle 150
Romafamiliesin OvchaKupel neighbourhood
2. Impact of proposal on neighbourhood’s inhabitants ( they
don’t wish to haveRomaquarter)
3. On 14.11.2006 Darik Radio broadcasted news devoted on
thisproposal
 pieceof interview presenting theopinion of District’ Mayor
Plamen Yordanov
 coverageon general feeling of that sameneighbourhood’s
inhabitants
 pieceof interviews of Romapeople (target group)
expressing their hopesand expectations
29.10.15
3
COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION , BULGARIA

4. І.The facts
4. The statement of District’s Mayor – opposed the idea to build
temporary housesfor Romapeoplein that neighborhood
comparing Romas with cows and dung-hill (Ro ma settlement in
pro ximity to a neighbo rho o d is mo re dangero us than a dung-
hill; co ws will be a lesser challenge than a Gypsy quarter )
 linked their settlement to an invasion and to growth of
criminality
 Roma people are not capable to cohabit together with the rest
population(civilization) becauseof the lack of elementary habits
29.10.15
4

5. І.The fact
Full text of Mayor’sopinion broadcasted by radio: “ Isuppo rt the citizens o f
Ovcha Kupelneighbo urho o d. Istro ngly o ppo se the idea to co nstruct ho mes fo r 1 20 Ro ma
o n the territo ry o f Ovcha Kupelneighbo urho o d, because in 6 mo nths o r less, tho se 1 20 Ro ma
families willso ar in number. Their relatives, friends and acquaintances fro m allo ver
Bulgaria willco me here. Co nflicts between Bulgarians and Ro ma willescalate . Yo u are a
criminalrepo rter, so let me tellyo u that if that idea beco mes fact, yo u willhave do zens o f
cases to co ver here... The co ws in this district are by far harmless than a Gypsy settlement. I
am so rry … but do n’ t yo u see what willhappen there o nly within half an year? … Ido n’ t
mind Ro ma. They have to cultivate gradually, to gain the usualhabits o f civilized citizens; but
in the meanwhile, they canno t live amo ng citizens because o ther peo ple willsuffer o f their
lack o f elementary habits. Such a Ro ma settlement is a do zen times mo re dangero us fo r the
residentialarea than a dung-hill. Ro ma willswarm the area, they willro b the quarter.
Residents willstart selling o ut their apartments. Each do o r willbe bro ken, each basement
and every cellar willbe ro bbed. It willbe an invasio n.”
29.10.15
5

6. ІІ. The actionstaken by theequality body
5. Interethnic Initiative for Human Rights Foundation filed a
signal to the CPD ( equality body) alleging that Mayor’s
opinion expressed in Radio interview constitutes
discrimination – ethnic based harassment and incitement to
discrimination.
6.According to Foundation’s signal CPD started a proceeding
against District’sMayor Yordanov
 Investigation of thecase
 Public hearings
 Delivering of legal binding decision
29.10.15
6

7. ІІ. The actionstaken by theequality body
7.Investigation of thecase
 TheCPD delivered thesignal to the Mayor and asked for his written
explanation and position regarding Foundation’s accusation of
discrimination.
 Collecting of needed evidences – a record of broadcasted
transmission (incl. Mayor’sstatement)
 The radio’s management refused to deliver asked records relying on
expiration of keeping term - Radio operator’s obligation to save
records of aired transmissionsislimited to 3 months.
 The record was available on the radio operator’s website – CPD
downloaded it , but the radio’s management didn’t verify its
authenticity.
29.10.15
7

8. ІІ. The actionstaken by theequality body
8.Public hearings
8.1. Defendant’sobjections
 to exclude therecord downloaded from theweb siteof radio because
of itsquestionableauthenticity
 interview wasnot broadcasted in itstotality and fullness
 he had nothing against Roma and his belief was that the way for
socialization of Roma community with the rest citizens should start
with initial adaptation.
nonedemandson evidences
 thesignal isunfounded - to bedismissed
29.10.15
8

9. ІІ. The actionstaken by theequality body
8.2. Claimant’sposition
statementsconstitutediscrimination- harassment and incitement to
discrimination against peopleof Romaorigin
put in CD containing record of radio transmission (prepared by
radio management at request of other NGO in 3 monthstimeframe)
incl. aletter signed by theradio manager ; invoice and receipt for
record’spreparing,
 request for interrogation of witnesses- peopleof Romaorigin
regarding their perceptionsand feelingsin result of Mayor’sstatement
8.3. Defendant disputed theletter of radio manager regarding his
signature( it isnot signed by radio manager).
29.10.15
9

10. ІІ. The actionstaken by theequality body
8.4. Collecting evidenceduring public hearings
Witnesses( peoplefrom Romaorigin and journalist who produced
interviewsand coveragein question )
Expert’sreport on radio manager’ssignature– signatureisreal
 View of radio transmission’saudio record
29.10.15
10

11. III.Thedecision of theequality body/ court
9. Statement and its context hurt personal dignity and create
offending environment on the ground of ethnic origin ( the meaning
of words used was very clear, no doubts on their potential and real
humiliating nature, generalization of whole community - criminals
incapableto liveamongst civilization).
 Constitute harassment on theground of ethnicity
10.Reasoning
 Freedom of expression - guaranteed right by virtue of Art. 39,
§1 of theConstitution
 Art. 39, §2 and Art. 57, § 2 of the Constitution - don’t allow to
abuse ( misuse) rights, nor detriment of the rights or the legitimate
interestsof others( only defined in theConstitution)
29.10.15
11

12. III.Thedecision of theequality
body/ court
 The right on freedom of expression has constitutional limits - ban
for exercising contrary to othersrights
 The aimsof limits- to provide protection of competing interest and
right of equally importanceand constitutionally protected
 Human dignity and right to equality - protected similarly by the
Constitution and International Treaties whereto Bulgaria is a party
– Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
 Those International Treaties oblige State Parties to guarantee and
ensuretheexercising of thoserecognized rights.
29.10.15
12

13. III.Thedecision of theequality body/ court
 Ban of discrimination (Art. 6, § 2 of the Constitution and Art. 4, § 1
of PfDA) - part of the legal guarantees ensuring the protection of
human dignity.
 The ban of discrimination (in the form of harassment) impairing
human honour and dignity constitutessuch restriction of the right to
freedom of expression and opinion, permitted by theConstitution.
 Judgment № 7 dated 04.06.1996 of the Constitutional Court on
Constitutional case № 1/1996/ - interprets constitutional provisions
regarding freedom of expression and its limits : Restrictio ns o n
statements that co nstitute incitement to ho stility is based o n the
fundamental values laid do wn in the Co nstitutio n, such as
to lerance, mutual respect and pro hibitio n to incite to hatred o n
racial, natio nal, ethnic o r religio us gro und.
29.10.15
13

14. III.Thedecision of theequality body/ court
11. OperativePart of decision
 Violation of discrimination ban –harassment
 ImposesFine amounting to BGN 1000 ( 500 Euros)
 InstructsMayor to voicehisapology in theair of Darik Radio for
hisdiscriminatory statements
 InstructsMayor to publish in Troud Daily theoperativepart of this
decision.
 refrain from similar statementsin future
29.10.15
14

15. III.Thedecision of theequality body/ court
12. Appeal proceedingsin SupremeadministrativeCourt
 Thelitigation of district’sMayor against equality body’sdecision
wasunsuccessful .
 2 levels of jurisdiction within Supremeadministrativecourt shared
conclusionsof theequality body – TheMayor hastheright to
expresshisopinion on thisissueof local governanceimportance,
but it doesn’t allow to do it humiliating and impairing others
human dignity and honour.
29.10.15
15

16. IV. Lessonslearnt
The first CPD’s successful case on hate speech based on ethnicity
Conclusions :
To ground decision’s reasoning on constitutional provisions,
international treaties and jurisprudence
To take use of international soft law
29.10.15
16

17. V. Useful
Council of Europe, Committeeof Ministers
 Recommendation (97)20 on HateSpeech
 Recommendation(97)21 on themediaand thepromotion of a
cultureof tolerance
ECRI
 General policy recommendation N6 Combating the dissemination
of racist, xenophobic and antisemitic material viatheInternet
ECRI Declaration on the use of racist, antisemitic and xenophobic
elements in political discourse
(adopted on 17 March 2005)
29.10.15
17

18.  Committeeon theElimination of Racial Discrimination(CERD),
UN
Convention on theElimination of All Formsof Racial Discrimination
General Reco mmendatio n No . 1 5: Organized vio lence based o n ethnic
o rigin (Art. 4)
General Reco mmendatio n No . 27 : Discriminatio n against Ro ma
General Reco mmendatio n No . 29: Article 1 , paragraph 1
CERD’sCaselaw
Opinion - Communication No. 43/2008
Opinion - Communication No. 34/2004
29.10.15
18

19.  Human Rights Committee, UN
General Comments10 and 11
 Council of European union
Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28В November
2008 on combating certain formsand expressionsof racism and
xenophobiaby meansof criminal law (in fo rce fro m 06/1 2/2008 ,
L OJ. 328 /6 Dec 2008 )
 ECJcase Mesopotamia Broadcast A/S METV Roj TV A/Sи
Bundesrepublik Deutschland - – 244/10 ; –срещу С С
245/10
Art 22 a Directive 97/36 ( ethnic toleranceand mutual
understanding in media-TV) preliminary ruling to bedelivered
29.10.15
19

20. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!
Esen Fikri, Commissioner, CPD, Bulgaria,
kzd@kzd.bg
e.fikri@kzd.bg
esen_fikri@abv.bg
29.10.15
20