4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Silistra.
5.  In 2003 an individual installed a printing company in a building situated in close proximity to the building where the applicant was living with his family. Shortly after the printing company began operating, the applicant and his family started resenting the nuisance it was causing. In particular, they found the constant smell of ink and solvents intolerable; also, they were continuously disturbed by the vibrations caused by the printing machines, which reverberated through the walls of their dwelling. Moreover, as time went by, the applicant’s young daughter developed an allergy, which the applicant believed was due to the chemicals used in the printing process and had to take daily medication to keep it under control.
6.  Between July 2006 and August 2007, the applicant turned to several State institutions, including regional branches of the hygiene and epidemiological inspectorate, the public health directorate at the Ministry for Health, the regional building inspectorate, the mayor of Silistra and the prosecution service. He complained to them in writing about the nuisance caused by the printing company. He claimed that the latter was operating contrary to a number of legal requirements found in different ministerial regulations. He also asked the authorities for help in forcing the printing company to cease its operations.
7.  More specifically, the chronology of his correspondence with the authorities can be traced as follows.
8.  On 15 August 2006, the director of the regional agency for public health (Регионална инспекция за опазване и контрол на общественото здраве – hereafter “the public health agency”) informed the applicant that on 10 August 2006 two junior inspectors from the agency had visited the printing company in question. He did so in a brief one-paragraph letter in reply to a complaint made by the applicant on 31 July 2006. The inspectors had established during that visit that two printing machines (without specifying their type, power or capacity) were operating at that time in the printing company and that this number was in line with the requirements set out in Regulation No. 7 of 1992 of the Ministry for Health. The letter invited the applicant to propose a day and time for the measuring of the noise generated by the printing company.
9.  Two days later, on 17 August 2006, the applicant together with three of his neighbours complained in writing to the public health directorate at the Ministry for Health that the printing company was operating in contravention of relevant legal requirements. On 22 August 2006, the applicant and the same three neighbours wrote again to the same directorate expressing concern about and dissatisfaction with the manner in which the measurements in respect of noise and air pollution had been taken on 18 August 2006. In particular, two individuals who had not shown any credentials had turned up and measured the noise with a machine which had not reacted to sudden high-pitched noises but was set up to measure only background noise. Furthermore, when the applicant had invited the inspectors to also measure the purity of the air, one of them had opened the window, sniffed the air and stated that it was not that bad and that, in all likelihood, it would turn out to be within the relevant norms when measured. The applicant further stressed in the letter that the printing company was operating in close proximity to inhabited dwellings, whereas according to the relevant regulations this was prohibited within less than 50 metres of such buildings.
10.  The applicant and his three neighbours also wrote to the building inspectorate on 23 August 2006, complaining that the printing company’ premises had been built in contravention of the relevant construction norms.
11.  On 25 August 2006 the Ministry for Health wrote to the public health agency, asking that a check be carried out and the applicant informed of the results accordingly. On 29 August 2006 the Ministry for Health issued an instruction to the owner of the printing company, inviting him to bring the noise levels generated by his business within the limits stipulated in the relevant regulations.
12.  On 30 August 2006, apparently in reply to the applicant’s letter of complaint of 31 July 2006, the head of the public health agency informed the applicant that: the chemical agents identified at the work stations at the printing company in question were within the limits listed in Regulation No. 13 of 2003 for the protection of individuals exposed to chemical agents at their work station; the noise reaching the applicant’s home when the windows were open, as well as the dwelling of one of his neighbours, was not in conformity with the requirements of Regulation No. 6 of 2006; and that instructions had been issued to the owner of the printing company to ensure that the noise levels produced by his business were brought within the legal limits.
13.  On 5 October 2006 a representative of the Ministry for Health wrote to the applicant informing him that staff from the public health agency had carried out two checks at the printing company; neither the dates of those checks, nor any further details about them were mentioned. The letter then read that on 18 August 2006 officials had measured the reverberating noise and the chemical agents produced at the printing company. As the noise levels had been found to be beyond the legal limits, the owner had been instructed to lower them by 29 October 2006.
14.  On 27 October 2006 the applicant and his three neighbours wrote to the Ministry for Health, expressing their dissatisfaction with the reply they had received on 5 October 2006. They reiterated that the printing company was surrounded on three sides by inhabited dwellings, in which a number of small children lived. They referred to point 393 of Regulation No. 7 of 1992, which prohibited the installation of printing houses less than 50 metres from inhabited buildings and to the fact that the owner of the printing company had not obtained an agreement from any of his neighbours for installing his business at that location. They pointed out too that the noise levels had not been lowered, contrary to the authorities’ instructions, and stressed that the record which they had signed on the day when the noise measurements had been taken had indicated 58 decibels (dB) and not 38 as stated in the record included in the file. They asked once again that the authorities order the printing company to cease its operations on the ground that they were in breach of point 393 of Regulation No. 7 of 1992.
15.  On 20 August 2007 the applicant and four of his neighbours wrote to the regional inspectorate for the environment and water in Ruse (Регионална инспекция за околната среда и водите). They stated that, although the printing company had been apparently functioning on the basis of a lawful permit since 2003, given that it was located in a densely populated area, in their opinion, this was inappropriate. The letter then listed the exact name of the machines operating at the printing company and the type of ink used. The applicant and his neighbours further pointed out that, according to Regulation No. 7 of 1992 of the Ministry for Health, printing houses had to be located at least 50 metres from inhabited dwellings and that the printing company in question was joined on three sides to the complainants’ dwellings. The printing business in question had been formally registered as “a workshop for printing services with up to two work stations” and not as a “printing house”; in this way it had successfully circumvented the legal requirements applicable to printing houses, despite the fact that the notice exhibited at its entrance read “printing house” (печатница).
16.  The letter further stated that in reality, for a number of consecutive years, more than two people had been working at the printing house at any given time. The applicant and his neighbours had learned from the staff that no antidote was being given to them; this was obligatory as protection against carcinogens present in printing inks and solvents used to clean the machines (up to ten times a day on a busy day). The authors of the letter then wondered whether they as well as the people living in the immediate vicinity of the printing house should also have been taking such antidotes. The applicant’s daughter had developed an allergy towards some of the chemicals used by the printing house and was taking daily medication called Zertec. Whenever the door of the printing house was opened a pungent smell entered directly into the bedroom of the applicant’s children, the window of which was situated directly opposite it at about seven metres’ distance.
17.  Like the staff at the printing company, the applicant and his neighbours suffered frequently from headaches, their washing turned grey whenever it was hung to dry and the noise produced by the machines when operating was unbearable. In particular, at the house of one of the applicant’s neighbours the noise was so loud it was as though an earthquake had started every time the guillotine was operating. The applicant and his neighbours had sought a copy of the original record signed at the time the noise had been measured but had not received one. The letter concluded that the residents whose dwellings adjoined the printing company were doomed to bringing up their children for the foreseeable future in an environment of noise and chemicals, without any guarantee for their health and normal development. One of the staff working for several years at the printing company had developed a brain tumour, which was a source of serious worry for everyone in the vicinity. The applicant and his neighbours were also worried that the owner did not wish to hear any suggestion of moving his printing business away, but insisted that it was harmless as he preferred to profit from the commercial advantages a central location offered. The letter’s authors then invited the authorities to carry out an unannounced nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometry in order for the community to learn about the poisons they were being exposed to, as well as to proceed with closing down the business. They enclosed a copy of the 810 signatures collected in support of their cause.
18.  On 10 September 2007 the head of the Ruse regional inspectorate for the environment and water wrote to the applicant in reply to the letter of 20 August 2007. The reply stated that two experts sent by the inspectorate had carried out a check on 30 August 2007 at the printing company in the presence of its owner. The conclusions of that check were that the printing company was operating on the basis of a permit issued by the building authorities on 25 July 2003. The type of operation – offset printing on sheets of paper – was not among the operations listed in Annex I of Regulation No. 7 of 2003 on limiting emissions of volatile organic compounds released into the environment as a result of the use of solvents in certain installations. Lastly, the noise emissions had been measured at 49.7 dB, which was lower than the legal limit of 60 dB to be found in Annex II – Table 2, point 2 of Regulation No. 6 of 26 June 2006.
19.  In addition to his appeals to the above-mentioned institutions, the applicant decided to attract public attention to his dispute with the printing company. He produced some posters for that purpose, calling on the community in the town of Silistra to express support for the termination of the printing company’s operations. The text on the posters claimed that the printing company had been licensed in breach of the relevant legal requirements and that the pollution it was causing was harmful to the people living in the vicinity. The posters also listed parts of three regulations issued by the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Regional Development and concerning sanitary requirements and, protection of public health in an urban environment.
20.  The applicant exhibited the posters described above on the windows of his own shop, which was situated close to both his home and the printing company. The posters were exhibited between 12 December 2006 and 22 February 2007, and within a little over a month the applicant had collected more than 800 signatures from individuals in support of his cause.
21.  On an unspecified date the owner of the printing company, V.V., brought defamation proceedings against the applicant under Article 147 of the Criminal Code 1968. V.V. complained in particular that the applicant’s actions had damaged his printing business and his personal reputation.
22.  The applicant’s three neighbours, who together with the applicant had been continuously complaining to the authorities, submitted a signed declaration in support of the applicant. They stated that, irrespective of all the different permits which the printing company might have obtained from the authorities, this did not change the fact that it was causing a chemical and noise-related nuisance to the community on a daily basis.
23.  On 5 June 2007 the Silistra District Court found the applicant guilty of libel. It held that he had defamed V.V. by complaining in writing to various institutions about the latter’s printing operations and by printing and publicly disseminating material which claimed that the business was operating unlawfully. Contrary to the requirements of Article 147 of the Criminal Code 1968, the applicant had not submitted proof showing that his complaints to the authorities and the claims he had made in the posters were true. While officials from the Ministry of Health had indeed established that the noise emitted by the printing business had been beyond the authorised limits, the authorities had instructed its owner to bring it within the relevant norms and had given him a deadline, with which he had complied. The court then stated that, as seen from a chemical agents inspection report of August 2006 and from the subsequent explanations of the person who had carried out the check, it was clear that measurements had been taken throughout the working process at the printing premises and that the level of the chemical agents measured was not above the norms.
24.  As to the claim that the printing business had been set up in breach of Regulation No. 7 of 2003, that was impossible as the said regulation had become applicable as of 13 January 2004, whereas the printing business had been lawfully operating since 25 July 2003. In respect of the claim that Regulation No. 7 of 1992 had also been breached, the court found that while point 393 of that regulation indeed provided that printing houses had to be at least fifty metres away from inhabited dwellings, this only concerned “printing houses”, while the business in question had been registered as a “workshop for printing services and a shop with an office”, and the printing-house regulations did not apply to workshops.
25.  The allegation that the applicant’s daughter had developed an allergy had also remained entirely unproven, given that the applicant had presented as evidence only a medical document stating that she was suffering from “bronchitis”. The court went on to say that “every biological parent of average intelligence whose child was frequently ill had to know that respiratory ailments were the most frequent ones in early childhood”.
26.  The court concluded that, given that the applicant’s claims were factually wrong, they had inevitably damaged the printing business owner’s reputation. That amounted to defamation, which was in breach of the law and had to be sanctioned. The court then waived the applicant’s criminal liability and imposed on him an administrative penalty in the form of a fine in the amount equivalent to 250 euros (EUR). It further partially upheld the claimant’s civil claim submitted in the criminal proceedings and ordered the applicant to pay EUR 500 for non-pecuniary damages to V.V. and EUR 20 in court fees.
27.  Following an appeal by the applicant, the Silistra Regional Court upheld the first-instance court’s findings in a final judgment of 30 October 2007. It observed that the relevant authorities had carried out a number of inspections at the printing business in question in response to the applicant’s complaints. Contrary to the applicant’s allegations, none of those checks had established either a breach of the relevant legislation or the existence of pollution caused by the printing company. Despite this, the applicant had continued to disseminate false and discrediting information about V.V. by exhibiting posters on the windows of his own shop.
28.  The court agreed with the finding at first instance that the applicant could not be absolved from responsibility as he had been unable to prove the veracity of his allegations. It further found that the punishment had been neither excessive nor unfair and, if anything, it had been too lenient.