6.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Vienna. He is of Bulgarian origin. 7.  On 23 July 2009 a letter signed by the applicant was sent to the Sofia Municipality. In that letter the applicant complained of construction works undertaken by his nephew, A.K., which had significantly altered the house which had been owned by his parents and where he had been born. The applicant had become aware of that during his stay in Sofia in May 2009. He expressed his indignation about the works undertaken, as well as doubts as to their legality, and requested to be sent copies of all documents concerning them, stating that he intended to bring the matter to court. He stated in addition that A.K. held, for the property in question, an “illegal notarial deed ... acquired on the basis of a forged notarial deed”. These allegations concerned the notarial deeds of 1995 and 1996, described in paragraph 12 below; A.K. had been the beneficiary under both of them. The applicant indicated an intention to challenge these deeds in court. 8.  In December 2009 A.K. initiated a private criminal prosecution of the applicant. In his complaint he stated that he had become aware of the applicant’s letter “by chance”, and claimed that the applicant had defamed him, in particular by stating that he had an “illegal notarial deed ... acquired on the basis of a forged notarial deed”. This implied that A.K. had committed a criminal offence, namely using a forged document. In the same proceedings A.K. also brought a tort action against the applicant, claiming 10,000 Bulgarian levs (BGN – the equivalent of 5,114 euros (EUR)) in non‑pecuniary damage. 9.  The applicant objected to the complaint against him, contending that what he had stated was true and that he had never claimed that A.K. had actually used the forged documents. 10.  In a decision of the Sofia District Court of 18 October 2012, the criminal prosecution of the applicant was discontinued as time-barred, and the examination of the case continued only as regards A.K.’s tort action. 11.  That action was allowed in a judgment of the Sofia District Court of 30 January 2014. The domestic court stated expressly in that judgment that it did not have to establish the elements of the criminal offence of defamation. It had to establish, in accordance with section 45(1) of the Obligations and Contracts Act (see paragraph 20 below), whether the applicant’s behaviour amounted to a tortious act and whether A.K. had suffered any damage as a result. 12.  As to the facts of the case, the Sofia District Court established that A.K. had become the owner of part of the property at issue after his mother had donated to him a share in 1983 and he had purchased another share from a co-owner in 1995. Both transactions had been attested in notarial deeds. In a further notarial deed of 1996 A.K. had been recognised as the owner of part of the property. In 2006 he had obtained a permit to enlarge the existing house. The construction works had been carried out in 2006 and 2007. A representative of the building control authorities had visited the site on 2 July 2009 and had established breaches of the relevant rules, but no administrative sanction had been ordered against A.K. An additional check had been carried out on 26 November 2009, after one of the co-owners of the property (not the applicant) had complained. That check had showed that part of the construction works undertaken by A.K. did not correspond to the construction permit. It appears however that A.K. had not been ordered to demolish the unlawfully constructed parts. Further complaints by the co‑owners concerning the construction undertaken by A.K. had been sent to the municipality on 13 May 2010. 13.  The Sofia District Court heard in addition witnesses who said that, following the applicant’s allegations against him, A.K. had become nervous and had had unspecified problems with the authorities. 14.  The Sofia District Court found that it had never been shown that the notarial deeds in A.K.’s favour had been flawed, meaning that they had to be considered valid. The applicant’s allegations that one of these deeds had been “illegal” and another one “forged” could have affected A.K.’s good name in society, as they suggested that A.K. had profited from using unlawful means. Those allegations had also damaged A.K.’s professional reputation, since he was working in construction. This was so even bearing in mind that the municipal authorities had taken no particular action against A.K., and that checks on the construction site had been incited by other co‑owners of the property. The above considerations were valid regardless of whether the applicant had committed the criminal offence of defamation, since this was not the subject of the proceedings. The applicant had had resort to his constitutional right to petition the authorities, but the exercise of that right did not have to involve causing damage to others. 15.  The Sofia District Court ordered the applicant to pay A.K. BGN 5,000 (the equivalent of EUR 2,557) in non-pecuniary damage, plus default interest. It considered such an award to be just, pointing out that A.K. had enjoyed a good name in society, that the applicant’s allegations had also affected A.K.’s professional reputation, and that the allegations had been made before a municipal body and not in private correspondence. 16.  Upon an appeal by the applicant, in a final judgment of 21 August 2015, the Sofia City Court upheld the District Court’s judgment, endorsing its reasoning. 17.  The applicant has not submitted documents showing that he actually paid the amount awarded to A.K., nor has he claimed to have made any such payment.