THIRD SECTION
CASE OF PETROVA v. BULGARIA
(Application no. 64543/17)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
10 December 2024
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Petrova v. Bulgaria,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Darian Pavli, President,
 Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir,
 Diana Kovatcheva, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 64543/17) against the Republic of Bulgaria lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 26 August 2017 by a Bulgarian national, Ms Svetla Todorova Petrova (“the applicant”), who was born in 1965, lives in Elhovo and was represented by Ms A. Chobanova, a lawyer practising in Sofia;
the decision to give notice of the complaint under Article 10 of the Convention to the Bulgarian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms I. Stancheva-Chinova, from the Ministry of Justice, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 19 November 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The application concerns a complaint under Article 10 of the Convention about the sanctioning of the applicant for having complained to the relevant public authorities about the conduct of a public official. 2. The applicant, an employee of a social services department, complained to the head of that department and to the director of the Agency for Social Assistance that her direct supervisor, X, had been harassing her which had negatively affected her health. Following several checks and inspections, the applicant’s complaints were rejected. Instead, the relevant officials made recommendations encouraging the observance of rules and discipline at the work place by all staff. The applicant was informed that she had to abide by the law and that office hierarchy was necessary to ensure smooth functioning of the department. 3. Subsequently X successfully sued the applicant for defamation in private criminal proceedings. On 28 March 2016 the Topolovgrad District Court, sitting at first instance, found the applicant guilty as charged. It observed that she tended to react overly emotionally and to perceive any work-related recommendations by her superiors as psychological harassment aimed at hurting her personally. In a final judgment of 16 March 2017 the Yambol Regional Court upheld the lower-court’s finding as to the applicant’s guilt. It concluded that the applicant’s complaints, made in two letters of 14 May 2014 and 9 July 2014 respectively, about being a victim of harassment by her superior had been false. It waived the applicant’s criminal liability, imposed on her an administrative fine of 1,000 Bulgarian levs (BGN), equalling 511 euros (EUR) and ordered her to pay further BGN 1,000 in damages. Costs were also awarded.

Outcome for Article 10: violation