Bulgaria / Sofia Regional Court / Decision of 19 November 2014 on administrative case no. 7631 of 2014

Country

Bulgaria

Title

Bulgaria / Sofia Regional Court / Decision of 19 November 2014 on administrative case no. 7631 of 2014

View full Case

Year

2014

Decision/ruling/judgment date

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

Incident(s) concerned/related

Incitement to violence or hatred

Related Bias motivation

Nationality

Groups affected

Refugees & asylum seekers

Court/Body type

National Court

Court/Body

Sofia Regional Court (Софийски районен съд)

Key facts of the case

The political party Ataka (Атака) was sanctioned with a fine of BGN 3,000 (approximately €1,500) for inciting intolerance against refugees. The reason for the sanction was a talk show broadcasted on the party’s TV channel Alpha (Алфа), during which the host of the show, at the time also a member of parliament, described refugees as ‘serial killers’, ‘cannibals’ and ‘disgusting, seedy primates’, who had ‘already started stealing, beating’ and would ‘soon start raping and cutting people’s heads off’. Refugees were also described as ‘another wave of Islamisation’.

Main reasoning/argumentation

The court concluded that, by describing Syrian refugees as ‘killers’ and ‘cannibals’, the TV host created the impression that all refugees from Syria were dangerous potential criminals. According to the court, such statements, made through a national TV channel, could reach a broad audience, cause strong negative feelings to the viewers and encourage them to engage in unlawful acts against the refugees. The court also referred to other statements, made during the show, in which the journalist openly called for a ‘rebellion’ or ‘uprising’ to ‘expel this Islamist mob’.

Is the case related to the application of the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia, the Racial Equality Directive?

Key issues (concepts, interpretations) clarified by the case

The court elaborated on the limitations of the freedom of expression, noting that this freedom, even when the person concerned is a journalist, should not be used controversially for the purpose of delivering harmful and dangerous messages to the society.

Results (sanctions, outcome) and key consequences or implications of the case

The court rejected the claim of political party Ataka (Атака) and confirmed the sanction imposed by the Council for Electronic Media (CEM) (Съвет за електронни медии, СЕМ).

Key quotation in original language and its unofficial translation into English with reference details

"На второ място, дори и да се приеме, че водещата е представяла своя гледна точка по някои от проблемите във връзка с бежанската вълна, то противно на наведеното от жалбоподателя твърдение, не става ясно, че се имат предвид вече публикувани и обсъждани в публичното пространство единични инциденти, а се създава впечатление, че абсолютно всички сирийци в страната ни, са реално опасни потенциални извършители на престъпления. Чрез твърденията, че те са масови убийци, че това са семействата на хора, които режат глави и изхвърлят мирно население от покривите на сградите, се внушава основателен страх у аудиторията."

"Secondly, even if the TV host had given her point of view on some of the problems relating to the refugee wave, contrary to what the applicant claims, it is not clear that she refers to single incidents already published and discussed in the public domain; instead, it is implied that absolutely all Syrians in our country are really dangerous potential offenders. By claiming that they are mass murderers and that these are the families of people who cut heads and throw peaceful population from roofs of buildings, a legitimate fear in the audience is being created."
Sofia Regional Court (Софийски районен съд), Decision of 19 November 2014 on administrative case No 7631 of 2014 (Решение от 19.11.2014 г. по а.д. № 7631 от 2014 г.), 19 November 2014

DISCLAIMERThe information presented here is collected under contract by the FRA's research network FRANET. The information and views contained do not necessarily reflect the views or the official position of the FRA.