Bulgaria / Supreme Administrative Court / Decision No 896 of 21 January 2020 on administrative case No 1934/2019

Country

Bulgaria

Title

Bulgaria / Supreme Administrative Court / Decision No 896 of 21 January 2020 on administrative case No 1934/2019

View full Case

Year

2020

Decision/ruling/judgment date

Tuesday, January 21, 2020

Incident(s) concerned/related

Discrimination

Related Bias motivation

Religion

Groups affected

Muslims

Court/Body type

National Court

Court/Body

Supreme Administrative Court (Върховен административен съд)

Key facts of the case

The case concerns harassment on the grounds of religion and disability. The defendant was found guilty of verbally and physically attacking one of his employees in the presence of two of their colleagues. The victim, a Muslim man suffering from diabetes, was called ‘scumbag’ ‘nasty Turk’ and ‘dirty Gypsy’, and was hit several times on the head and body. For the facts of the case see  Administrative Court of Lovech / Decision No 152 of 5 December 2018 on administrative case No 264/2018 (https://legalacts.justice.bg/Search/GetActContentByActId?actId=OapgN93j…)    

Main reasoning/argumentation

The Supreme Administrative Court found that the victim’s religion and disability were the main reasons for the aggressive behaviour of the defendant. According to the court, the decision of the defendant to verbally and physically attack that particular person was motivated by the religious preferences of the victim, who was the only Muslim in the group. Furthermore, according to the court, the manner, in which the victim was attacked, was aimed at intimidating the victim specifically because of their religion.

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

One of the key issues was the assessment of the defendant’s motivation. After the incident, the victim first approached the Commission for Protection against Discrimination (CPD), which, after examining the case, found that the defendant’s behaviour was motivated by two factors: the victim’s Muslim religion and the victim’s health. The court, before which this decision was appealed, issued the opposite decision arguing that the conflict between the two persons was of personal nature and was not related to the victim’s religion or disability. Finally, the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC), acting as a last instance, disagreed with the lower court’s conclusions, repealed its judgment and confirmed the initial decision of the equality body.

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

The Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) repealed the decision of the lower instance court and confirmed the initial decision of the Commission for Protection against Discrimination (CPD), which found the defendant guilty of harassment on the grounds of religion and disability and sanctioned him by a fine of BGN 500 (approximately €250).

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

"Изборът на Р. като обект за дискриминиране в случая е обусловен от неговите религиозни предпочитания (мюсюлманин и единствен изповядващ религия „ислям“ в процесната среда), а установените специфични действия на дискриминатора, предвид техния характер, са имали за цел да предизвикат чувство на унижение на основание именно този признак, съчетан с признака „увреждане“. В случая релевантния факт на самоопределянето на Р. като мюсюлманин, изповядващ определена религия – в случая ислям, е безспорен поделото, както и знанието за това от дискриминатора П. "

"The choice of R. as a target of discrimination in this case was determined by his religious preferences (he is Muslim and is only one professing Islam in the situation in question), and the established specific actions of the discriminator, given their nature, were intended to cause a sense of humiliation precisely on the basis of this ground, combined with the ground "disability". In this case, the relevant fact of R.'s self-identification as a Muslim, professing a certain religion – in this case Islam, is indisputable, as is the awareness of this of the discriminator P."

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.