Bulgaria

 CountryType of Law 
 
 

Criminal Defamation

Defamation remains a criminal offence in Bulgaria.

Under the Bulgarian Criminal Code, there are two broad provisions for defamation:

insult (Art. 146), consisting of saying or doing something degrading to the honour and dignity of another in that person’s presence;

and slander (Art. 147), consisting of making public a disgraceful fact about someone or ascribing to someone a crime.

These criminal offences are punishable only with fines and public censure; imprisonment is no longer prescribed. Fines for insult range from 1,000 to 3,000 levs. Fines for slander can range from 3,000 to 7,000 levs.

Insult and slander are punished more harshly when committed publicly or via printed matter (Art. 148, par. 1). In such cases, the fines for insult range from 3,000 to 10,000 levs. For slander, or where the slander results in serious consequences, the fine ranges from 5,000 to 15,000 levs (Art. 148, par. 2). Further, courts may also order a public censure (Art. 148, par. 2).

It should be noted that in several defamation cases involving journalists, Bulgarian courts have employed Art. 78a of the Criminal Code. It allows for the replacement, under certain conditions, of criminal fines with an administrative fine between 1,000 and 5,000 levs. Art. 78a also allows courts to deprive a defendant of the right to practice a particular profession.

 

Criminal Defamation of Public Officials

Provisions on the books.

According to Art. 148 of the Bulgarian Criminal Code, when insult or slander is directed at a public official during or in connection with the fulfilment of his duties or function, the punishment for insult is increased to a fine of 3,000 to 10,000 levs and the punishment for slander is increased to a fine of 5,000 to 15,000 levs. Public censure may also be ordered.

The same article also increases punishment to the same degree, including possible censure, when insult or slander was committed by a public official during or in connection with the fulfilment of his or her duties or function.

 

Criminal Defamation of the Head of State

No provisions.

 

Criminal Defamation of the State and its Symbols

Provisions on the books.

Defaming the coat of arms, the flag or the anthem of the Republic of Bulgaria is punishable by imprisonment for up to two years and a fine of up to 3,000 levs (Bulgarian Criminal Code Art. 108, par. 2). The same applies to defamation or the flag or anthem of the European Union.

 

Criminal Defamation of Foreign States and Symbols

No provisions.

 

Criminal Defamation of the Deceased

No provisions.

 

Blasphemy

No provisions.

 

Criminal Procedure

Art. 161 of the Bulgarian Criminal Code provides that charges related to defamation – i.e., charges under Arts. 146 to 148a – are to be instituted on the basis of complaint by the victim. Art. 84 requires that such complaints be lodged within six months after the date when the offended party becomes aware of the alleged crime. If the offended party dies within that period, family members may lodge the complaint on that person’s behalf, but only until that six-month window closes.

 

Statistics on Application

According to from Bulgaria’s National Statistics Institute, there were 26 criminal convictions for insult and libel in 2014.

 

Civil Defamation

Bulgaria does not have a specific civil defamation law.. Civil liability under the Bulgarian legal system finds its legal basis in different normative acts. The  (LOC) regulates tort liability generally: according to Art. 45, every person must redress the damage he caused by fault.

Also applicable are certain provisions of the , which sets out the liability and rights of audio-visual media services and radio services. Additionally, Art. 17 of the Radio and Television Act prescribes that media service providers shall be held liable for the content of media services

Damages

There are no caps on non-pecuniary damages for defamation in Bulgarian law.

The Law of Obligations and Contracts Art. 52 provides that compensation for a personal tort shall be determined ex aequo et bono (i.e., at the court’s discretion based on principles of fairness). Art. 53 states if the damage is caused by several persons, they shall be liable jointly and severally.

Statutory defences

There are no specific defences for defamation in the Law of Obligations and Contracts.

However, it is worth mentioning the following sections of the Radio and Television Act:

Art. 16, par. 1 states that media service providers may not create or distribute any content that has information about the private life of individuals without their consent, but in the same article it is stated that media service providers may broadcast information about the private life of citizens exercising powers of state bodies, or of citizens whose decisions have influence on the public, if that information is in the public interest.

Under the Radio and Television Act, it is also stated that “any opinion may be freely expressed in media services” (Art. 11). In Art. 17, par. 6, it states that news consisting of facts shall be differentiated from any comments on such news. Under Art. 17(4), media service providers are not to be held liable for information that has been (i) received through official channels, (ii) quotes official documents or (iii) accurately reproduces public statements.

 

Media Cases and Case Law

Notable case law

In a key judgment dated May 26, 2000 (реш. № 111 от 26 май 2000 г. по н. д. № 23/2000 г., ВКС, II н. о.), the Supreme Court of Cassation ruled that journalists who verified their information in accordance with established journalistic rules and practices, or according to their media outlet’s internal code of conduct, could not be held criminally or civilly liable for defamation. The Court stated that, in such cases, the journalist could not be considered to have acted with intent or negligence.

According to previous , The Court stated that in civil cases the usual tort rule that guilt is presumed until proven otherwise could not apply for defamation. The Court also excluded the application of strict liability in defamation cases. Finally, it confirmed that the limits of acceptable criticism were wider for public officials than for private individuals.

It is also noted that in 1998 the Bulgarian Constitutional Court (реш. № 20 от 14 юли 1998 г. по к. д. № 16 от 1998 г., обн., ДВ, бр. 83 от 21 юли 1998 г.) upheld the constitutionality of Criminal Code Art. 148’s increased punishments for defamation committed against a public official in virtue of his or her function. The Court stated that “the criminal provision protects not only the individual but also the prestige of the relevant institution”.

In 1997, the Court of Cassation (Five Member Body Decision No. 340 in civil case no. 178/1997 upheld a lower court ruling that found the editor of a newspaper guilty under Art. 49 of the LOC because of the actions of his journalists, who had damaged MM’s reputation and dignity in their publications. The court of second instance upheld the decision and confirmed that the publications in question harmed MM’s dignity and reputation by spreading negative comments about her professional activity, as she worked as a journalist on the Bulgarian national TV station, and about her moral qualities. The Court of Cassation that the editor failed to prove that the statements were true, so the appeal was rejected and the decision of the court in the second instance awarding non-pecuniary damages was upheld.

Selected cases involving the media

In June 2012, a Bulgarian court found Asya Pencheva, a journalist working for the newspaper Utro, guilty of defaming an employee of a local orphanage, Tsenka Blagoeva. The charges were related to an interview Pencheva published in which an orphanage employee alleged that orphans had been abused at the institution and in which Blagoeva’s name was mentioned. Blagoeva sued for libel, claiming 3,000 levs in damages. The Ruse Regional Court ordered Pencheva to pay a fine of 5,000 levs and awarded 1,000 levs in damages to Blagoeva. The Regional Court also ordered Pencheva to be censured on a local radio station. Pencheva appealed the verdict to the Ruse District Court, which in October 2012 revoked the lower court’s ruling and ordered a new trial, reportedly due to “flawed application of the law.” The Ruse Regional Court then threw out the case against Pencheva, determining the charges to have been filed past the statute of limitations.

In May 2002, a Bulgarian court found Katya Kasabova, a journalist working for the newspaper Compass, guilty of defaming four officials connected to the Ministry of Education in an article she had written alleging corruption in the admissions process to elite secondary schools in the Burgas area. The paper published a reply from the officials concerned, claiming that Kasabova’s allegations were untrue, and Kasabova issued her own response apologising for any information that might turn out to be false. The Burgas District Court absolved Kasabova of criminal liability, but ordered her to pay an administrative fine of 2800 levs, plus 1,000 levs  in damages to each of the plaintiffs (each one had sought 5,000 levs) and 512 levs in legal costs. The District Court determined that Kasabova had failed to provide evidence that the allegations were true and that she had not properly fulfilled her journalistic duty in researching the veracity of the allegations. In 2011, the European Court of Human Rights overturned the judgment in Kasabova v. Bulgaria (2011). While the Court found that the Bulgarian courts’ judgment that Kasabova had not fulfilled her journalistic duty was reasonable under the circumstances, it held that the total financial penalty imposed (7,472 levs) was disproportionate, given that it was more than 35 times Kasabova’s monthly salary.

 

Recent Legal Changes

No relevant known changes.

 

Notes and Acknowledgements

Information on defamation laws in Europe was collected by the International Press Institute (IPI) in collaboration with the School of Public Policy’s Center for Media, Data and Society at Central European University in Budapest and their partners at the SHARE Foundation in Belgrade. (Read more about our partners here.)

The information contained in this database is for informational and advocacy purposes only. If you are a journalist facing a defamation claim, you should seek legal advice from a qualified attorney. However, if you are unable to find such an attorney, IPI may be able to assist you in doing so. Please contact us at ipi[at]freemedia.at.

Information on Bulgaria was last updated in January 2015.

 


Source: “Crimes with penalty inflicted by chapter of penal code, some kind of crimes and by number of perpetrators in 2014“, National Statistical Institute of the Republic of Bulgaria, 17 July 2015, last accessed 20 August 2015.
Law on Obligations and Contracts (LOC), State Gazette, promulgated January 1950. Available in Bulgarian (last amended May 2008), last accessed 22 July 2015. Available in English (last updated May 2005), last accessed 22 July 2015.
Radio and Television Act, Promulgated, State Gazette No. 138/24.11.1998. Available in Bulgarian (last amended 2014), last accessed 22 July 2015. Available in English (last updated 2010), last accessed 22 July 2015.
 Study on the alignment of laws and practices concerning defamation with the relevant case-law of the European Court of Human Rights on freedom of expression, particularly with regard to the principle of proportionality” [Draft], 2012, Media Division, Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs, Secretariat General, Council of Europe, CDMSI(2012)Misc11.
 Study on the alignment of laws and practices concerning defamation with the relevant case-law of the European Court of Human Rights on freedom of expression, particularly with regard to the principle of proportionality” [Draft], 2012, Media Division, Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs, Secretariat General, Council of Europe, CDMSI(2012)Misc11.
See B. Winiger, H. Koziol, B.A. Koch, R. Zimmerman (eds): “Digest of European Tort Law, Volume 2: Essential Cases on Damage”, De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, 2011, pp. 652-653.
Share This