Fine for Blagoev statue Santa Claus protest was a violation of the right of the freedom of expression
JUDGMENT
Handzhiyski v. Bulgaria 6.3.2021 (app. no. 10783/14)
SUMMARY
The case concerned the applicant’s placing of a Santa Claus hat and a sack on the statue of Dimitar
Blagoev in the main square of Blagoevgrad on Christmas Day as a form of political protest. He was
convicted and fined for minor hooliganism.
The Court found in particular that the applicant had engaged in protest and even satire, and had not
damaged the statue. Although people may have been insulted, that fact had not been enough to
justify the interference with his freedom of expression.
PROVISION
Article 10
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Kaloyan Tomov Handzhiyski, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1971 and lives in
Blagoevgrad (Bulgaria). He is a local politician.
On 14 June 2013 demonstrations broke out around Bulgaria against the then new Government. The
applicant was at that time chairman of the local branch of the Democrats for a Strong Bulgaria
(Демократи за силна България), a political party which did not hold seats in Parliament and which
supported the anti-government protests.
In the early hours of 25 December 2013, the statue of Dimitar Blagoev – after whom the town of
Blagoevgrad was named and whose statue was somewhat controversial – in the central square of
Blagoevgrad was painted red and white so as to resemble Santa Claus. The words “Father Frost”
(Дядо Мраз) were sprayed underneath.
Later that Christmas Day the applicant went to the statue, which had a group of people around it by
that time, and put a Santa Claus hat on his head and a red sack at his feet. The word “resignation”
was attached to the sack. The applicant was arrested about four hours later and charged with minor
hooliganism before being released.
He was tried on 30 December 2013. In his defence he invoked his constitutional right to protest. He
was found guilty and fined 100 Bulgarian levs (about 51 euros). The court noted the limits on
freedom of expression, finding that the applicant had crossed the line from a political joke to
hooliganism. That judgment was upheld on appeal. The applicant paid the fine on 20 January 2014.
Relying on Article 10, the applicant complained that the interference with his right to freedom of
expression had not been necessary in a democratic society.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
The Court considered that the applicant’s actions, in context, can be seen as “expression” within the
meaning of the Convention. The applicant’s conviction and fine amounted thus to an interference
with that freedom of expression. Broadly, the interference was designed to protect the rights of
others – passers-by who might have been insulted. The Court however noted that there had been no
risk to public safety in the applicant’s actions.
The Court stated that the applicant’s actions could be seen as both satirical and political protest.
While holding that measures, including proportionate sanctions, designed to dissuade acts which
could destroy monuments or damage their physical appearance could be seen as “necessary in a
democratic society”, the Court noted that the applicant had not acted violently nor damaged the
statue. Nor was there evidence indicating that he had been responsible for painting the statue. The
assessment of whether it could be “necessary in a democratic society” to impose sanctions in
relation to acts such as his – which, though capable of profaning a monument, did not damage it –
was more nuanced. It turned on, among other things, the precise nature of the act, the intention
behind it, and the message sought to be conveyed by it, as well as on the social significance of the
monument, the values or ideas which it symbolised, and the degree of veneration that it enjoyed in
the respective community.
The Court accepted that some people may have been hurt by the applicant’s actions at the statue.
However, it reiterated that freedom of expression was applicable not only to “information” or
“ideas” that were favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but
also to those that offended, shocked or disturbed the State or any sector of the population.
The Court thus found, based on the criteria set out by it, that the interference with the applicant’s
right to freedom of expression had not been necessary, leading to a violation of Article 10 of the
Convention.
Just satisfaction (Article 41)
The Court held that Bulgaria was to pay the applicant 54.66 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary
damage, EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,762.76 in respect of costs and
expenses.
Separate opinion
Judge Vehabović expressed a dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.
