Bulgarian citizens have shown overwhelming solidarity with journalist Boris Mitov and independent news outlet Mediapool.bg following a controversial defamation ruling by the Supreme Court of Cassation. The decision, widely seen by press freedom advocates as a textbook example of a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), has sparked national and international concern.
On Monday, the court upheld almost all claims brought by Svetlin Mihailov—former chairman of the Sofia City Court and current appellate judge—regarding a series of articles published in 2018. The court not only reversed the findings of the appellate court but increased the awarded damages fivefold. Mitov and Mediapool were ordered to pay a total of BGN 36,000 (approximately EUR 18,000) in compensation and interest, plus an additional BGN 7,200 (EUR 3,600) in legal fees.
In an extraordinary show of public support, the full amount was raised in under 24 hours through joint fundraising efforts led by Mediapool and the Association of European Journalists – Bulgaria (AEJ-Bulgaria).
“AEJ wants to thank you for supporting free and critical journalism in our country. It would mean nothing without an enlightened and engaged audience. You have proven that such an audience exists in Bulgaria,” AEJ said in a public statement.
A Threat to Press Freedom
The ruling sets a troubling precedent for press freedom in Bulgaria. The five-year legal battle is viewed as a clear case of a SLAPP—aimed not at justice, but at silencing journalists and discouraging public scrutiny of those in power. Such decisions risk creating a chilling effect across the industry, particularly when reporting on judicial integrity, political connections, or ethical concerns.
AEJ-Bulgaria has urged the Ministry of Justice to act swiftly and introduce legislation transposing the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive adopted in 2024, which mandates member states to protect journalists and civil society actors from abusive litigation.
Ignoring European Standards
In its final ruling, the Supreme Court dismissed the appellate court’s view that the contested publications presented factual reporting and value-based commentary—both protected under freedom of expression. Instead, it labeled critical commentary and widely known facts about Judge Mihailov as defamatory and insulting.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has long held that public figures must tolerate a greater degree of public scrutiny. Yet the Bulgarian Supreme Court made no reference to relevant ECHR case law, nor did it acknowledge the vital role of journalism in a democratic society.
The court also accepted claims that the articles caused Mihailov emotional distress, health deterioration, and family strain—without requiring conclusive evidence that the reporting was the direct cause.
We express our profound disappointment with the Supreme Court of Cassation’s decision, which raises serious concerns about judicial impartiality—particularly when the subject of the lawsuit is a sitting magistrate.
