Case Summary and Outcome

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held that Bulgarian authorities failed to protect human rights activists from online hate speech and death threats, thereby violating their right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The three activists, who advocated for migrants and minorities, were targeted on Facebook with violent imagery and explicit calls for their execution. Although the authorities opened criminal proceedings, the Court found that the investigation was ineffective, as it was artificially limited in scope and involved no genuine efforts to identify the perpetrators. The ECtHR emphasized that States’ positive obligations to protect individuals from serious threats apply equally in online and offline contexts. It concluded that the failure to properly investigate these discriminatory attacks infringed the activists’ rights under the ECHR.

Facts

Between 12 and 15 January 2015, three prominent Bulgarian human rights activists, namely Valeria Borisova Ilareva, Lidia Kirilova Staykova and Krasimir Ivanov Kanev, working on refugee and minority rights were targeted by a wave of hostile and violent Facebook posts amid intense public debate on immigration. The attacks began when a user shared content related to the their work, prompting comments calling for their execution, describing them as “vermin,” and expressing a desire to shoot or poison them.

The hostility quickly escalated, with one user posting a photomontage portraying the applicants as national traitors deserving violent punishment, while numerous others amplified the rhetoric by endorsing calls for their execution, torture, or public hanging and demanding their personal details. One applicant was also directly threatened through private messages explicitly calling for her killing and accompanied by violent imagery.

On 19 January 2015, assisted by the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, Ilareva, Staykova, and Kanev reported the incidents to the Sofia District Prosecutor’s Office, alleging hate speech, incitement to violence, and death threats under several provisions of the Criminal Code. Criminal proceedings were opened against unknown perpetrators, and the plaintiffs were questioned. During interviews, they described feeling fear for their personal safety and mentioned the public visibility of their work and addresses, and the persistence of hostile messages. Some plaintiffs also provided screenshots and information that could have assisted in identifying the perpetrators.

In March 2015, the investigation was suspended after prosecutors concluded that the anonymous nature of the Facebook users—and legal limits on accessing digital traffic data—made identification impossible. The plaintiffs were initially denied access to the suspension decision and were told they were not legally recognized as victims under the relevant offence. Under Article 162 of the Criminal Code which addresses hate speech, only minority groups, or those targeted due to their race, nationality or ethnic origin qualified as potential victims. In February 2016, the Sofia City Prosecutor overturned the suspension, criticized the narrow scope of the investigation, and ordered further inquiries, including attempts to identify the main suspects.

Despite limited follow-up steps, including interviewing one suspect who denied responsibility, the authorities again suspended the investigation in April 2016. Prosecutors accepted that the posts could amount to hate speech but maintained that the perpetrators could not be identified and that most comments did not constitute criminal threats, given their online and semi-anonymous nature. Appeals were dismissed, and higher prosecutors ultimately confirmed that the statements, though saturated with hatred and calls for death, lacked the legal elements required to establish criminal liability.

In October 2016, Kanev was physically attacked in central Sofia shortly after publicly criticizing anti-immigrant hate speech.

Considering that local authorities failed to conduct a proper investigation, Ilareva, Staykova, and Kanev lodged an application on 24 March 2017 before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

Decision Overview

On 9 September 2025, the Third Section of the European Court of Human Rights issued a decision on the case. The principal issue before the Court was whether Bulgaria failed to comply with its positive obligations under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), taken in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition against discrimination), of the European Convention on Human Rights for not properly conducting investigations into the online hate speech and death threats received by the applicants.

Ilareva and the other applicants argued that domestic authorities failed to effectively investigate the death threats and hate speech directed at them on Facebook, which were motivated by their professional work protecting refugees. They contended that the authorities unreasonably downplayed the aggression of the comments and erroneously claimed that the threats lacked the necessary criminal intent. Specifically, they maintained that the investigation was neither thorough nor impartial, noting that the authorities failed to pursue feasible lines of inquiry, such as requesting digital traffic data to identify the anonymous perpetrators. They asserted that this inaction created a climate of impunity, leaving them without legal protection and encouraging further aggression against them. Ultimately, they submitted that the State’s failure to act constituted a violation of their rights under articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The Government asserted that the authorities acted with promptness and diligence, successfully identifying two individuals despite the challenges associated with investigating online conduct. It maintained that the failure to identify other perpetrators was due to strict legal constraints, which prohibited the collection of digital traffic data for offences not classified as “serious.” Furthermore, Bulgaria supported the domestic authorities’ conclusion that the comments were not criminal threats but merely “negative assessments” or “literary methods” lacking the intent to cause harm. Thus, the Government contended that the State fulfilled its positive obligations under the Convention.

The Court found that the manner in which the criminal law mechanisms were implemented by the investigative authorities was deficient and constituted a violation of Article 8, read in conjunction with Article 14, of the ECHR. The ECtHR noted that although the events took place in the virtual sphere, the attacks attained the level of seriousness required to engage the State’s positive obligations.

The Court referred specifically to the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance 2014 and 2017 Reports on Bulgaria which had called on authorities to take “urgent action” over concern that online hate speech targeting refugees had led to offline violence. [para. 92] Further, the Court noted that the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities 2014 Report on Bulgaria observed that existing legal remedies to address hate speech were not very effective. [para. 93]

The Court rejected the domestic authorities’ characterization of the threats as merely “negative assessments” [para. 49] or “literary methods.” [para. 62] It held that the statements, which included death threats and incitement to violence, were “explicit and violent” and “cannot be equated with a mere expression, even an exaggerated one, of a negative opinion towards the applicants.”  [para. 140] The ECtHR emphasized that where acts constitute serious offences directed against a person’s physical or mental integrity, “only efficient criminal-law mechanisms can ensure adequate protection and serve as a deterrent factor”—particularly in the case of “direct verbal assaults and physical threats motivated by discriminatory attitudes.” [para. 109]

On the issue of digital violence, the Court stressed the internet’s essential role as an “unprecedentedly powerful platform for exchange of ideas and information”, while recognizing its capacity to cause serious harm to human rights. [para. 140] It held that States’ obligations to protect fundamental rights apply equally in online and offline settings. The ECtHR rejected the domestic authorities’ view that the online character of the threats rendered them less serious or merely incidental, emphasizing instead that the anonymity enabled by the internet could intensify the fear generated by violent statements rather than diminish their impact.

The Court rejected the Government’s argument that the applicants could have asked Facebook to remove the offensive statements. While the Court acknowledged that content removal can be an appropriate response in general, it reiterated that the applicants were prima facie affected by conduct that was criminal in nature. [para. 113] Referring to its earlier judgment in Sanchez v. France, the Court emphasized that even prompt deletion of clearly unlawful comments does not absolve the author or account holder of liability where the comments have already been shared or amplified by others. Deletion cannot undo the harm suffered by the victim, particularly where the comments form part of a broader, “coherent whole.” The Court found these considerations equally applicable in the present case. [para. 114]

The Court highlighted serious investigative failures, observing that local prosecutors minimized the gravity of the incidents and failed to properly address the discriminatory motive underlying the threats, despite the applicants’ links to vulnerable groups. It found that the authorities unjustifiably narrowed the scope of the investigation and relied on legal rules on digital traffic data that did not, in practice, prevent them from fulfilling their obligations under the ECHR.

The ECtHR concluded that this approach allowed the threats and hate speech to remain largely without legal consequences and deprived the applicants of the necessary protection of their right to personal integrity. By failing to draw a clear distinction between protected freedom of expression and prohibited hate speech, the authorities left the applicants—who were targeted because of their human rights work—without effective redress.

Accordingly, the Court held that Bulgaria violated Article 8 in conjunction with Article 14 of the ECHR. The ECtHR ordered the State to monetarily compensate the applicants for the non-pecuniary damage they suffered (EUR 4,500 to the first and third applicants and EUR 5,500 to the second).