Defamation: case law and options for bringing proceedings

Under Article 147(1) of the Criminal Code:

A person who communicates a disgraceful fact about another to others or imputes a crime to that person …

Decision 51-80-2

Communication means bringing an alleged, untrue and disgraceful fact to the attention of a third person.

Communication to just one person constitutes the offence under Article 147. Communication to a wider circle of people constitutes an aggravated case of defamation.

Decision 83-1938-3

The form of communication does not matter. It may take any form, including a positive assertion or a question.

Decision 87-71-2

Defamation requires the communication of specific assertions that convey information about a particular fact, identified by reference to time, place and events. Abstract assertions that do not make clear which person or facts are meant do not constitute defamation.

Interpretative Decision 12-71, General Assembly of the Criminal Colleges

Article 147(2) of the Criminal Code applies to all aggravated forms of defamation as well.

Criminal case 1141/2017, Third Criminal Division

Rebroadcasting an episode of a programme several times, thereby reaching a wider audience, does not make defamation a continuing offence comprising successive acts.

Reasons for judgment in private prosecution case 1064/2002, Sofia District Court

The offender need not have given a precise legal classification to the crime imputed to the injured person. It is sufficient to describe conduct that objectively discloses the elements of a criminal offence.

Criminal case 170/2009, Third Criminal Division

Defamation can be committed in two ways:

• communicating a disgraceful fact;
• imputing a crime;
• the second is always a special instance of the first. Once established, there is no need to investigate whether it actually affected the injured person’s good name and honour.

Criminal case 1982/2011, Third Criminal Division

• The mental element is present if the offender knew the injured person had not committed a crime and understood that communicating the facts would damage that person’s good name and lead others to judge them adversely.
• The offence is not made out if the person communicating the facts believed them to be true.

Criminal case 641/2010, First Criminal Division

A “disgraceful fact” may relate to:

• the past or the present;
• conduct in professional or public life;
• private life;
• discreditable personal conduct.

Imputing a crime:

• The imputation must be specific as to time, place and manner. The offender’s purpose need not be specified.
• Decision 102-76-1: Insult and defamation are public if the words were spoken in the presence of at least two persons. It does not matter that the location itself was not public.
• Decision 580-88-1: Journalists may be liable under Article 148(2) in conjunction with Article 147(1) if they knowingly disseminate false facts.

  Decision 623-74-1: If a person submits a written declaration to a court containing disgraceful allegations about the injured person, the defamation cannot on that ground be regarded as having been disseminated through a printed publication.

• Criminal miscellaneous case 428/2022, Second Criminal Division: charge of defamation through a national television broadcast.

  Unlike insult, defamation is complete when the particular statement is made, not when the offensive content is perceived by the injured person.

  Territorial jurisdiction lies where the media outlet through which the act was committed is located.

  Criminal miscellaneous cases 712/2021, First Criminal Division, and 559/2015, Second Criminal Division: charge of defamation disseminated via a social network.

  For online defamation the court for the area where the affected person has their centre of interests has jurisdiction. The centre of interests is the person’s habitual residence or the place where they pursue a profession and with which a particularly close connection can be established.

• Article 10 of the Convention: freedom of expression.

  Everyone has the right to express opinions freely. This includes the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas across borders without interference by public authorities.

  This provision does not prevent states from requiring radio, television or cinema enterprises to obtain licences.

  Since exercising these freedoms entails duties and responsibilities, it may be subject to formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety; to prevent disorder or crime; to protect health or morals, or the reputation or rights of others; to prevent disclosure of information received in confidence; or to safeguard the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

• The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) considers both the damage to another person’s reputation and whether the speaker asserted facts or expressed a value judgment about that person. Its case law draws two distinctions:

  1. It is necessary to examine carefully whether the conduct at issue consisted of stating facts or expressing an opinion. Facts can be proved (Rumyana Ilieva v. Bulgaria); an opinion cannot be proved in the same way, since it is an assessment of another person or their conduct (Lingens v. Austria). Even a value judgment must have a factual basis (Turhan v. Turkey).

  2. Before deciding whether the speaker acted lawfully, the statement must be classified as fact or value judgment in light of the entire speech or publication. That assessment falls to the national courts, but the ECtHR may make its own assessment when examining the application (Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark).

Fines for defamation

The basic offence under Article 147(1) carries a fine of BGN 1,000 to 7,000 and public censure. In aggravated cases under Article 148, including public communication or dissemination in a printed publication or by other means, the fine is BGN 1,000 to 15,000, with public censure. These ranges have applied since 29 July 2025.

How do criminal proceedings begin?

As a rule, proceedings begin with a private criminal complaint by the injured person, filed directly with the competent district court. The deadline is six months from the day the injured person learned that the offence had been committed. The complaint should identify the offender, the precise assertions and the time, place and manner of dissemination. Proof of payment of the state fee and the available evidence should be attached.

Can you claim compensation?

The injured person may seek compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary harm. A claim can be brought in the criminal proceedings if the court accepts it for joint hearing, or in a separate civil action. The choice depends on the facts, evidence and procedural interest in the particular case.

For an overview of the offence, see “Defamation: communicating false facts and imputing a crime”. For media publications, see “Journalists, the media and defamation: limits of liability”.

If you believe you have been defamed, you can consult attorney Mihail Tomov to assess your options for judicial protection.