5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Sofia. 6.  On 29 March 2006 the Kazanlak District Court convicted the applicant of wilfully using a forged document and falsely accusing another person of criminal conduct, and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment. The court ordered that the applicant be detained pending any appeal against his conviction and sentence. 7.  After his detention, the applicant appealed against his conviction and sentence to the Stara Zagora Regional Court. In his appeal, he included the following statement:
“The [judge-rapporteur] is a pupil of mine and is seeking revenge, using his functional immunity. Everything is being decided on the basis of power and connections, not on the basis of laws.” 8.  The judge‑rapporteur at the Kazanlak District Court became aware of that statement when processing the appeal, which, in accordance with the applicable rules of procedure, had been filed with that court with a view to being sent to the higher court for examination. 9.  In the course of the appeal hearing before the Stara Zagora Regional Court the applicant said, inter alia, the following:
“The [judgment against me] was given by a judge who is a former pupil of mine. When I asked him which subject I had taught him, the reply was that it had been ‘electrical materials’ and that I had given him an average grade ... I believe that there exist grounds for the recusal of the judge-rapporteur ... I have personal relations with [him]. My request was however turned down and my fate was left in the hands of the court.” 10.  On 16 May 2007 the Stara Zagora Regional Court quashed the lower court’s judgment and remitted the case for re-examination, citing a number of breaches of the rules of procedure. In particular, it found that the lower court had not given reasons why it had accepted that the applicant had committed the offences and had in effect reversed the burden of proof, placing it on the applicant. Concerning the grounds for recusal of the judge‑rapporteur, the court noted as follows:
“In relation to the arguments that there existed grounds for the [judge‑rapporteur] to recuse himself, it is well-established case-law that the refusal of the court to accede to a recusal request is reviewable on appeal. In this case, the request was based on personal relations between the [applicant] and the [judge-rapporteur] that pre-dated the opening of the criminal proceedings against the [applicant].
Bearing in mind the effective sentence – which corresponds neither to the gravity of the offence nor to the dangerousness of the offender –, the reasons given for its imposition – to protect other members of society and the judicial authorities from future civil claims brought by the [applicant] –, and the unwarranted emotionality of the [lower court’s] reasoning, this court finds that the judgment under appeal does not demonstrate the requisite subjective or objective impartiality. The bias displayed by the judge‑rapporteur constituted grounds for him to recuse himself.” 11.  On 4 June 2007 the judge-rapporteur in the criminal case against the applicant brought a private criminal prosecution against him in relation to the written and the oral statements made by the applicant in the appeal proceedings (see paragraphs 7 and 9 above). He submitted that those statements were untrue and defamatory: the first amounted to an allegation that he was vindictive and was using his office to settle personal scores, and the second amounted to an allegation that he had deliberately failed to comply with the rules on recusal, which was not true. He did not have any personal bias against the applicant, and had never been asked to recuse himself from the case. 12.  In a judgment of 14 December 2007, the Stara Zagora District Court convicted the applicant of defaming a public official, contrary to Articles 147 and 148 §§ 1 (3) and 2 of the Criminal Code (see paragraphs 20 and 21 below), in relation to both statements. It sentenced him to a fine of 5,000 Bulgarian levs (BGN) (2,556 euros (EUR)) and a public reprimand, and ordered him to pay BGN 150 (EUR 77) in court costs. Without seeking to verify whether the applicant’s allegations could be borne out, it held that he had wilfully defamed the judge by making disparaging allegations in respect of him. The court did not accept the applicant’s argument that he had not acted with intent. It noted that he had repeated the allegations twice and that, as evident from a psychiatric expert report obtained in the course of the defamation proceedings, he had been fully aware of the meaning of the statements and capable of controlling himself in spite of his emotional state. The form of mens rea had been oblique intent (recklessness): the applicant had been aware that his allegations might not be true but had nonetheless chosen to make them. Taking into account that the applicant had no previous convictions, that he had expressed regret for making the statements, and that no pecuniary damage had ensued from them, the court opted for the minimum sentence: a fine of BGN 5,000 and public reprimand. 13.  The applicant appealed to the Stara Zagora Regional Court. In his brief, he submitted that his first statement had been read out of context; that the lower court had not taken due account of his perturbed emotional state, resulting from his having to spend time in custody pursuant to an unlawful conviction and sentence; that his statements had only been addressed to the appellate court and not intended for publication; and that he had not acted wilfully or recklessly. In an additional brief, the applicant’s counsel submitted, inter alia, that the lower court had failed to explain why it had found that the applicant’s statements had been “disseminated”, given that the appellate judges to whom they had been addressed had been under the duty not to disclose professional secrets and that no third parties had access to the file containing the statements. Nor had the lower court given reasons as to why it had found the statements disparaging. Moreover, the statements were truthful – the judge had been a pupil of the applicant, and his bias against the applicant had been acknowledged in the appellate judgment. The applicant had not acted recklessly. He had made the statements while conducting his defence in a criminal case against him, and it was wrong to read them out of context. Lastly, his sentence, although set at the statutory minimum, was still unduly harsh. 14.  In a final judgment of 17 March 2008, the Stara Zagora Regional Court upheld the applicant’s conviction in relation to the first statement (see paragraph 7 above), but acquitted him with respect to the second statement (see paragraph 9 above), and accordingly reduced the fine to BGN 2,500 (EUR 1,278). It held that the applicant had “disseminated” the first statement by including it in his appeal. The fact that he had been in a fragile emotional state when doing so was irrelevant. As evident from the psychiatric expert report obtained in the course of the defamation proceedings, he had been able to understand the nature of his actions, appreciate their consequences, and control them. Without attempting to verify whether the first statement had a factual basis, the court found that it had amounted to an allegation that the judge was vindictive and had used his office to seek revenge, had been disparaging for the judge in his professional capacity, and had impinged on his office. By contrast, the court went on to hold that the second statement was not disparaging and did not amount to the imputation of an offence. There was nothing discrediting in the fact that the judge had been a pupil of the applicant, and the applicant’s view that the judge should have therefore recused himself was a personal opinion, which could not give rise to criminal liability because it could not be proved. In view of the court’s ruling in relation to the second statement, it was necessary to reduce the applicant’s sentence. Bearing in mind the applicant’s clean criminal record and the fact that he was experiencing financial difficulties because he was unemployed, the court found that it had to opt for a sentence below the statutory minimum and reduce the applicant’s fine to BGN 2,500.