Rights court takes aim at anti-Roma rhetoric in Bulgarian politics

(CN) — A Bulgarian politician once stood in Parliament and branded Roma people “brazen, arrogant and brutalized humanoids.” On Tuesday, Europe’s top human rights court said Bulgaria failed to stop that kind of anti-Roma rhetoric from breaking out of nationalist politics and seeping into the democratic mainstream.

Valeri Simeonov was no fringe internet provocateur. In 2014 and 2015, the nationalist politician who later became Bulgaria’s deputy prime minister used speeches in Parliament to cast Roma people as criminals, welfare abusers and a threat to Bulgarian society.

Speaking from the parliamentary rostrum, he described Roma women as having “the instincts of street bitches” and contrasted struggling Bulgarian pensioners with “the world of brutalized thieves and rapists.” In another speech, he said part of the Roma population had become “impudent, arrogant and brutalized humanoids, ready to kill in order to rob a few levs.”

Roma activists and journalists sued under Bulgaria’s anti-discrimination laws, arguing the speeches recycled racist stereotypes that humiliated Roma people and fueled hostility toward a community long pushed to Europe’s margins.

One Bulgarian court partly agreed, finding some of Simeonov’s language crossed into discriminatory harassment. But higher courts later sided with his argument that he was discussing crime and social breakdown affecting only part of the Roma community, not attacking Roma people as a whole. Judges also ruled the applicants failed to prove the speeches caused concrete personal harm or created a hostile enough environment, even while acknowledging parts of the rhetoric could be insulting and offensive.

The applicants then took the case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which issued two related rulings Tuesday.

Roma, often targeted with the slur “Gypsies,” are Europe’s largest ethnic minority and have long faced segregation, poverty, forced evictions, violence and entrenched discrimination across the continent. In Bulgaria, rights groups have repeatedly warned that anti-Roma rhetoric from nationalist politicians is not confined to television studios or parliamentary speeches and can spill into intimidation and violence on the streets.

The Strasbourg judges sided with the applicants, finding Bulgarian courts failed to reckon with what happens when a nationally known politician uses Parliament to pump degrading anti-Roma stereotypes into mainstream political debate.

The court said Simeonov’s speeches went far beyond rough political commentary about crime or social tensions. Taken together, the judges found, the remarks painted Roma people as violent, parasitic and morally depraved in a way capable of damaging their dignity and sense of self-worth.

“In view of the place where Mr. Simeonov spoke on both occasions — the rostrum of Bulgaria’s Parliament — it can be accepted that his statements reached a wide audience and had a high visibility,” the court said. “Moreover, both of his speeches were made on behalf of his entire parliamentary group, which amplified their weight.”

Strasbourg judges also faulted Bulgarian courts for treating the cases almost like a search for hard evidence, focusing narrowly on direct threats or measurable personal fallout while overlooking the broader damage racist political rhetoric can inflict on an already vulnerable minority community.

The European court did not award damages for emotional harm in either ruling, finding the violation itself was sufficient compensation. It did, however, order Bulgaria to cover litigation costs, including about 2,100 euros (about $2,460) in one case and roughly 4,239 euros (about $4,970) in the other.

Iveta Savova, a lawyer with the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee who represented applicants in one of the cases, said the rulings mark an important shift in how the court approaches anti-Roma hate speech, particularly in countries where courts have often dismissed complaints because no specific person was named directly.

“The court strengthens the idea that harm can be ‘group-based’ and affect the dignity of individual members of a community even if they are not personally named,” Savova said. She added that the judgments warn national courts against treating the balance between free speech and minority protection like a mechanical box-ticking exercise, especially when influential public figures use rhetoric reinforcing ethnic prejudice and exclusion.

Alexander Kashumov, another lawyer representing applicants in one of the cases, said the rulings could still take years to fully reshape how Bulgarian courts handle racist political speech.

“I hope that the Strasbourg court judgments made today will really pave the way for better protection of Roma and all other minorities in Bulgaria,” Kashumov said, while warning that “the problem is deeper and real efforts are needed.”

Rights groups and legal scholars said the rulings also arrive amid wider criticism of how Europe’s top human rights court has historically handled anti-Roma hate speech cases.

The European Roma Rights Centre welcomed the decisions and said Valeri Simeonov had long been viewed by rights advocates as one of Bulgaria’s most notorious anti-Roma voices. The organization warned that years of inflammatory rhetoric targeting Roma communities have helped normalize hostility, fear and, at times, outright violence.

“The rulings also serve as a further indictment of the failures of Bulgarian courts when it comes to anti-Roma racism,” Bernard Rorke, the group’s lead advocacy expert, said. He added that “sometimes such speeches served as a prelude to outbreaks of mob violence directed at Roma,” noting that some attacks forced hundreds of Roma residents to flee their neighborhoods. “It is to be hoped that these latest judgements will prompt the Bulgarian authorities to counter anti-Roma hate speech more effectively.”

Aleksandra Gliszczyńska-Grabias, a professor of law at the Institute of Law Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences and visiting scholar at NYU Law School, said the rulings could become an important test of whether the rights court is prepared to confront anti-Roma hate speech with the same consistency it often applies in antisemitism and homophobia cases.

“In general, the court’s jurisprudence concerning hate speech against Roma has remained inconsistent, at times undermining rather than strengthening the protection of human rights,” Gliszczyńska-Grabias said. She pointed to earlier cases involving death threats against Roma families, racist mob violence and calls to “exterminate” Roma people where, in her view, the court stopped short of fully confronting the historical weight and real-world dangers of anti-Roma hatred.

She added that anti-Roma racism and antisemitism share a common legacy tied to the Holocaust and said the latest Bulgaria rulings suggest the Strasbourg court is moving toward a stronger understanding of states’ obligations to protect vulnerable minorities before hate speech escalates into intimidation or violence.

Lilla Farkas, an associate professor at ELTE’s Institute of Political and International Studies, said the rulings still leave unresolved questions about how the judges define harm in hate speech cases targeting minorities.

“Why should the feeling of harm not be enough?” Farkas said, arguing the court still does not fully recognize racist hate speech as a form of harassment when victims cannot point to direct consequences. She also criticized the decision not to award damages for emotional harm and warned that future cases may still struggle with how courts define collective anti-Roma discrimination.

The judgments are not yet final. Bulgaria has three months to request referral to the court’s Grand Chamber, though such referrals are granted only in exceptional cases.

Bulgaria’s justice ministry did not respond to requests for comment, and a television channel owned by Simeonov also did not respond to requests seeking comment from the politician.

Courthouse News reporter Eunseo Hong is based in the Netherlands.