BULGARIAN HELSINKI COMMITTEENGO REPORT SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 25 PARAGRAPH 1 OF THE FRAMEWORK CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF NATIONAL MINORITIES BULGARIA
September 1999 Upon ratification of the framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities in February 1999 the Government of Bulgaria made the following declaration: “Confirming its adherence to the values of the Council of Europe and the desire for the integration of Bulgaria into the European structures, committed to the policy of protection of human rights and tolerance to persons belonging to minorities, and their full integration into Bulgarian society, the National Assembly of the Republic of Bulgaria declares that the ratification and implementation of the framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities do not imply any right to engage in any activity violating the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the unitary Bulgarian State, its internal and international security.” According to Art. 5, para. 4 of the Bulgarian Constitution all international treaties which are ratified pursuant to the constitutional procedure and published officially are considered part of the domestic legislation and take precedence over those domestic acts which contradict them. With the Decision No. 7/1992 the Constitutional Court ruled that the international treaties that are ratified and have entered into force, but were not published in the Official Gazette are not part of the domestic legislation, unless they were ratified before the 1991 Constitution had entered into force and their publication was not necessary. The latter do not have precedence over the domestic legislation under Art. 5, para. 4 of the Constitution, but acquire precedence immediately upon publication. Under Art. 2, Para. 1 of the Constitution Bulgaria is a unitary state; the provision explicitly prohibits the existence of autonomous territories. The Bulgarian state was created after the 1878 Russian-Turkish war as de facto ethnically based state on the express condition set by the great powers that it would protect minority rights. The Constitution of the Kingdom, in force between 1879-1947 was based on recognition and protection of religious communities. The 1878 Treaty of Berlin however guaranteed the interests of the ethnic Turks, Romanians, Greeks and other ethnic groups living together with Bulgarians. The 1919 Treaty of Neuilly went further in protecting ethnicity together with religion introducing race, ethnicity and language as a basis for equal protection of minorities. In the first years after the Liberation, the curricula of all private schools gave broad opportunities for instruction in the mother tongue. This policy started changing gradually already in the beginning of the century and in the mid 1920s compulsory Bulgarian-language education was introduced for a number of subjects also in minority schools. The biggest ethnic minorities during the Kingdom were Turks, Greeks and Roma. From the Liberation to World War II the Kingdom of Bulgaria was involved in 4 population exchanges which involved eviction of non-Bulgarian ethnic communities from Bulgaria or “exchange” for Bulgarians from other countries. These population exchanges involved Bulgarian citizens of Turkish, Greek, Romanian and German origin. They significantly reduced the numbers of some minorities (e.g. Greeks and Romanians) on Bulgarian lands. 1912-1913 and 1942 witnessed name changes against the Bulgarian Muslims which were as violent as they were unsuccessful. In the 1940s some Muslim Roma were forced to change their names and convert to Christianity. One of the worst cases of legal abuse in this period was related to anti-Semitic legislation and deportation of Jews from the newly-occupied territories to Nazi death camps; the Jews from the mainland were saved from deportation. During the communist regime, despite the existence of clearly formulated constitutional and international legal standards, there were cases of gross abuse of human rights. The anti-Semitic laws and acts were revoked immediately after 1944 and the rights and property of Bulgarian Jews were restored. Nonetheless, over 35 000 Bulgarian Jews emigrated to Israel in the period 1948-1953. After World War II several other minorities were either uprooted or substantially reduced through population transfers, including 15 000 Armenians, 2 000 Czechs and Slovaks, 100-200 Serbs. Under the communist regime, Bulgarian Turks remained the largest minority community in the country despite the three exoduses in 1950-1951, 1969-1978 and 1989. Although supportive to the promotion of ethnic identity of some minorities during its first years of establishment, the communist regime quickly abandoned its “internationalist” policy and already since the 50s started repressing minorities. One of the first signs of repression came after a closed-door plenum of the Communist Party in 1948 after which the government issued two decrees on the procedure of the resettlement of Bulgarian Muslims from all districts along the Bulgarian-Greek border to Northern Bulgaria. In 1958 a Politburo resolution was adopted to merge Turkish and Bulgarian schools, which laid the groundwork for their eventual “bulgarization” in 1984-1985. As a matter of fact, already by mid-70s the schools where Turks were educated were almost completely “bulgarized”. The national periodicals remained bilingual until 1984, after which they were published in Bulgarian only. Attempts to change the names of the Bulgarian-speaking Muslims started already in the 1960s and were completed by 1973. After that the names and the identity of the Bulgarian Turks were targeted. In 1984-85 the government changed by force the names of more than 850 000 Turks and some Muslim Roma with the explicitly stated aim to “bulgarize” them and started systematic action of suppression of any resistance to the process. Police and special troops were largely used in this action with many killed and still more imprisoned or banished. This resulted in an exodus of some 350 000 Turks to Turkey in 1989, which provoked serious international pressure on the communist regime and contributed significantly to its fall in November 1989. About 100 000 of them later returned. The communist policies to Roma were just as erratic. After encouraging Roma organisations, press and culture in the late 1940s and early 1950s, after the 1956 party plenum, all Roma institutions were either closed down or radically reformed; the only Roma newspaper started being published in Bulgarian only. A 1958 decree forced nomadic Roma to settle down. A gradual process of name changes of Muslim Roma started already in the 1950s and was finalized in 1984-85 with the name-changing campaign against Bulgarian Turks. Parallel with the onslaught of Roma identity, the communist authorities pursued a “carrot” policy, offering them a series of social benefits, setting privileged admission of young Roma in secondary and higher education establishments, decreeing the elimination of segregated Roma neighbourhoods. Policies toward Bulgarian citizens with Macedonian self-identity were the most controversial. In the 1940s and 50s, the Communist Party did not oppose and even encouraged the inculcation of Macedonian self-awareness in the Pirin region. In the mid-1950s however this policy was dramatically reversed and the authorities refusing to recognize Macedonian identity not only in Bulgaria, but also in the neighboring Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. In the censuses Macedonians dropped from 169 544 in 1946 to 9 632 in 1965 to disappear altogether in the later censuses. In the 1960s and 70s there were a number of political trials of people charged with activities based on “Macedonian nationalism.” The fall of the communist system in Bulgaria was initiated by the removal from power of the then communist party and state leader Todor Zhivkov on November 10, 1989. The first years afterwards saw an effort to restore the ethnic and religious rights of the country's main minority communities. The President's Office was a decisive force behind the progress in guaranteeing minority rights. In late 1989 the Bulgarian Communist Party resolved to restore the names of all people forcibly renamed and to amnesty all victims of judicial and police persecution in connection with the forced name changes. The legal and political obstacles to the establishment of cultural and educational associations, professional organizations, drama companies of minority communities were removed. The Turks, Armenians, Roma, Jews, Karakachani and Vlakhs registered their own cultural organisations; the Macedonians, after registering their own T[raditional] M[acedonian] O[rganisation] Ilinden in 1992 and having the registration challenged by the country's Chief Prosecutor, finally managed to register it 1998. In 1999 the United Macedonian Organization – PIRIN was registered as a political party by the Sofia City Court. Its registration was subsequently challenged before the Constitutional Court by a group of MPs. Other Macedonian organizations however faced repeated refusals for registration. Some organisations succeeded in restituting property of their predecessors, and in pursuing cultural activities - including instruction in the mother tongue. Minority cultural organisations started printing their own newspapers and magazines, but the post-1989 governments have not pledged active support for minority publications. The December 1992 census in Bulgaria had three questions inquiring into peoples ethnic group, religion and mother tongue. All these categories were supposed to be determined according to people's self-determination. The results from the census, as officially published by the National Institute of Statistics in 1994 are as follows:
These official census results however need to be critically evaluated in a number of aspects the most crucial of which are as follows: 1. Because of the social stigma, some people who are considered Roma by others in the census preferred to declare different identity – mainly Bulgarian and Turkish, but also Vlach. The social consequences of them being considered Roma by the others however are the same as in the case of those who self-identify as Roma. According to expert evaluations the combined figure for the two categories could be somewhere between 600 000 and 800 000. Thus the total number of Bulgarians, Turks and Vlachs should be respectively reduced. 2. The traditional category of Pomaks or Bulgarian-speaking Muslims is not present in the official census data and cannot be detected. In the initial publications of the census results based on a 2% sample 65 546 people were reported to have declared “Bulgarian Muslim” ethnic identity. In fact, this figure was combined from the answers of people who have declared different non-Bulgarian, non-Turkish and non-Roma, but Muslim religious affiliation (e.g. “Ahrians”, “Pomaks” etc.). Another 70 252 people declared Bulgarian ethnic identity, but Muslim Religious identity. Because the mother tongue was determined on the basis of self-determination, some 35 000 Muslims who spoke Bulgarian and lived in the Rhodope mountains were registered as Turkish-speakers while they in fact did not speak Turkish. About 70 000 Bulgarian-speaking Muslims declared Turkish identity. There is also certain number of people who are considered by others as “Pomak” or “of Pomak origin” while in fact in the census they declared Bulgarian ethnic identity and Eastern Orthodoxy as their traditional religion. 3. Bulgarian citizens with Macedonian identity are also not officially present in the census results. There were 10 803 people who declared Macedonian identity but were put in the general category of “others” in the official census results. About 3 000 of them declared Macedonian as their mother tongue but this result was too put into the category of “other”. It has to also be taken into account that the government's policy towards Macedonians and towards declaring Macedonian identity was very negative both before and during the census. Some people were threatened when they tried to encourage others to declare Macedonian identity. Thus it might be concluded that under the conditions of free self-determination there would be more people declaring Macedonian identity. 4. The census results on religious affiliation were based on the “historical belonging” of people to the denominations which make them biased in favour of the Eastern Orthodox Church because the people who declared “no religion” were usually registered as Eastern Orthodox. Some of the Protestants too were registered as Eastern Orthodox. By religious affiliation the Turks who are the main minority group are predominantly Sunni Muslims. Part of them are Shi'a Muslims. Bulgarian-speaking Muslims are also predominantly Sunni with some part of them being Shi'a. Roma are divided between Muslims and Christians in more or less equal parts. Bulgarians are the main constituency of the Christian churches with the only exception of Armenian-Gregorian the main constituency of which is Armenians. The religiosity, measured by regular going to church, praying and observance of religious rituals among the Muslims, as well as among the Christian religious minorities in Bulgaria is generally higher than the country's average. Bulgarians are a minority in a number of municipalities where the Ethnic Turks and the Bulgarian-speaking Muslims are majorities. In only one district however, that of Kurdzhali, the Turkish population constitutes a majority and all other ethnic groups, including Bulgarians, are minorities. Bulgarian-speaking Muslims are concentrated in the Rhodope Mountains in the districts of Smolian (close to 50% of the population), Kurdzhali, Blagoevgrad, Pazardzhik and Plovdiv. Small numbers of them live also in the Northern Bulgaria and have some concentration in several villages of the districts of Lovech and Veliko Turnovo. In several municipalities of the districts of Blagoevgrad and Smolian they constitute majorities while other groups, such as Christian Bulgarians, Turks and Roma are minorities. Roma are a minority throughout the country's districts and municipalities. They are also a minority in the areas densely populated by ethnic Turks and Bulgarian-speaking Muslims in the Southern and North-Eastern parts of the country. (For general information on places of settlement of minorities see under Article 3)
The framework Convention was published in Bulgarian already before ratification by several private
organizations. The effects of the ratification of the Convention as a whole, as well as a number of concrete
provisions were subject to a wide discussion that involved politicians, minority organizations, human rights
groups and the media. After ratification, however, the interest in the Convention has diminished.
Appendix PART II Article 1 The protection of national minorities and of the rights and freedoms of persons belonging to those
minorities forms an integral part of the international protection of human rights, and as such falls
within the scope of international co-operation.
Bulgaria is a member of the United Nations, the Council of Europe and the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe. It has also applied for membership in the European Union and NATO. Bulgaria is a signatory to a number of significant international human rights treaties that have provisions for prevention of discrimination and protection of minorities. In addition to the framework Convention those include also: The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights plus its First Optional Protocol, Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Convention on the Rights of the Child, UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education, ILO Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Bulgaria also joined the mechanisms for individual complaints under the Civil and Political Rights Covenant, Racial Discrimination Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights. The principle of the rule of law is recognized in Art. 4 of the Constitution. Art. 6, para. 2 of the
Constitution provides that all citizens shall be equal before the law and that there shall be no privileges or
restrictions on the ground, among other things of race, nationality ethnic self-identity and religion. There is
however a serious problem with the access to justice for poor people in both criminal and civil proceedings.
Both the Constitution and the Code for Criminal Procedure provide for the right of access to a lawyer from
the moment of detention. This right however cannot be exercised by many people because of poverty and
structural problems (including discrimination) in the administration of justice. There is no adequate
framework established to ensure the access to justice for those who cannot afford hiring a lawyer in both
criminal and civil proceedings. The Code of Criminal Procedure provides for an ex officio appointment of a
lawyer at all stages of the criminal proceedings only to very limited categories of people. As a result,
according to a survey conducted among prisoners in 1999 54% of them did not have a lawyer during
preliminary investigation and 40% of them did not have a lawyer during their trial. Turks and Roma that
are themselves disproportionally represented among the prison population, are still more disproportionally
represented among those who did not have a lawyer during the different stages of criminal proceedings.
58% of the Turks and 64% of the Roma did not have a lawyer during preliminary investigation and 48% of
the Turks and 48% of the Roma did not have a lawyer during trial.
Article 2 The provisions of this framework Convention shall be applied in good faith, in a spirit of understanding and tolerance and in conformity with the principles of good neighbourliness, friendly relations and co-operation between States. Article 3 1 Every person belonging to a national minority shall have the right freely to choose to be treated or not to be treated as such and no disadvantage shall result from this choice or from the exercise of the rights which are connected to that choice. 2 Persons belonging to national minorities may exercise the rights and enjoy the freedoms flowing from the principles enshrined in the present framework Convention individually as well as in community with others. Paragraph 1 and 2
- Are there any linguistic or ethnic groups, (whether they consist of citizens or of non-citizens living in the country), which are not considered a national minority? If so, please provide information on the different points of view in this respect. The very concept of “national minority” has an uncertain meaning in Bulgaria and even after ratification of
the framework Convention a dispute continues on whether it is at all applicable to the Bulgarian situation.
The Constitution and the existing legislation does not use the term. It was however used by some
politicians, argued during the debate preceding ratification that the provisions of the framework
Convention do not have an object to protect in Bulgaria. Such was the position e.g. of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs in September 1997. Using a provision from the document of the 1991 CSCE meeting in
Geneva of the experts on national minorities, the Ministry prepared a draft-declaration upon signature of
the framework Convention stating that the “ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious differences in the
composition of the population in the Republic of Bulgaria did not lead to the creation of national
minorities.” Others believe that “national minority” should be used to mean “all ethnic, religious and
linguistic minorities actually existing in Bulgaria”. A third group believes that “national minority” should
be used to designate certain, but not all “minority groups” and used different criteria to exclude a number
of them. A silent assumption of the entire debate was and continues to be that the provisions of the
framework Convention, if at all, should be applied only to Bulgarian citizens. There also seems to be an
agreement, although not explicitly stated, that the provisions of the framework Convention on “national
minorities” will be applied to the Bulgarian citizens “whose mother tongue is not Bulgarian.”
- Is the notion of national minority defined under domestic law or is there an enumeration in law of groups which are recognised as national minorities? If so, where? The Constitution of Bulgaria does not use the term “national minority”. Art. 36 (2) uses “citizens whose mother tongue is not Bulgarian” (“граждани, за които българският език не е майчин”); Art. 54 provides for the right of “everyone” to develop his/her own culture “in accordance with his/her ethnic belonging” (“в съответствие с етническата си принадлежност”). The terms used to designate groups of people of common religious belief in Art. 13 (4) are “religious institutions and communities” (“религиозни общности и институции”); Art. 6 (2) which guarantees the equality before the law and non-discrimination prohibits discrimination on the grounds of “race, nationality, ethnic self-identity, sex, origin, religion, education, opinion, political affiliation, personal or social status or property status” (“љ№с№, народност, етническа принадлежност, пол, произход, религия, образование, убеждения, политическа принадлежност, лично и обществено положение или имуществено състояние”). The term “national minority” thus is not present also among those grounds for non-discrimination. When in November 1992 the Constitutional Court interpreted the provisions of Art. 6 it ruled with Decision No.14/1992 that there should be no other grounds for non-discrimination, but only those explicitly mentioned in the Constitution (See below under Article 4). There is no enumeration in the law of groups, which are recognized as national minorities. The terms used by the Constitution are, for the most part, reproduced in the legislation. The relevant legislative acts include: 1. The Law on National Education – Art. 8 (2) provides for the right of students whose mother tongue is not Bulgarian “to study their mother tongue in the municipal schools” (“да изучават своя майчин език в общинските училища”). 2. The Radio and Television Act – Art. 12 (2) provides for the possibility of radio- and TV operators to air programs in languages other than Bulgarian when they are “for Bulgarian citizens whose mother tongue is not Bulgarian” (“за български граждани, за които българският език не е майчин”); Art. 49 (1) provides for the possibility of the Bulgarian National Radio and the Bulgarian National Television to air programs “for the Bulgarian citizens whose mother tongue is not Bulgarian” (“за българските граждани, за които българският език не е майчин”). 3. Ordinance No. 3 from 27 June 1997 for Determining the Number of Staff in the System of National Education - Art. 7 (1) provides that teaching staff is paid for electives, “including classes for learning the mother tongue” (“в т.ч. за изучаване на майчин език”). 4. Regulations for Applying the National Education Act - Art. 8 (3) provides that students whose mother tongue is not Bulgarian can “study their mother tongue in municipal schools” if there are enough students for one group (“да изучават майчиния си език в общинските училища”). Para. 4 defines mother tongue as the “language which the child uses to communicate with its family” (“езикът, на който детето общува в семейството си”). 5. Decree No. 183 of the Council of Ministers from 5 September 1994 for Studying the Mother Tongue in Municipal Schools in the Republic of Bulgaria - Art. 1 (1) provides that “students whose mother tongue is not Bulgarian” (“учениците, за които майчиният език не е български”) can receive instruction in it from the first to the eight grades in municipal schools as a facultative subject; para. 2 determines the amount of classes for study of the mother tongue as four weekly. Art. 2 (1) provides that applications for studying the mother tongue should be deposited with the school headmaster. Art. 4 states that “textbooks for the study of mother tongue are not paid for by the students” (“учебниците, по които се изучава майчин език не се заплащат от учениците”), and Art. 5 provides that “the finances for mother tongue instruction” (“финансирането на обучението по майчин език”) are supplied by the municipal budgets. 6. Art. 15 (3) of the Law on the Educational Degree, Educational Minimum and the Educational Plan from 27 July 1999 effectively repeals the provision of the Decree No. 183 on mother tongue education as a facultative subject and provides that “into the obligatory elective program should be included also the education of the mother tongue according to Art. 8 (2) of the Law on National Education” (“В задължителноизбираемата подготовка се включва и изучаването на майчиния език съгласно чл. 8, ал. 2 от Закона за народната просвета.”). 7. Decree No. 86 from 12 March 1997 for Endorsing a State Register for the Educational Degrees in Higher Educational Establishments in the Republic of Bulgaria - In the annex to Art. 1 in its final provisions, under the code 1.2.14 the decree lists a degree in “Mother tongue (Turkish, Armenian, Hebrew, Romanes)...” (“Майчин език (турски, арменски, иврит, ромски)”). The only exception from the above wording is the one used in the Rules and Regulations for the Structure
and Regulation of the Work of the National Council on Ethnic and Demographic Issues (See below under
Article 5 on its structure and functions). There the National Council was assigned a task to “develop and
propose to the Council of Ministers…concrete measures for preservation of tolerance and understanding
between Bulgarian citizens of different ethnic and religious groups” (“разработва и предлага на
Министерския съвет…конкретни мерки за запазване на толерантността и разбирателството между
българските граждани от различни етнически и религиозни групи”). The National Council also
“coordinates with the state bodies and with the non-governmental organizations concrete measures in
execution of accepted international obligations from the Republic of Bulgaria in the sphere of the rights of
Bulgarian citizens belonging to minority groups and their integration in society.” (“Националният
съвет…координира с държавните органи и с неправителствените организации конкретни мерки в
изпълнение на поети международни задължения от страна на Република България в областта на
правата на българските граждани, принадлежащи към малцинствени групи, и тяхната интеграция
в обществото.”)
The National Institute of Statistics (NIS) collected demographic data during the census of 1992 on three
issues: “ethnic group”, “religion” and “mother tongue” that were three different questions asked in the
questioner (see above under Demographic situation in the country). NIS publishes annual statistics on
crime and sentenced people where information on the ethnic background on those sentenced for criminal
offenses is also available. It is however not clear how this information is collected and processed. The
Ministry of Interior apparently also collects information on the ethnicity of perpetrators of crimes as there
were several reports summarizing the findings, but it had never came out with any details as to the
methods used. Under the rules and regulations on the Application of the Law on the Substitution of the
Military Duties with Alternative Service the Commission on the Alternative Service is supposed to collect
information on the applicant's mother tongue.
Talking about groups that are not considered a “national minority”, there should be a special mention of at least one of them that is not, and is not recognized by the authorities whatever the meaning of this as well as of similar terms is. This is the group of Bulgarian citizens of Macedonian self-identity. Already during the recognition of the FYROM as a state the government explicitly declared that this could not lead to the recognition of a separate Macedonian ethnic identity. Both before and since then Bulgarian citizens of Macedonian self-identity have been subject to different forms of discrimination and official pressure in every attempt to demonstrate their Macedonian identity. Despite the fact that several organizations consisting de facto of Macedonians have been registered in the courts, in none of their statutes and other official documents this was explicitly mentioned. The other group whose distinct ethnic identification is not recognized is that of the Pomaks. Despite the
fact that during the 1992 census more than 65 000 of them (see above under Demographic situation in
the country) expressed a wish to be considered as a distinct ethnicity in the publication of the final results,
they were coupled with Bulgarians in the publication of the final results. There were numerous statements
of state officials and it is the predominant trend in the scholarship that they are not an ethnic but a religious
minority composed of Bulgarians who were islamized during the Ottoman rule.
- to which persons in your country have the provisions of the framework Convention been applied? - please provide information about the numbers and the places of settlement of the persons concerned and indicate how these data are collected. There were no changes in any law after the ratification of the framework Convention to indicate some specific approach as a result of the ratification. The provisions of the framework Convention should in theory be applied to all Bulgarian citizens who belong to different ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities no matter how small they are. In fact however it is applied to some (e.g. Turks, Armenians, Jews) and not applied to other (e.g. Tatar, Vlach, Greek) minorities depending on a variety of historical, political and cultural factors such as: - Numerical strength and political power of one or another minority; - Origin of the minority and its historical presence on the Bulgarian lands; - Life strategy and the own vision of minority's mode of integration into Bulgarian society. According to the critically evaluated 1992 census results (see above under Demographic situation in the country) Bulgarian Turks are concentrated in the South-Eastern and North-Eastern part of the country and are substantially represented (constitute more than 10% of the population) in the districts of Burgas, Kurdzhali, Russe, Silistra, Dobrich, Turgovishte, Haskovo, Shumen. They have presence also in several other districts. Roma are scattered throughout the country. The districts in which they constitute more than 5% of the population according to the 1992 census results are: Vidin, Montana, Pazardzhik, Sliven, Stara Zagora, Dobrich, Turgovishte, Shumen. Most of the Macedonians have been registered during the 1992 census in the district of Blagoevgrad. There the people reported officially as “other” in the census constitute a little bit more than 3% of the population. Muslims constitute more than 10% of the population according to 1992 census data in the following districts: Blagoevgrad, Burgas, Varna, Kurdzhali, Pazardzhik, Razgrad, Russe, Silistra, Smolian, Dobrich, Turgovishte, Haskovo, Shumen. Catholics are present with more than 1, 000 believers according to the 1992 census data in the districts of Plovdiv, Pleven, Vratsa, Veliko Turnovo and Sofia-city. Protestants are present with more than 1, 000 believers in the districts of Sofia-city, Sofia-district, Burgas,
Plovdiv, Sliven, Stara Zagora, Haskovo and Yambol.
Article 4 1 The Parties undertake to guarantee to persons belonging to national minorities the right of equality before the law and of equal protection of the law. In this respect, any discrimination based on belonging to a national minority shall be prohibited. 2 The Parties undertake to adopt, where necessary, adequate measures in order to promote, in all areas of economic, social, political and cultural life, full and effective equality between persons belonging to a national minority and those belonging to the majority. In this respect, they shall take due account of the specific conditions of the persons belonging to national minorities. 3 The measures adopted in accordance with paragraph 2 shall not be considered to be an act of discrimination. Paragraph 1
The principle of equality before the law and non-discrimination has always been accepted in the Bulgarian
legal system. Already the Constitution of the Kingdom had a general clause providing for equality before
the law (Art. 57). All subsequent constitutions too had such clauses. As a general legal principle however
equality and non-discrimination has never been a determining factor of Bulgaria's social and political life,
especially with regard to the treatment of minorities. That it existed more or less just on paper is proved by
the fact that it could not prevent the atrocious discrimination some minorities faced in the past and the
passing of laws of attainder and discriminatory arrangements of the legal status of minorities throughout
Bulgarian history.
The present Constitution of Bulgaria too has a general anti-discriminatory clause, Art. 6(2): “All citizens shall be equal before the law. There shall be no privileges or restriction of rights on the grounds of race, nationality, ethnic self-identity, sex, origin, religion, education, opinion, political affiliation, personal or social status or property status.” (“Всички граждани са равни пред закона. Не се допускат никакви ограничения на правата или привилегии, основани на раса, народност, етническа принадлежност, пол, произход, религия, образование, убеждения, политическа принадлежност, лично и обществено положение или имуществено състояние.”). This provision was subject of interpretation by the Constitutional Court with its Decision No.14/1992. The court was petitioned by the President to rule on a number of issues related to the interpretation of this provision, but it only accepted to rule on three: whether the equality before the law means equality before all acts establishing norms of general application (i.e. also ordinances, decrees, regulations, etc.), whether the grounds for non-discrimination in Art. 6(2) are exhaustively enumerated, and whether the privileges constitute a breach of the principle of non-discrimination. In its reasoning the Court elaborated on a number of related issues. It e.g. classified in quite a controversial way the grounds in Art. 6(2) into in-born (race, nationality, ethnic belonging, sex and origin) and acquired (religion, education, political affiliation, personal or social status or property status). On the substance it ruled that equality before the law means equality before all acts establishing norms of general application, that the grounds for non-discrimination in Art. 6(2) are exhaustively enumerated and that the principle of non-discrimination will be violated by any privilege based on the grounds explicitly stated in Art. 6(2). It should also be taken into account that, due to the status of international law in the domestic legal order (see above under The status of international law in the domestic legal order) the non-discrimination clauses of the international treaties to which Bulgaria is a party are part of the domestic legal order and are directly applicable. Apart from Art. 6(2) of the Constitution and the international law, non-discrimination clauses were inscribed in a number of laws. These include: 1. Social Assistance Act (Закон за социално подпомагане) 2. Law on Consumer Protection and Trade Rules (Закон за защита на потребителя и за правилата на
търговия) 3. Labour Code (Кодекс на труда) 4. National Education Act (Закон за народната просвета) 5. Radio and Television Act (Закон за радиото и телевизията) 6. Refugees' Act (Закон за бежанците) 7. Code of Criminal Procedure (Наказателно-процесуален кодекс) 8. Protection during Unemployment and Encouragement of Employment Act (Закон за закрила при
безработица и насърчаване на заетостта 9. Law on Defense and the Military Forces of the Republic of Bulgaria (Закон за отбраната и
въоръжените сили на Република България) 10. Law on Additional Voluntary Pension Security (Закон за допълнително доброволно пенсионно
осигуряване) 11. Law on Community Centres (Закон за народните читалища) Some municipalities (e.g. that of Stara Zagora) passed ordinances prohibiting discrimination in a number of spheres of social life (use of municipal properties, service intended for use by the general public, etc.). Violation of such provisions is subject to administrative fines. In addition to that the Penal Code (Наказателен кодекс) provides for criminal responsibility in some
cases of discrimination: (2) A person who uses violence against another or damages his property because of his nationality,
race, religion or because of his political convictions, shall be punished by deprivation of liberty for up to
three years and by public censure (“Който употреби насилие срещу другиго или повреди имота му
поради неговата народност, раса, религия или поради неговите политически убеждения, се
наказва с лишаване от свобода до три години и с обществено порицание”).
There is no state body dealing with discrimination on whatever ground in Bulgaria. The provisions of the
Constitution, international treaties and ordinary laws are supposed to be enforced through the established
courts. The crimes envisaged in both Art. 162 and Art. 172(1) of the Penal Code are “crimes of general
nature”, i.e. they are prosecuted by the prosecutors and no private prosecution, as in several other cases, is
possible. On April 22 1999 the Council of Ministers took a decision to adopt a Framework Program for
Equal Participation of Roma in Bulgarian Society which envisages, among other things also establishment
of a special governmental body to deal with ethnic discrimination (see below under Article 4 (2)).
The above provisions of the law are by and large not enforced. No court decision based on them is known
to have been delivered so far. According to the official statistics, since 1990 no person has been sentenced
under Art.162. Between 1993 and 1997 eight people were sentenced under Art. 172(1) but since it
provides for criminal responsibility for discrimination also on grounds other than ethnicity, race and
religion, it is not clear whether these convictions were based on the latter.
Discrimination of ethnic and religious minorities is a serious problem in Bulgarian society. It takes place in almost all spheres of social life and in a variety of contexts. Both local and international human rights monitors have documented many cases of discrimination on ethnic and religious grounds. They include: - Employment discrimination. Roma were specifically affected, especially during the first years of democratic transitions. They were first to be fired from their jobs in the state enterprises because of their low qualification, but very often also because of negative ethnic prejudice. They were also excluded from the new forms of organized cultivation of land since the restitution of agricultural land and property were based on the assumption that it goes to its pre-collectivization owners. Roma have not had any land before the communist take-over. Members of some religious groups branded as “sects” were too discriminated in employment. In 1994-95, during the peak of the “anti-sect” campaign, a number of them were dismissed from their jobs, especially if those were in the educational system. - Discrimination in education. Public schools for the Turks and especially for Roma that are established in segregated neighborhoods are by and large of low educational standards and bad material conditions. Until the mid-90s Roma schools offered special curricula already from the first year stressing on development of technical skills. After 1997 programs for mother-tongue education for Romanes-speakers practically stopped functioning in all the schools of Bulgaria. Until 1999 the mother tongue of ethnic minorities was learned only as an elective subject while for the majority it was obligatory. Some ethnic minorities, such as Vlachs and Karakachani, although they wish, do not study their mother tongue at all. - Discrimination in social welfare and other communal services. Since 1990 there have been a number of well-documented cases of refusals of social welfare benefits for Roma families. In 1998 and 1999 there were a number of Roma riots in several towns in Northwestern Bulgaria against municipal authorities for refusals or delays to pay social welfare benefits. For the most part, Roma neighborhoods are not regulated and most of the buildings there are considered “illegally built.” Communal services are scarce, if at all existent. - Discrimination in medical care. Since 1990 there have been continuous complaints of Roma for discriminatory treatment in hospitals, including segregation and not offering basic services that are free of charge. Medical facilities in Roma neighborhoods, if they exist at all, are usually in an extremely bad shape and provide services of poor quality. - Discrimination in the criminal justice system. Turks and Roma are over-represented as inmates in the prisons. According to the 1999 survey they are also over-represented among those who complaint of physical abuse during arrest and preliminary investigation and among those who did not have a lawyer at all stages of criminal proceedings. For these and for purely discriminatory reasons Roma and Turks are also more likely to get harsher sentences compared to Bulgarians for the same offenses. Paragraph 2
Special measures to promote ethnic equality in economic, social, political and cultural life are not foreign to the Bulgarian society and politics. In the 1950s the communist authorities in Bulgaria adopted a number of decisions encouraging privileged acceptance of Turkish and Roma students all educational institutions. These measures continued throughout the communist period although in different forms. When the names of the Bulgarian Turks were changed by force in the mid-80s the authorities offered a variety of benefits for those who complied. The new Constitution however, in Art. 6 (2) prohibits privileges and the Constitutional Court interpreted this narrowly (See above under Article 4(1)). This interpretation does not comply with Art. 4 (3) of the framework Convention and with Art. 1 (4) of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Bulgarian Constitution however has precedence over international law. Despite this on April 22 1999 the Council of Ministers took a decision to adopt a Framework Program for
Equal Participation of Roma in Bulgarian Society. This program envisages establishment of a
governmental body to deal with ethnic discrimination with wide powers, including imposing fines on
individuals and juridical persons for discrimination on ethnic grounds. It also envisages desegregation of
Roma schools, regulation of Roma neighborhoods and legalization of houses, systematic introduction of
Romanes in public schools and establishment of a special governmental fund to support businesses hiring
minorities. No legislative or other measures however have been taken so far to implement this program.
No legislation exists in Bulgaria aimed at promoting special measures to ensure full and effective equality
between persons belonging to a national minority and those belonging to the majority.
No special governmental body exists in Bulgaria to deal with promoting special measures to ensure full
and effective equality between persons belonging to a national minority and those belonging to the
majority.
See above for the adoption on April 22 1999 of the Framework Program for Equal Participation of Roma
in Bulgarian Society.
There is no practice of adopting special measures to ensure full and effective equality between persons
belonging to a national minority and those belonging to majority in Bulgaria.
Paragraph 3
See above Article 4 (2) under narrative.
See above Article 4 (2) under legal.
See above Article 4 (2) under state infrastructure.
See above Article 4 (2) under policy.
See above Article 4 (2) under factual.
Article 5 1 The Parties undertake to promote the conditions necessary for persons belonging to national minorities to maintain and develop their culture, and to preserve the essential elements of their identity, namely their religion, language, traditions and cultural heritage. 2 Without prejudice to measures taken in pursuance of their general integration policy, the Parties shall refrain from policies or practices aimed at assimilation of persons belonging to national minorities against their will and shall protect these persons from any action aimed at such assimilation. Paragraph 1
The conditions necessary for persons belonging to national minorities to maintain and develop their
culture, and to preserve the essential elements of their identity are laid down in the Constitution and
legislation. They ensure a certain amount of minimum legal guarantees. Since 1994 there have been also
special governmental bodies established to ensure these conditions in practice (See below).
- is there a State religion in your country? If so, where is this laid down in law? There is no state religion in Bulgaria. Art. 13 (3) of the Constitution provides that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the “traditional religion” in Bulgaria (“Традиционна религия в Република България е източноправославното вероизповедание”). This however is not supposed to mean anything more than a mere declaration. There is no enumeration in law of recognised religions. Bulgarian is the official language of Bulgaria. This is laid down in Art. 3 of the Constitution
(“Официалният език в републиката е българският”).
Since 1994 there have always been bodies within the Council of Ministers that were supposed to help
promoting in practice the conditions necessary for persons belonging to national minorities to maintain and
develop their culture, and to preserve the essential elements of their identity. All these were more or less
formal bodies with an unclear mandate and little powers. With the Council of Ministers Resolution 267
dated 30 June 1994 an Interdepartmental Council on Ethnic Affairs at the Council of Ministers was
established as an advisory body. This council however never convened. The BSP government set up a
National Council on Social and Demographic Issues (Decree 123 dated 14 June 1995) also mainly as an
advisory body. It was supposed to represent the ethnic communities, as well as organizations of women,
the disabled, pensioners, etc. (Official Gazette No. 57 of 23 June 1995). The very title and, to a large
extent, the functions and policies of this body, reflected the traditional approach of Bulgarian Socialists to
ethnic minority issues, which were regarded as a social rather than ethnic problem. In December 1997, the
United Democratic Forces (UtDF) government established (Decree 449 dated 4 December 1997) a
National Council on Ethnic and Demographic Issues (NCEDI), in charge of both ethnic minorities and
Bulgarians abroad (Official Gazette No. 118 of 10 December 1997). According to its goals, stated in Art.
1 of its Rules and Regulations it has to “facilitate consultation, cooperation and coordination between
government bodies and non-governmental organizations with the aim to form and realize a national policy
with regard to ethnic and demographic issues and migration”. According to Art. 2 (2) the National Council
also “coordinates with the state bodies and with the non-governmental organizations concrete measures in
execution of accepted international obligations from the Republic of Bulgaria in the sphere of the rights of
Bulgarian citizens belonging to minority groups and their integration in society” (See below under Article
5 (2) for the structure of the NCEDI). The NCEDI was to a certain extent instrumental in mediating
between the government and the Roma communities in adopting the Framework Program for Equal
Participation of Roma in Bulgarian Society (See above).
- what is the policy of promotion of the conditions necessary for persons belonging to national minorities to maintain and develop their culture and how does it relate to the policy of the State in the field of culture in general? The government policy is mainly of not obstructing, within the constitutional and legislative framework, of
the efforts of some of the minorities to maintain and develop their culture and to suppress the efforts of
others (e.g. Macedonians) to do so. The government also tolerates the activities of local and international
donors to support the efforts of some minorities. Some municipal authorities (mainly dominated by the
Movement for Rights and Freedoms) offer modest financial support for some cultural events of minorities.
Only on very few occasions the central government had offered modest support for some minority events.
Some minorities organize by themselves celebrations of important events related to their culture. These include festivals, religious holidays, trips within Bulgaria and abroad, etc. On very few occasions the local and the central governments contributed modest support for some minority cultural events. Others, for lack of resources or because of indifference, do not do that. A third category consists of people (e.g. Macedonians) whose efforts to celebrate cultural events are actively obstructed by the government (See under Article 7). Paragraph 2
Bulgaria has a history of repressive anti-minority politics disguised under the cover of “integration” (See above under Overview of the relevant historical development of the country). This was in fact the keyword during the name-changing campaign in the 1980s, as well as during the previous forced changes of names and religion. During the debate on the new Constitution, the issue of assimilation through “integration” came up on a number of occasions in the context of a search for constitutional guarantees against repetition of these practices. The provision of Art. 29 (1) is supposed to provide such a guarantee (See below for the text). This provision was introduced as an addition to the general provision prohibiting torture on the insistence of several members of the Grand National Assembly, many of whom belonged to minorities. Despite this constitutional provision the place of minorities in Bulgarian society has been discussed and
relevant legislative and policy documents have been introduced based on the concept of “integration” of
minorities into Bulgarian society. The Rules and Regulations for the Structure and Regulation of the Work
of the National Council on Ethnic and Demographic Issues (See above under Article 5 (1)) envisage that
the NCEDI develops measures to integrate minorities in Bulgarian society (See below the relevant
legislative texts). The Framework Program for Equal Participation of Roma in Bulgarian Society (see
above under Article 4 (2)) also envisages integration of Roma in Bulgarian society and explicitly states:
“Real and actual integration is only possible among communities with equal rights, otherwise it turns into
assimilation…In order for an integration program to be successful, it will have to necessarily envisage
emancipation.”
- if there is legislation explicitly pertaining to a "general integration policy", please provide details. Article 29 (1) of the Constitution of Bulgaria reads: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, or to forcible assimilation.” (“Никой не може да бъде подлаган на мъчение, на жестоко, безчовечно или унижаващо отношение, както и на насилствена асимилация.”). Article 2 (2) of the Rules and Regulations for the Structure and Regulation of the Work of the National
Council on Ethnic and Demographic Issues: “The National Council…coordinates with the state bodies and
with the non-governmental organizations concrete measures in execution of accepted international
obligations from the Republic of Bulgaria in the sphere of the rights of Bulgarian citizens belonging to
minority groups and their integration in society.” (“Националният съвет…координира с държавните
органи и с неправителствените организации конкретни мерки в изпълнение на поети
международни задължения от страна на Република България в областта на правата на българските
граждани, принадлежащи към малцинствени групи, и тяхната интеграция в обществото”).
- is there a governmental infrastructure for integration policy? The governmental body responsible for the “integration in society” of the “Bulgarian citizens belonging to
minority groups” is the National Council on Ethnic and Demographic Issues, a body established by a
governmental decree in December 1997 with the Council of Ministers. The latter provides technical
assistance and the budget for the Council. The NCEDI is chaired by a Deputy Prime-Minister and has two
types of members: permanent and associated. Permanent members are officials from a number of ministries
and governmental agencies while associate members could become government agencies, research
institutes and non-governmental organizations, including those of minorities upon invitation. NCEDI
meets at least once a month and has a small staff in which the key role is that of the Secretary. At present a
number of minority organizations take part in the work of the Council. There is however no Macedonian
organization among them.
- is there a general integration policy in your country ? If so, please give details. There is no formulated general integration policy in Bulgaria. For the policy with regard to Roma see
above on the Framework Program for Equal Participation of Roma in Bulgarian Society under Articles 4
and 5.
The Framework Program for Equal Participation of Roma in Bulgarian Society is so far only on paper. As
there is no concrete policy formulated on integration of other minorities, no efforts could be reported on in
that regard.
Article 6 1. The Parties shall encourage a spirit of tolerance and intercultural dialogue and take effective measures to promote mutual respect and understanding and co-operation among all persons living on their territory, irrespective of those persons' ethnic, cultural, linguistic or religious identity, in particular in the fields of education, culture and the media. 2 The Parties undertake to take appropriate measures to protect persons who may be subject to threats or acts of discrimination, hostility or violence as a result of their ethnic, cultural, linguistic or religious identity. Paragraph 1
Relations between different ethnic, linguistic and religious communities in Bulgaria vary and are dependent on a number of factors such as the type, numerical strength, social status of the minority and the general economic situation in the country (See below data obtained from several surveys of attitudes). The government is not active in promoting mutual respect and understanding and co-operation among all persons living on their territory, irrespective of those persons' ethnic, cultural, linguistic or religious identity. In some cases it is in fact the main source of instigation of hatred and even violence towards some ethnic and religious minorities. There are a number of non-governmental organizations working to promote ethnic and religious tolerance and mutual understanding. They all depend on foreign funding. A number of minority churches are also involved in active promotion of tolerance and enhancing cooperation among different ethnic and religious communities. With the exception of the newspapers of ethnic and religious minorities, the mainstream media do not
contribute to the spirit of understanding and intercultural dialogue. In the cases of some ethnic and
religious minorities they are in fact main promoters of prejudice and suspicion. Particular targets of hate
speech are Roma, Macedonians and some new religions. The mainstream newspapers routinely mention
the ethnic belonging of the perpetrators of crime if they are Roma or members of some unpopular
minorities.
The preamble of the Bulgarian Constitution declares “tolerance” as one of the “universal human values” to
which the representatives of Bulgarian people “pledge loyalty to.” Art. 37 (1) of the Constitution obliges
the state to “assist the maintenance of tolerance and respect among the believers from different
denominations, and among believers and non-believers”. (“Държавата съдейства за поддържане на
търпимост и уважение между вярващите от различните вероизповедания, както и между вярващи
и невярващи.”).
One of the tasks of the National Council on Ethnic and Demographic Issues is to “develop and propose to
the Council of Ministers…concrete measures for preservation of tolerance and understanding between
Bulgarian citizens of different ethnic and religious groups”. (See above under Article 5 on the structure
and functions of the Council).
The government's policy to promote a spirit of tolerance and intercultural dialogue varies depending on
the type, social position and public attitudes to different minorities. It is overtly hostile in some cases (e.g.
with Macedonians and some new religious movements) to the point of practicing or condoning violence,
and indifferent to others. In only exceptional cases would the government make declarations in the spirit of
promotion of mutual respect and understanding and co-operation towards and among minorities. Despite
the adoption of the Framework Program for Equal Participation of Roma in Bulgarian Society (see above
under Article 4(2)) no legislative or other measures have been taken so far to implement it.
A number of surveys of inter-ethnic attitudes show deeply rooted and strong prejudices and social distance towards some minorities. Thus, according to several consecutive surveys conducted in 1992, 1994 and 1997 the level of prejudices and social distance towards Roma among Bulgarians is as high as the level of prejudice and social distance of the white Americans in the southern states of the USA towards the Blacks in the late 50s and early 60s. The level of prejudice and social distance of the Bulgarians towards the other minorities (Turks, Pomaks and Jews) is somewhat lower but still high. While prejudice and social distance towards Turks and Pomaks show a tendency towards reduction over time, there is no such trend in the case of Roma. Minorities exhibit generally more tolerant attitudes towards the majority as well as towards each other. Minorities' attitudes towards Roma, although more tolerant than those of Bulgarians, are nevertheless predominantly negative. Paragraph 2
Bulgarian criminal legislation does not presume aggravated circumstances either in law or as a matter of jurisprudence in cases when ordinary crimes are perpetrated out of ethnic or religious hatred. It however envisages criminal responsibility for offenses against persons who may be subject to threats or acts of discrimination, hostility or violence as a result of their ethnic, cultural, linguistic or religious identity (See below relevant provisions of the Penal Code). Under communism in the context of the assimilation policies these provisions were enforced occasionally to prosecute members of minority groups for peaceful expression of their identity. Since 1990 some ethnic and religious minorities have been subjected to systematic threats and violence perpetrated by both government officials and private citizens. However none of these provisions have ever been enforced after 1990 and the official statistics does not have any data on offenders sentenced effectively for such crimes. In addition to the penal sanctions the Radio and Television Act prohibits instigation of ethnic and religious
hatred by electronic media (see below the relevant provisions) and envisages administrative sanctions for
non-compliance. The latter include fines but also dismissals of the directors of the national radio and TV.
None of these however have ever been applied in Bulgaria.
1. Penal Code (Наказателен кодекс) (2) A person who uses violence against another or damages his property because of his nationality, race, religion or because of his political convictions, shall be punished by deprivation of liberty for up to three years and by public censure. (“Който употреби насилие срещу другиго или повреди имота му поради неговата народност, раса, религия или поради неговите политически убеждения, се наказва с лишаване от свобода до три години и с обществено порицание.”). (3) A person who forms or leads an organization or group which has set itself the objective of committing acts under the preceding paragraphs, shall be punished by deprivation of liberty for one to six years and by public censure. (“Който образува или ръководи организация или група, която си поставя за цел извършването на деяние по предходните алинеи, се наказва с лишаване от свобода от една до шест години и с обществено порицание.”). (4) A person who is a member of such organization or group shall be punished by deprivation of liberty for up to three years and by public censure. (“Който членува в такава организация или група, се наказва с лишаване от свобода до три години и с обществено порицание.”). (5) For the crimes under the preceding paragraphs the court may also rule compulsory domicile. (“За
престъпленията по предходните алинеи съдът може да постанови и задължително заселване.”)
Art. 163 (1) The persons who take part in a crowd rallied to attack groups of the population, individual
citizens or their property in connection with their national or racial affiliation, shall be punished:
(2) The same punishment shall also be imposed upon a person who in the same way compels
another to take part in religious rituals and services. (“Същото наказание се налага и на онзи, който
по същия начин принуди другиго да участвува в религиозни обреди и служби.”).
(3) For the acts under Article 163, committed against groups of the population, individual citizens
or their property, in connection with their religious affiliation, the punishments provided therein shall be
applied. (“За деянията по чл. 163, извършени против групи от населението, отделни граждани
или техни имоти във връзка с религиозната им принадлежност, се прилагат предвидените в
него наказания.”).
2. Radio and Television Act (Закон за радиото и телевизията) Art. 17. (2) Radio and TV operators are obliged to prevent production and distribution of broadcasts in
violation of Art. 10 and broadcasts instigating national, political, ethnic, religious and racial
hatred…(“Радио- и телевизионните оператори са длъжни да не допускат създаване или
предоставяне за разпространение на предавания в нарушение на принципите на чл. 10 и
предавания, внушаващи национална, политическа, етническа, религиозна и расова
нетърпимост…”).
Art. 122 envisages a possibility for revocation of the license in case of a systematic violation of Art. 10
of the Radio and Television Act.
Art. 126 (1) envisages a fine of between 2 to 15 million leva (2 to 15 thousand DM) for violation of
Art. 17 of the Radio and Television Act.
Bulgarian penal legislation considers the above crimes “crimes of general character”, i.e. crimes that can
only be prosecuted by public prosecutor. Prosecutors have the sole authority to instigate criminal
proceedings and, until the amendments of the Penal Code from August 1999 they had also the sole
authority to stop or terminate them. Since August 1999 termination of criminal proceedings is within the
exclusive powers of the courts.
Revocation of the licenses and imposition of fines under the Radio and Television Act is within the powers
of the National Council for Radio and Television. Its decisions are subject to judicial review.
The above provisions of the Penal Code have not been enforced since 1990. Very few criminal
proceedings have been instigated since then for other crimes committed against people from ethnic and
religious minorities where there is evidence of discriminatory motives. A number of offenses, including
heavy crimes perpetrated by officials against members of ethnic and religious minorities were covered up
by police and the prosecutors which created an atmosphere of impunity.
No administrative sanctions were imposed by the National Council for Radio and Television despite the
fact that a number of radio and TV operators were instigating, some systematically, ethnic and religious
hatred.
Roma are often subject to physical violence by both law enforcement officials and mobs. The first well-
documented pogrom after 1989 took place in June 1992 when the Roma neighborhood of Pazardzhik was
raided by policemen in an action of revenge, many people, including women and sick people were beaten
up, houses and property were seriously damaged. The actions of the police were not properly investigated
and nobody was brought to justice. Since then raids by police in Roma neighborhoods have taken place as
often as twice or three times a year and were basically covered up by police and prosecutors in the rare
cases when they undertook investigations. This almost model case was recently reproduced on March 12
when the Pleven Military Prosecutor's Office terminated the investigation into the recent case of July 1998
police raid in the Roma neighborhood in Mechka when more than 80 policemen entered the neighborhood
and beat up people when looking for stolen property. The cited reasons were impossibility to identify the
perpetrators. Similar raids by police in Roma neighborhoods have taken place during the recent years in
Haskovo, Sofia, Septemvri, Krivodol and Filipovtsi. Roma neighborhoods have been targets of mob
violence, which too was condoned by authorities. Racist mob raids in Roma neighborhoods took place
during recent years in Pleven, Dupnitsa, Cherganovo, Dolno Belotintsi, Morozovo, and Hadzhi Dimitrovo.
Religious minorities too have become targets of both official and unofficial violence. Jehovah's Witnesses,
Mormons, Moonies, Members of Hare Krishna and neo-Protestant evangelicals were beaten up by police
and hate gangs, had their houses and places of worship raided and their peaceful gatherings disturbed.
Since 1993 they were constantly and repeatedly facing hate speech in the media and by public officials. In
1997 even the Patriarch of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church branded them as “traitors of faith and nation”.
Cases of police and mob brutality against religious minorities were registered in most places where they
have a significant presence, including Sofia, Plovdiv, Varna, Burgas, Kiustendil, Russe, Blagoevgrad,
Petrich, Assenovgrad, Veliko Turnovo and Rila. All these actions remained unchallenged by authorities.
Both mainstream electronic media and the press often instigate ethnic and religious hatred. Several
nationalistic newspapers representing both the right and the left fringes of the political spectrum regularly
publish hate speech. Throughout 1994-1996 the press continued to publish slander and to provoke the
public towards actions against some religious minorities. Some of the grievous incidents of physical
violence were perpetrated after and as a result of the publication of defamatory articles.
Article 7
The Parties shall ensure respect for the right of every person belonging to a national minority to
freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of association, freedom of expression, and freedom of
thought, conscience and religion.
Freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association are among the most serious problems with
ethnic and religious minorities in Bulgaria. The problems have both legislative and political aspects and
have already been subject to discussion among local and international human rights monitors.
The Bulgarian Constitution guarantees freedom of assembly and of association. These guarantees are
enforced through a number of laws providing for a procedure to establish political parties, private
associations and to hold outdoor meetings. They are also enforced by the criminal law by envisaging
sanctions for unlawful restrictions of freedom of assembly and association. The Constitution however itself
restricts freedom of association for ethnic and religious minorities unreasonably and on discriminatory
basis by prohibiting political parties on ethnic and religious basis. A potentially restrictive effect could have
the constitutional provision restricting freedom of association on the basis of the “unity of the nation” The
prohibition of political parties on ethnic or religious basis is reproduced in the Political Parties Act. It
became a ground to refuse registration of some and to challenge the constitutionality of other political
parties. The ban is enforced also through criminal law – the Penal Code envisages criminal sanctions for
forming of a political party on religious basis.
The courts applied the existing legislation on incorporation of private association in a discriminatory way
and denied registration to some organizations of ethnic minorities. Law-enforcement officials and the
courts applied the existing legislation on freedom of assembly in a discriminatory manner to effectively
block public and private meetings of some ethnic and religious minorities.
And, last but not least, some religious minorities, after being specifically targeted through a special
amendment of the Law on Persons and the Family in 1994, had their right to freedom of association
seriously severed (See more on this under Article 8).
1. The Constitution (Конституция)
(2) The procedure for the organising and holding of meetings and demonstrations shall be established by
law. (“Редът за организиране и провеждане на събрания и манифестации се определя със
закон.”).
(3) No notice to the municipal authorities shall be required for meetings held indoors. (“За събрания на
закрито не се изисква разрешение.”).
Art. 44. (1) Citizens shall be free to associate. (“Гражданите могат свободно да се сдружават.”).
(3) The law shall establish which organisations shall be subject to registration, the procedure for their
termination, and their relationships with the state. (“Законът определя организациите, които
подлежат на регистрация, реда за тяхното прекратяване, както и взаимоотношенията им с
държавата.”).
Art. 11. (4) There shall be no political parties on ethnic, racial or religious lines, nor parties, which seek
the violent seizure of state power. (“Не могат да се образуват политически партии на етническа,
расова или верска основа, както и партии, които си поставят за цел насилствено завземане на
държавната власт.”).
2. The Penal Code (Наказателен кодекс) 3. Political Parties Act (Закон за политическите партии) See under Article 8 for the text and comment on Art. 133A of the Law on Persons and the Family.
A number of institutions and bodies in Bulgaria enforce the provisions of the Constitution and the laws on
freedom of association and assembly. These include the courts, the municipal mayors, the prosecutors, and
the police.
The constitutional and legislative provisions prohibiting political parties on ethnic or religious basis was
enforced only against some ethnic minorities, but not against mainstream parties based on or calling itself
“Christian Democratic.” They would normally be enforced against a minority party having the name of the
minority in its title or aiming at protection of some minority interest, but not against a party that has in its
name “Bulgarian” (as many parties do) or aims at protection the specific interest of Bulgarians as an ethnic
group (as some parties do).
Restrictions on freedom of association for some ethnic and religious minorities are applied in a
discriminatory way and sometimes even without any legal basis, sometimes even in flagrant contradiction
of the existing laws. This is the case also with the restrictions of the freedom of assembly for these
minorities.
Art. 166 of the Penal Code are not enforced. No one is known to have been charged or sentenced under
this article after 1990.
During the last years the serious restrictions on the right to freedom of association and to peaceful
assembly affected mainly unpopular ethnic and religious groups.
Freedom of association - A number of minority organizations in Bulgaria were recognized through
incorporation as private associations under the Law on the Person and the Family and function freely.
These include cultural organisations of Turks, Armenians, Roma, Tatars, Jews, Russians, Vlachs, and
Karakachani. In 1990-1991, however, several courts refused registration of UMO (United Macedonian
Organisation) Ilinden, an organization of Macedonians, for allegedly being directed against the “unity of
the nation.” A 1993 Supreme Court decision invalidated the court registration of the moderate
Macedonian culture-based group, Traditional Macedonian Organisation (TMO) Ilinden on procedural
grounds. The organisation was again registered in 1998, but without making its Macedonian identity a
specific profile. In 1998 a splinter group of UMO Ilinden was registered as a political party in Sofia under
the name UMO Ilinden - PIRIN but, again, it did not mention its Macedonian character in its statute.
There are three small de facto Roma parties none of which is self-proclaimed Roma. There are also several
small de facto Turkish parties also not proclaiming themselves as such.
The provision of the Political Parties Act prohibiting parties based on ethnicity was enforced in 1990 to
refuse registration as a political party of the Democratic Roma Union. In 1992 Art. 11 (4) of the
Constitution became a basis for challenging the constitutionality of the Movement for Rights and
Freedoms (MRF) before the Constitutional Court, the political party composed predominantly of ethnic
Turks. The challenge was unsuccessful as the decision to declare unconstitutionality of the MRF did not
gather the requisite amount of votes (nor did the decision to declare it constitutional), but it did not
prevent the possibility for further challenges. In 1999 a group of MPs used again Art. 11 (4) to challenge
the constitutionality of UMO Ilinden – PIRIN. The case is pending before the court.
The statute governing religious affairs remains the 1949 Denominations Act, which provides for
mandatory registration of the religions, with a special Directorate of Religious Affairs appointed to review
registration applications, and for religious associations – the Law on Persons and the Family. The latter
was amended in 1994 (for more information on Article 133 A, please see under Art. 8). The amendments
were specifically designed to attain some of the new religious movements. They envisaged re-registration
of all religious associations with the permission of the government. Only 23 out of 62 registration and re-registration
applications under Art. 133A were approved; the remaining 39 - mainly with Protestant
registration, two Muslim and one Christian-Orthodox organisation - were denied registration. In 1998,
Jehovah's Witnesses - who were among those denied registration - received official recognition as a result
of an amicable agreement with government. The amicable agreement ended the suit which Jehovah's
Witnesses conducted against Bulgaria before the European Commission of Human Rights in Strasbourg
during 1995-97.
Freedom of peaceful assembly - From all ethnic groups, Bulgarian citizens with Macedonian self-identification
have been most restricted in their right to peaceful assembly. The period 1991-1993 was
characterised by mass police beatings of participants in commemorations organised by the UMO “Ilinden”
at the grave of Yane Sandanski - one of the legendary Macedonian heroes -and in the Samuilova Krepost
locality, near Petrich. This practice subsided after 1994, although the annual UMO “Ilinden”-organised
gatherings have been banned every year since 1991 (with a single exception in 1995), with police called to
disperse the gatherings by force. Other peaceful gatherings organised by the UMO “Ilinden” have also
been regularly banned, either by mayors or the district prosecutor's office.
On one occasion, in 1996 members of the UMO “Ilinden” were arrested and detained in the town of
Sandanski in order to hinder the holding of a congress in the nearby town of Blagoevgrad. The District
Prosecutor's Office banned the congress, and the local university authorities refused the use of the hall that
had been rented in advance. In another case, the city of Plovdiv mayor banned a presentation of the book,
"The History of Macedonia - an Apology of the Macedonian Spirit," while nationalists threw several
Macedonians gathered for the event, out of the premises rented for the occasion.
The right of religious groups to assemble in order to profess their religion has also been limited. Municipal
authorities and police prohibited and disbanded tens of meetings of unpopular religious groups such as
Jehovah's Witnesses, Moonies, and Evangelicals. On at least one occasion a city mayor fined Jehovah's
Witnesses for assembling and preaching inside their own homes. Even groups officially recognised as
religious denominations had serious problems with some local authorities when deciding to hold open-air
events. The Society for Krishna Consciousness has been hindered from holding an open-air celebration
with the motivation that there was “accumulated negative attitude” towards the society. A similar case
occurred with the Church of Seventh-Day Adventists. A number of municipalities adopted local
ordinances restricting the activities of some religious groups on their territory. On many occasions the so
called “non-traditional” for the country denominations were denied use of premises which they had rented
from the municipal councils. There have also been cases of dissolving peaceful indoor meetings of religious
communities.
Article 8
The Parties undertake to recognise that every person belonging to a national minority has the right
to manifest his or her religion or belief and to establish religious institutions, organisations and
associations.
Bulgaria has a number of religious communities of a different type and size (See above under
Demographic situation in the country). The Eastern Orthodox Church is the “traditional” church of the
Bulgarians. It was a preserver of the Bulgarian identity during five centuries of the Ottoman rule, and, as
in the other Balkan countries, it was the key element around which the Bulgarian national revival
fermented during 18thand 19thcenturies. As a separate institution, it was formed by a decree of the
Ottoman Sultan as an ethnically based religious community. After the liberation from the Ottomans as a
result of the Russian-Turkish War in 1878 the Bulgarian Orthodox Church took part in the formation of
Bulgarian statehood and was instrumental in the propaganda of the “national idea” among Bulgarians
abroad. It held the status of “dominant” church in Bulgaria and was privileged in a number of ways
compared to the other denominations. After the Second World War the Orthodox Church was deprived of
its dominant status. The clergy suffered some repression from the communist government that came to
power. Many of the clergy were accused of collaborating with the previous regime, and were consequently
punished. The government was successful in suppressing the church in a variety of ways and effectively
forced it into only low-profile activities.
The Muslim community is composed of four groups – Turks, Bulgarian-Speaking Muslims, Muslim Roma
and Tatars. The Muslims have always been under the government's control and suffered discrimination,
which was especially severe during the last years of the communist regime when the names of 850 000
Muslims were changed by force. Shi'a Muslims, although a relatively big community, have never been
recognized separately and officially have always been under the umbrella of the Sunnis.
The Catholics and Protestants, although religious minorities, are traditional communities, who were
present in Bulgaria during the Ottoman rule. Both groups are composed mostly from ethnic Bulgarians.
During the first years of communism they suffered severe persecution when most of their clergy were
executed after show-trials and were forced to almost symbolic existence subsequently.
Different religious communities before the Second World War had different relations to the state and were
recognized and incorporated in different ways. Most of them had judicial powers over personal status and
in some cases (e.g. the Muslim courts) - also on distribution of property after divorce. This was abolished
soon after the war. The communist government confiscated much of the property of all religious
communities.
The 1991 Constitution of Bulgaria proclaims religious freedom (Art. 13.1 – “The practising of any religion
shall be unrestricted” (“Вероизповеданията са свободни.”) and Art. 37.1 – “The freedom of conscience,
the freedom of thought and the choice of religion and of religious or atheistic views shall be inviolable. The
state shall assist the maintenance of tolerance and respect among the believers from different
denominations, and among believers and non-believers.” (“Свободата на съвестта, свободата на
мисълта и изборът на вероизповедание и на религиозни или атеистични възгледи са
ненакърними. Държавата съдейства за поддържане на търпимост и уважение между вярващите от
различните вероизповедания, както и между вярващи и невярващи”)). It provides for the separation
of the religious institutions from the state (Art. 13.2 – “Religious institutions shall be separate from the
state.” (“Религиозните институции са отделени от държавата.”)) and obliges the state to encourage
the maintenance of tolerance and respect between the churches, as well as between believers and non-believers
(Art.37.1 “The state shall assist the maintenance of tolerance and respect among the believers
from different denominations, and among believers and non-believers.” (“Държавата съдейства за
поддържане на търпимост и уважение между вярващите от различните вероизповедания, както и
между вярващи и невярващи”)). It also provides for restrictions of freedom of conscience and religion,
some of which are rather vague, others are in clear contradiction with international law. Thus it prohibits
the use of religion for political purposes (Art.13.4 “Religious institutions and communities, and religious
beliefs shall not be used to political ends.” (“Религиозните общности и институции, както и верските
убеждения не могат да се използват за политически цели.”)) and formation of political parties along
religious lines (Art. 11.4 – see above under Art. 7). It also provides for restrictions of manifestations of the
freedom of conscience and religion. Most of these restrictions are the same as in the international law, i.e.
public order, health and morals, rights and freedoms of others, with the notable exception of “national
security” (Art. 37.2 – “The freedom of conscience and religion shall not be practiced to the detriment of
national security, public order, public health and morals, or of the rights and freedoms of others.”
(“Свободата на съвестта и на вероизповеданието не може да бъде насочена срещу националната
сигурност, обществения ред, народното здраве и морала или срещу правата и свободите на други
граждани.”)). “National security” arguments were invoked on a number of occasions to restrict religious
freedom and to impose the supervision of the national Security Service on the activities of some groups. In
addition to that the Constitution establishes the Eastern Orthodox Church as the “traditional religion” of
Bulgaria (Чл. 13 (3) “Традиционна религия в Република България е източноправославното
вероизповедание.”). Although this was initially meant to be nothing more than a mere declaration, there
have been repeated subsequent attempts to make this provision a ground for legislative privileges of the
Orthodox Church.
The main law that is supposed to specify the relationships between the church and the state in Bulgaria and
to provide guarantees for religious freedom is still the 1949 Denominations Act. The act is extremely
prohibitive. Art. 23 prohibits all religious denominations with centers abroad from establishing missions,
religious orders or charitable organizations in Bulgaria. Art. 20 prohibits activities relating to children and
young people. Art. 10 prohibits foreigners from holding ecclesiastical positions in Bulgarian churches. Art.
14 gives the Council of Ministers full power over the existence and programming of religious schools. The
act establishes a Directorate for Religious Affairs as a special office of the Council of Ministers. The Head
of the Directorate has lots of responsibilities: to appoint religious officers abroad (Art. 9); to supervise the
communications and documents of all churches, and to stop their publication or distribution (Art. 15); to
grant preliminary permission to every church wishing to maintain relations with organizations based
abroad (Art. 22); to allow or deny denominations' receipt of donations from abroad (Art. 24). A special
provision (Art. 12) gives the Head of the Directorate the right to dismiss religious officers, if they "are
breaking the laws, the public order and the good morals, or are working against the democratic structures
of the state" (“които нарушават законите, обществения ред и добрите нрави, или работят против
демократическите уредби на държавата”).
Some of these provisions of the Denominations Act were invalidated with the Decision No. 5 from 1992
of the Constitutional Court. In its binding interpretation of Art. 13 and Art. 37 of the Constitution
regarding the Denominations Act, the Constitutional Court ruled against infringing upon the right for a
free choice of religion and included the right of association as a basic right of religious belief. It also ruled
that the limitations mentioned in Art.37, para. 2 of the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance
with the limitations imposed by the international treaties to which Bulgaria is a party. The right of the state
to interfere in the activities of the religious communities is limited to monitoring their political activities
(Art.13, para. 4 of the Constitution), activities directed against the national security, the public order, and
the rights and freedoms of other citizens (Art.37, para. 2 of the Constitution). The court also ruled that a
number of provisions of the Denominations Act, including Art. 12, are unconstitutional, but this should be
established by law-enforcement officials on a case-by-case basis.
In 1994 the parliament passed Art. 133A of the Law on the Persons and the Family which states that "non-profit
legal entities which perform activities connected with religious faith or dealing with religion and
religious education, should be registered according to the conditions here mentioned, after the approval of
the Council of Ministers." (“Юридическите лица с нестопанска цел, които извършват дейност,
присъща на изповедание, или осъществяват религиозна или религиознопросветна дейност, се
регистрират по реда на тази глава, след съгласие на Министерския съвет.”).
In 1998 the parliament passed The Alternative Service Act. This law, although a significant step in
guaranteeing the right of freedom of religion, contains a number of shortcomings. The Act creates a
discriminatory regime for those who might opt to make use of the possibility to substitute their military
obligations with alternative civilian service. Art. 15 provides for a twice longer duration of alternative
service over regular military service and restricts the right to alternative service by a system of annual
quotas, determined by the Council of Ministers (Art. 6). Art. 29, para. 2 forbids people doing alternative
service to “conduct religious or atheistic propaganda.”
For anti-discrimination and penal legislation see above under Articles 4 and 6.
The Council of Ministers or a Deputy Prime-Minister are the governmental institution that recognizes and
incorporates churches. They are also empowered by the Denominations Act to give permissions to
churches to open religious schools.
The Directorate for Religious Affairs - the governmental institution exercising administrative control over
religious denominations - is appointed as a special office at the Council of Ministers. The Head of the
Directorate is responsible for: appointing religious officers abroad; reviewing the communications and
documents of the religious denominations; granting preliminary permission to every religious denomination
which wants to maintain relations with organizations based abroad; allowing or denying denominations'
receipt of donations from abroad. A special provision gives the Head of the Directorate for Religious
Affairs the right to dismiss any religious officers, if he finds that the latter "are breaking the laws, the
public order and the good morals, or are working against the democratic structures of the state."
A Special Commission functions at the Council of Ministers to evaluate the registration of religious groups
and "to supervise the activities of the religious denominations." The Commission, without having any kind
of regulations for its work, started conducting closed meetings for hearing of the requests for registration
and re-registration of religious organizations, submitted before May 21, 1994.
In addition to these a number of other institutions in Bulgaria deal with different aspects of religious
freedom and church-state relations. These include: police, prosecutors, courts, and local municipal
councils and mayors.
There has been no substantial change of the legislative framework guaranteeing religious freedom and
church-state relationships in Bulgaria after the fall of communism. Despite this, during the first years after
the fall of communism a number of religious communities were recognized as both churches and private
associations and were allowed to function freely. The process of restoration of confiscated church
property started already since the beginning. Since 1992 religious freedom was restricted in a variety of
ways. These include: government interference in the internal affairs of religious communities; deprivation
of some new religions of a juridical person status; police and mob violence towards some groups branded
as “sects”; restrictions of freedom of assembly of some unpopular groups, and imprisonment of
conscientious objectors to compulsory military service. (See below).
The state supports financially two denominations - the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and the Muslims -although
with small subsidies and not regularly. No other denomination enjoys direct or indirect financial
support from the government.
The communist system in Bulgaria started dismantling in November 1989. During the first years of
democratic development the restrictive provisions of the Denominations Act were not applied. Most of the
churches recognized so far, including some traditional groups, were registered during 1990-1992. A
number of new churches, mostly Protestant, mushroomed and were incorporated as private associations to
avoid administrative control and/or because of dissatisfaction with the old leaders. Confiscated church
property began to gradually be restored to the traditional communities.
The government first used the restrictive provisions of the Denominations Act in 1992, when for purely
political reasons it removed much of the leadership of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and the Muslim
Denomination from office. In June 1992, after being seized by the President and a group of MPs, the
Constitutional Court reviewed the Denominations Act. In Decision No. 5/1992 the Court declared the
infringement into the internal affairs of religious communities unconstitutional. It cited seven Articles of
the Act as unconstitutional, including Art. 12 which gave the government the right to discharge priests
from office. However, it also left the government the right to recognize (or refuse to recognize) religious
leaderships. This decision blocked the efforts to interfere in the internal affairs of the churches to some
extent: Article 12 has not been subsequently applied. The interference in the internal affairs of the groups,
however, continued. Most governments used its powers to recognize leaderships of the churches for their
own political ends. The courts did not interfere on the theory that the law gives the government “free
discretion.”
After the initial democratic euphoria following the fall of communism, some backlash followed. Ex-communist
and other parties voiced revisionist policies. Beginning in 1993, a public defamation campaign
against "non-traditional" churches began. In most cases the main targets were Protestant groups, including
churches registered under the Denominations Act and established in Bulgaria for centuries. The trend
developed initially in only a few newspapers but gradually spread to all media. The word "sect" was used
to denote all that is not "traditional." At the same time the groups were implicated in all kinds of crimes or
sins - kidnapping, instigation to suicide, brainwashing, perverted sex, drug abuse.
The government responded quickly. The major blow to religious freedom was the Amendment of the Law
for Persons and the Family, which was adopted in February 1994. This law affected many of the religions,
which had registered in the courts as non-profit organizations, rather than as denominations with the
Directorate for Religious Affairs. Article 133A of the Amendment stated that “juridical persons with non-profit
purposes, performing activities connected with religious faith or dealing with religion or religious
education, should be registered according to the conditions here mentioned, after the approval of the
Council of Ministers.” The law required all already registered juridical persons to re-register with the
courts within a three-month period, after the approval of the Council of Ministers. A special transitory
provision of the law required that those groups that lost their juridical person status must also stop their
activities.
More than 40 groups were refused permission from the government to re-register. They lost their juridical
person status and had to hide or join recognized churches to continue their activities. Some sued, but most
were reluctant. For the most part courts again applied their theory of “free discretion” and refused to
reverse the decisions. Only the Jehovah's Witnesses filed a complaint to the European Commission of
Human Rights in Strasbourg and in 1997 concluded a “friendly settlement” with the government and were
recognized as a church.
Deprivation of the juridical person status of organizations and prohibition of their activities led to series of
diverse discriminatory practices against individuals and groups during even the most discrete exercise of
their right to freedom of religion. Victims of these practices were not only members of groups that did not
receive re-registration but also members of officially recognized churches. For the most part these victims
were Protestants, but other groups such as Hare Krishna, Moonies and non-traditional Muslims were
affected. In several cities municipal councils passed ordinances restricting the activities of religious
organizations. Many municipalities even denied registration to churches that had registration with the
central government, forcing local church branches to shut their doors. In 1994 municipal authorities
started to systematically deny access to halls or other premises that were used by religious groups for
services and ceremonies. On a number of occasions peaceful assemblies of religious groups were
disrupted, their organizers fined and religious materials confiscated. Proselytizing groups, such as
Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, suffered unabated communal violence and police brutality. Employers,
especially institutions of public education, inquired into the religious affiliation of their employees and fired
or otherwise discriminated a number of employees when they were found to belong to certain “unwanted”
groups. The National Security Service (secret police) created a special task force for surveillance of
“suspect” religions, which helped other authorities in their restrictive and discriminatory activities.
Although the 1991 Constitution required a law to be passed within three years that would allow an
alternative to compulsory military service for Bulgarian men whose beliefs do not allow them to serve in
the military, no law was passed for seven years. During this period several Jehovah's Witnesses were
prosecuted and two were imprisoned for refusing to go to the army. The law that was passed in October
1998 provides for an alternative service that is punitive in length - twice longer than the military service. It
also specifies an annual quota for conscientious objectors and does no permit them to work in non-governmental
organizations. Conscientious objectors may switch from alternative to regular military
service, but not vice versa.
With the non-communist United Democratic Forces coming to power in 1997 the pressure on religious
communities was somewhat eased. The 1949 law is, however, still in force and the several drafts
introduced in the Parliament to replace it are not much better. Individual discrimination towards members
of religious communities, although not as acute as several years ago, continues to take place.
Article 9
1 The Parties undertake to recognise that the right to freedom of expression of every
person belonging to a national minority includes freedom to hold opinions and to
receive and impart information and ideas in the minority language, without
interference by public authorities and regardless of frontiers. The Parties shall
ensure, within the framework of their legal systems, that persons belonging to a
national minority are not discriminated against in their access to the media.
2 Paragraph 1 shall not prevent Parties from requiring the licensing, without
discrimination and based on objective criteria, of sound radio and television
broadcasting, or cinema enterprises.
3 The Parties shall not hinder the creation and the use of printed media by persons
belonging to national minorities. In the legal framework of sound radio and television
broadcasting, they shall ensure, as far as possible, and taking into account the
provisions of paragraph 1, that persons belonging to national minorities are granted
the possibility of creating and using their own media.
4 In the framework of their legal systems, the Parties shall adopt adequate measures
in order to facilitate access to the media for persons belonging to national minorities
and in order to promote tolerance and permit cultural pluralism.
Paragraph 1
Freedom of expression is guaranteed in Art. 39, 40 and 41 of the Bulgarian Constitution. However, the
restrictions in the Constitution are stronger than the restrictions in the European Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights. Art. 39 and 40 allow the restriction of the right of anyone to express an
opinion; these regulations can be used to stop or confiscate printed matter or another information medium.
This can happen when this right is used to the detriment of the rights and reputation of other persons, or to
incite animosity or violence. Art. 41, para. 2 of the Constitution guarantees the right of citizens to obtain
information from the state institutions on any issues of legitimate interest. However, there is no law in
Bulgaria that requires the state institutions to provide information to citizens or organisations upon request
and to establish an infrastructure for this.
At the beginning of June 1996, upon the request of the president of the republic, the Constitutional Court
adopted a decision which offered a binding interpretation of the Constitution with respect to the provisions
that guarantee freedom of expression and the right to information. The Court ruled that the ban on
publishing and broadcasting, as well as the confiscation of printed matter “shall be allowed only through an
act of the judicial authorities.”
Constitutional provisions are specified by the Radio and Television Act; by the general defamation
provisions of the Penal Code; by the specific provisions envisaging criminal liability on certain cases of
racial, ethnic and religious discrimination, incitement to racial, ethnic and religious hatred and mob
violence in the Penal Code (See under Art. 4 above); by the general power of the Prosecutor's Office of
“review of legality” and through tort actions in civil cases.
The main law regulating licensing and the rules of operation of radio and TV operators is the Radio and
Television Act. It provides that the national media should encourage the culture and language of
individuals in accordance with their ethnic belonging. Art. 49, para. 1 provides that the national media can
produce broadcasts intended for the Bulgarian citizens whose mother tongue is not Bulgarian, including in
their language. Furthermore, the law provides that the broadcasts shall be in another language, different
from Bulgarian, when they are intended for Bulgarian citizens whose mother tongue is different from
Bulgarian. Art. 90 (1) of the law prohibits sponsorship of radio and TV broadcasts from religious
organizations along with political organizations. No other groups are mentioned in this provision.
Printed media, including those of minorities, are incorporated as corporate bodies under the general regime
of the commercial law. Confiscation of printed materials is possible in the context of criminal prosecution
by a warrant of the prosecutor and by a warrant of the prosecutor to stop or prevent non-criminal offenses
within his/her general powers of “review of legality” given by the Constitution and the Judiciary Act.
A number of minority organizations publish newspapers and magazines in their minority language or in
Bulgarian. Some have access to electronic media or to satellite broadcasts in their language.
The main problems relating to freedom of expression of national minorities in Bulgaria during the last
years have been the confiscation of publications of unpopular ethnic and religious groups. This is a serious
problem of law and policy that has not been dealt with adequately so far by both governmental bodies and
international organizations monitoring the compliance of Bulgaria with international law.
1. The Constitution (Конституция) (2) This right shall not be used to the detriment of the rights and reputation of others, or for the
incitement of a forcible change of the constitutionally established order, the perpetration of a crime, or
the incitement of enmity or violence against anyone. (“Това право не може да се използва за
накърняване на правата и доброто име на другиго и за призоваване към насилствена промяна
на конституционно установения ред, към извършване на престъпления, към разпалване на
вражда или към насилие над личността”.).
Art. 40. (1) The press and the other mass information media shall be free and shall not be subjected to
censorship. (“Печатът и другите средства за масова информация са свободни и не подлежат на
цензура”.).
(2) An injunction on or a confiscation of printed matter or another information medium shall be allowed
only through an act of the judicial authorities in the case of an encroachment on public decency or
incitement of a forcible change of the constitutionally established order, the perpetration of a crime, or
the incitement of violence against anyone. An injunction suspension shall lose force if not followed by a
confiscation within 24 hours. (“Спирането и конфискацията на печатно издание или на друг
носител на информация се допускат само въз основа на акт на съдебната власт, когато се
накърняват добрите нрави или се съдържат призиви за насилствена промяна на
конституционно установения ред, за извършване на престъпление или за насилие над
личността. Ако в срок от 24 часа не последва конфискация, спирането преустановява
действието си”.)
Art. 41. (1) Everyone shall be entitled to seek, obtain and disseminate information. This right shall not
be exercised to the detriment of the rights and reputation of others, or to the detriment of national
security, public order, public health and morality. (“Всеки има право да търси, получава и
разпространява информация. Осъществяването на това право не може да бъде насочено срещу
правата и доброто име на другите граждани, както и срещу националната сигурност,
обществения ред, народното здраве и морала”.).
(2) Citizens shall be entitled to obtain information from state bodies and agencies on any matter of
legitimate interest to them which is not a state or official secret and does not affect the rights of others.
(“Гражданите имат право на информация от държавен орган или учреждение по въпроси,
които представляват за тях законен интерес, ако информацията не е държавна или друга
защитена от закона тайна или не засяга чужди права”.).
2. Radio and Television Act (Закон за радиото и телевизията) (2) The programs of the radio and TV operators are broadcasted into other languages when
(“Програмите на радио- и телевизионните оператори се излъчват на друг език, когато”):
2. They are for the Bulgarian citizen whose mother tongue is not Bulgarian. (“са предназначени за
български граждани, за които българският език не е майчин.”).
Art. 49 (1) Bulgarian National Radio and Bulgarian National Television produce national and regional
programs; broadcasts for other countries, including for Bulgarians abroad; broadcasts for Bulgarian
citizens whose mother tongue is not Bulgarian. (“Българското национално радио и Българската
национална телевизия създават национални и регионални програми; предавания за чужбина,
включително за българите зад граница; предавания, предназначени за българските граждани, за
които българският език не е майчин, включително и на техния език.”).
Art. 90 (1) Political parties and organizations, as well as religious organizations cannot be sponsors of
broadcasts. (“Не могат да бъдат спонсори на предавания политически партии и организации,
както и религиозни организации.”).
See also the anti-discriminatory provisions and the provisions of the Penal Code under Article 4 above.
The Radio and Television Act stipulates the election of a National Council for Radio and Television
(NCRT) - established on purely political principles and dominated invariably by the parliamentary majority.
It consists of 9 members - five elected by parliament and four appointed by the president; there is no
possibility for participation of interested public groups. The Council, besides enjoying the right to select
and dismiss the leadership of the public media, has a wide range of additional powers and rights: to
exercise continuous control over the activities of the public media, to give out licenses for broadcasting
activities, to impose fines for non-compliance with the Radio and Television Act etc.
In addition to the NCRT several other institutions deal with freedom of expression and information
generally. These include police, prosecutors, and courts.
The general policy of the government is to tolerate publications and broadcasts of most minorities. It does
not offer any subsidies apart from the Turkish-language programs in the National Radio for the Turkish
minority that are prepared with the resources of the National Radio. With regard to some unpopular ethnic
and religious minorities the policy for a number of years was to suppress any expression of their identity,
including through publications (See below). Recently this policy was somewhat eased.
There are no broadcasts on minority languages on the national TV. The National Radio only broadcasts in
Turkish twice a day for half an hour and only in the regions populated by Turks. The Turkish minority
however can take and does take the Turkish-language radio and satellite programs aired from Turkey and
from other European countries. Several private FM radios air local programs in Bulgarian for Roma. The
Russian minority can take Russian-language TV satellite programs aired from Russia. The Church of the
Seventh Day Adventists owns a FM radio in Plovdiv. No other radio or TV operators owned by minorities
exist.
Minority press after 1989 include: Jewish periodic press
Jewish News, in Bulgarian, publication of the Jewish National Front, the Central Parish of the Jews in
Bulgaria, the Organisation of the Jews in Bulgaria “Shalom,” the Association of the Cultural and
Educational Organisations of the Jews in Bulgaria. Published: 1944 - present.
Russian periodic press
Bjelaya Volna, in Russian, newspaper of the Union of Russian White Emigrants and Their Descendants
in Bulgaria. Published since 1994 - present.
Roma periodic press
Turkish periodic press (1989-1999)
Aromanian periodic press
Vlakh periodic press
Macedonian periodic press Periodic press of some religious minorities
The practice of arbitrary and unfounded confiscation of publications and materials of unpopular ethnic and
religious minorities has been widespread over the last years. Victims of such acts have been members of
the Unification Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims and some other smaller religious communities, but
also Bulgarian citizens with Macedonian self-identification. On numerous occasions police officers have
confiscated publications in flagrant violation of the freedom of expression, as well as of the freedom of
thought, conscience, religion and belief. With respect to Jehovah's Witnesses, such acts of confiscation by
the police became a routine in 1994-1997. On different occasions police officers have broken up peaceful
assemblies, confiscated books, booklets and cassettes with religious content; conducted searches in the
homes of members of Jehovah's Witnesses, accompanied by seizure of publications professing their
doctrines; issues of the Watchtower magazine and other materials have been confiscated at custom's due
to their “religious sectarian content.” Other groups were also victims of such acts. At the end of
December, 1998 the police declared that it had seized a large quantity of “sectarian Muslim literature” and
that preachers of fundamentalist Muslim sects had been repatriated. On April 14, 1993 police confiscated
the third issue of Skornuvane (Awakening), newspaper published by the United Macedonian Organization
“Ilinden” from the editor's office. No search warrant was presented during the action, not even verbal
justification as to the motives were given. This was the first newspaper confiscated since the beginning of
the democratic process in Bulgaria. Another confiscation from the printing house of a Macedonian
newspaper, Narodna Volya, took place in September 1997. A month later police searched again the
printing house and the materials for the next issue were seized. In January 1997 police confiscated near
Smolian copies of the “Pomak Encyclopedia” of Petro Teoharidi, a book published in Greece, which
promotes the idea of the specific ethnic and linguistic identity of the Pomaks.
Paragraph 2
Licensing of radio and TV operators is within the powers of the National Council of Radio and Television
and of a special commission appointed by the government. The licensing procedure however did not bring
so far any concerns related to minority rights.
Radio and Television Act (Закон за радиото и телевизията) The State bodies offering licenses are the National Council for Radio and Television and the State
Committee on Telecommunications.
There has not been any evidence of any policy with regard to licensing of minority radio and TV operators.
There are not any significant facts to report under this heading.
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 4
All minorities are underrepresented in the media. The typical occasion when a minority appears on the
national radio and TV would be the important religious holidays. On such occasions the religious leaders
of some minorities (Muslims, Armenians and Jews) deliver addresses to the believers. The officially
registered churches, i.e. only those registered under the Denominations Act, are given this right under Art.
53 (1) of the Radio and Television Act (See below). Some minorities however are non-existent and others
are covered only in an offensive way (e.g. Macedonians and some religious minorities). Broadcasts inciting
ethnic and religious hatred are prohibited on the radio and TV (See below) and could be punished by fines
imposed by the National Council for Radio and Television. No such provisions exist for the printed media
apart from the criminal liability for instigation of ethnic and religious hatred, envisaged by the Penal Code
that are however not enforced (See above under Article 6). Incitement to ethnic and religious hatred is
rarer on the radio and TV compared to the printed media. The mainstream press regularly reports the
ethnic identity of the perpetrators of a crime if they are Roma. There are newspapers whose editorial
policy is nationalistic and they regularly publish offensive articles towards Turks, Roma and Macedonians.
Anti-Semitic publications and broadcasts are rare, but they too take place, even in the National TV.
Radio and Television Act (Закон за радиото и телевизията)
Art. 7.2 – The Bulgarian National Radio (BNR) and the Bulgarian national Television (BNT) are
national public radio and TV operators which…encourage development and popularization of the
Bulgarian culture and Bulgarian language as well as the culture and the language of citizens in accord
with their ethnic belonging. (“Българското национално радио (БНР) и Българската национална
телевизия (БНТ) са национален обществен радиооператор, съответно национален обществен
телевизионен оператор, които…съдействат за развитието и популяризирането на българската
култура и българския език, както и на културата и езика на гражданите в съответствие с
етническата им принадлежност.”).
Art. 17. (2) Radio and TV operators are obliged to prevent production and distribution of broadcasts in
violation of Art. 10 and broadcasts instigating national, political, ethnic, religious and racial
hatred…(“Радио- и телевизионните оператори са длъжни да не допускат създаване или
предоставяне за разпространение на предавания в нарушение на принципите на чл. 10 и
предавания, внушаващи национална, политическа, етническа, религиозна и расова
нетърпимост….”).
Art. 53. (1) Bulgarian National Radio and the Bulgarian National Television can offer program time for
addresses to believers and for broadcasting important religious ceremonies upon request from
(“Българското национално радио и Българската национална телевизия могат да дадат
програмно време за обръщение към вярващите и за предаване на значими религиозни
церемонии по искане от”): See also above on the criminal liability under Article 6.
Enforcement of the above provisions of the Radio and Television Act is within the powers of the National
Council for Radio and Television. The prosecutors seek criminal liability under the relevant provisions of
the Penal Code.
None of the above provisions have been enforced so far. No prosecution has taken place under the
See above under narrative.
Article 10
1 The Parties undertake to recognise that every person belonging to a
national minority has the right to use freely and without interference
his or her minority language, in private and in public, orally and in
writing.
2 In areas inhabited by persons belonging to national minorities
traditionally or in substantial numbers, if those persons so request and
where such a request corresponds to a real need, the Parties shall
endeavour to ensure, as far as possible, the conditions which would
make it possible to use the minority language in relations between
those persons and the administrative authorities.
3 The Parties undertake to guarantee the right of every person
belonging to a national minority to be informed promptly, in a
language which he or she understands, of the reasons for his or her
arrest, and of the nature and cause of any accusation against him or
her, and to defend himself or herself in this language, if necessary with
the free assistance of an interpreter.
Paragraph 1
During the last years of communism and especially during the name-changing campaign and its aftermath
in the 80s the use of minority language in both public and private were prohibited. These prohibitions were
regulated by local decrees or by police and local authorities without legal basis. After the fall of
communism and with the returning of the names of all renamed, these prohibitions were lifted. Parents
were given a possibility to freely choose the name of their children. At present there are no legal
prohibitions for people belonging to national minorities to use freely and without interference his or her
minority language, in private and in public, orally and in writing.
There are no legal provisions in Bulgaria regulating the use of minority language in private. The use of
minority language in public is possible only in situations where the use of Bulgarian is not obligatory.
Following are provisions of some acts regulating the use of Bulgarian in public (for others see below):
1. Judiciary Act (Закон за съдебната власт)
Art. 105 (1) Bulgarian is the language used in courts. (“Съдебният език е българският.”)
2. Code of Civil Procedure (Гражданско-процесуален кодекс) Art. 98 (1) provides that the action must be written in Bulgarian. Art. 147 requires that documents
presented before the court in any foreign languages must have a Bulgarian translation. Art. 478 provides
for an appointment of an interpreter in the proceedings before a notary.
3. Code of Criminal Procedure (Наказателно-процесуален кодекс) See also under paragraph 3.
4. Law on the Supreme Administrative Court 5. Law on the Execution of Sentences (Закон за изпълнение на наказанията) 6. Political Parties Act (Закон за политическите партии) One serious problem that arose after 1990 was the enforcement of Art. 33 of the Law on the Executions
of Sentences. Prisoners from minorities and their relatives are forced to speak Bulgarian during family
visits even when their command of Bulgarian language is poor. This hampers communication and
sometimes leads to conflicts between prisoners and guards. In 1991 the nationalistic press branded
activists from the Movement for Rights and Freedoms for speaking Turkish during the election campaign.
No administrative or legal actions however followed.
See also below under paragraph 3.
Paragraph 2
There is no legal provision prohibiting the use of minority languages before the administrative authorities.
In the oral communication Turkish is often used between administrative authorities and members of the
Turkish minority where municipalities have Turkish officials. All written documents however are produced
in Bulgarian as a matter of custom and because the subsequent court procedures must be carried on in
Bulgarian (see above).
No legal provisions regulate the use of minority language before administrative authorities. See above on
the compulsory use of Bulgarian before civil and administrative courts.
No special governmental bodies exist to deal with the use of minority language before administrative
authorities.
There is a nationalistic cultural pressure resulting in fear among minorities to use their language before
administrative authorities. Apart from this however there has not been any governmental action, statement
or other trace of policy to that effect.
See above under narrative.
Paragraph 3
The right of every person belonging to a national minority to be informed promptly, in a language which
he or she understands, of the reasons for his or her arrest, and of the nature and cause of any accusation
against him or her, and to defend himself or herself in this language through the free assistance of an
interpreter is guaranteed by the Code of Criminal Procedure. These guarantees however are not always
enforced by authorities. Criminal defendants belonging to some minority groups (mainly Turks and Roma)
who have poor or no command of Bulgarian sometimes take part in criminal proceedings without
interpreter.
Code of Criminal Procedure (Наказателно-процесуален кодекс) Art. 11. (1) The criminal proceedings shall be conducted in Bulgarian. (“Наказателното
производство се води на български език”.).
Questioning of the accused with an interpreter (“Разпит на обвиняемия с преводач и тълковник”)
Depending on the phase of the criminal procedure interpreters are appointed by the police, investigators
and judges.
The authorities normally appoint interpreters only for foreign citizens. They presume knowledge of
Bulgarian in all cases when defendants are Bulgarian citizens even when they obviously do not know it.
A significant number of people belonging to some minorities (mostly Turks and Roma) have a very poor
command of the Bulgarian language or do not know it altogether. Some of these people become
defendants. Because of the presumption of authorities that every Bulgarian citizen must know Bulgarian
and because of the budgetary restraints for the judiciary, interpreters for these people are appointed in only
very rare cases. It should be added, that these people participate in the criminal proceedings also without a
lawyer. Thus, often they are questioned, asked to sign protocols and take part in the court proceedings
with a very poor understanding of the reasons for their arrest, and of the nature and cause of any
accusation against them.
Article 11
1 The Parties undertake to recognise that every person belonging to a
national minority has the right to use his or her surname (patronym)
and first names in the minority language and the right to official
recognition of them, according to modalities provided for in their legal
system.
2 The Parties undertake to recognise that every person belonging to a
national minority has the right to display in his or her minority
language signs, inscriptions and other information of a private nature
visible to the public.
3 In areas traditionally inhabited by substantial numbers of persons
belonging to a national minority, the Parties shall endeavour, in the
framework of their legal system, including, where appropriate,
agreements with other States, and taking into account their specific
conditions, to display traditional local names, street names and other
topographical indications intended for the public also in the minority
language when there is a sufficient demand for such indications.
Paragraph 1
Bulgarian citizens belonging to minorities can use their surnames (patronyms) and first names according to
the tradition of their minority culture and these names are officially recognized. For three years between
1990 and 1993 all citizens whose names were changed by force under communism were given a possibility
to have their previous names back. Parents were able to change the names of their children too. The
procedure for this return of the names as provided for in the Act on the Names of Bulgarian Citizens from
November 1990 was simple – the interested parties had to file a request to the municipal officials and this
administrative procedure was supposed to work for three years. The law envisaged a three-year period for
restoring the names of all renamed. It also does not provide for restoration of the names of those who are
dead. After 1993 the procedure was changed by a court procedure which is slower, more bureaucratic and
time-consuming. In 1999 the Act on the Names of Bulgarian Citizens was repealed by the Law on the Civil
Registration. Although the law maintains the provisions that explicitly give minorities that suffered name
changes to restore their original names under the court procedure, it makes very difficult for Bulgarian
citizens to have their names changed outside of this context. The law provides for a limited number of
narrow hypotheses some of which are also vague that make voluntary name-changes for those who did not
suffer forcible name changes in the past very difficult.
Domestic legislation provides for the possibility to maintain or change a surname or name in the Law on
the Civil Registration. Art. 19 (1) provides that the “change of the name, surname and family name can be
done when the name is demeaning, insulting, socially unacceptable and in the cases when other important
reasons deem the change necessary” (“Промяната на собствено, бащино или фамилно име се допуска
от съда въз основа на писмена молба на заинтересувания, когато то е осмиващо, опозоряващо
или обществено неприемливо, както и в случаите, когато важни обстоятелства налагат това.”).
The procedure for the change of the name is set forth in para. 2 and in the Code of Civil Procedure. The
request is heard by the District Court, which takes a decision validating the name change. The Law on the
Civil Registration provides in Art. 19 (3) that this procedure can be used also by “the Bulgarian citizens
whose names were changed by force” (“българските граждани, на които тези имена са били
принудително променени”). The same procedure can be used also by “Bulgarian citizens born after the
names of their parents or the name of one of their parents were changed by force” (“българските
граждани, родени след като имената на техните родители или на един от тях са били
принудително променени” – Art. 19 (4)), as well as by the parents of underage children to change the
names of their kids if the parents themselves had their names forcibly changed (Art. 19 (5)).
The name changes in all cases at present have to go through the court and can only get official recognition
through a court decision.
The policy of the government is to recognize and to facilitate remedying of the forcible name changes in
the past. The law and the jurisprudence however hamper the name changes in contexts other than that.
For three years after the adoption in 1990 of the Act on the Names of Bulgarian Citizens all Turks,
Bulgarian-speaking Muslims and Roma who wanted to have their names and the names of their children
restored, succeeded in restoring them under the administrative procedure. Very few Turks, but a
significant number of Bulgarian-speaking Muslims and Roma kept their Bulgarian names. The process of
restoration continued after 1993, but at a much slower pace.
Paragraph 2
There has not been any problem with displaying inscriptions and other information of a private nature
visible to the public in minority languages. The Commerce Act allows this for inscriptions of the name of
the company in whatever language (see below) and other laws do not prohibit this for other purposes.
Commerce Act (Търговски закон) The company name is registered in the courts.
There has not been any statement of any governmental institution indicating whatever point of view on
this. There have not been cases of government interference in the rare occasions when this right was
exercised.
Since Bulgarian remains the main medium of communication not only for the majority of the Bulgarian
citizens but also for the minorities, such inscriptions are a very rare practice. They appear in some minority
newspapers and occasionally also in commercial advertisement.
Paragraph 3
Displaying traditional local names, street names and other topographical indications intended for the public
in the minority languages has been a problem in Bulgaria for the Turkish minority, but potentially also for
other groups. The procedure and requirements for naming and renaming of objects is established by
Decree 1315 from 1975, which is still in force. According to this procedure the names of objects with a
national significance (mountains, rivers, forests, lakes, islands, national parks, big dams, etc.) are given by
the President of the Republic and the names of objects with a “local significance” (streets, gardens,
schools, neighborhoods, etc.) are given by the Municipal Councils. Both groups of objects however must
meet certain requirements one of which is that their names must “reflect the wealth and beauty of the
Bulgarian language” as provided for by Art. 4 of Decree 1315. This provision was used on a number of
occasions to block municipal decisions for renaming of local objects in the regions populated by ethnic
Turks (see below).
Decree 1315 on Naming (Указ 1315 за наименованията) The President of the Republic gives names of “national significance”. The Municipal Councils give names
of “local significance”. Both types of decisions are subject to judicial review. District governors can stop
decisions of Municipal Councils when they contradict the law. His/her decisions are also subject to judicial
review.
The policy of the government is to discourage displaying traditional local names, street names and other
topographical indications intended for the public in minority languages or named with names important for
minorities.
In the summer of 1993, the Movement for Rights and Freedoms-dominated Momchilgrad Municipal
Council decided to rename several streets in the town and give them names related to the culture of the
Turkish community: Jambali, Mehmed Habil and Miumiun Ahat. In doing so, the Municipal Council acted
completely within its jurisdiction. The Haskovo District Governor, however, immediately challenged this
decision in court. In September the same year the Kurdjali District Court invalidated the Minicipal Council
decision on the grounds of Decree 1315 (see above).
July 1994 again at the request of the Haskovo District Prosecutor, the Kardjali District prosecutor
invalidated the Turkish names (Aktash, Cabiller, etc.) of 16 settlements in the Fotinovo mayoralty, which
had been appointed by a decision of the Kirkovo Municipal Council at the beginning of the year.
In July 1995 the Haskovo District Governor continued the practice of his predecessor forbidding a
decision to rename streets with Turkish names to enter into force. Such a decision was reached by the
Municipal Council in the Mineralni Bani, by virtue of which 3 streets in the Karamantsi village were
renamed using Turkish names: Stara Planina became Djamiyska and Gabaach, Svetlina became Assar, and
Iskar - Olu Dere. The motives given by the District Governor point out again at Decree 1315.
June 1996 the Municipal Council of Momchilgrad decided to rename one street from “9 Septemvri” to
“Mastanli” the latter being the Turkish name of the town. This decision was again invalidated by the
District Governor on the basis of Decree 1315. No further efforts were made by the Momchilgrad
Municipal Council to give Turkish names to streets or other objects.
After 1997 however no cases of invalidating decisions of municipal councils on the basis of Decree 1315
took place. In one case in 1997 the Municipal Council of Kurdzhali was successful to rename one street
with a Turkish name – “Putiat za Enchets” was renamed to “Yumer Liutvi.”
Article 12
1 The Parties shall, where appropriate, take measures in the fields of
education and research to foster knowledge of the culture, history,
language and religion of their national minorities and of the majority.
2 In this context the Parties shall inter alia provide adequate
opportunities for teacher training and access to textbooks, and
facilitate contacts among students and teachers of different
communities.
3 The Parties undertake to promote equal opportunities for access to
education at all levels for persons belonging to national minorities.
Paragraph 1
There is no tradition and no practice of fostering knowledge of the culture, history, language and religion
of the national minorities in Bulgaria. The academic scholarship is still framed by the XIX century
romantic vision of Bulgarian history and culture, which is very much centered around the culture, values
and political history of the Bulgarians. History and culture of the European nations is studied and known
much more than history and culture of the ethnic and religious minorities of Bulgaria. While all educated
people from minorities know Bulgarian, there are very few Bulgarians who speak minority languages. Yet,
at several universities in Bulgaria courses on the culture, history, language and religion of Bulgaria's
minorities are taught and at several research institutions some research on these subjects has been done.
For the most part these initiatives developed with the support of several international donors.
Art. 15.1 of the National Education Act provides that the educational institutions should create conditions
for the “formation of a free, moral and active personality, respecting the laws, rights of the others, their
culture, language and religion.” (“изграждане на свободна, морална и инициативна личност,
уважаваща законите, правата на другите, тяхната култура, език и религия”).
Ministry of Education and its regional inspectorates are the institutions that provide the criteria and control
all educational institutions in Bulgaria but especially elementary, middle and high schools. Universities and
other institutions of high education have a substantial degree of autonomy.
The government tolerates programs fostering knowledge of the culture, history, language and religion of
the national minorities, but does not impose requirements to that effect and does not finance such
programs.
Programs fostering knowledge of the culture, history, language and religion of the national minorities exist
at different departments of Sofia University, Plovdiv University, New Bulgarian University and Shumen
University. They also exist at the teacher training institutes and in the religious schools of the Muslims.
Some of the minority languages are taught in the Balkan College in Sofia. Several textbooks and other
teaching materials were produced through private initiatives for the elementary, middle and the high
schools but they are all for elective classes and are used in a very limited number of urban schools.
Paragraph 2
See also Article 6 paragraph 1.
There are very few teachers belonging to the biggest ethnic minorities in Bulgaria – Turks and Roma.
They, as a rule and by custom, teach in the schools that are predominantly minority and are subject to
training organized by the Ministry of Education the general conditions. No special training organized by
the state is available for the teachers belonging to minorities. For the most part, teachers in the schools
with predominantly minority students are Bulgarians. They too are subject to training organized by the
Ministry of Education under the general conditions. Some NGOs organize teacher training courses for
both minority teachers and teachers working in minority schools, but not on systematic basis.
There are lots of textbooks produced in Bulgaria for all levels of education. The Ministry of Education
must approve those that are suitable for use in the educational system up to, but not including, the
university education. Some of the high school textbooks approved by the Ministry include knowledge of
the culture, history, language and religion of minorities. Non of them is however mandatory and it is up to
the teacher to use them or not. There is no data on whether and to what extent these textbooks are used.
The Bulgarian teachers in minority schools are in daily contact with minority students. The teachers of
Roma and Turkish background however are in contact predominantly with Roma and Turkish students.
Apart from a limited number of village schools that are mixed, the contact between Roma/Turkish students
and Bulgarian students is very limited.
There are no legal provisions envisaging obligations of the state to provide adequate opportunities for
teacher training and access to textbooks, and facilitate contacts among students and teachers of different
communities.
There is no special government institution empowered to provision of adequate opportunities for teacher
training and access to textbooks, and facilitating contacts among students and teachers of different
communities.
There were no governmental statements expressing any particular governmental policy in this regard.
See above under narrative.
Paragraph 3
The education of the main ethnic and religious minorities in Bulgaria has always been worse than that of
the majority. This was a problem already before the Second World War and continued to be so also
afterwards. The communist governments had for many years a special policy of promoting educational
opportunities for Turks, Pomaks and Roma through organizing special forms of pre-school education and
through establishing minority and regional quotas for students from these communities. This policy of the
communist government was linked to its assimilationist efforts. It was also combined with the
establishment of “special schools” for Roma. There the programs stressed already from the first years on
acquiring of technical skills thus preparing Roma kids for low qualified jobs. This communist policy was
abandoned soon after the fall of communism by first abandoning any affirmative action and by abolition of
the “special schools”.
Apart from the anti-discrimination provisions in the Constitution and in the Law on National Education, no
other provisions exist ensuring equal opportunities for access to education at all levels for persons
belonging to national minorities in Bulgaria.
There is no special governmental structure caring to ensure equal opportunities for access to education at
all levels for persons belonging to national minorities.
The only document indicating government policy is the Framework Program for Equal Participation of
Roma in Bulgarian Society. In the sphere of education it envisages desegregation of the Roma schools (i.e.
schools in the Roma neighborhoods), abolition of the remnants of “special schools,” combating racism in
the classroom, introduction of Romanes on a large scale in the public schools and promotion of university
education for Roma. None of this has been implemented so far. No such programs exist for other
minorities.
Turks and Roma do not have equal opportunities for access to education at all levels. Both communities
live predominantly either in separate neighborhoods or in separate villages. The elementary and the
primary schools there and especially in the Roma neighborhoods offer poor educational opportunities,
much worse than the country's average. These schools do not prepare students adequately for the
institutions of high education. This is the main reason why Turks and Roma are underrepresented in these
institutions.
Article 13
1 Within the framework of their education systems, the Parties shall
recognise that persons belonging to a national minority have the right
to set up and to manage their own private educational and training
establishments.
2 The exercise of this right shall not entail any financial obligation for
the Parties.
Paragraph 1
Private minority schools exist in Bulgaria only as religious schools, some of which have the license to issue
diplomas for general high school education. There are lots of private foreign language schools but no
secular private minority schools exist although the law does not prohibit their establishment (see below).
Some private colleges and universities offer education of the culture and the language of some national
minorities. Establishment of private minority schools in Bulgaria is a matter of both overcoming
nationalistic prejudices and finding sufficient material support, which at present is not available.
According to Art. 10 of the Law on National Education schools and kindergartens in Bulgaria are state,
municipal and private (“държавни, общински и частни”). The law and the rules and regulations for its
application establish a procedure for opening and oversight of private schools. The latter includes:
1. Submission of an application to the Minister of Education together with a number of
documents ensuring that the state educational, sanitary, medical and infrastructural standards
will be met;
2. Appointment of an expert commission to review the application;
3. Issuing of a ministerial order to open the school which is published in the Official Gazette;
4. Constant oversight by the regional bodies of the Ministry of Education on whether the legal
and educational requirements are met;
5. Appointment of a special ministerial representative to every private school to review the final
graduation exams.
According to Art. 12 (1) of the Law on National Education private schools and kindergartens with foreign
participation could only be opened as joint ventures with Bulgarian physical or juridical persons. Opening
of foreign schools and kindergartens is only possible on a basis of international agreements (Art. 12 (2)).
Special cases of private schools under the Law on the National Education are the religious schools that are
two types: those that only serve spiritual and administrative purposes of a denomination and those that
offer general education in addition to that. Both are opened by a ministerial order. The former must supply
fewer documents upon application while the latter must prove that they meet the same criteria as the
private schools in general.
In addition to these the Denominations Act allows opening of denominational private schools with a
ministerial order. The act does not provide for any standards that are to be met but refers to regulations
that are to be issued by the government.
None of the provisions of the Law on National Education specifically exclude minorities from opening
their own private schools.
Ministry of Education is the responsible government agency licensing and overseeing all private schools in
Bulgaria.
The Council of Ministers, a Deputy Prime Minister or the Minister of Education have to agree for the
opening of a denominational school.
The policy of the government is to tolerate the existing private denominational schools. It does not
encourage and does not support opening of secular private schools for the national minorities.
Secular private schools of the ethnic and linguistic minorities do not exist. The Muslims have three private
high schools that also have licenses to offer regular high school diplomas – in Shumen, Russe and
Momchilgrad. The subjects studied in these schools have to meet state educational high school standards.
In addition to that they study several additional subjects – Holy Koran, interpretations of the Koran,
History of Islam, Arab language, Islamic law (of the Hanafite maz'ab), ethics and others. There is a private
High Islamic Institute in Sofia that only has a license to prepare religious leaders.
In July 1999 the Minister of Education issued an order opening a “High Evangelical Theological Institute”
in Sofia. It was licensed as a religious institution. So far it managed to consolidate the religious schools of
several Protestant denominations and is in a process of consolidating others.
Catholics have no private schools.
Paragraph 2
State provides annual subsidies for the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and for the Muslim Denomination.
1/10 of the state subsidy for the Muslims goes to their educational establishments.
There are no provisions in any law obliging the state to provide financial support for private educational
and training establishments of minorities.
The state subsidy that goes to the Muslim religious establishments is distributed through the Directorate
for Religious Affairs.
The government only supports the biggest denominational private schools through the support that it
offers to denominations.
See above under narrative.
Article 14
1 The Parties undertake to recognise that every person belonging to a
national minority has the right to learn his or her minority language.
2 In areas inhabited by persons belonging to national minorities
traditionally or in substantial numbers, if there is sufficient demand,
the Parties shall endeavour to ensure, as far as possible and within the
framework of their education systems, that persons belonging to those
minorities have adequate opportunities for being taught the minority
language or for receiving instruction in this language.
3 Paragraph 2 of this article shall be implemented without prejudice to
the learning of the official language or the teaching in this language.
Paragraph 1
The right of every person in Bulgaria, belonging to a national minority to learn his or her mother tongue is
guaranteed by the Constitution and by several laws and decrees (see below). Since 1990 guaranteeing of
this right was confronted, sometimes dramatically, with prejudices of the general public and of some
politicians. The process went through several stages. Until 1999 it was organized for the students from 1
to 8 grade as a “facultative subject” in the municipal schools, i.e. in the most widespread schools where
most of the children of both the majority and the minorities study. As a “facultative subject” it was
organized as extracurricular activity four classes a week for a minimum of 13 students. Since 1999 it
became an “obligatory elective subject”, i.e. it was included in the ordinary curriculum and is offered four
classes a week if there are at least 8 students who had chosen to study their mother tongue. This standard
is rather law and the high threshold (of 8 and until several months ago – of 13 students) does not allow
this right to be exercised on a regular basis especially by some small and poorly organized ethnic groups
(see below under factual). In September 1999, legislative amendments extended the study of the mother
tongue also to the 9 - 12 grades (in comparison to 1 - 8 grades stipulated in Decree No. 183, see below ).
1. Art. 36 (2) of the Constitution: “Citizens whose mother tongue is not Bulgarian shall have the right to
study and use their own language alongside the compulsory study of the Bulgarian language.”
(“Гражданите, за които българският език не е майчин, имат право наред със задължителното
изучаване на българския език да изучават и ползват своя език.”).
2. Art. 8(2) of the Law on National Education: “Students whose mother tongue is not Bulgarian
alongside with the compulsory study of the Bulgarian language have the right to study their mother
tongue in the municipal schools under the protection and control of the sate.” (“Учениците, за които
българският език не е майчин, освен задължителното изучаване на български език имат право
да изучават своя майчин език в общинските училища при защита и контрол от страна на
държавата.”)
3. Regulations for Applying the National Education Act - Art. 8 (3) provides that students whose mother
tongue is not Bulgarian can “study their mother tongue in municipal schools” if there are enough
students for one group (“да изучават майчиния си език в общинските училища”). Para. 4 defines
mother tongue as the “language which the child uses to communicate with its family” (“езикът, на
който детето общува в семейството си”).
4. Ordinance No. 3 from 27 June 1997 for Determining the Number of Staff in the System of National
Education - Art. 7 (1) provides that teaching staff is paid for electives, “including classes for learning
the mother tongue” (“в т.ч. за изучаване на майчин език”).
5. Decree No. 183 of the Council of Ministers from 5 September 1994 for Studying the Mother Tongue
in Municipal Schools in the Republic of Bulgaria - Art. 1 (1) provides that “students whose mother
tongue is not Bulgarian” (“учениците, за които майчиният език не е български”) can receive
instruction in it from the first to the eight grades in municipal schools as a facultative subject; para. 2
determines the amount of classes for study of the mother tongue as four weekly. Art. 2 (1) provides
that applications for studying the mother tongue should be deposited with the school headmaster. Art.
4 states that “textbooks for the study of mother tongue are not paid for by the students”
(“учебниците, по които се изучава майчин език не се заплащат от учениците”), and Art. 5
provides that “the finances for mother tongue instruction” (“финансирането на обучението по
майчин език”) are supplied by the municipal budgets.
6. Ordinance No. 4 of the Ministry of Education from 2 September 1999 on the Educational Minimum
and the Educational Plan - Art. 12 provides that the “The study periods for the obligatory elective
subjects shall be distributed among the subjects from the cultural-educational field and mother tongue;
for each of these subjects, up to 72 school periods annually shall be given for the 9 - 10 grade, and up
to 108 school periods annually for the 11 - 12 grade.” (“учебните часове за
задължителноизбираема подготовка се разпределят между учебните предмети от културно-
образователните области и майчин език, като за всеки от тях могат да се дават до 72 учебни
часа годишно в IX и X клас и до 108 учебни часа в XI и XII џлас”.).
7. Art. 15 (3) of the Law on the Educational Degree, Educational Minimum and the Educational Plan
from 27 July 1999 effectively repeals the provision of the Decree No. 183 on mother tongue education
as a facultative subject and provides that “into the obligatory elective program should be included also
the education of the mother tongue according to Art. 8 (2) of the Law on National Education” (“В
задължителноизбираемата подготовка се включва и изучаването на майчиния език съгласно
чл. 8, ал. 2 от Закона за народната просвета.”).
8. Art. 20 of the Ordinance No. 5 of the Minister of Science and Education from May 30, 1994 provides
that there should be at least 8 students to form a class for obligatory elective subject.
9. Art. 4 of the Instruction No.4/27 October 1994 as amended on 8 June 1998 – “The student declares
his/her wish to study mother tongue once in the beginning of the school year in which he/she wants to
start its learning. The declaration is signed by the student or his/her parent or legal guardian and is
forwarded to the school Director by September 15.” (“Ученикът еднократно заявява желанието си
за изучаване на майчиния език в началото на учебната година, от която иска да започне
неговото изучаване. Заявлението се подписва от ученика или неговия родител или настойник
и се подава до директора на училището в срок до 15 септември.”).
Ministry of Education and its regional inspectorates are the responsible government institutions ensuring
the enforcement of the laws and regulation on the mother tongue education.
The government tolerates and organizes the mother tongue education of some national minorities (Turks,
Armenians and Jews) does not make sufficient efforts to organize it for others (e.g. Roma), does not make
any efforts in the case of some (e.g. Vlachs and Karakachani) and rejects the very idea of mother tongue
education in the case of Macedonians.
There are two institutes for high education that offer teacher training for Turkish-language teachers – in
Shumen and in Kurdzhali. In the Ministry of Education there are four expert appointed to organize the
mother tongue education – in Turkish, Romanes, Hebrew and Armenian.
Paragraph 2
See above under paragraph 1.
Paragraph 3
According to Art. 8 of the Law on National Education, Bulgarian is the official language in educational
establishments and all Bulgarian schools have to ensure its learning (para. 1). The latter is obligatory (para.
2) and is part of the state educational requirements that all Bulgarian schools (both public and private with
Bulgarian participation) have to meet (Art. 16, para.4). According to the law one of the three graduation
exams that students of all Bulgarian schools have to pass is in Bulgarian language and literature (Art. 24
(2)). The only schools that are exempt from these requirements and where learning of Bulgarian language
is not obligatory are the foreign schools. According to Art.19 (5) of the Rules and Regulations for the
Application of the Law on National Education the latter are not obliged to submit a declaration that they
will meet the state educational criteria.
National Education Act (Закон за народната просвета) Art. 16 – The state educational requirements are relevant to: Ministry of Education and its regional inspectorates are the governmental institutions responsible to
ensuring education of the Bulgarian language.
The policy of the government, as has been the case throughout Bulgarian history, is to ensure learning of
the Bulgarian language in all Bulgarian schools, including in those where national minorities receive their
education.
Bulgarian language is studied in all Bulgarian public and private schools and in all mixed (Bulgarian and
foreign) schools. In these schools every year students pass state graduation exams, one of which is in
Bulgarian language and literature.
Article 15
The Parties shall create the conditions necessary for the effective participation of persons belonging
to national minorities in cultural, social and economic life and in public affairs, in particular those
affecting them.
Cultural life: The participation of minorities in Bulgarian cultural life is generally poor. Jewish, Armenian,
Turkish and Roma artists take part in the mainstream cultural life but the ethnic culture of these
communities is not part of the mainstream. None of the governments was able to create conditions
necessary for the effective participation of persons belonging to national minorities in county's cultural life.
Social and economic life: Social status and economic situation of different minorities varies. Economically
some are better off, others – worse off than the country's average. The biggest minorities – Turks, Roma
and Bulgarian-speaking Muslims are socially and economically at the bottom of society. Poverty in some
Roma communities is extreme. In terms of social and economic status Roma are the poorest and the most
neglected part of Bulgarian society. None of the governments so far was able to create conditions for
improving social and economic status of any of the country's national minorities.
Public affairs: Only the Turks and to a lesser extent – the Bulgarian-speaking Muslims have a possibility,
within the constitutional and legal framework, to take part in public affairs and in the decision-making
affecting their life. There are a number of Turkish MPs, elected through the Movement for Rights and
Freedoms and one elected through the United Democratic Forces. The Turks and the Bulgarian-speaking
Muslims through elected representatives (including mayors) dominate several municipalities. Roma,
although a significant part of the voters, have almost symbolic representation mainly at the municipal level,
and only one MP elected through the United Democratic Forces. Minorities have almost symbolic
presence in the police, military and the judiciary. Some Roma intellectuals take part as consultants in the
National Council of Ethnic and Demographic Issues but this body does not have any decision-making
powers (See above under Article 5).
No law provides for creating conditions necessary for the effective participation of persons belonging to
national minorities in cultural, social and economic life and in public affairs.
The National Council on Ethnic and Demographic Issues is the consultative body established in the
government to advise on minority policy in general. It has however no decision-making power and its
involvement in the government policy designed to create the conditions necessary for the effective
participation of persons belonging to national minorities in cultural, social and economic life and in public
affairs was so far more than modest.
The policy of all government was one of neglect. Only recently the government adopted the Framework
Program for Equal Participation of Roma in Bulgarian Society which envisages measures to create
conditions necessary for the effective participation of persons belonging to national minorities in cultural,
social and economic life and in public affairs (see above under Articles 4 and 5). Almost nothing from this
program is so far however implemented.
See above under narrative.
Article 16
The Parties shall refrain from measures which alter the proportions of the population in areas
inhabited by persons belonging to national minorities and are aimed at restricting the rights and
freedoms flowing from the principles enshrined in the present framework Convention.
Lots of changes were made after 1989 of the municipal borders. In 1999 an entirely new district structure
was adopted. None of these changes however affected rights and freedoms flowing from the principles
enshrined in the framework Convention.
According to Art. 135 (1) of the Constitution “the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria is divided into
municipalities and districts”. (територията на Република България се дели на общини и области). Art.
135 (2) provides that other units can also be created by law.
The Law on the Administrative and Territorial Division of Bulgaria provides for the creation of regions
(райони) and mayoralties (кметства) sub-units of the municipalities. Art.6 of the law provides that the
territory of Bulgaria is divided into 28 districts. Their borders and administrative centers are created by a
presidential decree on suggestion by the Council of Ministers. Art. 9 of the law establishes the order for
creation of municipalities. The procedure starts with a petition of at least 25% of the members of the
prospective municipality. The Municipal Council of the existing municipality and the District Governor
check the whether the conditions for the creation of a municipality as provided for by Articles 7 and 8 of
the law are met. Then the Municipal Council schedules a referendum. If the majority of the prospective
members of the municipality voted for its creation, then the District Governor writes a report to the
Council of Ministers. The latter suggests to the President to issue a decree for the creation of the
municipality. According to Art.10 of the law regions are created in the cities of more than 300 000
inhabitants and can be created in cities with more than 100 000 inhabitants if the Municipal Councils
decide so. In both cases they are created by Municipal Council decisions. Mayoralties are created by the
Municipal Council decisions on demand by certain number of inhabitants.
The President, the Council of Ministers, the Municipal Councils, the District Governors and the Ministry
of the Regional Development and Welfare are the governmental institutions responsible for any change of
municipal and district borders in Bulgaria.
There are repeated demands of pro-Bulgarian nationalistic politicians in the biggest municipality under the
control of the Movement for Rights of Freedoms, that of Kurdzhali, for changing its borders so that they
separate Turks from Bulgarians. None of these motions was successful so far. The government has not
expressed any wish to change borders of districts or municipalities along ethnic or religious lines.
See above under narrative.
Article 17
1 The Parties undertake not to interfere with the right of persons
belonging to national minorities to establish and maintain free and
peaceful contacts across frontiers with persons lawfully staying in other
States, in particular those with whom they share an ethnic, cultural,
linguistic or religious identity, or a common cultural heritage.
2 The Parties undertake not to interfere with the right of persons
belonging to national minorities to participate in the activities of non-governmental
organisations, both at the national and international levels.
Paragraph 1
Most of the people from minorities can travel freely to other States with whom they share an ethnic,
cultural, linguistic or religious identity, or a common cultural heritage. No obstacles are created from the
Bulgarian authorities and travels take place frequently. The only exception is the case with the
Macedonians. Until 1998 passports of activists of UMO “Ilinden”, a Macedonian group, were illegally
confiscated by police on a number of occasions to prevent them traveling to Macedonia. Their visits to
Macedonia, when successful, are sometimes subject to hostile comments in the media and by officials. This
policy was somewhat eased recently. During 1994-1999 members of some evangelical groups were also
prevented in their contacts across frontiers. The government denied permission to visit to a number of
religious leaders well known abroad and expelled several visitors, among them Muslims and Protestants.
No law exists allowing the government to interfere with the right of persons belonging to national
minorities to establish and maintain free and peaceful contacts across frontiers with persons lawfully
staying in other States, in particular those with whom they share an ethnic, cultural, linguistic or religious
identity, or a common cultural heritage.
There is no special governmental body responsible to facilitating the contacts of members of national
minorities with people abroad.
The government does not restrict the contacts across frontiers of people from ethnic and religious
minorities with the exception of Macedonians and members of some religious minorities. The tough policy
in the past in this regard was somewhat eased recently.
See above under narrative.
Paragraph 2
There are lots of non-governmental minority organizations in Bulgaria. Generally the right of members of
national minorities to take part in their activities is not restricted. There are however some exceptions. The
Macedonians are not allowed to register an organization that claims to be Macedonian and the authorities
interfere, sometimes by using illegal force, in the activities of some groups (See above under Article 7).
The government also restricted the activities of some religious groups and prevented their members to take
part in their activities (See above under Article 8). By confiscating passports of some members of the
Macedonian minority the government prevented them to taking part in the activities of non-governmental
organizations abroad.
No legal provisions exist allowing the government to interfere in the right of members of national
minorities to participate in the activities of non-governmental organizations, both at the national and
international levels.
There is no governmental structure empowered specially to interfere in the right of the members of
national minorities to participate in the activities of non-governmental organizations, both at the national
and international levels
The policy of the government is not to interfere in the non-governmental activities of the biggest minorities
and to interfere in the non-governmental activities of Macedonians. In the past the government interfered
in the non-governmental activities of some unpopular religious minorities although this pressure was
somewhat eased recently.
See above under narrative.
Article 18
1 The Parties shall endeavour to conclude, where necessary, bilateral and multilateral
agreements with other States, in particular neighbouring States, in order to ensure
the protection of persons belonging to the national minorities concerned.
2 Where relevant, the Parties shall take measures to encourage transfrontier co-operation.
Paragraph 1
Bulgaria, just as most of the other countries in the Balkans, had a long tradition of ensuring the protection
of national minorities as well as any other arrangement of minority issues (e.g. population transfers,
emigration etc.) through bilateral treaties with neighboring countries. This was particularly true for the
period of the late 19-th and first half of the 20-th century. This practice was partially abandoned already
after the Second World War although some agreements were concluded with Turkey for migration of
Bulgarian Turks. During the last years of communism the refusal to arrange minority issues through
bilateral agreements with neighboring countries became a firm and consistent policy, especially in the
context of the name-changing campaign. The inertia of this policy still prevails. There is only one
agreement concluded between Bulgaria and a neighboring country that indirectly affects the situation of
the Turkish minority – the intergovernmental agreement from December 4, 1997 (See below under legal).
Agreement between the government of the Republic of Bulgaria and the government of the Turkish
Republic for cooperation in the sphere of culture, education and science
Art. 2. The contracting Parties shall cooperate in the establishment of departments in their universities for
mutual research and education into the language and literature of the other country, for organizing
conferences and courses, for encouraging and facilitating research in this respect. (“Договарящите се
страни съдействат за основаването на катедри в университетите си за взаимно изучаване на езика
и литературата на другата страна, за организирането на конференции, курсове за подпомагането и
улесняването на изследванията в тази насока.”).
Art. 4. The contracting parties encourage contacts between their scientific and educational institutions.
They shall facilitate the exchange of scientists, lecturers from high schools and universities, educators,
methodists and students for exchange of experience, lectures, professional practice etc. (“Договарящите
се страни насърчават контактите между своите научни и образователни институции. Те
съдействат за размяната на научни работници, преподаватели от средните и висши учебни
заведения, педагози, методисти, студенти и ученици за обмяна на опит, изнасяне на лекции,
професионална практика и др.”).
Art. 9. The contracting parties encourage the cooperation in theater, music, opera, ballet, etc., through
facilitating the organization of mutual initiatives and visits in these fields. (“Договарящите се страни
насърчават сътрудничеството в областта на театъра, музиката, операта, балета и т.н., като
подпомагат организирането на взаимни инициативи и посещения в тези области.”).
Art. 10. The contracting parties encourage organizing in each country of artistic, craft and folk exhibitions
from the other party (“Договарящите се страни поощряват организирането във всяка от тях на
художествени, занятчийски и фолклорни изложби от другата страна.”).
Art. 13. The contracting parties encourage the cooperation in the field of literature by facilitating the
exchange of writers, critics, editors and publications and the translation of their own literature into the
language of the other party. (“Договарящите се страни поощряват сътрудничеството в областта на
литературата, като за тази цел съдействат за облекчаване обмена на литератори, писатели,
издатели и издания и превеждането на свои литературни произведения на езика на другата
страна.”).
Art. 14. The contracting parties encourage the cooperation in the field of the folklore. (“Договарящите се
страни поощряват сътрудничеството в областта на фолклора.”).
The Ministry of Education is the responsible governmental institution for the enforcement of the above
agreement.
The government is very cautious in concluding bilateral agreements envisaging the protection of persons
belonging to the national minorities.
See above under narrative
Paragraph 2
No special measures have been taken by the government in the field of transfrontier cooperation that
affects national minorities.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||