Bulgarian
Anti-Discrimination Cases
Below are
summaries of Roma discrimination cases initiated by Romani Baht Foundation
(Sofia) under
|
Case name |
Case reference |
Status of case |
Area |
|
3692/06 with the |
Pending |
Access to
goods and services |
|
|
Four
Roma families from Philipovtzi Roma neighborhood in Sofia versus Electricity Company |
2756, 27 – Sofia District Court; 2751, 35 – |
Pending |
Access to
goods and services |
|
2168/2005
with the |
Pending |
Access to
goods and services |
|
|
|
3435/2004
with the Sofia City Court, sent to the Supreme Court of Cassation to review
the Sofia City Court decision, which was in favour of the respondent. The
Supreme court of Cassation scheduled the case for 14.06.2007. |
Pending |
Access to
goods and services |
|
2253/05 with
the |
Pending |
Access to
goods and services |
|
|
Romani
Baht and the BHC versus
the Sofia Electricity Company |
3755/04
with the |
Pending |
Access to
goods and services |
|
A group of Roma Young people against the
“Riviera” LTD – Shoumen |
145/05 with the |
Pending |
Access to
goods and services |
|
1121/05 with the |
Claim denied by the Sofia City Court |
Access to
goods and services |
|
|
9427/2003 with the Sofia District Court |
Closed |
Education |
|
|
11089/2004
with the |
Pending |
Education |
|
|
20041200501154/2004 with the Blagoevgrad Regional Court |
Closed |
Education |
|
|
The school for children with learning disabilities in Blagoevgrad |
20051210100017/ 2005 with the Blagoevgrad District Court |
Closed |
Education |
|
ERRC versus the 103
Sofia School, Sofia Municipality and the Ministry on Education |
3139/05
with the |
Closed |
Education |
|
The
case with segregated Roma-only school in the town of Ihtiman |
1/ 2712.2004 |
Closed |
Education |
|
666/2005
with the |
Closed |
Education |
|
|
|
10816/04
with the |
Pending |
Employment |
|
1306/06
with the |
Pending |
Employment |
|
|
The
case of Raikovi family versus Trendafil Mihalkov |
1305/05 |
Pending |
Employment |
|
|
10947/06
– |
Closed |
Employment |
|
|
2873/05
with the |
Pending |
Employment |
|
294/05 |
Pending |
Employment |
|
|
7621/2004 |
Closed |
Harassment |
|
|
|
2752/06
with the |
Pending |
Harassment |
|
S. D. versus “St.
Sofia” hospital |
7808186911 with the Sofia District Court and under revision of
the Sofia City Court |
Pending |
Healthcare |
|
150 of the
Sofia Military Prosecution Office |
Pending |
Racial
violence |
|
|
Raikovi family versus Trendafil Mihalkov
|
1305/05 |
Pending |
Racial
violence |
|
Romani
Baht Foundation versus Mr. Konstantin Tretchev – Leader of the Professional
Union Podkrepa |
7621/2004
with the |
Pending |
Racial
violence |
ACCESS
TO GOODS AND SERVICES
D. versus Trade Catering LTD 3692/06 with the
Facts: A group of
Roma and Bulgarians approached a famous night club in
Legal action: The case is filled under art. 71 of the Protection Against
Discrimination Act. The case is pending before the first instance court.
Four Roma families from
Philipovtzi Roma neighborhood in Sofia versus Electricity
Company 2756, 27 – Sofia District Court; 2751, 35 –
Facts: The cases involves a claim of direct
discrimination as the clients’ meters are
positioned at 11 metres high. The measuring devices in the Bulgarian neighbourhoods
are never put in such position. According to the law they should be available
for visual control by the client. Additionally the
clients were billed with huge amounts of money for electricity in the summer of
2005.
Legal action: The cases involve claims for direct discrimination under art. 71 of the
Protection Against Discrimination Act as well as claims for minimising the
bills. The
cases are pending before the first instance court.
S.N. versus Vali LTD 3435/2004 with the
Facts: The case involves a refusal of a shop to sell
goods to a Roma person.
Ruling:
The decision was in
favour of the firm-respondent and has been appealed by Romani Baht before the
Supreme Court of Cassation.
K.P. versus the
Facts: The case involves BAS’s refusal to host an
event organised for Roma persons and Roma organisations.
Ruling: The first instance court found that the respondent performed
direct discrimination on an ethnic basis, ordered the respondent to discontinue
the discrimination and to pay 600 leva to the plaintiff for non-pecuniary
damages. The respondent appealed and presently the case is pending before the
second instance court. The legal team, however, has been contacted by the Head
Professor of the Academy with the proposal for an exhibition to be organised in
the Academy premises for popularisation of the Roma culture. The exhibition was
organised in the summer of 2005 with the support of members of Studii Romani
Association.
Romani Baht versus KFC Bulgaria, Samex
LTD 2168/2005 with the
Facts: A pizza and chicken delivery service refused to deliver food in a Roma
neighbourhood. The case involves refusal of the firm to provide the Romani Baht
Foundation’s (RBF) staff members with fried chicken in the office because the
office is placed in a Roma neighbourhood.
Legal action: The case is filled before the Sofia District Court under Art. 71 of the
Protection Against Discrimination Act against the Bulgarian firm who has
the franchise to use the KFC trade mark in
Romani Baht and the BHC versus the Sofia Electricity Company 3755/04
Facts: In January 2004
following a failure in the electricity system, more than 250 Roma households
were cut off from electricity. When they called the Electricity Company they
were informed that no repairs would be made in the area since there are number
of people who do not pay their bills. There was, however, at least 30
households who paid regularly and still they were cut off. Romani Baht
Foundation (RBF) complained to the company stating that this was a form of
collective punishment. The company answered that the electricity will be
restored when at least 70 percent of the bills are collected. For more than two
months those who were regular payers were deprived of electricity just because
of being Roma in Roma neighbourhoods.
Legal action: RBF and the
Bulgarian Helsinki Committee initiated a court case under the provision
allowing NGOs to be plaintiffs when the rights of many are breached. Sofia
District Court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs but the respondent appealed.
The second instance court hearings were held in May 2005 and in October 2005.
The respondent presented new evidence to claim that the Roma live in illegal
houses and because of that the system was not repaired in time. The plaintiffs’
position is that illegal or not, the houses were and are presently supplied
with electricity.
The electricity
company contacted RBF with a proposal for a friendly settlement. The company
proposed to financially assist RBF to organise a working station in Sofia, in
the Roma district, with the company’s software, which will allow every Roma
client to check the status of his/her electricity meter. However, RBF’s
position was that they would organise the station in one of their offices and
in return will assist the company in the collection of bills. As to the court
case, it was agreed that it will continue and both sides will accept the
decision. The case is pending.
A group of
Roma Young people against the “
Facts: The case involves
refusal of a sport complex in the town of
Legal
action:
Romani Baht Foundation tested the case and initiated a court case under Article
71 of the Protection against Discrimination Act. The case has been ruled in
favour of the respondent. The decision has been appealed and presently the case
is pending before the second instance court. The second instance court rejected
the claim due to lack of sufficient evidence.
Three Roma boys against “Alex-Alexander” TF 1121/05
Facts: The case involves an incident of less favourable
treatment of Roma clients in a coffee place in
Legal action: The case was initiated under art. 71 of the
Protection Against Discrimination Act. A positive decision was issued by the
first instance court. It found direct discrimination, ordered the respondent to
discontinue the practice and to pay non-pecuniary damages. The respondent
appealed and the case is presently pending before the second instance court. The
second instance court rejected the claim due to lack of sufficient evidence.
Cases involving discrimination in education initiated
by Romani Baht Foundation in
cooperation with the European Roma Rights Centre under a project funded by the
British Embassy in
Romani
Baht Foundation and European Roma Rights Centre versus the 75th
school Todor Kableshkov (Roma only school in Fakulteta Roma district in
Facts: The 75th school Todor Kableshkov
is a Roma only school in the Fakulteta Roma district in
Legal
action: In May 2003 a lawsuit was filed before the Sofia
District Court on behalf of 28 Romani school children against the Ministry of
Education, the
A number of court hearings were scheduled for presenting the evidence of
the parties. The court gathered more than 1500 pages of written evidence and
oral testimony, including the initial evidence, presented by the plaintiffs
with the claim. The evidence included inter alias the comparative research made
by the Regional Inspectorate on Education – Sofia which described a comparative
survey of the educational achievements of the children in the ghetto schools,
mixed schools and all-Bulgarian schools; an extract of the last EU Commission
Report on Bulgaria – regarding the Roma situation; and an extract of the
Bulgarian Helsinki Committee’s book on Desegregation of the Roma schools.
The plaintiffs also presented oral testimony – witnesses were called to
support the facts, expressed with the initial claim. Those witnesses were
members of the Romani Baht team – the legal programme director and the ERRC
project researcher. The respondents presented written evidence; the school
representative presented school attendance books, thus claiming that the
plaintiffs have achieved lower results because of not regularly attending school.
All the respondents have been represented by legal representatives who objected
the basis of the claim, and at the final hearing presented written pleas to
support their arguments against the claim.
Ruling: On the 11th November 2004 the court issued a decision where
it stated inter alias: “The court found,
based on the written evidences, that in the school at issue during 2002/2003
school year 1800 children have been enrolled, all of the from Roma origin; 349
out of them were first grades who formed 10 groups”. It was also determined
that: “There are more than 30 children in
every class-group and in some of the class-groups – more than 40. The number of
the children in 75th school is few times more than the number of the
children in the other schools in the same sub-district in
The decision also pointed out the poor material basis of the school, and
that part of the students study in a temporary building, which is placed in the
school yard. “That building can not
secure a normal temperature” – stated the court. Later the court wrote: “It has been also proved that during the
winter the school was working on three shifts with shorter school-time”. The
court also took into account the results of the Regional Inspectorate’s
comparative survey, where it proved that the educational achievements of the
children in the segregated schools are lower, because of the lack of bilingual
educational system. The court also took into account the Bulgarian Helsinki
Committee’s report on the education in the segregated schools.
The court found, however, that the plaintiffs did not prove they suffered as a result of the above. The
court cited the Supreme Court of Cassation’ practice, where it is stated that
the plaintiffs should prove not only the negative facts, but also that they
suffered because of these facts. Normally in the Bulgarian civil process it is
done by a witness who states that the plaintiffs were disturbed and abused by
the facts, found by the court. The strategy of the team, however, was to urge
the court to admit, that there are some illegal practices, which by a necessity lead to moral damages. As
the moral damages were not proved, however, the first instance decision was
issued in favour of the respondents. The plaintiffs’ representative prepared an
appeal and sent it to the second instance court. The appeal court upheld
the first instance court decision.
RBF
versus the Professional Gymnasium –
Facts: The case involves a
racist incident during May 2004 in a mainstream school where the Roma children
who visited it (accompanied by a Deputy Head teacher and pedagogical adviser of
the 75th school in
The idea of having
Roma classmates, however, was apparently not pleasant for the Bulgarian
students who organised the above described “welcome” for the Roma children. In
the evening the incident was reported on the national news. The Bulgarian
students interviewed on TV stated that “white
school for white people” and they will
“not allow the black race to enter”. The Head teacher and other teachers of
the Professional Gymnasium failed to stop the incident. To “save” the Roma
children, the teachers locked them in a classroom until the Bulgarians left the
corridor.
Legal action: This case has been initially addressed to the
Sofia Regional Prosecution Office and respective police and educational
authorities. The Prosecution office initiated a criminal procedure against an “unknown perpetrator” and assigned the
local police authorities to perform a preliminary check on the case. As RBF received
information about the name of the student who allegedly organised the Bulgarian
students from the Gymnasium to perform against the Roma visitors, RBF informed
the Prosecution Office of this in a special letter. The Prosecution Office did
not change the title of the case – it is still against “unknown perpetrator”,
and almost nothing is done on the case. Several times RBF asked for information
regarding the development. The answers are quite uninformative – it is just
stated that the Prosecution is still working on the case.
Meanwhile the
educational authorities within the regional Inspectorate on Education gathered
information on the case and submitted it to the Ministry on Education and
Science. RBF asked the Ministry for copies of the documents, but were refused
access. Following this, RBF initiated an administrative court procedure before
the Court against the Ministry under the Access to Public Information Act. The
case was declared in favour of RBF. The court obliged the Ministry on Education to hand the requested information to RBF.
Presently the Ministry appeals the decision (before the
The organisation also initiated a civil procedure against the school
where the accident has happened. The Roma children (the victims – 12 students)
asked the court to issue a decision that they have been subject to
discrimination on an ethnic basis and to sentence the respondent to compensation
for non-pecuniary damages. Since the criminal procedure appears to be put on
hold and no actions have been taken for a long period of time, Romani
Baht proposed such procedure to be
initiated. The civil case has been initiated under the Contracts and Obligations Act, where there is a provision that if
one causes damages to another person, that one should be responsible for the
damages caused. The claim also relies on one procedural provision within the Protection Against Discrimination Act.
The later has been enforced after the incident concerned. However, as regards
the procedural provisions – those should imply ex tunc (from the date of the
action). The provision in question is the one for “reversal of the burden of
proofs”. Using this provision RBF
wanted also to test whether the court would apply it. It was not applied.
Ruling:
The first instance court found the claim
ill-founded. The decision was appealed and the case is currently pending before
Sofia City Court.
Roma children from 1st school
“Saint Kiril and Methodius” in Blagoevgrad against the Blagoevgrad Municipality 20041200501154/2004 with the Blagoevgrad Regional Court
Facts: The case involves a situation where the 1st
school, (which exists for 42 years and educated
both Bulgarian and Roma children, thus creating a successful model of an
educational institution with mixed ethnic groups) is slowly turning into
an all-Roma school. Eight years ago the Municipality of Blagoevgrad
accommodated the primary courses (1st
to 4th grade) of a Foreign Languages School in the building of the 1st
School “Saint Kiril and Methodius”. Right after this the Bulgarian parents
started to withdraw their children from the 1st school “Kiril and
Methodius” and to move them to the Foreign Languages school. Thus the Bulgarian
children attend school, which is nearby their homes, but with no Roma children
in it – i.e. the Foreign Languages school. The 1st school’s
statistics shows that before the accommodation of the
other school’s classes it had 483 students (Bulgarians and Roma) and now it has
only 326 students. This is estimated as a
32.5 % reduction.
Those students who left, moved to the Foreign Languages school and are all
Bulgarians. As a result for the last academic year the 1st school
had only managed to form 2 first grade classes, one of which consists only of
Roma students, and the other has 50 % Roma and 50% Bulgarians.
The Head Teacher
informed the project team that the Roma parents are highly concerned that their
children are segregated. The Head Teacher sent several statements to the
Municipality officials, describing the situation and asking for actions to
solve the above described problem. He has also organised
“silent marches” with his students in front of the Municipality’s building. The
Head Person of the School Board also addressed the municipality officials with
several statements to support the efforts of the Head Teacher. The project team
also addressed the Ministry of Education, the regional Inspectorate on
Education in Blagoevgrad, and the
Blagoevgrad City Council with letters of concern.
RBF organised
a meeting with a group of Roma parents whose children are educated in the 1st
school. The group of parents was later constituted as plaintiffs for the court
case. The pleading asked the court to find the actions
of the Municipality and the City Council as
discrimination because they led to segregation of the Roma children. RBF also
ordered the respondents to act to stop the segregation and to change the situation back to integrated education. There
were several open court hearings for presenting the evidence.
The case also received and continues to receive broad media attention. The local press is
very active and regularly
reports on the case. The national media is also interested
and releases regular materials.
Ruling: It was proved during the court sessions that most of
the children enrolled in the 1st school are from Roma ethnic origin.
The court stated that in practice this led to split of the children from Bulgarian and Roma origin in the two
schools. The court stated that many of the written evidences show that the Head
Teacher of the 1st school addressed all the relevant institutions
with the problem, but no positive results have been reached. The court also
elaborated on the legal provisions concerned. In the decision it stated that the aim of the Protection Against Discrimination Act is to secure
equality and effective remedies against discrimination. It stated that this also concerns
education and that segregation is a form of discrimination. It is also elaborated on
the provision on the reversal of the burden of proof, and stated that
the respondent should prove the non-existence of discrimination.
However, the court found that the evidence gathered in the proceedings can not conclude that the plaintiffs are victims of discrimination because of their ethnic
segregation. The court stated that under the Education Act it is the decision
of the parents that determines where the child will study. As a conclusion the
court stated that the separation of the Roma children in the 1st
school is not a result of segregation on an ethnic basis but due to the free
choice of the parents. The court found that
the act of the municipality did not create different schools for different
ethnic groups.
The court decision was appealed but lost on appeal.
The school for
children with learning disabilities in
Blagoevgrad 20051210100017/ 2005 with the Blagoevgrad District Court
Facts: Over 85
percent of the children who attend a school
for learning disabilities are Roma. Romani Baht Foundation (RBF) interviewed the parents to see whether they
would have their children transferred into a normal school. Most of the parents
answered negatively because they would loose the benefits that
the special school is providing for them. Such
benefits generally include free meals, some clothes
and medicine. The families are extremely poor and they
stated that they need these benefits.The
team interviewed some 19 families whose children are enrolled in the special
school. They stated that they do not remember
signing consent for their children to be enrolled in a school with children with learning
disabilities. 14
out of the 19 interviewed families were not even aware that this school is for special needs children. It seems that they have been informed that this
school provides education to poor children.
RBF also
interviewed 14 children. They stated that they do not remember any tests, and
that some “few months ago a doctor has
examined them”. However, the team was
unable to find out what kind of medical examination had taken place. The team also identified families where the parents
have also graduated from the same school. In
some of the cases the team identified
brothers and sisters attending the school. Also the non-pedagogical personnel
(people who appeared to be mainly Roma) have their children enrolled in the
same school.
It should be noted
that the children stay in the school up to eight grade but upon graduation they
do not receive secondary stage diploma and could
not practically continue their education. The families stated,
however, that they would rather not challenge their
children’s enrollment in the school, because of loosing
the social benefits.
Legal action: RBF initiated
the case on behalf of the organisation,
claiming that the children’s right to education is damaged and that
predominantly Roma suffer, which amounts to discrimination on an ethnic
basis. The case is against the school and the
Regional Inspectorate on Education. In this case Romani Baht also had some problems to enable them as an NGO to appear as the plaintiff on its own behalf when
the rights of many are violated. A long correspondence on the question was
carried out with the court on that issue. After this problem was solved the
court decided that the school does not have the status of a legal entity and
because of that terminated the procedure against the school and left the
Regional Inspectorate as the only
respondent.
The above ruling was
appealed before the higher instance court because according to the Educational
Act every school does have the status of a legal entity.
The case was lost and closed.
ERRC versus the 103
Facts: The school in
Philipovtzi Sofia Roma district enrolls children form
first to twelve grade. There are about 450 children in the school. The school
has an extremely poor material basis.
Most of the children are in the classes up to seventh grade. For 8th,
9th, 10th, 11th and 12th grades
there is only one class for each of the grades. Moreover, the classes can not
fill the minimum number of children required from the Ministry on Education and
Science for a class. As a result there are cases where children are enrolled
but in fact they do not attend the school.
During the last
academic year the school produced only 7 children that graduated from
11th grade. The other children failed their
exams and will attend 11th grade again. Those who graduated from 11th
grade can not form a class because there are not
sufficient
numbers. As a result the class is closed and the
children are moved to 75th school in Fakulteta. The two districts
are not close to one another;
Philipotzi district is within Liulin subdistrict and Fakulteta – in Krasna
Polyana subdistrict. However, the children have been moved to the other
segregated school, instead of being moved to some other school in Liulin
subdistrict. There are many schools in Liulin, which can easily accommodate the
children from the school in Philipovtzi.
Legal action: The case is initiated
on behalf of the European Roma Rights Centre.
The claim involves a challenge of the fact that the children are educated in a segregated
environment and receive lower quality of education compared to that in the
other mainstream schools. The claim asks the court to
declare that the children are victims of segregation as a form
of forbidden discrimination and also asks the court to close this educational
institution. The respondents are the school itself, the Sofia Municipality and
the Ministry on Education and Science.
Ruling: The court found that the children of Roma origin, who have attended or
currently attend the school have been and continue to be subjected to
segregation and unequal treatment constituting discrimination, and that their
right to equal and integrated education is violated. The respondent appealed
before the Sofia City Court and the case is currently pending.
The
case with segregated Roma-only school in the town of Ihtiman
1/ 2712.2004
Facts: The Roma only school in Ihtiman is placed
near to the Roma district – Iztok district. The school
enrolls children from first to eight grade. There are about 700 children in the
school. There are three preschool classes, three first grade classes, four
second grade classes, three third grade classes, three fourth grade classes,
two 5th grade classes, three 6th grade classes, two 7th
grade classes, and two 8th grade classes. The
material basis of the school
is significantly poorer than in the other schools in Ihtiman. There is no
central heating. There are also special classes for disabled
children.
Legal action: The case is initiated
on behalf of the European Roma Rights Centre
and Romani Baht Foundation. The claim involves a challenge
of the fact that the children are educated in a segregated
environment and are receiving a
lower quality of education compared to that in the other mainstream schools.
The plaintiff asked the court to
declare that the children are victims of segregation as a forbidden form of
discrimination and asked the court to
close this educational institution. The respondents are the school itself, the
Ihtiman Municipality and the Ministry on Education and Science.
Ruling: The case was lost.
European Roma Rights
Centre and Romani Baht Foundation against the 110th school in Sofia 666/2005 with
the Sofia District Court
Facts: From
the beginning of the current academic year 2004-2005 Romani
Baht Foundation (RBF) worked
with five
Legal action: A court case was initiated
on behalf of the ERRC and Romani Baht Foundation against the school claiming
segregation on an ethnic basis.
Prior to that the team discussed the situation with the Roma parents. Although
disappointed and disturbed by the fact that the children are separated, the
parents did not want to initiate a case by themselves
fearing that the children could be victimized by the school administration. The
second is scheduled for the next court
Prior to the hearings the head teacher contacted the team to
propose a plea bargain to be endorsed by the court. The respondent admited
to a violation of the law and agreed to take
responsibility for rearrangement of the classes.
EMPLOYMENT
A.A. versus Detelina
LTD 10947/06 –
Facts: The case involves
refusal of a firm to allow a Roma person to appear for a job interview. The
refusal was motivated by the candidate’s ethnic origin.
Legal action: A court
case was initiated under Article 71 of the Protection Against Discrimination
Act. The first instance court found the claim as ill-founded. An appeal was
made by Romani Baht Foundation and the second instance court allowed for new
evidence to be presented. Additional witnesses were called and questioned. The
second instance court found direct discrimination and ordered the respondent to
pay non-pecuniary damages. The decision is final.
A.A. versus Kenar LTD 294/05 with the
Facts: The case involves refusal of a firm to allow
Roma person to appear for a job interview. The refusal was motivated by the
candidate’s ethnic origin.
Legal action: A court
case was initiated under Article 71 of the Protection Against Discrimination
Act.
Ruling: The first instance decision was in favour of
the plaintiff. The respondent appealed. The appeal was scheduled for a hearing at
Sofia City Court. Two open hearings have been held. On the first one the court
called the plaintiff to answer questions put by the respondent. After the
second hearing, which was held on
The case is currently
pending.
M.A. versus Lubimka
LTD 2873/05 with the
Facts: The case involves
refusal of a firm to allow a Roma person to appear for a job interview. The
refusal was motivated by the candidate’s ethnic origin.
Legal action: A court
case was initiated under art.71 of the Protection Against Discrimination Act.
Ruling: The first instance court found that the
respondent performed direct discrimination on an ethnic basis, ordered the
respondent to discontinue the discrimination, and to pay the plaintiff 600 leva
for non-pecuniary damages caused by the discrimination on an ethnic basis. The
respondent appealed and the case is pending before the second instance court.
Y.Y. versus Carmelin LTD 10816/04 with the
Facts: The case involves refusal of a firm to appoint
a Roma person to work because of her ethnic origin. The person saw an advertisement
in a newspaper for a firm recruiting new staff. She called to get more
information and was informed she can not apply because the firm does not
recruit Roma. Romani Baht’s staff members also called and received the same
answer.
Legal action: The case
was initiated under art. 71 of the Protection Against Discrimination Act. The
court ruled in favour of the respondent with no reasoning. Under the law there
is an obligation of the court to provide reasoning. An appeal was made and the
case is pending.
Biliana Nedkova versus Olga
Ivanova 1306/06 with the
Facts: The case
involves a claim for ethnic discrimination in the sphere of labour relations.
The respondent is Bulgarian who harassed and discriminated a Roma colleague.
Legal action: The case, under art. 71, para 1 of the Protection Against
Discrimination Act, is pending before the second instance court after the first
instance court rejected the claim.
HARRASSMENT
Romani Baht Foundation versus
Volen Siderov 2752/06
with the
Facts: The case involves a
claim that the respondent, the leader of the nationalist party
ATAKA, repeatedly harassed the Roma community in written and oral declarations.
Legal action: The case involves a claim under art. 71 of the Protection Against
Discrimination Act. Romani Baht Foundation
is the plaintiff as the Bulgarian law provides this opportunity for public
interest law organisations in cases where the rights of many are claimed to be
violated. The
court was asked to find Volen Siderov responsible for
incitement to discrimination on an ethnic basis and for causing harassment. The
case is pending.
HEALTHCARE
S. D. vs “
Facts: S. was four months pregnant when she suddenly
had a spontaneous miscarriage. It happened in her house in the night. S. went
to a hospital – “St. Sofia” - for a medical check-up and post abortion medical
examinations. Despite being in pain, she was sent back by a medical person
because she was told to pay 5 leva but she had no money. At the
same time a woman from Bulgarian origin was accepted for medical examinations without
any conditions. On the next day S.’s condition
worsened. She had a high fever and was very much in pain. At that time her
husband’s brother asked for help from a psychologist from an
NGO who took her to a
Legal action: A civil
claim was prepared under the provisions of Articles 49 in connection with 45 of
the Contracts and Obligations Act. Romani Baht
foundation wanted to test how the Bulgarian court will use the international
provisions within the European Social Charter – revised and the Convention for
Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination – both ratified by
RACIAL ATTACKS
M.A. and others 150 of the Sofia Military Prosecution Office
Facts: Four young Roma were attacked on the street.
The attack was unprovoked and followed a pre-election
campaign of a nationalist movement ATAKA, which entered the Bulgarian
Parliament after the last elections. It is believed to be performed by young
nationalists.
Legal action: The case is presented before the Sofia Military Prosecution Offices and
is pending for investigation under the Penal code.
Raikovi family versus Trendafil
Mihalkov 1305/05
Facts: The case involves the murder of Raikovi’s
minor son by Mihalkov who was a private military guard at the military premises
near the Fakulteta Roma district. The victim was killed with fire gun because
the guard “feared” that the Roma child will steel something from the military
base.
Legal action: Romani Baht claimed that the defendant acted due to racial prejudices. The
case was reviewed by the first instance court and the perpetrator has been
sentenced to 9 years of imprisonment and to pay 80 000 leva non pecuniary
damages. The sentence is being appealed by the defendant and is currently
pending before the second instance court.
Romani Baht Foundation versus Mr. Konstantin
Tretchev – Leader of the Professional Union Podkrepa 7621/2004 with the
Facts: The case involved the claim that the
respondent harassed the Roma community in a written declaration. At the
beginning of August 2004 the respondent made a special declaration at a
press-conference. With that declaration he urged the Bulgarian society to form
special armed civilian forces or National Guard to protect Bulgarians against
the Roma community, where all the people are criminals. He added within that
declaration that Roma are a disgrace for
Legal action: Romani
Baht Foundation (as a plaintiff – a possibility given under the Protection
Against Discrimination Act) initiated a court case under the Protection Against
Discrimination Act, claiming harassment against the Roma population in
RBF organised a
press-conference to inform the media about the unusual development of the case
and distributed copies of the court decision for the media because meanwhile
the respondent announced he will run for MP at upcoming parliamentary
elections.
Ruling: The court found incitement to discrimination
on ethnic basis and harassment performed by the respondent. When the decision
was issued the respondent decided not to appeal. This is the first court
decision under the anti-discrimination act to enter into force in