Country report : non-discrimination : Bulgaria 2017.
Date: 2017-08-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers
Subjects: Bulgaria, age discrimination, anti-discriminatory measure, discrimination based on disability, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, equal treatment, ethnic discrimination, national law, religious discrimination, sexual discrimination, social policy

Bulgaria 

2017 

Including summaries in 
English, French and 
German 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers 
Directorate D — Non-discrimination and Roma coordination 
Unit JUST/D1 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Country report  

Non-discrimination 

Bulgaria 

Margarita Ilieva  

Reporting period 1 January 2016 – 31 December 2016 

2017 

Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you). 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the 
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information 
contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017 

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-79-68804-1   

doi:10.2838/02071 

DS-01-17-457-3A-N 

© European Union, 2017 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Bulgaria – 2017 

CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 6 
RÉSUMÉ ............................................................................................................ 13 
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG ........................................................................................ 22 
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 31 
GENERAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................. 33 
1 
THE DEFINITION OF DISCRIMINATION .................................................... 34 
2 
2.1  Grounds of unlawful discrimination explicitly covered ................................ 34 

  Definition of the grounds of unlawful discrimination within the 

directives ................................................................................. 34 
  Multiple discrimination ............................................................... 36 
Assumed and associated discrimination ....................................... 37 
2.2  Direct discrimination (Article 2(2)(a)) ...................................................... 37 
Situation testing ....................................................................... 38 
Indirect discrimination (Article 2(2)(b)) ................................................... 39 
Statistical evidence ................................................................... 40 
2.4  Harassment (Article 2(3)) ...................................................................... 42 
2.5 
Instructions to discriminate (Article 2(4)) ................................................ 43 
2.6  Reasonable accommodation duties (Article 2(2)(b)(ii) and Article 5 Directive 

2.3 

2000/78) ............................................................................................. 43 
PERSONAL AND MATERIAL SCOPE ............................................................ 50 
3.1  Personal scope ..................................................................................... 50 

EU and non-EU nationals (Recital 13 and Article 3(2) Directive 
2000/43 and Recital 12 and Article 3(2) Directive 2000/78) ........... 50 
  Natural and legal persons (Recital 16 Directive 2000/43) ............... 50 
Private and public sector including public bodies (Article 3(1)) ........ 51 
3.2  Material scope ...................................................................................... 51 
Employment, self-employment and occupation ............................. 51 

  Conditions for access to employment, to self-employment or to 

occupation, including selection criteria, recruitment conditions and 
promotion, whatever the branch of activity and at all levels of the 
professional hierarchy (Article 3(1)(a)) ........................................ 51 
Employment and working conditions, including pay and dismissals 
(Article 3(1)(c)) ........................................................................ 52 
Access to all types and to all levels of vocational guidance, vocational 
training, advanced vocational training and retraining, including 
practical work experience (Article 3(1)(b)) ................................... 52 

  Membership of, and involvement in, an organisation of workers or 

employers, or any organisation whose members carry on a particular 
profession, including the benefits provided for by such organisations 
(Article 3(1)(d)) ........................................................................ 52 
Social protection, including social security and healthcare (Article 
3(1)(e) Directive 2000/43) ......................................................... 52 
Social advantages (Article 3(1)(f) Directive 2000/43) .................... 53 
Education (Article 3(1)(g) Directive 2000/43) ............................... 53 
Access to and supply of goods and services which are available to the 
public (Article 3(1)(h) Directive 2000/43) .................................... 55 
  Housing (Article 3(1)(h) Directive 2000/43) ................................. 56 
EXCEPTIONS ............................................................................................. 58 
4.1  Genuine and determining occupational requirements (Article 4) .................. 58 
4.2  Employers with an ethos based on religion or belief (Article 4(2) Directive 

2000/78) ............................................................................................. 58 

4.3  Armed forces and other specific occupations (Article 3(4) and Recital 18 

Directive 2000/78) ................................................................................ 58 
4.4  Nationality discrimination (Article 3(2)) ................................................... 59 
4.5  Work-related family benefits (Recital 22 Directive 2000/78) ....................... 59 

3 

4 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.6  Health and safety (Article 7(2) Directive 2000/78) .................................... 60 
4.7  Exceptions related to discrimination on the ground of age (Article 6 Directive 

2000/78) ............................................................................................. 60 
  Direct discrimination ................................................................. 60 
Special conditions for young people, older workers and persons with 
caring responsibilities ................................................................ 61 
  Minimum and maximum age requirements ................................... 62 
  Retirement ............................................................................... 63 
  Redundancy ............................................................................. 65 
4.8  Public security, public order, criminal offences, protection of health, protection 
of the rights and freedoms of others (Article 2(5), Directive 2000/78) ......... 65 
4.9  Any other exceptions ............................................................................. 65 
POSITIVE ACTION (Article 5 Directive 2000/43, Article 7 Directive 
2000/78) .................................................................................................. 66 
REMEDIES AND ENFORCEMENT ................................................................. 69 
6.1 
Judicial and/or administrative procedures (Article 7 Directive 2000/43, Article 
9 Directive 2000/78) ............................................................................. 69 

6.2  Legal standing and associations (Article 7(2) Directive 2000/43, Article 9(2) 

Directive 2000/78) ................................................................................ 71 
6.3  Burden of proof (Article 8 Directive 2000/43, Article 10 Directive 2000/78).. 72 
6.4  Victimisation (Article 9 Directive 2000/43, Article 11 Directive 2000/78) ...... 73 
6.5  Sanctions and remedies (Article 15 Directive 2000/43, Article 17 Directive 

2000/78) ............................................................................................. 73 

5 

6 

7 

8 

BODIES FOR THE PROMOTION OF EQUAL TREATMENT (Article 13 Directive 
2000/43) .................................................................................................. 75 
IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES........................................................................ 77 
8.1  Dissemination of information, dialogue with NGOs and between social partners
 .......................................................................................................... 77 
8.2  Compliance (Article 14 Directive 2000/43, Article 16 Directive 2000/78)...... 78 
COORDINATION AT NATIONAL LEVEL ....................................................... 80 
9 
10  CURRENT BEST PRACTICES ....................................................................... 82 
11  SENSITIVE OR CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES .................................................. 83 
11.1  Potential breaches of the directives (if any) .............................................. 83 
11.2  Other issues of concern ......................................................................... 85 
12  LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN 2016 .............................................................. 87 
12.1  Legislative amendments ........................................................................ 87 
12.2  Case law .............................................................................................. 87 
ANNEX 1: TABLE OF KEY NATIONAL ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION ..... 90 
ANNEX 2: TABLE OF INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS ....................................... 91 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 

PADA: Protection Against Discrimination Act (principal, single equality law) 
PADC: Protection Against Discrimination Commission (specialized equality body) 
IPDA:  Integration of Persons with Disabilities Act (additional, ground-specific equality law) 
SAC:   Supreme Administrative Court (final review instance for PADC decisions) 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  

1. Introduction 

Vulnerable groups include the Roma, refugees/ migrants, Muslims, Jews, non-traditional 
faiths,  Macedonians,  Turks,  people  with  disabilities,  especially  mental  disabilities,  LGBT. 
The  last  Government  ruled  in  coalition  with  two  parties  that  the  European  Commission 
Against Racism and Intolerance termed “ultranationalist/ fascist”: the “National Front for 
the Salvation of Bulgaria” and “VMRO-BND”.1 2 Discrimination and hatred, including hate 
speech and hate crime, against the Roma, is pervasive, radical and unsanctioned. High-
ranking public officials engage in overt incitement to hatred and discrimination against the 
Roma,  portraying  them  as  subhuman.  In  such  cases,  the  Prosecutor’s  Office  and  the 
equality body, competent under the law for hate speech, take no action.  

Roma  live  in  segregated  housing  in  dire  conditions,  often  suffering  collective  arbitrary 
forced evictions. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Bulgaria liable in one 
such case.3 Roma are plagued by long-term unemployment, with no access to training and 
jobs. They face discrimination, including harassment, in access to healthcare and services. 
Children study in segregated, substandard schools, or have no schooling at all. The criminal 
justice  system  targets  them  for  disproportionate  prosecution,  and  denies  them  equal 
protection  by  the  law,  including  from  hate  crime  by  officials  and  civilians.  They  lack 
representation, and have no access to decision-making at any level.  

Refugees/ migrants suffer from a sharp increase in hate speech and hate crime, including 
hate  speech  by  officials.  The  violence  goes  unpunished.  The  ECtHR  has  found  Bulgaria 
liable in one such case.4 In 2016, vigilante groups became active, targeting foreigners in 
the  border  area,  subjecting  them  to  hate-motivated  unlawful  detention,  verbal  abuse, 
coercion,  physical  violence  and  other  crimes  under  national  law.  The  perpetrators  were 
given positive national visibility by mainstream media, and a forum from whence to incite 
to  hate  and  organised  hate  crime  against  refugees/  migrants.  Former  Prime-Minister 
Borisov publicly stated that he thanked the perpetrators for the help they were offering the 
state, and declared that any help was welcome.5 Only one vigilante activist was taken to 
criminal  court  by  the  Prosecutor’s  Office,  unsuccessfully.  Many  asylum  seekers  live  in 
inhuman  conditions.  Jews,  Muslims,  non-traditional  faiths  and  Turks  suffer  from  hate 
manifestations, such as temple desecration and violent demonstrations. The ECtHR found 
Bulgaria liable in one such case.6 Macedonians are denied recognition of their identity (they 
are  considered  Bulgarians),  and  the  courts  refuse  to  register  their  organisations.  Local 
authorities interfere with their peaceful assemblies. The ECtHR has found Bulgaria liable in 
several such cases.7 Bulgaria is under enhanced supervision by the Committee of Ministers 
of the Council of Europe for failing to implement those judgments.  

1   Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organisation - Bulgarian National Movement. 
2   ECRI, Report on Bulgaria, published 16 September 2014. 
3   Yordanova and Others v. Bulgaria, judgment of 24 April 2012. Application no. 25446/06. 
4   Abdu v. Bulgaria, judgment of 11 March 2014. Application no. 26827/08. 
5   See news reports at: http://btvnovinite.bg/article/vodeshti-novini/bhk-sas-signal-sreshtu-premiera-bojko-

borisov-zaradi-blagodarnostite-kam-dobrovolcheskite-otrjadi.html; 
http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2016/04/10/2739769_borisov_dva_koraba_za_800_mln_lv_shte_budat_p
ostroeni/;  
https://offnews.bg/news/Obshtestvo_4/Borisov-blagodari-na-hajkite-za-bezhantci-vsiaka-pomosht-bila-
dobre-d_627393.html. 

6   After the cut-off date for this report: Karaahmed v. Bulgaria, judgment of 24 February 2015. Application no. 

30587/13. 

7   Inter alia, United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others v. Bulgaria (No. 2), judgment of 18 October 

2011. Application no. 34960/04. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
 
Human  rights  defenders  have  been  targeted  for  verbal  and  physical  violence  for  their 
activities in support of refugees/ migrants and other particularly marginalised minorities, 
including the Roma and the LGBT community.8 

People with disabilities suffer from exclusion and disadvantage in education, employment, 
access to services, participation. A significant share of children is excluded from schooling 
due  to  inaccessibility.  Most  are  segregated  in  substandard  remedial  institutions.  Many 
adults  and  children  are  segregated  in  social  institutions  where  they  suffer  inhuman/ 
degrading treatment, and many die – human rights NGOs claim, due to neglect.9 Abusers 
enjoy impunity, the authorities failing to investigate. The ECtHR has found Bulgaria liable 
for  infringing  persons  with  mental  disabilities’  rights  in  two  notable  cases.10  The 
architectural environment for service provision is commonly inaccessible. For instance, in 
2015,  the  Supreme  Administrative  Court  found  an  enterprise  liable  for  keeping  a 
dolphinarium inaccessible: the ramps installed did not afford independent access; access 
was limited and dependent on help; the ramps are immovable and could not be adjusted 
to different wheelchair types.11 LGBT suffer from hate speech and hate crime, as well as 
discrimination.  

In  2014,  the  Supreme  Administrative  Court  (SAC),  the  final  instance  reviewing  equality 
body decisions, made new, restrictive interpretations of equality law.12 According to SAC, 
not  every  breach  of  equality  law  is  a  breach  that  the  equality  body  could  declare,  or 
sanction:  only  those  that  constituted  administrative  breaches  under  the  Administrative 
Breaches  and  Sanctions  Act.  That  requires  establishing  a  concrete  action/  omission,  a 
concrete perpetrator, a concrete victim, and guilt. Discrimination has to be a concrete fact, 
and  not  a  hypothetical  possibility.13  A  discriminator  can  only  be  a  natural  person.  Legal 
persons can be discriminators exceptionally, in cases provided for by law. A public authority 
cannot  be  a  discriminator  –  only  an  individual exercising  its  authority.  A  legal  provision 
cannot be discrimination as it is not a concrete action/ omission. The adoption of a legal 
provision is not a concrete action/ omission either. The equality body cannot declare laws 
to  be  discriminatory:  a  law  that  was  not  declared  unconstitutional  by  the  Constitutional 
Court  (CC)  could  not  be  discriminatory.  The  equality  body  cannot  declare  secondary 
legislation to be discriminatory: secondary legislation that was not declared unlawful by 
SAC  (under  general  administrative  procedure)  could  not  be  discriminatory.  Where  the 
equality body finds a legal norm to contradict equality law, it cannot declare a breach of 
equality law. It cannot order the responsible authority to repeal/ amend that norm. It could 
only make a recommendation, or take legal action before SAC if secondary legislation is 
concerned. 

In 2015, the SAC and the Supreme Court of Cassation ruled in interpretative proceedings 
No. 2/2014 before a mixed panel of the two courts in order to resolve the issue of whether 
the civil or the administrative courts are competent when a person wishes to sue a public 
body for discrimination.14 The case law has been contradictory since 2007. The courts held 
that the administrative, and not the civil courts are competent. 

8   See news reports at: http://btvnovinite.bg/article/kriminalno/neizvestni-napadnaha-predsedatelja-na-bhk-
nasred-sofija.html; http://clubz.bg/46257-napadnaha_i_biha_shefa_na_bylgarskiq_helzinkski_komitet; 
http://www.bghelsinki.org/bg/novini/press/single/bhk-osyzhda-bezdejstvieto-na-instituciite-pri-poredna-
proyava-na-tormoz-i-presledvane-na-organizaciyata/. 

9   See, for instance, the application brought against Bulgaria by the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee before the 

European Court of Human Rights in the name of two such deceased children: 
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"appno":["35653/12"],"itemid":["001-156281"]}. 

10   Stanev v. Bulgaria, judgment of 17 January 2012; Stefan Stankov c. Bulgarie, judgment of 17 March 2015. 
11   Supreme Administrative Court, Decision No. 158 of 08.01.2015 in case No. 7092/2014. 
12   Supreme Administrative Court, Decision No. 5645 in case No. 15991/2013 and Decision No. 15637 in case 

No. 1925/2014. This is also reported in Sections 11.1 and 12.2 of this report. 

13   Supreme Administrative Court, Decision No. 15637 оf 19.12.2014 in case No. 1925/2014. The case 

concerned the application of an age bar under secondary legislation. 

14   By Order (Разпореждане) of 27.06.2014, available at: http://www.vks.bg/Dela/2014-02-

ВКС_ВАС%20Разпореждане%20за%20образуване.pdf (in BG). 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
In 2015, the CJEU delivered a preliminary ruling in a case concerning the inaccessibility of 
electric meters in predominantly Roma residential areas. The service provider installed the 
meters at an inaccessible height allegedly in order to prevent alleged  theft of  electricity 
and damage to the infrastructure. The CJEU held that the measure was discriminatory as 
in non-Roma areas meters are accessible for consumer viewing.  

2. Main legislation 

The Protection Against Discrimination Act (PADA) 2004 is the main anti-discrimination law, 
enacted  to  transpose  the  directives.15  It  is  a  single  equality  law  universally  banning 
discrimination on a range of grounds, including race/ethnicity, sex, religion/belief, sexual 
orientation,  disability  and  age,  and  providing  uniform  standards  of  protection  and 
remedies. PADA as a whole complies with the directives, going beyond them in significant 
aspects: universal material scope, extended, open-ended list of grounds, additional forms 
of  discrimination,  extended  equality  body  powers,  and  special  judicial  redress.  PADA  is 
actively invoked by individuals before the equality body and the courts, and the case law 
is extensive and growing.  

Another  equality  law  is  the  ground-specific  Integration  of  Persons  with  Disabilities  Act 
(IPDA),16 listing positive and reasonable accommodation duties in a number of fields. Other 
laws,  governing  specific  fields,  such  as  education,  employment,  public  procurement, 
provide for positive measures on grounds of disability, age, and caring responsibilities.  

Older abstract bans of discrimination exist under laws governing specific fields, as well as 
the Constitution. They lack implementation. Bulgaria is bound by international instruments 
banning discrimination, including the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the 
European Social Charter Revised, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 
the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the 
Elimination  of  All  Forms  of  Discrimination  Against  Women,  the  Convention  on  the 
Elimination of All Forms of Race Discrimination, the Convention on the Rights of the Child. 
The Constitution and binding international law are directly applicable by domestic courts, 
and supersede conflicting legislation. They are enforceable against private parties, as well 
as public bodies.  

3. Main principles and definitions 

PADA prohibits and defines direct and indirect discrimination, including discrimination by 
association and by presumption. PADA defines direct discrimination as treating a person 
on protected grounds less favourably than another person is treated, has been treated, or 
would be treated in comparable circumstances. PADA defines “on grounds of” as the actual, 
present or past, or assumed possession of one or more protected grounds by the person 
discriminated against, or by another person who is, in fact or presumably, associated with 
the person discriminated against, where the association is a cause for discrimination. PADA 
does not permit general justification for direct discrimination. 

PADA  provides  for  illustrative  bans  on  specific  discriminatory  conduct  in  employment, 
education, and service provision. It provides for an exhaustive list of specific exceptions 
for  all  protected  grounds, 
for  genuine  and  determining  occupational 
requirements, for employers with a religious ethos, and for maximum and minimum ages 
for  access  to  employment  and  education,  requiring  objective  justification.  It  exempts 
different  treatment  of  non-nationals  provided  for  under  law,  and  permits  unjustified 
requirements for age and length of service for purposes of retirement. Positive measures 
aimed for disadvantaged groups are allowed.  

including 

15   Закон за защита от дискриминация, adopted September 2003, entered into force January 2004. 
16   Закон за интеграция на хората с увреждания, adopted September 2004, entered into force January 2005. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
PADA defines indirect discrimination as putting a person on protected grounds, through an 
apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice, at a disadvantage compared with other 
persons, unless such provision, criterion or practice is objectively justified by a legitimate 
aim and the means for achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.  

PADA expressly provides that harassment, incitement to discrimination, and victimisation 
constitute forms of discrimination. It defines harassment as any unwanted conduct related 
to protected grounds and manifested physically, verbally or in any other way that has the 
purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a person and of creating a hostile, offensive, or 
intimidating environment. Protection covers harassment by presumption and association. 
Incitement  to  discrimination  is  defined  as  direct  and  intentional  encouragement  of 
discrimination, including giving an instruction to discrimination. Victimisation is defined as: 
a) less favourable treatment of a person who has taken, or is presumed to have taken, or 
to be taking in future any action against discrimination; b) less favourable treatment of a 
person where a person associated with them has taken, or is presumed to have taken, or 
to be taking any action against discrimination; c) less  favourable treatment of a person 
who  refused  to  discriminate.  Action  for  protection  against  discrimination  is  defined  to 
include, but is not limited to, bringing proceedings before the equality body or the court, 
or testifying.  

These definitions apply to all grounds. Multiple discrimination is defined as discrimination 
on more than one protected grounds. PADA places a positive duty on public bodies to take 
as  a  priority  positive  measures  for  victims  of  multiple  discrimination.  Under  PADA,  the 
equality body hears cases of multiple discrimination in benches of five rather than three 
members.  The  case  law  has  failed  to  deal  with  the  issues  surrounding  multiple 
discrimination. 

PADA defines racial segregation, providing that it is a form of discrimination. It provides 
for reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities in employment and education. 
The limit of this duty is when “the costs are unreasonably big and would seriously hinder” 
the  employer  or  educator.  Under  IPDA,  the  Minister  of  Education  has  a  duty  to  provide 
children with disabilities with a supportive environment for integrated education. This is an 
absolute duty. Under IPDA, the Minister has a duty to create educational opportunities for 
children  with  disabilities  who  are  not  integrated.  This  duty,  too,  is  absolute.  Higher 
education institutions, too, have absolute accommodation duties.  

Under PADA, authorities, employers and educators have duties to mainstream equality and 
to take positive measures on all grounds. Liability is provided for abettors of discrimination, 
as well as vicarious liability for employers and educators who fail to prevent discrimination 
by third parties at the work- or study place. A shift of the burden of proof is envisaged. In 
2015, the provision for shift of the burden of proof was amended to make it clearer that 
claimant  is  not  required  to  produce  conclusive  proof  but  only  to  establish  prima  facie 
evidence  of  discrimination.  The  provision  now  reads  (emphasis  added):  “In  proceedings 
for protection against discrimination, after the party claiming to have been discriminated 
against, produces (presents) facts from which an inference that discrimination is at hand 
can be made, the respondent party has to prove that the principle of equal treatment was 
not  breached.”  The  former  language  was:  “In  proceedings  for  protection  against 
discrimination, after the party claiming to have been discriminated against,  proves facts 
from which a conclusion that discrimination is at hand can be made, the respondent party 
has to prove that the principle of equal treatment was not breached.” 

4. Material scope 

PADA has a universal scope. It is applicable to any field, implicitly including all fields under 
the directives, as well as any beyond. This universal ban applies to all grounds and to both 
private and public sectors.  

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5. Enforcing the law 

PADA  provides  for  two  alternatives:  judicial  proceedings  before  the  general  courts  and 
specialised quasi-judicial proceedings before the equality body. A victim can choose. The 
courts can make a declaration of discrimination and award compensation, as well as order 
respondent to take remedial action, or to abstain from or to terminate particular action/ 
inaction.  PADC  can  make  a  finding  of  discrimination,  and  order  preventive  or  remedial 
action. It can impose financial sanctions. It cannot award compensation. Both procedures 
are universally applicable to both the public and private sectors. They are legally binding. 
The principle of the shifting burden of proof applies to both. Both are used in practice. Both 
are exempt from fees and costs under the law, but in practice the courts do not respect 
this provision and order parties to pay. 

There have been very few cases where judges have found discrimination based solely on 
respondent’s  failure  to  rebut  an  inference  of  discrimination.  However,  they  have 
consistently  taken  account  of  the  special  evidentiary  rule,  and  some  have  issued  sound 
dicta on it. Judges have inconsistent understanding of the difference between direct and 
indirect discrimination, resulting in misinterpretation of direct discrimination as justifiable 
indirect discrimination.  

Under PADA, PADC assists victims of discrimination. In practice, complainants are provided 
with  procedural  advice  on  filing  their  complaints.  PADC  has  standing  to  take  court 
proceedings,  as  well  as  to  join  proceedings.  It  has  not  used  these  possibilities.  NGOs 
actively  litigate  discrimination  cases.  They  have  standing  to  represent  complainants  in 
court, as well as to intervene in proceedings in their support. NGOs have standing to take 
public  interest  court  action  on  their  own  behalf  where  the  rights  of  many  persons  are 
infringed without authorisation from a victim. They have standing to initiate  proceedings 
before PADC without identifying any victim. NGOs have brought a range of public interest 
cases. This has enhanced public attention. Certain strong decisions were  rendered,  with 
the potential to bring about social change. Discrimination litigation, especially by NGOs, 
receives  media  coverage.  NGOs  have  used  situational  testing  to  uncover  and  document 
direct  discrimination,  and  have  established  such  cases  in  court  with  the  help  of  testing 
testimony. They have also used statistics in some cases. Under civil procedural law, both 
statistics and testing evidence are implicitly admissible at the discretion of judges. There 
has been no discussion on the admissibility of statistics or testing. Testing testimony has 
been admitted as a matter of course as ordinary witness testimony without reference being 
made to testing’s specific public interest aim. Statistical data, too, has been considered as 
regular proof by both the equality body and judges. PADC has looked at statistical data of 
its own motion.  

Sanctions for discrimination imposed by PADC include fines (maximum EUR 1 250), and 
binding instructions for respondents to take particular preventive or remedial action. PADC 
actively uses its sanctioning powers, often imposing close to maximum fines, and ordering 
remedies, such as reinstatement, amendment of regulations, etc. It is unclear, however, 
to  what  extent  these  orders  are  complied  with  in  practice,  and  how  effective  official 
response is in cases where they are not. In such cases, the body has no formal power other 
than  to  impose  further  fines.  Court-ordered  redress  includes  compensation  with  no 
maximum limit, and orders on respondents to take, or to abstain from specific action. In 
exceptional cases, awards have reached EUR 5 000 (architectural inaccessibility).  

Under labour law, persons with disabilities are entitled to employment quotas and employer 
subsidies. Younger and older workers, as well as people with caring responsibilities enjoy 
preferential  treatment  in  employment  too.  Roma  are  nominally  the  beneficiaries  of  a 
number  of  positive  programmes  in  education,  housing  and  other  fields,  but  those 
measures’ impact in practice has been limited.  

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
There is no dialogue or consultation with NGOs or social partners on the part of any national 
authorities.  

6. Equality bodies 

The  Protection  Against  Discrimination  Commission  (PADC)  is  the  national  specialised 
equality  body.  It  was  set  up  under  PADA  as  an  independent  collegiate  semi-judicial 
authority  with  adjudicating  powers.  It  started  operating  in  2005  even  though  the  law 
required it do so as of the start of 2004. PADC deals with discrimination on all protected 
grounds.  It  has  a  mandate  to:  hear  and  investigate  complaints  by  victims  and 
communications by third parties; initiate its own proceedings; find discrimination by legally 
binding decisions; impose financial sanctions; issue mandatory instructions for remedial or 
preventative 
legislation;  make 
recommendations  to  public  authorities,  incl.  for  legislative  change;  assist  victims  of 
discrimination; carry out independent research and publish independent reports. PADC has 
a vast and growing body of case law, some of it effective. The case law includes rulings by 
the  Sofia  City  Administrative  Court  and  the  Supreme  Administrative  Court  which  review 
PADC decisions.  

review  and  give  opinions  on  draft 

redress; 

7. Key issues 

The definition of incitement to discrimination, including instructions to discriminate, under 
PADA  expressly  requires  direct  intent.  The  definition  of  racial  segregation  under  PADA 
expressly requires the state of separation to be ‘forced’.17 It implies that segregation may 
be chosen, i.e. that persons may waive their right not to be discriminated against, including 
not to be racially segregated. The ECtHR has held in Roma segregation cases that no waiver 
of the right to non-discrimination in this context is possible as that would conflict with an 
important public interest.18  

PADA defines indirect discrimination in a way that misleads judges and PADC conflate it 
with covert direct discrimination. The language of the definition refers to “on grounds of”, 
which  contradicts  the  “apparently  neutral”  part  of  the  wording.  A  number  of  court  and 
PADC decisions have read the phrase “on grounds of” as defining a causal link between the 
apparently neutral rule and the particular protected ground/s. That reading is apparently 
based  on  an  assumption  that  “an  apparently  neutral”  act  is  one  that,  albeit  based  on  a 
protected  ground,  is  not  openly  so  but  is  covert;  therefore,  they  take  the  provision  for 
indirect discrimination to refer to dissimulated direct discrimination.19 

Parallel to PADA, other, pre-existing abstract prohibitions of discrimination are still in place 
under  other  laws  governing  specific  fields,  as  well  as  the  Constitution.  There  is  no 
coherence between PADA and those other, older, bans on discrimination, with differences 
in  protected  grounds,  exceptions,  and  definitions.  There  is  inconsistency  between  PADA 
and  other  laws  governing  particular  fields  that  provide  for  directly  or  indirectly 
discriminatory norms, contradicting PADA’s universal ban. Next to no effort has been made 
to  harmonise  the  legislation  so  as  to  ensure  that  PADA  prevails  over  other  conflicting, 
discriminatory norms.  

17   PADA, Additional Provision, § 1.6. 
18   For instance, D.H. v. Czech Republic, judgment of 13.11.2007; Sampanis v. Greece, judgment of 

05.06.2008; Orsus v. Croatia, judgment of 16.03.2010 (GC). 

19   For instance: Radnevo District Court, Decision No. 97 of 13.12.2004, case No. 365/2004; Sofia Regional 

Court, Decision of 12.07.2004, case No. 1184/2004; Sofia District Court, Decision of 19.08.2004, case No. 
1262/2004; Sofia District Court, Decision of 19.12.2006, case No. 2756/2006. Decisions of the Supreme 
Administrative Court: Decision No. 11421 of 19.11.2007, case No. 5604/2007; Decision No. 12117 of 
3.12.2007, case No. 8044/2007; Decision No. 4752 of 15.05.2007, case No. 11478/2006; Decision No. 
11295 of 16.11.2007, case No. 6407/2007; Decision No. 13393 of 28.12.2007, case No. 8083/2007; 
Decision No. 7811 of 19.07.2007, case No. 1048/2007. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
In  2014,  SAC  made  restrictive  requirements  for  PADA  enforcement,  contradicting  PADA 
and EU law.20 

SAC has held that, for discrimination to be at hand, a difference of treatment should be 
based solely on a protected ground, excluding „mixed motives” cases where a protected 
characteristic was one among other reasons for less favourable treatment.21 At the same 
time, SAC is inconsistent: in a recent case, it held that „discriminatory treatment is at hand 
regardless  of  whether  a  protected  ground  is  the  only,  or  one  of  the  reasons  for  less 
favourable treatment.22 As mentioned, SAC has applied the justification test only relevant 
for indirect discrimination to cases of less favourable treatment, i.e. direct discrimination. 
It  has  applied  the  concept  of  indirect  discrimination  to  a  number  of  cases  of  direct  less 
favourable  treatment.  For  instance,  in  2014,  in  a  case  where  a  Muslim  prison  inmate 
complained that his food included pork (denial of reasonable accommodation), SAC held 
that  there  was  indirect  discrimination  against  this  complainant  compared  to  Muslim 
inmates in another prison who did receive food accommodation.23  

In  some  cases,  SAC  has  shown  a  serious  lack  of  understanding  of  the  concept  of  a 
comparator, holding that age requirements for access to employment did not constitute 
discrimination because they applied to all candidates, and not just the complainant.24 SAC 
has  required  intent,  often  holding  expressly  that  “treatment  [must  be]  carried  out 
knowingly on one of the [protected] grounds”.25 As mentioned, in 2014, SAC held twice 
that only conduct that was “guilty” could qualify as a breach under PADA.26 At the same 
time,  its  case  law  is  contradictory:  on  one  occasion  in  2014,  SAC  held  that  “direct 
discrimination did not require discriminatory intent, therefore, the lack of such is irrelevant 
for  qualifying  treatment  as  discriminatory,  including  where  it  was  based  on  an 
understanding that it was lawful”.27 In a 2014 case, SAC interpreted “sexual orientation” 
as having to be innate, and not “consciously” chosen, in order to be protected. SAC denied 
asylum protection to a gay Cameroonian because he “decided”, at age 35, to “choose” a 
sexuality that was not his “innate” one.28  

PADC does not use its powers, including its competence to start ex officio proceedings, in 
any  strategic  way.  It  has  no  priorities.  It  has  failed  to  target  serious  issues  of 
discrimination, such as Roma segregation in education, Roma destitution and isolation in 
housing,  people  with  disabilities’  institutionalization,  etc.  PADC,  as  a  rule,  refuses  to 
consider (on admissibility) or uphold (on the merits) discrimination complaints by persons 
with disabilities who failed to produce medical proof of their disability.29 PADC, like SAC, 
often shows a lack of understanding of indirect discrimination, in some cases fusing it with 
direct discrimination.  

20   See p. 2 above. 
21   Inter alia, Supreme Administrative Court, Decision No. 8277 оf 11.06.2012 in case No. 3852/2012.  
22   Supreme Administrative Court, Decision No. 274 оf 09.01.2012 in case No. 1319/2011. 
23   Supreme Administrative Court, Decision No. 2514 of 21.02.2014, case No. 10989/2013. 
24   Supreme Administrative Court, Decision No. 7096 оf 19.05.2012 in case No.3686/2012; Decision No. 10734 

оf 1.09.2014 in case No. 1463/2014. 

25   Inter alia, Supreme Administrative Court, Decision No. 8277 оf 11.06.2012 in case No. 3852/2012; Decision 
No. 3645 оf 14.03.2014 in case No. 12679/2013 (“conscious” perpetration requirement reiterated twice). 
26   Supreme Administrative Court, Decision No. 5645 in case No. 15991/2013, Decision No. 15637 in case No. 

1925/2014. 

27   Supreme Administrative Court, Decision No. 1048 оf 27.01.2014 in case No. 8033/2013. The case 

concerned the application of an age bar under a university’s regulations. 

28   Supreme Administrative Court, Decision No. 9467 оf 7.07.2014 in case No. 1381/2014. 
29   Inter alia, PADC, Decision No. 259 of 17.12.2008 in case No. 186/2008. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
RÉSUMÉ  

1. Introduction 

Les groupes vulnérables sont les Roms, les réfugiés/les migrants, les Musulmans, les Juifs, 
les  groupes  religieux  non  traditionnels,  les  Macédoniens,  les  Turcs,  les  personnes 
handicapées  (atteintes  de  troubles  mentaux  surtout)  et  les  personnes  LGBT.  Le  dernier 
gouvernement a dirigé le pays en coalition avec deux partis que la Commission européenne 
contre le racisme et l’intolérance qualifie d’«ultranationalistes/fascistes»: le Front national 
pour le salut de la Bulgarie et le VMRO-BND.30,31 La discrimination et la haine (en ce compris 
le discours haineux et le crime de haine) à l’égard des Roms constituent un phénomène 
largement  répandu,  radical  et  impuni.  De  hauts  fonctionnaires  n’hésitent  pas  à  inciter 
ouvertement à la haine et à la discrimination envers les Roms, qu’ils dépeignent comme 
des  sous-hommes  –  et  ni  le  ministère  public  ni  l’organisme  pour  l’égalité,  légalement 
habilité à agir en cas de discours de haine, n’interviennent.    

Les Roms vivent en logements ségrégués dans des conditions extrêmement précaires et 
font souvent l’objet d’expulsions forcées arbitraires et collectives. La Cour européenne des 
droits de l’homme (CouEDH) a conclu à la responsabilité de la Bulgarie dans le cadre d’une 
affaire de ce type.32 Les Roms sont durement touchés par le chômage de longue durée et 
ne peuvent accéder ni à la formation ni à l’emploi. Ils se heurtent à une discrimination, et 
notamment à un harcèlement, en termes d’accès aux soins de santé et aux services. Les 
enfants roms étudient dans des écoles séparées qui dispensent un enseignement de qualité 
médiocre, ou ne sont pas scolarisés du tout. Le système de justice pénale les prend pour 
cible  en  les  poursuivant  de  façon  disproportionnée  et  leur  refuse  l’égalité  de  protection 
conférée par la loi, y compris à l’encontre de délits motivés par la haine commis tant par 
des  fonctionnaires  que  par  des  civils.  Leur  représentation  n’est  pas  assurée  et  ils  ne 
peuvent participer aux processus décisionnels à aucun niveau.  

Les  discours  et  crimes  de  haine  à  l’encontre  des  réfugiés/migrants  sont  en  forte 
progression, y compris des discours de haine de la part de fonctionnaires. Les violences 
restent impunies. La CouEDH a conclu à la responsabilité de la Bulgarie dans une affaire 
de ce type.33 En 2016, des groupes d’autodéfense ont surgi dans la région frontalière où 
ils ciblent les étrangers et les soumettent à une détention illégale motivée par la haine, à 
des agressions verbales, à la contrainte, à des violences physiques et à d’autres crimes au 
regard  du  droit  national.  Les  auteurs  de  ces  faits  ont  bénéficié  d’une  visibilité  nationale 
positive via les principaux médias, ainsi que d’une plateforme à partir de laquelle inciter à 
la  haine  et  au  crime  haineux  organisé  envers  les  réfugiés/les  migrants.  L’ex-Premier 
ministre  Borisov  a  publiquement  déclaré  qu’il  remerciait  les  auteurs  de  tels  actes  pour 
l’aide  qu’ils  apportent  à  l’État,  et  que  toute  forme  d’aide  était  la  bienvenue.34  Un  seul 
activiste membre d’un  groupe d’autodéfense a été poursuivi au pénal, mais en vain. De 
nombreux  demandeurs  d’asile  vivent  dans  des  conditions  inhumaines.  Les  Juifs,  les 
Musulmans, les groupes religieux non traditionnels et les Turcs sont visés par des actes de 
haine tels que la profanation de lieux de culte et des manifestations violentes. La CouEDH 
a jugé la Bulgarie responsable dans une affaire de ce type.35 Les Macédoniens sont privés 
de  la  reconnaissance  de  leur  identité  (ils  sont  considérés  comme  des  Bulgares)  et  les 

30   Organisation révolutionnaire macédonienne intérieure – Mouvement national bulgare. 
31   ECRI, Rapport sur la Bulgarie, publié le 16 septembre 2014. 
32   Affaire Yordanova et autres contre Bulgarie, arrêt du 24 avril 2012. Requête n° 25446/06. 
33   Affaire Abdu contre Bulgarie, arrêt du 11 mars 2014. Requête n° 26827/08. 
34   Voir articles de presse sur: http://btvnovinite.bg/article/vodeshti-novini/bhk-sas-signal-sreshtu-premiera-

bojko-borisov-zaradi-blagodarnostite-kam-dobrovolcheskite-otrjadi.html; 
http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2016/04/10/2739769_borisov_dva_koraba_za_800_mln_lv_shte_budat_p
ostroeni/;  
https://offnews.bg/news/Obshtestvo_4/Borisov-blagodari-na-hajkite-za-bezhantci-vsiaka-pomosht-bila-
dobre-d_627393.html. 

35   Au-delà de la date limite du présent rapport: Karaahmed contre Bulgarie, arrêt du 24 février 2015. Requête 

n° 30587/13. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
tribunaux refusent d’enregistrer leurs organisations. Les autorités locales interfèrent dans 
leurs  rassemblements  pacifiques.  La  CouEDH  a  conclu  à  la  responsabilité  de  la  Bulgarie 
dans plusieurs affaires de ce type.36 La Bulgarie est placée sous la surveillance renforcée 
du Comité des ministres du Conseil de l’Europe pour défaut d’exécution de ces arrêts.  

Des défenseurs des droits de l’homme ont été visés par des violences verbales et physiques 
en  raison  de  leurs  activités  en  soutien  des  réfugiés/des  migrants  et  d’autres  minorités 
particulièrement marginalisées, parmi lesquelles les Roms et la communauté LGBT.37 

Les  personnes  handicapées  sont  victimes  d’exclusion  et  font  l’objet  d’un  traitement 
défavorisé en matière d’enseignement, d’emploi, d’accès aux services et de participation. 
Une  proportion  importante  d’enfants  handicapés  ne  sont  pas  scolarisés  en  raison  de 
l’inaccessibilité  des  bâtiments  et  la  plupart  d’entre  eux  sont  inscrits  dans  des 
établissements séparés qui dispensent un enseignement de rattrapage de piètre qualité. 
De nombreux adultes et enfants handicapés sont placés dans des foyers sociaux où ils sont 
souvent  victimes  de  traitements  inhumains/dégradants;  beaucoup  y  meurent  –  par 
négligence, selon des ONG de défense des droits de l’homme.38 Les auteurs de ces faits 
bénéficient d’une totale impunité du fait que les autorités ne procèdent à aucune enquête. 
La CouEDH a déclaré dans deux affaires notoires39 que la Bulgarie n’avait pas respecté les 
droits des personnes atteintes de troubles mentaux. L’environnement  architectural  dans 
lequel des services sont prestés est le plus souvent inaccessible. En 2015, la Cour suprême 
administrative a jugé une entreprise responsable de l’inaccessibilité d’un delphinarium du 
fait que les rampes mises en place ne permettaient pas un accès autonome; que l’accès 
était limité et impossible sans assistance; et que les rampes étaient fixes et ne pouvaient 
être adaptées à différents types de fauteuils roulants.40 Les personnes LGBT sont victimes 
de discours et de crimes de haine, ainsi que de discrimination.  

En  2014,  la  Cour  suprême  administrative  –  instance  statuant  en  dernier  ressort  sur  les 
décisions de l’organisme pour l’égalité – a formulé de nouvelles interprétations restrictives 
de la législation en matière d’égalité.41 Selon elle, un non-respect de cette législation ne 
constitue  pas  nécessairement  une  infraction  pouvant  être  notifiée  ou  sanctionnée  par 
l’organisme pour l’égalité: il faut qu’il s’agisse d’une infraction administrative en vertu de 
la  loi  relative  aux  infractions  et  sanctions  administratives  –  ce  qui  exige  d’établir  une 
action/omission  réelle,  un  auteur  réel,  une  victime  réelle  et  une  culpabilité.  La 
discrimination doit être un fait concret et non une possibilité hypothétique.42 L’auteur d’une 
discrimination ne peut être qu’une personne physique – les personnes morales ne pouvant 
être les auteurs de faits discriminatoires que dans des cas exceptionnels prévus par la loi. 
Une autorité publique ne peut être l’auteur d’une discrimination: ce dernier ne peut être 
que la personne exerçant des pouvoirs au nom de la dite autorité. Une disposition légale 
ne peut être constitutive de discrimination du fait qu’il ne s’agit pas d’une action/omission 
concrète  –  l’adoption  d’une  disposition  légale  n’étant  pas  davantage  considérée  comme 
une  action/omission  concrète.  L’organisme  pour  l’égalité  ne  peut  déclarer  qu’une  loi  est 
discriminatoire  car  une  loi  qui  n’a  pas  été  déclarée  inconstitutionnelle  par  la  Cour 
constitutionnelle ne peut être discriminatoire. L’organisme pour l’égalité ne peut déclarer 

36   Notamment Organisation macédonienne unie Ilinden et autres contre Bulgarie (n° 2), arrêt du 18 octobre 

2011. Requête n° 34960/04. 

37   Voir articles de presse sur: http://btvnovinite.bg/article/kriminalno/neizvestni-napadnaha-predsedatelja-na-
bhk-nasred-sofija.html; http://clubz.bg/46257-napadnaha_i_biha_shefa_na_bylgarskiq_helzinkski_komitet; 
http://www.bghelsinki.org/bg/novini/press/single/bhk-osyzhda-bezdejstvieto-na-instituciite-pri-poredna-
proyava-na-tormoz-i-presledvane-na-organizaciyata/ 

38   Voir notamment la requête introduite contre la Bulgarie par le Comité Helsinki bulgare devant la Cour 

européenne des droits de l’homme au nom de deux enfants décédés dans ces conditions: 
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-156281#{"itemid":["001-156281"]}. 

39   Stanev contre Bulgarie, arrêt du 17 janvier 2012; Stefan Stankov contre Bulgarie, arrêt du 17 mars 2015. 
40   Cour suprême administrative, décision n° 158 du 8 janvier 2015 dans l’affaire n° 7092/2014. 
41   Cour suprême administrative, décision n° 5645 dans l’affaire n° 15991/2013 et décision n° 15637 dans 

l’affaire n° 1925/2014. Voir également les points 11.1 et 12.2 du rapport ci-après. 

42   Cour suprême administrative, décision n° 15637 du 19 décembre 2014 dans l’affaire n° 1925/2014. L’affaire 

concernait l’application d’une limite d’âge en vertu d’une législation dérivée. 

14 

 
 
 
 
                                           
qu’une  législation  dérivée  est  discriminatoire  car  une  législation  dérivée  qui  n’a  pas  été 
déclarée  illégale  par  la  Cour  suprême  administrative  (dans  le  cadre  d’une  procédure 
administrative  générale)  ne  peut  être  discriminatoire.  Lorsque  l’organisme  pour  l’égalité 
constate  qu’une  disposition  juridique  est  en  contradiction  avec  la  législation  en  matière 
d’égalité, il ne peut faire valoir un non-respect de cette dernière, ni ordonner à l’autorité 
compétente d’abroger/de modifier la disposition en cause: il peut uniquement formuler une 
recommandation  ou  saisir  la  Cour  suprême  administrative  s’il  s’agit  d’une  législation 
dérivée. 

En  2015,  la  Cour  suprême  administrative  et  la  Cour  suprême  de  cassation  se  sont 
prononcées  dans  le  cadre  de  la  procédure  interprétative  n° 2/2014  devant  un  collège 
composé de membres des deux juridictions en vue de résoudre la question de savoir si ce 
sont  les  juridictions  civiles  ou  les  juridictions  administratives  qui  sont  compétentes 
lorsqu’une  personne  souhaite  poursuivre  un  organisme  public  pour  discrimination.43  La 
jurisprudence s’avérait contradictoire depuis 2007. Elles ont conclu à la compétence des 
juridictions administratives, et non des juridictions civiles. 

En  2015,  la  CJUE  a  rendu  une  décision  préjudicielle  dans  une  affaire  relative  à 
l’inaccessibilité des  compteurs  électriques dans des quartiers principalement habités par 
des Roms. Le prestataire de services a installé les compteurs à une hauteur impossible à 
atteindre  prétendument  pour  éviter  les  branchements  illicites  et  les  dommages  à 
l’infrastructure.  La  CJUE  a  jugé  la  mesure  discriminatoire  étant  donné  que,  dans  les 
quartiers  non  roms,    les  compteurs  sont  accessibles  et  peuvent  être  consultés  par  les 
consommateurs.  

2. Législation principale 

La loi de 2004 sur la protection contre la discrimination,44 adoptée en vue de transposer 
les directives, constitue l’acte législatif principal de lutte contre la discrimination. Il s’agit 
d’une loi unique qui interdit universellement toute discrimination fondée sur une série de 
motifs  comprenant  la  race/l’origine  ethnique,  le  sexe,  la  religion/les  convictions, 
l’orientation sexuelle, le handicap et l’âge, et qui prescrit des normes uniformes en matière 
de protection et de recours. La loi sur la protection contre la discrimination est globalement 
conforme  aux  directives  et  va  au-delà  de  celles-ci  à  certains  égards  importants:  champ 
d’application matériel universel, liste élargie et ouverte de motifs, formes supplémentaires 
de  discrimination,  compétences  étendues  de  l’organisme  pour  l’égalité,  et  recours 
juridictionnel  particulier.  La  loi  sur  la  protection  contre  la  discrimination  est  activement 
invoquée par des requérants individuels devant l’organisme pour l’égalité ou les tribunaux, 
et la jurisprudence est abondante et croissante.  

Il  existe  une  autre  loi  importante  concernant  l’égalité,  en  l’occurrence  la  loi  relative  à 
l’intégration des personnes handicapées,45 qui précise les obligations d’action positive et 
d’aménagement raisonnable dans un certain nombre de domaines. D’autres lois, régissant 
des  domaines  spécifiques  tels  que  l’éducation,  l’emploi  et  les  marchés  publics  prévoient 
des  mesures  positives  en  rapport  avec  des  motifs  tels  que  le  handicap,  l’âge  et  les 
responsabilités de garde et de soins.  

D’autres interdictions de discrimination préexistantes et abstraites existent dans des lois 
régissant des domaines spécifiques ainsi que dans la Constitution. Leur mise en œuvre fait 
toutefois  défaut.  La  Bulgarie  est  liée  par  des  instruments  internationaux  proscrivant  la 
discrimination: la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme (CEDH), la Charte sociale 
européenne  révisée,  le  Pacte  international  relatif  aux  droits  civils  et  politiques,  le  Pacte 

43   Par disposition (Разпореждане) du 27 juin 2014, disponible sur: http://www.vks.bg/Dela/2014-02-

ВКС_ВАС%20Разпореждане%20за%20образуване.pdf (en bulgare). 

44   Закон за защита от дискриминация, adoptée en septembre 2003 et entrée en vigueur en janvier 2004. 
45   Закон за интеграция на хората с увреждания, adoptée en septembre 2004 et entrée en vigueur en 

janvier 2005. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
international  relatif  aux  droits  économiques,  sociaux  et  culturels,  la  Convention  sur 
l’élimination de toutes les formes de discrimination à l’égard des femmes, la Convention 
internationale  sur  l’élimination  de  toutes  les  formes  de  discrimination  raciale  et  la 
Convention relative aux droits de l’enfant. La Constitution et la législation internationale 
contraignante sont directement applicables par les juridictions nationales et prévalent sur 
les dispositions contraires figurant dans l’ordre juridique interne. Elles sont exécutoires à 
l’encontre de parties privées et à l’encontre d’organismes publics.  

3. Principes généraux et définitions 

La loi sur la protection contre la discrimination interdit et définit la discrimination directe 
et indirecte, y compris la discrimination par association et par présomption. Elle définit la 
discrimination directe comme le fait de traiter, en raison de l’un des motifs protégés, une 
personne de manière moins favorable qu’une autre ne l’est, ne l’a été ou ne le serait dans 
une situation comparable. La loi définit «en raison de l’un des motifs» comme l’existence 
réelle  –  actuelle  ou  passée  –  ou  l’existence  présumée  d’un  ou  de  plusieurs  des  motifs 
protégés chez la personne visée par la discrimination, ou chez une autre personne qui est, 
de  façon  réelle  ou  présumée,  associée  à  la  personne  visée  par  la  discrimination lorsque 
l’association est une cause de discrimination. La loi sur la protection contre la discrimination 
n’autorise pas de justification générale de discrimination directe. 

La  loi  sur  la  protection  contre  la  discrimination  spécifie  à  titre  d’exemples  des 
comportements  discriminatoires  spécifiquement  interdits  dans  les  domaines  de  l’emploi, 
de l’éducation et de la fourniture de services. Elle contient une liste exhaustive d’exceptions 
particulières  pour  l’ensemble  des  motifs  protégés,  y  compris  pour  des  exigences 
professionnelles essentielles et déterminantes, dans le cas d’employeurs ayant une éthique 
religieuse ainsi qu’en ce qui concerne l’âge maximum et minimum pour l’accès à l’emploi 
et  à  l’éducation  –  une  justification  objective  étant  requise.  La  loi  exempte  le  traitement 
différencié des non-ressortissants prévu par la loi et autorise des exigences non justifiées 
en termes d’âge et d’ancienneté pour ce qui concerne la retraite. Les mesures positives en 
faveur de groupes défavorisés sont autorisées.  

La loi sur la protection contre la discrimination définit la discrimination indirecte comme le 
fait de traiter une personne de manière moins favorable que d’autres personnes, en raison 
de l’un des motifs protégés et par le biais d’une disposition, d’un critère ou d’une pratique 
apparemment neutre, à moins que cette disposition, ce critère ou cette pratique ne soit 
objectivement  justifié  par  un  but  légitime  et  que  les  moyens  d’atteindre  ce  but  soient 
appropriés et nécessaires.  

La loi sur la protection contre la discrimination prévoit expressément que le harcèlement, 
l’incitation à la discrimination et la rétorsion constituent des formes de discrimination. Elle 
définit le harcèlement comme tout comportement non désiré lié aux motifs protégés, qui 
se manifeste physiquement, verbalement ou de toute autre manière et qui a pour objet ou 
pour  effet  de  porter  atteinte  à  la  dignité  d’une  personne  et  de  créer  un  environnement 
hostile, offensant ou intimidant. La protection couvre le harcèlement par présomption et 
par association. L’incitation à la discrimination est définie comme un encouragement direct 
et intentionnel à discriminer, en ce compris l’injonction de pratiquer une discrimination. La 
rétorsion est définie comme: a) le fait de traiter moins favorablement une personne  qui a 
entrepris, ou qui est présumée avoir entrepris, ou qui est présumée entreprendre un jour, 
une  action  contre  une  discrimination;  b)  le  fait  de  traiter  moins  favorablement  une 
personne  lorsqu’une  personne  qui  lui  est  associée  a  entrepris,  ou  est  présumée  avoir 
entrepris, ou est présumée entreprendre une action contre une discrimination; c) le fait de 
traiter moins favorablement une personne qui a refusé de pratiquer un acte discriminatoire. 
Une action en vue d’une protection contre une discrimination est définie comme incluant, 
sans s’y limiter, le fait d’entamer des poursuites devant l’organisme pour l’égalité ou un 
tribunal, ou de témoigner.    

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ces définitions s’appliquent à tous les motifs. La discrimination multiple est définie comme 
une discrimination fondée sur plus d’un des motifs protégés. La loi sur la protection contre 
la  discrimination  impose  aux  organismes  publics  l’obligation  positive  de  prendre,  en 
priorité,  des  mesures  positives  en  faveur  de  victimes  de  discrimination  multiple.  Elle 
dispose  que  l’organisme  pour  l’égalité  se  composera  de  cinq  membres  au  lieu  de  trois 
lorsqu’il est saisi de questions liées à une discrimination multiple. 

La loi sur la protection contre la discrimination définit la ségrégation raciale en stipulant 
qu’il s’agit d’une forme de discrimination. Elle prévoit l’aménagement raisonnable pour les 
personnes  handicapées  dans  les  domaines  de  l’emploi  et  de  l’éducation  tout  en  limitant 
cette  obligation  si le  coût  devait  en  être  excessif  au  point  de  préjudicier  l’employeur  ou 
l’éducateur. En vertu de la loi sur l’intégration des personnes handicapées, le ministre de 
l’Éducation a l’obligation de fournir aux  enfants handicapés un  environnement propice à 
leur intégration éducative. Il s’agit d’une obligation absolue. En vertu de la même loi, le 
ministre de l’Éducation est tenu de créer des possibilités d’enseignement pour les enfants 
handicapés  qui  ne  sont  pas  intégrés,  et  cette  obligation  est  également  absolue.  Les 
établissements  d’enseignement  supérieur  ont,  eux  aussi,  des  obligations  absolues  en 
matière d’aménagement.  

La loi sur la protection contre la discrimination impose aux autorités, aux employeurs et 
aux éducateurs l’obligation de généraliser l’égalité et de prendre des mesures positives en 
rapport avec l’ensemble des motifs. La responsabilité des complices de discrimination, de 
même que la responsabilité du fait d’autrui pour les employeurs et les éducateurs qui ne 
prennent pas de dispositions destinées à prévenir la discrimination commise par des tiers 
sur le lieu de travail ou d’étude, est inscrite dans la loi. Un renversement de la charge de 
la preuve y est envisagé. En 2015, la disposition relative au renversement de la charge de 
la preuve a été modifiée afin de préciser que la partie requérante n’est pas tenue de fournir 
une  preuve  définitive:  elle  doit  uniquement  apporter  un  commencement  de  preuve  de 
discrimination. La disposition est désormais libellée comme suit (italiques ajoutés): dans 
le  cadre  d’une  procédure  de  protection  contre  une  discrimination,  après  que  la  partie 
alléguant avoir fait l’objet d’une discrimination produit (présente) des faits permettant de 
présumer l’existence d’une discrimination, la partie défenderesse doit prouver qu’il n’y a 
pas  eu  violation  du  principe  de  l’égalité  de  traitement.  Ladite  disposition  était 
antérieurement libellée comme suit: dans le cadre d’une procédure de protection contre 
une  discrimination,  après  que  la  partie  alléguant  avoir  fait  l’objet  d’une  discrimination 
prouve  des  faits  permettant  de  conclure  à  l’existence  d’une  discrimination,  la  partie 
défenderesse doit prouver qu’il n’y a pas eu violation du principe de l’égalité de traitement. 

4. Champ d’application matériel 

La loi sur la protection contre la discrimination a un champ d’application matériel universel. 
Il  s’applique  à  tous  les  domaines,  ce  qui  signifie  qu’il  couvre  implicitement  tous  les 
domaines visés par les directives ainsi que tout autre domaine qui ne serait pas couvert 
par celles-ci. Cette interdiction universelle s’applique à tous les motifs et tant au secteur 
privé qu’au secteur public.   

5. Mise en application de la loi 

La  loi  sur  la  protection  contre  la  discrimination  prévoit  deux  possibilités:  la  procédure 
judiciaire  devant  les  juridictions  ordinaires  et  la  procédure  quasi-judiciaire  spécialisée 
devant l’organisme pour l’égalité. La victime a le choix entre ces deux voies de recours. 
Les  tribunaux  peuvent  établir  l’existence  d’une  discrimination  et  accorder  une 
indemnisation, et ordonner à la partie défenderesse de prendre des mesures correctives 
ou de s’abstenir d’une action ou inaction particulière ou d’y mettre fin. La commission pour 
la  protection  contre  la  discrimination  peut  elle  aussi  constater  l’existence  d’une 
discrimination  et  ordonner  une  mesure  préventive  ou  corrective.  Elle  peut  imposer  des 
sanctions  financières,  mais  ne  peut  accorder  d’indemnisation.  Les  deux  procédures 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
s’appliquent  universellement  tant  au  secteur  public  qu’au  secteur  privé.  Elles  sont 
juridiquement  contraignantes.  Le  principe  du  renversement  de  la  charge  de  la  preuve 
s’applique dans les deux cas. Les deux procédures sont effectivement utilisées et exemptes 
l’une et l’autre de frais et dépens; dans la pratique toutefois, les tribunaux ne respectent 
pas cette disposition et ordonnent aux parties de payer. 

Rares  ont  été  les  affaires  dans  lesquelles  les  juges  ont  établi  l’existence  d’une 
discrimination  en  se  basant  uniquement  sur  l’incapacité  de  la  partie  défenderesse  de 
réfuter  les  présomptions  de  discrimination.  Ils  ont  toutefois  systématiquement  tenu 
compte de cette règle de preuve spéciale et certains ont émis des observations avisées sur 
ses conséquences quant à l’établissement des faits. Les juges ont une vision peu cohérente 
de  la  différence  entre  discrimination  directe  et  indirecte  –  ce  qui  a  donné  lieu  à  de 
nombreuses reprises à une interprétation erronée faisant de cas de discrimination directe 
des cas de discrimination indirecte justifiable.  

La loi prévoit que l’organisme pour l’égalité assiste les victimes de discrimination. Dans la 
pratique,  les  plaignants  reçoivent  des  conseils  de  procédure  sur  la  manière  d’introduire 
leurs  plaintes.  La  commission  pour  la  protection  contre  la  discrimination  est  habilitée  à 
ester  en  justice  ainsi  qu’à  s’associer  à  des  actions  intentées  par  d’autres,  mais  elle  n’a 
guère  fait  usage  de  ces  possibilités.  Des  ONG  s’occupent  activement  d’affaires  de 
discrimination: elles sont habilitées à représenter les plaignants devant les tribunaux et à 
intervenir en leur faveur dans le cadre de poursuites. Les ONG ont le droit d’intenter en 
leur propre nom, sans devoir obtenir l’autorisation d’une victime particulière, des actions 
en justice dans l’intérêt public lorsque les droits de nombreuses personnes ont été bafoués. 
Elles sont habilitées à saisir la commission pour la protection contre la discrimination sans 
identifier  de  victime  particulière.  Les  ONG  ont  engagé  toute  une  série  de  poursuites 
d’intérêt  public,  ce  qui  a  mobilisé  davantage  l’attention  du  public.  Plusieurs  décisions 
fermes ont été rendues et pourraient susciter un certain changement social. Les procédures 
contentieuses  bénéficient,  surtout  lorsqu’elles  sont  engagées  par  des  ONG,  d’une  large 
couverture médiatique. Des ONG ont fait appel au test de situation pour dévoiler et étayer 
des cas de discrimination directe, et ont établi les cas en question en justice en utilisant ce 
type de preuve testimoniale. Elles ont également recouru aux statistiques dans quelques 
affaires. En vertu du droit procédural en matière civile, tant les statistiques que les tests 
de situation sont des éléments de preuve implicitement recevables laissés à l’appréciation 
des juges. Il n’y a eu aucun débat sur cette recevabilité. Le test de situation en tant que 
preuve testimoniale a été admis comme allant de soi, étant assimilé à une déposition de 
témoin  ordinaire  sans  qu’il  soit  fait  référence  à  son  but  spécifique  d’intérêt  public.  Les 
données  statistiques  ont  été  elles  aussi  considérées  comme  des  preuves  ordinaires  tant 
par  les  juges  que  par  la  commission  pour  la  protection  contre  la  discrimination.  Cette 
dernière s’est penchée de sa propre initiative sur des données statistiques.  

Les  sanctions  infligées  par  la  commission  pour  la  protection  contre  la  discrimination 
comprennent des amendes (plafonnées à 1 250 euros) et des injonctions contraignant la 
partie  défenderesse  à  prendre  des  mesures  préventives  ou  correctives  particulières.  La 
commission  exerce  activement  ses  pouvoirs  disciplinaires  en  imposant  souvent  le 
versement d’amendes proches du montant maximum et en ordonnant une réparation sous 
la forme d’une réintégration, de la modification de la réglementation, etc. Il s’avère difficile 
toutefois de déterminer dans quelle mesure ces injonctions sont suivies d’exécution et dans 
quelle mesure la réponse des autorités est efficace lorsque ce n’est pas le cas. L’organisme 
pour  l’égalité  ne  dispose  dans  cette  éventualité  d’aucun  autre  pouvoir  formel  que  celui 
d’infliger de nouvelles amendes. La réparation ordonnée par un tribunal comprend pour sa 
part une indemnisation non plafonnée et une injonction adressée à la partie défenderesse 
pour  qu’elle  prenne  des  mesures  spécifiques  ou  qu’elle  s’abstienne  d’une  action 
particulière.  Les  indemnisations  ont  atteint,  à  titre  exceptionnel,  un  montant  de 
5 000 euros (inaccessibilité de l’environnement architectural).  

18 

 
 
 
 
 
Le  droit  du  travail  prévoit  des  quotas  d’emploi  pour  les  personnes  handicapées  et  des 
subventions  à  l’intention  de  leurs  employeurs.  Un  traitement  préférentiel  en  matière 
d’emploi  est  également  accordé  aux  travailleurs  jeunes  et  âgés  ainsi  qu’aux  personnes 
assumant  des  responsabilités  de  garde  et  de  soins.  Les  Roms  sont  théoriquement 
bénéficiaires d’une série de programmes d’action positive dans les domaines de l’éducation, 
du logement et autres, mais l’impact de ces mesures reste, dans la pratique, très limité.  

Il n’existe aucun processus de dialogue ni de consultation avec des ONG ou des partenaires 
sociaux de la part d’une quelconque autorité nationale.  

6. Organismes de promotion de l’égalité de traitement 

La commission pour la protection contre la discrimination est l’organisme national bulgare 
spécialisé en charge des questions d’égalité. Elle a été instituée en vertu de la loi sur la 
protection contre la discrimination en tant qu’autorité collégiale semi-judiciaire dotée de 
pouvoirs  de  décision.  Elle  est  entrée  en  fonction  en  2005,  bien  que  la  loi  prévoyait  le 
démarrage de son activité dès le début 2004. La commission pour la protection contre la 
discrimination  traite  de  la  discrimination  fondée  sur  tous  les  motifs  protégés.  Elle  est 
mandatée  pour  entendre  et  instruire  les  plaintes  déposées  par  des  victimes  et  des 
signalements émanant de tiers; engager ses propres poursuites; établir l’existence d’une 
discrimination  par  des  décisions  juridiquement  contraignantes;  infliger  des  sanctions 
financières;  formuler  des  instructions  obligatoires  en  vue  de  mesures  correctives  ou 
préventives;  examiner  et  donner  un  avis  sur  les  projets  de  loi;  adresser  des 
recommandations  aux  autorités  publiques,  y  compris  en  vue  d’amendements  législatifs; 
assister les victimes de discrimination; procéder à des études indépendantes et publier des 
rapports  indépendants.  La  commission  pour  la  protection  contre  la  discrimination 
développe rapidement une  jurisprudence abondante, suivie d’effet dans un certain nombre 
de  cas.  La  jurisprudence  comprend  des  décisions  du  tribunal  municipal  administratif  de 
Sofia et de la Cour suprême administrative, qui contrôlent les décisions de la commission 
pour la protection contre la discrimination.  

7. Points essentiels 

La  définition  de  l’incitation  à  discriminer,  y  compris  les  injonctions  de  pratiquer  une 
discrimination,  figurant  dans  la  loi  sur  la  protection  contre  la  discrimination  requiert 
expressément une intention directe. Dans cette même loi, la définition de la ségrégation 
raciale  exige  que  la  situation  de  séparation  soit  «forcée»46  –  ce  qui  implique  que  la 
ségrégation pourrait être délibérément choisie, autrement dit que des personnes renoncent 
à leur droit de ne pas faire l’objet d’une discrimination, et notamment de ne pas faire l’objet 
d’une ségrégation raciale. La CouEDH a considéré dans le cadre d’affaires de ségrégation 
des Roms qu’un renoncement au droit à la non-discrimination n’est pas possible dans ce 
contexte car la démarche irait à l’encontre d’un intérêt public majeur.47   

La  loi  sur  la  protection  contre  la  discrimination  définit  la  discrimination  indirecte  d’une 
manière qui induit les juges et la commission pour la protection contre la discrimination en 
erreur et les  conduit à l’assimiler à une discrimination directe déguisée. Les termes «en 
raison de  l’un des motifs» utilisés dans la définition contredisent la partie «apparemment 
neutre» du libellé. Plusieurs décisions émanant de tribunaux et de la commission pour la 
protection contre la discrimination ont interprété l’expression «en raison de l’un des motifs» 
comme établissant un lien de causalité entre la règle apparemment neutre et le(s) motif(s) 
protégé(s)  en  cause  –  une  interprétation  qui  semble  se  baser  sur  une  hypothèse  selon 
laquelle  un  acte  «apparemment  neutre»  est  un  acte  qui  se  fonde  effectivement  sur  un 
motif protégé mais de façon cachée, et non ouverte; les juges et la commission estiment 

46   Loi sur la protection contre la discrimination, disposition additionnelle sous 1.6. 
47   Par exemple, D.H. contre République tchèque, arrêt du 13 novembre 2007; Sampanis contre Grèce, arrêt 

du 5 juin 2008; Orsus c. Croatie, arrêt du 16 mars 2010 (GC). 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
donc  que  la  disposition  relative  à  la  discrimination  indirecte  désigne  une  discrimination 
directe dissimulée.48 

Des interdictions de discrimination abstraites figurant dans des lois préexistantes régissant 
des domaines spécifiques ainsi que dans la Constitution restent en vigueur parallèlement 
à  la  loi  sur  la  protection  contre  la  discrimination.  On  constate  une  absence  totale  de 
cohérence entre cette dernière et ces interdictions plus anciennes avec des disparités en 
termes de motifs protégés, d’exceptions et de définitions. Cette incohérence  entre la loi 
sur la protection contre la discrimination et d’autres lois régissant des domaines particuliers 
se  traduit  par  l’existence  de  dispositions  directement  ou  indirectement  discriminatoires 
incompatibles  avec  l’interdiction  universelle  établie  par  la  première.  Aucun  effort  ou 
presque n’a été déployé pour harmoniser la législation de façon à garantir que la loi sur la 
protection  contre  la  discrimination  prévale  sur  toute  autre  disposition  discriminatoire 
divergente.  

En  2014,  la  Cour  suprême  administrative  a  établi  des  exigences  restrictives  en  rapport 
avec  l’application  de  la  loi  sur  la  protection  contre  la  discrimination,  lesquelles  vont  à 
l’encontre de ladite loi et du droit de l’UE.49 

La Cour suprême administrative a considéré qu’il fallait, pour qu’il y ait discrimination, que 
la différence de traitement se fonde exclusivement sur un motif protégé, à l’exclusion de 
cas de «motifs divers», à savoir des situations dans lesquelles une caractéristique protégée 
constitue  une  raison  parmi  d’autres  du  traitement  moins  favorable.50  La  Cour  suprême 
administrative  manque  cependant  de  cohérence  dans  la  mesure  où  elle  a  dit  pour  droit 
dans une affaire récente qu’il y a traitement discriminatoire indépendamment du fait qu’un 
motif  protégé  soit  la  raison  unique  d’un  traitement  moins  favorable  ou  qu’il  en  soit  une 
raison  parmi  d’autres.51  Comme  déjà  signalé,  la  Cour  suprême  administrative  a  recouru 
dans  des  cas  de  traitement  moins  favorable,  autrement  dit  des  cas  de  discrimination 
directe,  à  une  justification  uniquement  applicable  à  la  discrimination  indirecte.  Elle  a 
appliqué le concept de discrimination indirecte à une série de cas de traitement défavorable 
direct: en 2014, elle a considéré par exemple, dans le cadre d’une affaire où un détenu 
musulman se plaignait que son régime alimentaire comprenait de la viande de porc (refus 
d’aménagement  raisonnable),  qu’il  s’agissait  d’une  discrimination  indirecte  envers  le 
plaignant  par  rapport  aux  détenus  musulmans  d’une  autre  prison  dont  le  régime 
alimentaire était adapté.52  

La  Cour  suprême  administrative  a  fait  preuve  dans  quelques  affaires  d’une  grave 
méconnaissance  du  concept  de  comparateur,  considérant  que  les  exigences  relatives  à 
l’âge  en  matière  d’accès  à  l’emploi  ne  sont  pas  constitutives  de  discrimination  du  fait 
qu’elles s’appliquent à tous les candidats, et pas uniquement à la partie plaignante.53 Elle 
a requis une intention, établissant souvent de manière expresse que le traitement doit être 
commis consciemment sur la base de l’un des motifs protégés.54 Comme déjà indiqué, la 

48   Par exemple: tribunal de district de Radnevo, décision n° 97 du 13 décembre 2004, affaire n° 365/2004; 
tribunal régional de Sofia, décision du 12 juillet 2004, affaire n° 1184/2004; tribunal de district de Sofia, 
décision du 19 août 2004, affaire n° 1262/2004; tribunal de district de Sofia, décision du 19 décembre 
2006, affaire n° 2756/2006. Décisions de la Cour suprême administrative: décision n° 11421 du 
19 novembre 2007, affaire n° 5604/2007; décision n° 12117 du 3 décembre 2007, affaire n° 8044/2007; 
décision n° 4752 du 15 mai 2007, affaire n° 11478/2006; décision n° 11295 du 16 novembre 2007, affaire 
n° 6407/2007; décision n° 13393 du 28 décembre 2007, affaire n° 8083/2007; décision n° 7811 du 
19 juillet 2007, affaire n° 1048/2007. 

49   Voir p. 2 ci-dessus. 
50   Cour suprême administrative, décision n° 8277 du 11 juin 2012 dans l’affaire n° 3852/2012 notamment.  
51   Cour suprême administrative, décision n° 274 du 9 janvier 2012 dans l’affaire n° 1319/2011. 
52   Cour suprême administrative, décision n° 2514 du 21 février 2014, affaire n° 10989/2013. 
53   Cour suprême administrative, décision n° 7096 du 19 mai 2012 dans l’affaire n° 3686/2012; décision 

n° 10734 du 1er septembre 2014 dans l’affaire n° 1463/2014. 

54   Cour suprême administrative, décision n° 8277 du 11 juin 2012 dans l’affaire 3852/2012; décision n° 3645 
du 14 mars 2014 dans l’affaire n° 12679/2013 (exigence d’une perpétration «consciente», réitérée à deux 
reprises) notamment. 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
Cour suprême administrative a estimé à deux reprises en 2014 que seul un comportement 
«coupable» peut être considéré comme une infraction en vertu de la loi sur la protection 
contre  la  discrimination.55  Sa  jurisprudence  n’en  est  pas  moins  contradictoire:  en  2014 
également,  elle  a  déclaré  dans  une  affaire  que  la  discrimination  directe  ne  requiert  pas 
d’intention discriminatoire et que, par conséquent, l’absence d’intention est non pertinente 
pour considérer qu’un traitement est discriminatoire, y compris lorsque son auteur pense 
qu’il  est  légitime.56  Dans  une  affaire  traitée  en  2014,  la  Cour  suprême  administrative  a 
interprété que, pour constituer un motif protégé, «l’orientation sexuelle» devait être innée, 
et non «consciemment» choisie: elle a refusé le droit d’asile à un homosexuel camerounais 
parce qu’il avait «décidé» à l’âge de 35 ans de «choisir» une sexualité qui n’était pas sa 
sexualité «innée».57   

La commission pour la protection contre la discrimination n’utilise pas ses compétences, et 
notamment celle lui permettant d’engager des poursuites d’office, de manière stratégique. 
Elle ne s’est fixé aucune priorité. Elle n’a ciblé aucune des grandes problématiques relevant 
d’une  discrimination,  telles  que  la  ségrégation  des  Roms  dans  l’enseignement,  leur 
indigence  et  leur  isolement  en  termes  de  logement,  le  placement  en  institutions  des 
personnes  handicapées,  etc.  Elle  refuse  en  règle  générale  d’examiner  (en  termes  de 
recevabilité)  ou  d’accueillir  (en  termes  de  bien-fondé)  des  plaintes  pour  discrimination 
déposées par des personnes handicapées qui n’ont pas présenté d’attestation médicale de 
leur handicap.58 Comme la Cour suprême administrative, la commission pour la protection 
contre  la  discrimination  manifeste  souvent  une  méconnaissance  du  concept  de 
discrimination indirecte, qu’elle assimile parfois à une discrimination directe.  

55   Cour suprême administrative, décision n° 5645 dans l’affaire n° 15991/2013, décision n° 15637 dans 

l’affaire n° 1925/2014. 

56   Cour suprême administrative, décision n° 1048 du 27 janvier 2014 dans l’affaire n° 8033/2013. L’affaire 

concernait l’application d’une limite d’âge dans le cadre du règlement d’une université. 

57   Cour suprême administrative, décision n° 9467 du 7 juillet 2014 dans l’affaire n° 1381/2014. 
58   Commission pour la protection contre la discrimination, décision n° 259 du 17 décembre 2008 dans l’affaire 

n° 186/2008, notamment. 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG  

1. Einleitung 

Türken,  Menschen  mit  Behinderungen, 

Zu  den  besonders  benachteiligten  Gruppen  in  Bulgarien  gehören  die  Roma,  Flüchtlinge 
bzw.  Migranten,  Muslime,  Juden,  Angehörige  nicht-orthodoxer  Religionsgemeinschaften, 
Mazedonier, 
geistigen 
Behinderungen,  und  LGBT-Personen.  Der  letzten  Regierungskoalition  gehörten  zwei 
Parteien  an,  die  von  der  Europäischen  Kommission  gegen  Rassismus  und  Intoleranz  als 
„ultranationalistisch/faschistisch“ eingestuft werden: die „Nationale Front für die Rettung 
Bulgariens“ und „VMRO-BND“.59 60 Diskriminierung und Hass, insbesondere Hassreden und 
Hassverbrechen,  gegen  Roma  sind  allgegenwärtig,  radikal  und  praktisch  straflos.  Hohe 
Beamte  rufen  offen  zu  Hass  und  Diskriminierung  gegenüber  den  Roma  auf  und  stellen 
diese als Untermenschen dar. Die Staatsanwaltschaft und die Gleichbehandlungsstelle, die 
gesetzlich für die Verfolgung von Hassrede zuständig sind, verfolgen derartige Fälle nicht. 

insbesondere 

Die Roma leben in getrennten Wohnvierteln unter elenden Bedingungen und werden häufig 
Opfer  von  Zwangsräumungen.  Der  Europäische  Gerichtshof  für  Menschenrechte  (EGMR) 
hat Bulgarien in einem derartigen Fall zur Zahlung von Schadensersatz verurteilt.61 Roma 
leiden unter Langzeitarbeitslosigkeit und haben keinen Zugang zur beruflichen Bildung und 
zum  Arbeitsmarkt.  Auch  beim  Zugang  zum  Gesundheitswesen  und  anderen 
Dienstleistungen werden sie diskriminiert und belästigt. Ihre Kinder werden in segregierten 
minderwertigen  Schulen  oder  auch  überhaupt  nicht  unterrichtet.  Das  Strafrechtssystem 
verfolgt  sie  überproportional  stark  und  verweigert  ihnen  einen  gleichberechtigten 
Rechtsschutz,  z. B.  vor  Hassverbrechen  durch  Beamte  und  Bürger.  Sie  sind  nirgends 
repräsentiert und haben auf keiner politischen Ebene Zugang zu Entscheidungsprozessen. 

Hassreden  und  Hassverbrechen  gegen  Flüchtlinge  bzw.  Migranten,  auch  Hassreden  von 
Beamten,  nehmen  in  letzter  Zeit  stark  zu.  Diese  Gewalt  bleibt  straflos.  Der  EGMR  hat 
Bulgarien  in  einem  derartigen  Fall  verurteilt.62  2016  wurden  Selbstschutzgruppen  aktiv, 
die  mit  hassmotivierten  rechtswidrigen  Festnahmen,  Beleidigungen,  Nötigungen, 
körperlicher  Gewalt  und  anderen  nach  bulgarischem  Recht  als  Straftaten  geltenden 
Handlungen  gegen  Ausländer  im  Grenzgebiet  vorgehen.  Die  Täter  erhielten  von  den 
Massenmedien des Landes eine positive Berichterstattung und ein Forum, um von hier aus 
zu Hass und organisierten Hassverbrechen gegen Geflüchtete und Migranten aufzurufen. 
Der frühere Ministerpräsident Borisov erklärte öffentlich, er danke den Tätern für die Hilfe, 
die sie dem Staat anböten, und stellte fest, dass jegliche Hilfe willkommen sei.63 Lediglich 
ein  Selbstschutz-Aktivist  wurde  seitens  der  Staatsanwaltschaft  strafrechtlich  verfolgt, 
jedoch erfolglos. Viele Asylsuchende leben unter unwürdigen Bedingungen. Der Hass gegen 
Juden,  Muslime,  nicht-orthodoxe  Religionsgemeinschaften  und  Türken  kommt  unter 
anderem  in  der  Schändung  von  Tempeln  und  in  gewalttätigen  Demonstrationen  zum 
Ausdruck. Der EGMR hat Bulgarien auch in einem derartigen Fall verurteilt.64 Die nationale 
Identität  von  Mazedoniern  wird  nicht  anerkannt  (sie  gelten  als  Bulgaren)  und  Gerichte 
lehnen  es  ab,  mazedonische  Organisationen  als  Vereine  einzutragen.  Örtliche  Behörden 
stören ihre friedlichen Zusammenkünfte. Der EGMR hat Bulgarien in mehreren derartigen 

59   Innere Mazedonische Revolutionäre Organisation – Bulgarische Nationalbewegung. 
60   ECRI, Länderbericht Bulgarien vom 16. September 2014. 
61   Yordanova and Others v. Bulgaria, Urteil vom 24. April 2012. Beschwerde Nr. 25446/06. 
62   Abdu v. Bulgaria, Urteil vom 11. März 2014. Beschwerde Nr. 26827/08. 
63   Siehe Nachrichtenberichte unter: http://btvnovinite.bg/article/vodeshti-novini/bhk-sas-signal-sreshtu-

premiera-bojko-borisov-zaradi-blagodarnostite-kam-dobrovolcheskite-otrjadi.html; 
http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2016/04/10/2739769_borisov_dva_koraba_za_800_mln_lv_shte_budat_p
ostroeni/; https://offnews.bg/news/Obshtestvo_4/Borisov-blagodari-na-hajkite-za-bezhantci-vsiaka-
pomosht-bila-dobre-d_627393.html. 

64   Nach dem Stichtag für diesen Bericht: Karaahmed v. Bulgaria, Urteil vom 24. Februar 2015. Beschwerde 

Nr. 30587/13. 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
Fällen verurteilt.65 Bulgarien hat diese Urteile nicht umgesetzt und steht aus diesem Grund 
unter der verschärften Beobachtung des Ministerkomitees des Europarates. 

Menschenrechtsverteidiger  wurden  wegen  ihrer  Aktivitäten  zur  Unterstützung  von 
Geflüchteten/Migranten  und  anderen  besonders  marginalisierten  Minderheiten, 
einschließlich  der  Roma  und  der  LGBT-Gemeinschaft,  Ziel  verbaler  und  körperlicher 
Gewalt.66 

Menschen  mit  Behinderung  werden  in  den  Bereichen  Bildung  und  Beschäftigung,  beim 
Zugang  zu  Dienstleistungen  und  bei  der  politischen  Partizipation  ausgegrenzt  und 
benachteiligt. Viele Kinder mit Behinderungen können keine Schule besuchen, weil keine 
Barrierefreiheit gegeben ist. Die meisten sind in minderwertigen Förderschulen segregiert. 
Viele  Erwachsene  und  Kinder  werden  in  segregierten  Institutionen  betreut,  wo  sie  einer 
menschenunwürdigen  Behandlung  ausgesetzt  sind  und  früh  sterben  –  nach  Ansicht  von 
Menschenrechtsorganisationen  aufgrund  von  Vernachlässigung.67  Täter  genießen 
Straflosigkeit, die Behörden ermitteln in solchen Fällen nicht. Der EGMR hat Bulgarien in 
zwei  wichtigen  Fällen  für  die  Verletzung  der  Rechte  von  Menschen  mit  Behinderungen 
verurteilt.68 Die architektonische Umgebung von Dienstleistungsangeboten ist in der Regel 
unzugänglich.  2015  wurde 
zum  Beispiel  ein  Unternehmen  vom  Obersten 
Verwaltungsgericht verurteilt, weil es ein Delfinarium nicht zugänglich gemacht hatte: Die 
installierten Rampen ließen keinen unabhängigen Zugang zu; der Zugang war beschränkt 
und  nur  mit  Hilfe  möglich;  die  Rampen  waren  unbeweglich  und  konnten  nicht  an 
verschiedene  Rollstuhltypen  angepasst  werden.69  LGBT-Personen  sind  Hassreden, 
Hassverbrechen und Diskriminierung ausgesetzt. 

Im  Jahr  2014  gab  das  Oberste  Verwaltungsgericht  (OVG),  die  letzte  Instanz,  die  die 
Entscheidungen  der  Gleichbehandlungsstelle  überprüft,  eine  neue  und  restriktive 
Auslegung  des  Gleichbehandlungsrechts  vor.70  Nach  dem  OVG  kann  die 
Gleichbehandlungsstelle  nicht  jeden  Verstoß  gegen  das  Gleichbehandlungsrecht  ahnden, 
sondern  nur  solche  Verstöße,  die  Ordnungswidrigkeiten  nach  dem  Gesetz  über 
Ordnungswidrigkeiten und Ordnungsstrafen darstellen. Dazu muss eine konkrete Handlung 
bzw.  Unterlassung,  ein  konkreter  Täter,  ein  konkretes  Opfer  und  die  Schuld  des  Täters 
nachgewiesen  werden.  Diskriminierung  muss  eine  konkrete  Tatsache  sein,  keine 
hypothetische  Möglichkeit.71  Diskriminierungen  können  nur  von  natürlichen  Personen 
begangen werden. Juristische Personen  können in gesetzlich geregelten Ausnahmefällen 
ebenfalls Diskriminierungen begehen. Öffentliche Behörden können nicht diskriminieren – 
nur  einzelne  Mitarbeiter,  die  im  Namen  der  Behörde  handeln.  Rechtliche  Bestimmungen 
sind  keine  konkreten  Handlungen  bzw.  Unterlassungen  und  können  damit  auch  keine 
Diskriminierung darstellen. Auch die Anwendung einer rechtlichen Bestimmung ist keine 
konkrete Handlung bzw. Unterlassung. Die Gleichbehandlungsstelle kann Gesetze nicht für 
diskriminierend  erklären:  ein  Gesetz,  das  vom  Verfassungsgericht  (VG)  nicht  für 
sein.  Die 
nicht 
kann 
verfassungswidrig 
für  diskriminierend  erklären: 
Gleichbehandlungsstelle  kann  Sekundärrecht  nicht 

erklärt  wurde, 

diskriminierend 

65   Unter anderem: United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others v. Bulgaria (Nr. 2), Urteil vom 

18. Oktober 2011. Beschwerde Nr. 34960/04. 

66   Siehe Nachrichtenberichte unter: http://btvnovinite.bg/article/kriminalno/neizvestni-napadnaha-

predsedatelja-na-bhk-nasred-sofija.html; http://clubz.bg/46257-
napadnaha_i_biha_shefa_na_bylgarskiq_helzinkski_komitet; 
http://www.bghelsinki.org/bg/novini/press/single/bhk-osyzhda-bezdejstvieto-na-instituciite-pri-poredna-
proyava-na-tormoz-i-presledvane-na-organizaciyata/.. 

67  Siehe z. B. die Beschwerde, die das bulgarische Helsinki-Komitee im Namen von zwei der verstorbenen 

Kinder beim Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte gegen Bulgarien eingereicht hat: 
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"appno":["35653/12"],"itemid":["001-156281"]}. 

68   Stanev v. Bulgaria, Urteil vom 17. Januar 2012, Stefan Stankov v. Bulgaria, Urteil vom 17. März 2015. 
69  Oberstes Verwaltungsgericht, Urteil Nr. 158 vom 08.01.2015 in der Rechtssache 7092/2014. 
70   Oberstes Verwaltungsgericht, Urteil Nr. 5645 in der Rechtssache 15991/2013 und Urteil Nr. 15637 in der 

Rechtssache 1925/2014. Dieses Problem wird in Abschnitt 11.1 und 12.2 dieses Berichts näher behandelt. 

71   Oberstes Verwaltungsgericht, Urteil Nr. 15637 vom 19.12.2014 in der Rechtssache 1925/2014. Der Fall 

betraf die Anwendung einer Altersgrenze nach Sekundärrecht. 

23 

 
 
 
 
                                           
 
Sekundärrecht, das vom Obersten Verwaltungsgericht (OVG) nicht für rechtswidrig erklärt 
wurde, kann nicht diskriminierend sein. Wenn die Gleichbehandlungsstelle der Ansicht ist, 
dass  eine  Rechtsnorm  gegen  das  Gleichbehandlungsrecht  verstößt,  kann  sie  dennoch 
keinen  Verstoß  gegen  das  Gleichbehandlungsrecht  geltend  machen.  Sie  kann  die 
zuständige Stelle nicht zur Aufhebung oder Änderung der Norm verpflichten. Sie kann nur 
eine  Empfehlung  aussprechen  oder  vor  dem  OVG  gegen  das  betreffende  Sekundärrecht 
klagen. 

2015  prüften  das  OVG  und  der  Oberste  Kassationshof  in  dem  Auslegungsverfahren 
Nr. 2/2014  vor  einem  gemischten  Senat  aus  Mitgliedern  beider  Gerichtshöfe  die  Frage, 
welches  der  beiden  Gerichte  für  Diskriminierungsklagen  natürlicher  Personen  gegen 
öffentliche  Behörden  zuständig  ist.72  Das  Fallrecht  ist  seit  2007  widersprüchlich.  Die 
Gerichte kamen zu dem Ergebnis, dass nicht die Zivil-, sondern die Verwaltungsgerichte 
zuständig sind. 

2015 entschied der EuGH im Wege einer Vorabentscheidung über einen Fall, in dem es um 
die Unzugänglichkeit von Stromzählern in überwiegend von Roma bewohnten Stadtteilen 
ging. Das Dienstleistungsunternehmen hatte die Stromzähler in einer unzugänglichen Höhe 
angebracht,  um  angeblichen  Stromdiebstahl  und  eine  Beschädigung  der  Apparate  zu 
verhindern. Der EuGH erklärte die Maßnahme für diskriminierend, da die Stromzähler in 
anderen,  nicht  von  Roma  bewohnten  Stadtteilen  so  angebracht  seien,  dass  sie  für  die 
Verbraucher zugänglich seien, um sie zu prüfen.  

2. Wichtigste Gesetze 

Das  Gesetz  zum  Schutz  gegen  Diskriminierung  (GSD)  von  2004  ist  das  wichtigste 
Antidiskriminierungsgesetz und wurde zur Umsetzung der Richtlinien verabschiedet. 73 Es 
ist  ein  allgemeines  Gleichbehandlungsgesetz,  das  Diskriminierung  aus  zahlreichen 
Gründen, einschließlich von Rasse oder ethnischer Zugehörigkeit, Geschlecht, Religion oder 
Weltanschauung, sexueller Ausrichtung, Behinderung und Alter, verbietet und einheitliche 
Schutzstandards  und  Rechtsmittel  bereitstellt.  Das  GSD  als  Ganzes  entspricht  den 
Richtlinien  und  geht  in  wichtigen  Aspekten  über  deren  Vorgaben  hinaus:  allgemeiner 
Geltungsbereich, erweiterte und nicht abgeschlossene Liste von Diskriminierungsgründen, 
der 
zusätzliche 
Gleichbehandlungsstelle  und  spezielle  Rechtsbehelfe.  Diskriminierungsopfer  machen  das 
GSD aktiv vor der Gleichbehandlungsstelle und den Gerichten geltend und es gibt bereits 
einschlägiges Fallrecht, das ständig zunimmt. 

Diskriminierung, 

Zuständigkeit 

erweiterte 

Formen 

von 

Ein  weiteres  Gleichbehandlungsgesetz  ist  das  Gesetz  zur  Integration  von  Menschen  mit 
Behinderungen (MBIG),74 das in vielen Bereichen positive Maßnahmen und die Pflicht zu 
angemessenen Vorkehrungen einführt. Andere Gesetze für bestimmte Lebensbereiche, wie 
Bildung, Beschäftigung oder öffentliche Beschaffung, sehen positive Maßnahmen aufgrund 
von Behinderung, Alter und Betreuungsverpflichtungen vor. 

in  der  Verfassung 

In  Einzelgesetzen  und 
findet  sich  ebenfalls  ein  abstraktes 
Diskriminierungsverbot,  dieses  wird  aber  nicht  umgesetzt.  Bulgarien  hat  sich  zur 
Einhaltung internationaler Rechtsinstrumente verpflichtet, die Diskriminierung verbieten, 
dazu  gehören  die  Europäische  Menschenrechtskonvention  (EMRK),  die  Europäische 
Sozialcharta (revidiert), der Internationale Pakt über bürgerliche und politische Rechte, der 
Internationale Pakt über wirtschaftliche, soziale und kulturelle Rechte, das Übereinkommen 
jeder  Form  von  Diskriminierung  der  Frau,  das  Internationale 
zur  Beseitigung 
Übereinkommen  zur  Beseitigung  jeder  Form  von  Rassendiskriminierung  und  das 

72   Mit Beschluss (Разпореждане) vom 27.06.2014, verfügbar unter http://www.vks.bg/Dela/2014-02-

ВКС_ВАС%20Разпореждане%20за%20образуване.pdf (in bulgarischer Sprache). 

73   Закон за защита от дискриминация, verabschiedet im September 2003, in Kraft seit Januar 2004. 
74   Закон за интеграция на хората с увреждания, verabschiedet im September 2004, in Kraft seit 

Januar 2005. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Übereinkommen  über  die  Rechte  des  Kindes.  Die  Verfassung  und  verbindliches 
internationales Recht sind von bulgarischen Gerichten direkt anwendbar und haben dabei 
Vorrang vor abweichenden Rechtsvorschriften. Sie können gegen privatrechtliche Personen 
und gegen öffentliche Stellen geltend gemacht werden. 

3. Wichtigste Grundsätze und Begriffe 

Das  GSD  schützt  vor  und  definiert  unmittelbare  und  mittelbare  Diskriminierung, 
einschließlich  von  Diskriminierung  durch  Assoziierung  und  aufgrund  mutmaßlicher 
Eigenschaften.  Das  GSD definiert unmittelbare Diskriminierung als Situation, in der eine 
Person  wegen  eines  geschützten  Diskriminierungsgrundes  eine  weniger  günstige 
Behandlung erfährt als eine andere Person in vergleichbaren Umständen erfährt, erfahren 
hat oder erfahren würde. Das GSD definiert „wegen“ als tatsächlicher, in der Gegenwart 
oder  Vergangenheit,  oder  mutmaßlicher  Besitz  eines  oder  mehrerer  geschützter 
Diskriminierungsgründe  durch  die  diskriminierte  Person  selbst  oder  eine  andere  Person, 
die, tatsächlich oder mutmaßlich, mit der diskriminierten Person assoziiert ist, wobei die 
Assoziierung  der  Grund  für  die  Diskriminierung  darstellt.  Das  GSD  enthält  keine 
allgemeinen Ausnahmen für unmittelbare Diskriminierung. 

Das Gesetz enthält beispielhafte Verbote bestimmter diskriminierender Verhaltensweisen 
in  den  Bereichen  Beschäftigung  und  Bildung  und  bei  der  Bereitstellung  von 
Dienstleistungen. Außerdem enthält es eine geschlossene Liste spezieller Ausnahmen für 
alle  geschützten  Gründe,  zum  Beispiel  für  wesentliche  und  entscheidende  berufliche 
Anforderungen,  für  Arbeitgeber  mit  einem  religiösen  Ethos  und  für  Höchst-  und 
Mindestalter beim Zugang zu Beschäftigung und Bildung, die jedoch objektiv gerechtfertigt 
sein  müssen.  Es  erlaubt  die  Ungleichbehandlung  von  Nicht-Staatsbürgern,  wenn  diese 
durch  andere  Rechtsvorschriften  geregelt  ist,  und  nicht  gerechtfertigte  Alters-  und 
Dienstaltersgrenzen bei Rentenregelungen. Positive Maßnahmen zugunsten benachteiligter 
Gruppen sind zulässig. 

Nach dem GSD liegt eine mittelbare Diskriminierung vor, wenn dem Anschein nach neutrale 
Vorschriften,  Kriterien  oder  Verfahren  Personen  wegen  eines  geschützten  Grundes 
gegenüber  anderen  Personen  benachteiligen  können,  es  sei  denn  diese  Vorschriften, 
Kriterien oder Verfahren sind durch ein rechtmäßiges Ziel sachlich gerechtfertigt und die 
Mittel sind zur Erreichung dieses Ziels angemessen und erforderlich. 

Das  GSD  benennt  Belästigung,  Anstiftung  zur  Diskriminierung  und  Viktimisierung  als 
Formen von Diskriminierung. Es definiert Belästigung als unerwünschte Verhaltensweisen, 
die mit einem der geschützten Gründe in Zusammenhang stehen, sich körperlich, verbal 
oder  in  anderer  Weise  äußern  und  bezwecken  oder  bewirken,  dass  die  Würde  der 
betreffenden  Person  verletzt  und  ein  von  Anfeindungen,  Beleidigungen  oder 
Einschüchterungen  gekennzeichnetes  Umfeld  geschaffen  wird.  Der  Schutz  gilt  auch  für 
Belästigung aufgrund von mutmaßlicher Eigenschaften  oder Assoziierung. Anstiftung zur 
Diskriminierung 
ist  definiert  als  unmittelbare  und  absichtliche  Ermutigung  von 
Diskriminierung, was auch die Anweisung zur Diskriminierung umfasst. Viktimisierung ist 
wie  folgt  definiert:  a)  weniger  günstige  Behandlung  einer  Person,  die,  tatsächlich  oder 
mutmaßlich,  Maßnahmen  gegen  Diskriminierung  getroffen  hat  oder  treffen  wird, 
b) weniger günstige Behandlung einer Person wegen einer mit ihr assoziierten Person, die, 
tatsächlich oder mutmaßlich, Maßnahmen gegen Diskriminierung getroffen hat oder treffen 
wird, c) weniger günstige Behandlung einer Person wegen der Weigerung, eine Anweisung 
zur Diskriminierung auszuführen. Maßnahmen zum Schutz vor Diskriminierung sind unter 
anderem  die  Einleitung  eines  Verfahrens  vor  der  Gleichbehandlungsstelle  oder  einem 
Gericht und eine Zeugenaussage. 

Diese  Definitionen  gelten  für  alle  Diskriminierungsgründe.  Mehrfachdiskriminierung  ist 
definiert 
geschützten 
Diskriminierungsgründe.  Das  GSD  verpflichtet  öffentliche  Stellen,  Opfer  von 

als  Diskriminierung  wegen  mehr 

einem 

der 

als 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mehrfachdiskriminierung  durch  positive  Maßnahmen  vorrangig  zu  unterstützen.  Gemäß 
dem  GSD  behandelt  die  Gleichbehandlungsstelle  Fälle  von  Mehrfachdiskriminierung  in 
Senaten  mit  fünf  Mitgliedern,  anstelle  des  üblichen  Senats  mit  drei  Mitgliedern.  In  der 
Rechtsprechung  wurde  das  Thema  Mehrfachdiskriminierung 
jedoch  bisher  nicht 
angemessen behandelt. 

Das  GSD  definiert  Rassentrennung  und  verbietet  sie  als  Form  von  Diskriminierung.  Es 
schreibt  angemessene  Vorkehrungen  für  Menschen  mit  Behinderungen  in  Beschäftigung 
und Bildung vor. Diese Pflicht endet, wenn „die Kosten unangemessen hoch sind und eine 
schwere Belastung für den Arbeitgeber oder Bildungsträger darstellen“. Gemäß dem MBIG 
ist der Bildungsminister verpflichtet, Kindern mit Behinderungen ein günstiges Umfeld für 
integriertes Lernen bereitzustellen. Dies ist eine absolute Pflicht. Nach dem MBIG hat der 
Minister  die  Pflicht,  auch  nicht 
integrierten  Kindern  mit  Behinderung  eine 
Bildungsmöglichkeit zu bieten. Auch diese Pflicht ist absolut. Höhere Bildungseinrichtungen 
haben ebenfalls die absolute Pflicht, angemessene Vorkehrungen zu treffen. 

in 

zu 

für 

und 

allen 

Bereichen 

berücksichtigen 

Nach  dem  GSD  sind  Behörden,  Arbeitgeber  und  Bildungsträger  verpflichtet,  die 
alle 
Gleichbehandlung 
Diskriminierungsgründe positive Maßnahmen zu treffen. Eine Haftung ist vorgesehen für 
Mittäter  diskriminierender  Handlungen  und  eine  Mithaftung  für  Arbeitgeber  und 
Bildungsträger, die Diskriminierung am Arbeitsplatz bzw. im Bildungsinstitut durch Dritte 
nicht  verhindern.  Auch  eine  Umkehrung  der  Beweislast  ist  vorgesehen.  2015  wurde  die 
Vorschrift  zur  Beweislastverlagerung  geändert,  um  deutlicher  zu  machen,  dass  eine 
diskriminierte  Person  keinen  eindeutigen  Beweis  für  ihre  Benachteiligung  vorlegen, 
sondern  diese  nur  glaubhaft  machen  muss.  Die  Vorschrift  lautet  nun  wie  folgt 
(Hervorhebungen hinzugefügt): „Wenn in einem Verfahren zum Schutz vor Diskriminierung 
die Partei, die behauptet, diskriminiert worden zu sein, Fakten anführt (vorlegt), aus denen 
gefolgert  werden  kann,  dass  eine  Diskriminierung  vorliegt,  muss  die  beklagte  Partei 
beweisen, dass nicht gegen den  Grundsatz der Gleichbehandlung verstoßen wurde.“ Die 
frühere Fassung lautete: „Wenn in einem Verfahren zum Schutz vor Diskriminierung die 
Partei,  die  behauptet,  diskriminiert  worden  zu  sein,  Fakten  belegt,  aus  denen  die 
Schlussfolgerung  gezogen  werden  kann,  dass  eine  Diskriminierung  vorliegt,  muss  die 
beklagte Partei beweisen, dass nicht gegen den Grundsatz der Gleichbehandlung verstoßen 
wurde.“ 

4. Sachlicher Anwendungsbereich 

Das  GSD  hat  einen  unbegrenzten  Anwendungsbereich.  Es  gilt  für  alle  Lebensbereiche, 
einschließlich  der  von  den  Richtlinien  abgedeckten  Bereiche.  Dieses  generelle 
Diskriminierungsverbot  gilt  für  alle  Diskriminierungsgründe  und  sowohl  für  den  privaten 
als auch für den öffentlichen Sektor. 

5. Rechtsdurchsetzung 

Das GSD bietet zwei Möglichkeiten: Klage vor einem ordentlichen Gericht und ein spezielles 
außergerichtliches Verfahren vor der Gleichbehandlungsstelle. Die Wahl liegt beim Opfer. 
Gerichte  können  eine  Diskriminierung  feststellen,  Schadensersatz  zusprechen  und  den 
Täter  zu  Ausgleichsmaßnahmen  oder  zur  Beendigung  der  betreffenden  Handlung  bzw. 
Unterlassung verurteilen. Die Kommission zum Schutz gegen Diskriminierung (SGDK) kann 
ebenfalls  eine  Diskriminierung  feststellen  und  Präventions-  bzw.  Abhilfemaßnahmen 
anordnen.  Sie  kann  finanzielle  Sanktionen  verhängen,  jedoch  keinen  Schadensersatz 
zusprechen. Beide Verfahren sind uneingeschränkt für den öffentlichen und den privaten 
Sektor  anwendbar.  Sie  sind  rechtsverbindlich.  In  beiden  gilt  der  Grundsatz  der 
umgekehrten  Beweislast.  Beide  Verfahren  werden  in  der  Praxis  genutzt.  Beide  sind 
gesetzlich  von  Gebühren  und  sonstigen  Kosten  befreit,  wobei  die  Gerichte  diese 
Bestimmung in der Praxis nicht umsetzen und die Zahlung von Gebühren anordnen. 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Es  gab  nur  sehr  wenige  Fälle,  in  denen  der  Beklagte  nur  aus  dem  Grund  wegen 
Diskriminierung  verurteilt  wurde,  weil  er  nicht  beweisen  konnte,  dass  eine  mutmaßliche 
Diskriminierung nicht vorgelegen hat. Allerdings berücksichtigen die Gerichte die spezielle 
Regel zur Beweislast und gründen teilweise ihre Urteile auf dieser Regel. Der Unterschied 
zwischen  unmittelbarer  und  mittelbarer  Diskriminierung  wird  jedoch  nicht  immer 
verstanden, wodurch unmittelbare Diskriminierung in manchen Fällen als gerechtfertigte 
mittelbare Diskriminierung ausgelegt wird. 

Gemäß dem GSD muss die SGDK Opfer von Diskriminierung unterstützen. In der Praxis 
erhalten Kläger rechtliche Ratschläge zur Einreichung von Klagen vor Gericht. Die SGDK 
kann Verfahren einleiten und sich an laufenden Verfahren beteiligen. Diese Möglichkeiten 
hat  die  Kommission  jedoch  noch  nie  genutzt.  Dagegen  reichen  NRO  aktiv  Klage  gegen 
Diskriminierungsfälle ein. Sie sind berechtigt, Kläger vor Gericht zu vertreten und sich zur 
Unterstützung des Klägers am Verfahren zu beteiligen. NRO sind außerdem berechtigt, in 
eigenem  Namen  Klagen  im  öffentlichen  Interesse  einzureichen,  wenn  die  Rechte  vieler 
Menschen  verletzt  wurden.  Dazu  benötigen  sie  nicht  die  Einwilligung  eines  konkreten 
Opfers. Auch Beschwerde bei der SGDK können sie ohne Nennung eines konkreten Opfers 
einlegen.  NRO  haben  zahlreiche  Klagen  im  öffentlichen  Interesse  geführt.  Dies  hat  das 
Thema  in  den  Fokus  der  Öffentlichkeit  gerückt.  Inzwischen  sind  mehrere  klare  Urteile 
ergangen, die das Potenzial haben, einen gewissen gesellschaftlichen Wandel anzustoßen. 
Auch  die  Medien  berichten  über  Diskriminierungsklagen,  insbesondere  Klagen  von  NRO. 
Zum  Nachweis  von  Diskriminierung  haben  NRO  auch  Situationstests  genutzt  und  vor 
Gericht als gültige Beweismittel  eingeführt. In einigen Fällen haben sie auch statistische 
Daten  vorgelegt.  Nach  der  Zivilprozessordnung  liegt  es  im  Ermessen  des  Richters, 
statistische  Daten  und  Situationstests  als  Beweise  zuzulassen.  Die  Zulässigkeit  dieser 
Formen  der  Beweisführung  wurde  bisher  nicht  diskutiert.  Die  im  Situationstest 
gewonnenen Erkenntnisse wurden als übliche Zeugenaussagen zugelassen, ohne dass die 
gemeinnützigen  Ziele  von  Situationstests  thematisiert  worden  wären.  Auch  statistische 
Daten  werden  von  der  Gleichbehandlungsstelle  und  Richtern  als  reguläre  Beweise 
akzeptiert. Die SGDK hat aus eigenem Antrieb statistische Daten erhoben. 

Zu den Sanktionsmöglichkeiten der SGDK bei Diskriminierungsfällen gehören Geldbußen 
(maximal  1250 Euro)  und  verbindliche  Verpflichtungen  der  Beklagten  zu  bestimmten 
Präventions-  oder  Abhilfemaßnahmen.  Die  SGDK  nutzt  ihre  Sanktionsmöglichkeiten  voll 
aus, wobei die verhängten Geldbußen meist in der Nähe des Höchstbetrags liegen. Zu den 
angeordneten Maßnahmen gehören unter anderem Wiedereinstellungen und die Änderung 
von  Vorschriften.  Allerdings  ist  nicht  klar,  wie  häufig  diese  Anordnungen  in  der  Praxis 
tatsächlich  umgesetzt  werden,  bzw.  wie  wirksam  die  Mittel  der  Kommission  zu  deren 
Durchsetzung sind. Sofern die Anordnungen nicht umgesetzt werden, kann die Kommission 
nur  neue  Geldbußen  verhängen.  In  Gerichtsverfahren  kann  ein  nach  oben  offener 
Schadensersatz  zugesprochen  werden  und  der  Beklagte  kann  dazu  verurteilt  werden, 
bestimmte  Handlungen  vorzunehmen  oder  zu  unterlassen.  In  Ausnahmefällen  lagen  die 
Schadensersatzsummen bei bis zu 5000 Euro (fehlende architektonische Barrierefreiheit). 

Nach dem Arbeitsgesetz gibt es Beschäftigungsquoten für Menschen mit Behinderung und 
entsprechende  Fördermittel  für  Arbeitgeber.  Jüngere  und  ältere  Arbeitnehmer  und 
Menschen  mit  Betreuungspflichten  genießen  im  Bereich  Beschäftigung  eine  gewisse 
Vorzugsbehandlung.  Es  gibt  zahlreiche  Förderprogramme  in  Bereichen  wie  Bildung  und 
Wohnraum, die nominell die Roma begünstigen, wobei die praktische Wirksamkeit dieser 
Programme bisher eher gering ist. 

Die bulgarischen Behörden haben keine Verfahren für den Dialog mit bzw. die Anhörung 
von NRO und den Sozialpartnern. 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6. Gleichbehandlungsstellen 

ist 

einsatzbereit.  Die  SGDK 

für  Diskriminierung  wegen 

Die Kommission zum Schutz gegen Diskriminierung (SGDK) ist die spezialisierte nationale 
Gleichbehandlungsstelle  in  Bulgarien.  Sie  wurde  durch  das  GSD  als  unabhängige 
außergerichtliche Stelle mit gerichtlichen Befugnissen eingerichtet. Obwohl sie nach dem 
Gesetz bereits Anfang 2004 ihre Arbeit aufnehmen sollte, war die Kommission erst 2005 
voll 
sämtlicher 
Diskriminierungsgründe  zuständig.  Außerdem  hat  sie  die 
folgenden  Aufgaben: 
Untersuchung  der  Beschwerden  von  Opfern  und  Anzeigen  Dritter,  Initiierung  eigener 
Untersuchungsverfahren,  Feststellung  von  Diskriminierung 
rechtsverbindlichen 
Entscheidungen,  Verhängung  von  Geldbußen,  Anordnung  von  Abhilfe-  oder 
Präventionsmaßnahmen, Erstellung von Gutachten zu Gesetzesentwürfen, Empfehlung an 
staatliche  Stellen, 
zu  Gesetzesänderungen,  Unterstützung  von 
Diskriminierungsopfern,  Durchführung  unabhängiger  Studien  und  Veröffentlichung 
unabhängiger Berichte. Die SGDK hat eine umfassende Rechtsprechung veröffentlicht, die 
teilweise  bereits  Wirkung  zeigt.  Zum  Fallrecht  gehören  auch  die  Urteile  des 
Verwaltungsgerichts Sofia und des Obersten Verwaltungsgerichts, bei denen Beschwerde 
gegen die Entscheidungen der SGDK eingelegt werden kann. 

insbesondere 

in 

7. Wichtige Punkte 

Nach  der  Definition  des  GSD  liegt  nur  dann  Anstiftung,  d. h.  auch  Anweisung  zur 
Diskriminierung  vor,  wenn  eine  unmittelbare  Absicht  gegeben  ist.  Die  Definition  von 
Rassentrennung nach dem GSD verlangt ausdrücklich, dass die Trennung „erzwungen“ sein 
muss.75  Dies  unterstellt,  dass  die  Trennung  freiwillig  erfolgt  sein  könnte,  d. h.  dass 
Menschen auf ihr Recht auf Gleichbehandlung, also auch auf ihr Recht, nicht aufgrund der 
Rasse segregiert zu werden, verzichten könnten. Der EGMR ist in Bezug auf die Segregation 
von Roma zu dem Schluss gekommen, dass ein Verzicht auf das Gleichbehandlungsrecht 
in diesem Zusammenhang nicht möglich ist, weil ein solcher Verzicht wichtige öffentliche 
Interessen verletzen würde.76 

Die  Definition  von  mittelbarer  Diskriminierung  im  GSD  ist  unklar  und  führt  dazu,  dass 
Gerichte  und  die  SGDK  sie  mit  unmittelbarer  Diskriminierung  verwechseln.  Die 
Formulierung  „wegen  eines  geschützten  Grundes“  widerspricht  der  Formulierung  „dem 
Anschein nach neutral“. Von einigen Gerichten und der SGDK wird dies in manchen Fällen 
so ausgelegt, dass „wegen eines geschützten Grundes“ eine kausale Verbindung zwischen 
der  dem  Anschein  nach  neutralen  Regel  und  den  geschützten  Gründen  erfordert.  Diese 
Auslegung  beruht  auf  der  Annahme,  dass  eine  „dem  Anschein  nach  neutrale“  Handlung 
eine Handlung ist, die zwar aufgrund eines geschützten Grundes diskriminiert, dies jedoch 
nicht  offen  tut.  Daher  wird  mittelbare  Diskriminierung  als  verdeckte  unmittelbare 
Diskriminierung verstanden.77 

Parallel  zum  GSD  sind  weiterhin  ältere  abstrakte  Diskriminierungsverbote  in  anderen 
Einzelgesetzen  und  in  der  Verfassung  in  Kraft.  Das  GSD  wurde  nicht  mit  diesen  älteren 
Diskriminierungsverboten vereinheitlicht, die unterschiedliche Schutzgründe, Ausnahmen 
und  Definitionen  enthalten.  Die  Widersprüche  zwischen  dem  GSD  und  anderen 
Einzelgesetzen,  die  in  bestimmten  Bereichen  unmittelbar  und  mittelbar  diskriminierende 
Bestimmungen enthalten, schwächen das allgemeine Diskriminierungsverbot des GSD. Es 

75   GSD, Zusätzliche Bestimmung, § 1.6. 
76   Z. B. D.H. v. Czech Republic, Urteil vom 13.11.2007, Sampanis v. Greece, Urteil vom 05.06.2008, Orsus v. 

Croatia, Urteil vom 16.03.2010 (GC). 

77   Z. B.: Bezirksgericht Radnevo, Urteil Nr. 97 vom 13.12.2004, Rechtssache 365/2004; Kreisgericht Sofia, 

Urteil vom 12.07.2004, Rechtssache 1184/2004; Bezirksgericht Sofia, Urteil vom 19.08.2004, 
Rechtssache 1262/2004; Bezirksgericht Sofia, Urteil vom 19.12.2006, Rechtssache 2756/2006. Urteile des 
Obersten Verwaltungsgerichts: Urteil Nr. 11421 vom 19.11.2007, Rechtssache 5604/2007, Urteil Nr. 12117 
vom 3.12.2007, Rechtssache 8044/2007, Urteil Nr. 4752 vom 15.05.2007, Rechtssache 11478/2006, Urteil 
Nr. 11295 vom 16.11.2007, Rechtssache 6407/2007, Urteil Nr. 13393 vom 28.12.2007, 
Rechtssache 8083/2007, Urteil Nr. 7811 vom 19.07.2007, Rechtssache 1048/2007. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
wurden  so  gut  wie  keine  Anstrengungen  unternommen,  die  Rechtsvorschriften  zu 
harmonisieren  und  zu  gewährleisten,  dass  das  GSD  vor  abweichenden  und 
diskriminierenden Rechtsvorschriften Vorrang genießt. 

Im Jahr 2014 hat das OVG Einschränkungen für die Durchsetzung des GSD eingeführt, die 
sowohl gegen das GSD selbst als auch gegen europäisches Recht verstoßen.78 

Nach  Ansicht  des  OVG  liegt  nur  dann  eine  Diskriminierung  vor,  wenn  die  ungleiche 
Behandlung  ausschließlich  wegen  eines  geschützten  Grundes  erfolgt,  wodurch  Fälle  mit 
„gemischten  Motiven“,  bei  denen  ein  geschützter  Diskriminierungsgrund  nur  einer  der 
Gründe für eine Ungleichbehandlung ist, nicht als Diskriminierung gelten.79 Allerdings hält 
auch das OVG diese Auslegung nicht konsequent durch. In einem aktuellen Fall kam es zu 
dem  Schluss,  dass  „eine  diskriminierende  Behandlung  nicht  davon  abhängt,  ob  ein 
geschützter Grund der einzige oder einer von mehreren Gründen für eine Benachteiligung 
ist.“80  Wie  bereits  erwähnt,  hat  das  OVG  auch  bei  Fällen  unmittelbarer  Diskriminierung 
geprüft, ob die Ungleichbehandlung gerechtfertigt ist, obwohl das GSD eine Ausnahme für 
gerechtfertigte Ungleichbehandlung nur für Fälle von mittelbarer Diskriminierung erlaubt. 
Das  Gericht  hat  den  Begriff  der  mittelbaren  Diskriminierung  auf  zahlreiche  Fälle 
angewandt,  in  denen  es  um  eine  unmittelbare  weniger  günstige  Behandlung  geht. 
Beispielsweise  kam  das  OVG  2014  in  einem  Fall,  in  dem  ein  muslimischer  Gefangener 
geklagt  hatte,  weil  seine  Mahlzeiten  Schweinefleisch  enthielten  (keine  angemessenen 
Vorkehrungen),  zu  dem  Urteil,  dass  es  sich  um  eine  mittelbare  Diskriminierung  gegen 
diesen Kläger im Vergleich zu muslimischen Häftlingen in anderen Haftanstalten handelt, 
bei denen auf die besonderen Nahrungsvorschriften Rücksicht genommen wurde.81 

In  einigen  Fällen  bewies  das  OVG  ein  mangelndes  Verständnis  für  das  Konzept  einer 
Vergleichsperson,  indem  es  argumentiert,  dass  Altersgrenzen  für  den  Zugang  zu 
Beschäftigung keine Diskriminierung darstellen, weil sie für alle Bewerber gelten und nicht 
nur für den Kläger.82 Das OVG macht eine Diskriminierung in manchen Fällen von einem 
Vorsatz abhängig, indem es ausdrücklich verlangt, dass die „Behandlung bewusst aufgrund 
eines geschützten Grundes erfolgen muss“.83 Wie bereits erwähnt, kam das OVG im Jahr 
2014  zweimal  zu  dem  Schluss,  dass  nur  „schuldhafte“  Handlungen  eine  Verletzung  des 
GSD darstellen können.84 Gleichzeitig ist seine Rechtsprechung widersprüchlich: in einem 
Fall  aus  dem  Jahr  2014  kam  das  OVG  zu  der  Entscheidung,  dass  „unmittelbare 
Diskriminierung keine diskriminierende Absicht erfordert und es daher für die Bewertung 
der Handlung als Diskriminierung nicht relevant ist, ob eine entsprechende Absicht vorlag 
oder ob sich der Täter der Rechtswidrigkeit seiner Handlung bewusst war“.85 In einem Fall 
von  2014  legte  das  OVG  den  Begriff  „sexuelle  Ausrichtung“  so  aus,  dass  nur  eine 
angeborene sexuelle Orientierung geschützt ist, nicht jedoch eine „absichtlich“ gewählte. 
Das OVG lehnte den Asylantrag eines homosexuellen Kameruners ab, weil dieser sich mit 
35 Jahren für eine andere als seine „angeborene“ Sexualität „entschieden“ habe.86 

Die  SGDK  nutzt 
insbesondere  das  Recht  zur  Einleitung  von 
Untersuchungen von Amts wegen, nicht strategisch. Sie setzt sich keine Prioritäten. Der 
Kommission ist es nicht gelungen, gegen schwere Fälle von Diskriminierung vorzugehen, 

ihre  Befugnisse, 

78   Siehe oben auf Seite 2. 
79   Z. B. Oberstes Verwaltungsgericht, Urteil Nr. 8277 vom 11.06.2012 in der Rechtssache 3852/2012. 
80   Oberstes Verwaltungsgericht, Urteil Nr. 274 vom 9.01.2012 in der Rechtssache 1319/2011. 
81   Oberstes Verwaltungsgericht, Urteil Nr. 2514 vom 21.02.2014 in der Rechtssache 10989/2013. 
82   Oberstes Verwaltungsgericht, Urteil Nr. 7096 vom 19.05.2012 in der Rechtssache 3686/2012; Urteil 

Nr. 10734 vom 1.09.2014 in der Rechtssache 1463/2014. 

83   Z. B.: Oberstes Verwaltungsgericht, Urteil Nr. 8277 vom 11.06.2012 in der Rechtssache 3852/2012, Urteil 
Nr. 3645 vom 14.03.2014 in der Rechtssache 12679/2013 (zweimal wird „bewusst“ als Voraussetzung für 
Diskriminierung erwähnt). 

84   Oberstes Verwaltungsgericht, Urteil Nr. 5645 in der Rechtssache 15991/2013, Urteil Nr. 15637 in der 

Rechtssache 1925/2014. 

85   Oberstes Verwaltungsgericht, Urteil Nr. 1048 vom 27.01.2014 in der Rechtssache 8033/2013. Der Fall 

betraf die Anwendung einer Altersgrenze in einer Universitätsordnung. 

86   Oberstes Verwaltungsgericht, Urteil Nr. 9467 vom 7.07.2014 in der Rechtssache 1381/2014. 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
beispielsweise gegen die Segregation der Roma im Bildungswesen, gegen die Armut und 
die  Ausgrenzung  der  Roma  im  Wohnungswesen,  gegen  die  Institutionalisierung  von 
Menschen mit Behinderung usw. Die SGDK lehnt es aus Prinzip ab, Diskriminierungsklagen 
von  Personen  anzunehmen  (Prüfung  der  Zulässigkeit)  oder  zu  untersuchen  (sachliche 
Prüfung), die ihre Behinderung nicht durch ein medizinisches Attest nachweisen können.87 
Die  SGDK  zeigt  wie  das  OVG  häufig  ein  mangelhaftes  Verständnis  von  mittelbarer 
Diskriminierung  und  verwechselt  diese 
in  manchen  Fällen  mit  unmittelbarer 
Diskriminierung. 

87   Z.B.: SGDK, Beschluss Nr. 259 vom 17.12.2008 in dem Verfahren Nr. 186/2008. 

30 

 
 
 
                                           
INTRODUCTION 

The national legal system 

Bulgaria is a unitary state where the Constitution88 and ratified international instruments 
are  directly  enforceable  by  the  courts,  and  take  precedence  over  conflicting  national 
provisions. The legal system is continental, with no stare decisis. The Constitutional Court 
(CC) has exclusive authority to bindingly interpret the Constitution, as well, inter alia, to 
rule on: acts of Parliament’s constitutionality; international treaties’ compatibility with the 
Constitution  prior  to  their  ratification;  primary  legislation’s  compatibility  with  binding 
international law, including jus cogens. Only a limited number of public institutions have 
standing  to  seize  the  CC.  There  is  no  right  to  individual  petition.  Secondary  legislation 
cannot contradict primary legislation, and is subject to repeal by the administrative courts. 
All courts are bound to apply higher-ranking constitutional and international norms instead 
of  contradicting  primary  legislation.  They  have  a  symmetrical  duty  to  apply  primary 
legislation instead of contradicting secondary legislation. 

The  Protection  Against  Discrimination  Act  2004  (PADA)89  is  the  main  anti-discrimination 
law, adopted to transpose the EU anti-discrimination directives. It is a single equality law 
universally banning discrimination on a range of grounds, providing uniform standards of 
protection and remedies, complete with specific bans in particular fields. PADA sets up a 
specialized independent equality body – the Protection Against Discrimination Commission 
(PADC),  with  the  mandate  of  a  quasi-jurisdiction  to  decide  cases  and  sanction 
discrimination.  Its  decisions  are  subject  to  two-instance  judicial  review  before  the 
administrative courts. PADA also provides for parallel judicial recourse to the civil courts. 

In  parallel,  other,  pre-existing  schematic  prohibitions  of  discrimination  are  still  in  place 
under other laws governing specific fields, as well as under the Constitution. There is no 
coherence  between  PADA  and  other,  older,  legislative  bans  on  discrimination,  with 
differences  in  protected  grounds,  exceptions,  and  definitions.  Further,  there  is 
inconsistency  between  PADA  and  other  laws  governing  particular  fields  that  provide  for 
directly  or  indirectly  discriminatory  norms,  contradicting  PADA’s  universal  ban.90 
Insignificant effort has been made to harmonise the legislation so as to ensure that PADA 
prevails over conflicting norms. 

Apart from PADA, the other significant law on equality is the Integration  of Persons with 
Disabilities Act (IPDA),91 which bans disability discrimination specifically and provides for 
positive  and  accommodation  duties  in  a  number  of  fields.  Further,  a  number  of  laws 
governing  specific  fields,  such  as  education,  employment,  public  procurement,  and 
taxation,  provide  for  positive  measures  on  grounds  such  as  disability,  age,  and  caring 
responsibilities. Most of these laws predate PADA and are not consistent with it. 

List of main legislation transposing and implementing the directives 

Protection  Against  Discrimination  Act  (Закон  за  защита  от  дискриминация),  adopted 
2003,  in  force  as  of  2004,  latest  amendment  30  December  2016.  Grounds:  sex,  race, 
national origin, ethnicity, human genome, nationality, origin, religion or faith, education, 
beliefs,  political  affiliation,  personal  or  social  status,  disability,  age,  sexual  orientation, 

88   Constitution (Конституция), adopted July 1991, latest amendment December 2015.  
89   Protection Against Discrimination Act (Закон за защита от дискриминация), adopted 2003, in force as of 

2004, latest amendment 30 December 2016. 

90   Examples of directly discriminatory norms include Article 141 of the Defense and Armed Forces Act (age and 

mental/ physical ability requirements for access to service) and Article 155 (1.4) and Article 155 of the 
Ministry of the Interior Act (age and mental/ physical ability requirements for access to service; maximum 
age for service).   

91   Integration of Persons with Disabilities Act (Закон за интеграция на хората с увреждания), adopted 2004, 

in force as of 2005, latest amendment 9 December 2016. 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
family status, property status, or any other ground provided for by law or by international 
treaty Bulgaria is a party to. Scope: universal. 

Integration  of  Persons  with  Disabilities  Act  (Закон  за  интеграция  на  хората  с 
увреждания), adopted  2004, in force as  of 2005, latest amendment  9 December 2016. 
The ground covered is disability. The scope is universal. 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
1 

GENERAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK  

Constitutional provisions on protection against discrimination and the promotion 
of equality  

The Constitution includes the following articles dealing with non-discrimination:  

Article 6 - a general clause of universal application, covering race, national origin, ethnicity, 
sex, origin, religion, education, beliefs, political affiliation, personal and social status, and 
property status. This provision applies to all areas covered by the directives. Its material 
scope is broader than those of the directives. It is directly applicable. It can be enforced 
against private actors, as well as the State. 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2 

THE DEFINITION OF DISCRIMINATION  

2.1  Grounds of unlawful discrimination explicitly covered  

The following grounds of discrimination are explicitly prohibited in national law: sex, race, 
national origin, ethnicity, human genome, nationality, origin, religion or faith, education, 
beliefs,  political  affiliation,  personal  or  social  status,  disability,  age,  sexual  orientation, 
family status, property status, or any other ground provided for by law or by international 
treaty Bulgaria is a party to (Constitution, Article 6 (2); PADA, Article 4).92 

  Definition of the grounds of unlawful discrimination within the directives 

National law only defines  disability and sexual orientation. Under  IPDA, § 1.1 Additional 
Provision, disability is “any loss or impairment of the anatomical structure, physiology, or 
psychology  of  an  individual.”  Further,  under  IPDA,  §  1.2  Additional  Provision,  long-term 
disability  is  “anatomical,  physiological,  or  psychological  impairment  resulting  in  a  long-
term reduction of an individual’s abilities to perform activities in a manner and to an extent 
possible for a healthy individual, where the medical authorities have certified a reduction 
in  working  ability  or  have  stipulated  a  type  and  degree  of  disability  of  50  per  cent  or 
more.”93 These definitions are also applicable for purposes of PADA. If the fact of disability 
is  disputed  in  a  court  case,  the  above  definitions  will  be  determinative  of  the  issue.  In 
practice,  disability  will  be  expected  to  be  proven  by  a  medical  certificate.  Persons  with 
long-term  disabilities  are  entitled  to:  medical  and  social  rehabilitation,  including  various 
specified therapeutic procedures and aids (article 15 IPDA); a quota of adapted workplaces 
under the Labour Code – half of the total number of workplaces adapted for persons with 
disabilities (article 27 IPDA); tax alleviations (article 41 IPDA); financial aid for purposes 
of using specified services (article 41a IPDA); a monthly allowance for purposes of social 
integration, including specified expenditures, such as transportation, telecommunications, 
training, etc. – only for persons over 18 years of age who do not live in institutions (article 
42 IPDA); a further allowance based on the degree of disability – only for persons over 18 
years  of  age  with  a  degree  of  50  %  or  more  (article  42b  IPDA);  allowances  for  specific 
purposes, such as buying and adapting a car,  adapting a home, and  accompanying and 
interpretation assistance (article 44 IPDA); a special right to municipal housing (article 48). 
Employers  are  entitled  to  apply  for  governmental  funding  for  purposes  of  making  a 
workplace  accessible  for  a  person  with  a  long-term  disability,  or  to  adapt  or  equip  a 
workplace for such a person (article 25).  

Specific sub-categories of persons with long-term disabilities, such as persons with long-
term disabilities with a degree of reduced working ability over 90 %, children with long-
term disabilities of 71 % or more, persons over 18 years of age with long-term disabilities 
with a degree of reduced working ability 50 % or more, and others, are entitled to further 
allowances for specific purposes (article 42g, article 42d and others).  

The definition of disability is more liberal and inclusive than the one elaborated by CJEU in 
the case of Ring and Scouboe as it covers any limitation regardless of whether it is long-
term  or  not.  On  the  other  hand,  this  domestic  definition  makes  no  mention  of  the 
interaction with societal barriers  that produces  a person’s hindrance.  That amounts to a 
lack  of  recognition  that  persons  with  disabilities  have  no  limitation  as  such  but  only  in 
relation to slanted societal infrastructures, including attitudes.  

92   Mostly, the grounds overlap but some, like sexual orientation and “any other ground provided for by law or 

by international treaty Bulgaria is a party to”, are only protected under PADA, and not under the 
Constitution.   

93   This definition is reproduced literally in the Employment Encouragement Act (Закон за насърчаване на 

заетостта), Additional Provision, § 1(29). 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
Under  the  Automobile  Transport  Act,94  Additional  Provisions,  §  1  (42)  “a  person  with 
disabilities”  and  “a  person  of  reduced  mobility”  are  defined  within  the  meaning  of 
Regulation (EU) No. 181/2011. Under the Railway Transport Act,95 Additional Provisions, § 
1 (41), “a person with disabilities” or “a person of reduced mobility” is defined as a person 
within the meaning of Article 3, Paragraph 15 of Regulation (EC) No. 1371/2007. 

Further, secondary legislation defines “persons of reduced mobility” as including persons 
with  physical,  sensory,  mental  and  combined  disabilities,  pregnant  women,  persons 
accompanying  young  children,  persons  temporarily  hindered  in  their  movements  (in 
plaster, crutches), persons carrying large and heavy items, older people, persons shorter 
than  150  cm,  including  children,  persons  taller  than  200  cm,  and  persons  who  don’t 
understand or speak Bulgarian.96 Another piece of secondary legislation defines “persons 
of reduced mobility” as including persons with disabilities within the meaning of IPDA, as 
well as older people, pregnant women, and persons accompanying young children.97  

Similar or broader definitions of persons of reduced mobility are included in a number of 
other secondary legal acts: 

- 

- 

Ordinance No. 22 of 22 December 2008 Concerning Technical Requirements For Ships 
On  Inland  Water  Routes,  Additional  Provisions,  §  1  (107):98  "persons  of  reduced 
mobility” are persons with specific problems in using public transport, as well as older 
people,  handicapped  people  or  with  sensory  disabilities,  persons  in  wheelchairs, 
pregnant women and persons accompanying young children”;  
Ordinance  No.  261  of  13  July  2006  on  the  General  Rules  for  Compensating  and 
Assisting Passengers in Cases of Refusal by an Air Carrier to Let Them on Board an 
Aircraft and in Cases of Cancellation or Delay of a Flight, Additional provisions, § 1 
(3):99 “a person of reduced mobility” is a person whose mobility is reduced in using 
transportation  due  to  physical  inability  (sensory  or  motional,  permanent  or 
temporary),  intellectual  disability,  age  or  any  other  reason  for  inability  and  whose 
position  requires  special  attention  and  adaptation  of  the  services  offered  to  all 
passengers to the needs of this person”. 

The Supreme Administrative Court has held that while a sickness does not equate disability, 
certain cancers do meet the definition of disability under international law.100 

Sexual orientation is defined under PADA, Additional Provision, § 1(10), as “heterosexual, 
homosexual  or  bisexual  orientation.”  The  Supreme  Administrative  Court  (SAC),  in  one 

94   Automobile Transportation Act (Закон за автомобилните превози), adopted September 1999, latest 

amendments 29 July 2016.  

95   Railroad Transportation Act (Закон за железопътния транспорт), adopted November 2000, latest 

amendments 26 July 2016.  

96   Ordinance No. 4 of 1 July 2009 on Planning, Implementing and Maintaining Buildings (Наредба № 4 от 1 

юли 2009 г. за проектиране, изпълнение и поддържане на строежите в съответствие с изискванията за 
достъпна среда за населението, включително за хората с увреждания; adopted July 2009, latest 
amendments July 2011), Additional Provisions, § 1(1). This ordinance applies universally as concerns 
architectural and infrastructural accessibility. 

97   Ordinance No. 20 of 8 September 2011 Concerning Safety Rules and Standards for Passenger Ships 
(Наредба № 20 от 8 септември 2011 г. относно правилата за безопасност и стандартите за 
пътническите кораби; adopted September 2011, latest amendments November 2014), Additional Provision 
§1(22). This ordinance applies to passenger ships.   

98   Ordinance No. 22 of 22 December 2008 on Technical Requirements for Ships Sailing Interior Waterways 
(Наредба № 22 от 22 декември 2008 г. за техническите изисквания към корабите, плаващи по 
вътрешните водни пътища. Adopted December 2008, latest amendments February 2014. 

99   Ordinance No. 261 of 13 July 2006 on the General Rules for Compensating and Assisting Passengers in 

Cases of Refusal by an Air Carrier to Let Them on Board an Aircraft and in Cases of Cancellation or Delay of 
a Flight (Наредба № 261 от 13.07.2006 г. за общите правила за обезщетяване и оказване съдействие 
на пътници при отказ на въздушен превозвач да ги допусне на борда на въздухоплавателното средство 
и при отменяне или забавяне на полет). Adopted July 2006, no amendments. 

100  See more information in Section 12.2 below. 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
recent  case,  implicitly  defined  sexual  orientation  as  being  innate,  delegitimizing  sexual 
orientation choice.101 

National discrimination law does not define race, ethnic origin, religion or belief, or age.  

The  Employment  Encouragement  Act  (EEA),102  Additional  Provision,  §  1(4a)  defines 
“groups of unequal status on the labour market”, intersecting with a number of protected 
grounds.103 This definition is only relevant for purposes of the positive measures provided 
for under EEA. EEA, Additional Provision, § 1(18) defines “adult”, applicable to the positive 
measures under EEA.104  

Further, the Religious Denominations Act (RDA)105 defines a “religious denomination” as “a 
set  of  beliefs  and  principles,  a  religious  community,  and  its  religious  institution”.106  A 
“religious community” is defined as a “voluntary union of natural persons for purposes of 
manifestation  of  a  certain  religion,  and  performance  of  worship,  religious  rituals  and 
ceremonies.”107  RDA  further  defines  a  “religious  institution”  as  “a  religious  community 
registered  in  accordance  with  [RDA]  that  has  the  capacity  of  a  legal  person,  governing 
bodies,  and  a  statute.”108  There  is  no  defined  relationship,  in  law  or  case  law,  between 
these definitions and religion as a protected ground within the meaning of PADA. 

  Multiple discrimination 

In  Bulgaria,  a  prohibition  of  multiple  discrimination is included in  the  law.  PADA  defines 
multiple discrimination as “discrimination based on more than one [protected] grounds”. 109 
PADA places a statutory duty on public authorities to give priority to positive measures for 
the benefit of multiple discrimination victims.110 PADC hears multiple discrimination cases 
sitting in an extended panel of 5 members (rather than 3).111 The law does not provide for 
higher compensation levels in cases of multiple discrimination. 

In Bulgaria, there is no case law dealing with multiple discrimination. While cases where 
complainants  have  alleged  more  than  one  ground  have  been  decided  by  PADC  and  the 
administrative  courts  on  judicial  review,  their  rulings  have  discussed  none  of  the 
implications of a plurality of grounds. 

In one case decided by the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) in 2016, PADC ruled that 
a parent of a child with a disability was discriminated against on grounds of disability by 
association and on grounds of personal status as that parent was a convicted person, and 
under  secondary  legislation,  convicted  persons  were  not  eligible  to  qualify  as  “personal 

101  Supreme Administrative Court, Decision No. 9467 of 7 July 2014. 
102  Employment Encouragement Act (Закон за насърчаване на заетостта), adopted December 2001, entry into 

force January 2002, latest amendments 8 November 2016. 

103  ““Groups of unequal status on the labour market” shall be groups of unemployed people of lesser 

competitiveness on the labour market, including: unemployed youth; unemployed youth with permanent 
disabilities; unemployed youth educated in social care institutions; long-term unemployed persons; 
unemployed persons with permanent disabilities; unemployed persons – single parents (adoptive parents) 
and/or mothers (adoptive mothers) with children not older than 3 years; unemployed persons who have 
served a prison sentence; unemployed persons older than 50 years; unemployed persons with elementary 
or lesser schooling and no vocational qualification; other groups of unemployed persons.”  

104  ““Adult” shall be a person of working age who is not being educated in [school] or [university] and who has 

not reached the respective retirement age for women and men provided for under the Social Security 
Code”. 

105  Закон за вероизповеданията, adopted December 2002, latest amendments October 2015. 
106  Religious Denominations Act (RDA) (Закон за вероизповеданията), Additional Provisions, § 1 (1). 
107  RDA, Additional Provisions, § 1 (2). 
108  RDA, Additional Provisions, § 1 (3). 
109  Protection Against Discrimination Act (PADA) (Закон за защита от дискриминация), Additional Provisions, § 

1 (11). 

110  PADA, Article 11 (2). Under Article 11 (1), authorities are placed under a general statutory duty to take 

positive action whenever necessary to achieve the legislation’s goals. 

111  PADA, Article 48 (3).  

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
assistants”  (a  paid  for  position)  to  their  children  with  disabilities.112  The  first-instance 
administrative  court  and  SAC  confirmed  that  PADC  ruling.  SAC  expressly  rejected  an 
argument  by  the  respondent  Minister  of  Labour  and  Social  Policy  to  the  effect  that  the 
complainant  could  not  be  discriminated  against  on  grounds  of  disability  as  she  had  no 
disability herself. SAC held that the parent was directly discriminated against on grounds 
of disability due to her  association to her  child. The courts, however,  failed to take into 
account the fact that the grounds for the parent’s less favourable treatment – her exclusion 
from  eligibility  as  a  personal  assistant  to  a  person  with  a  disability,  was  not  her  child’s 
disability  but  her  own  conviction.  They  further  failed  to  reason  about  the  case  from  the 
perspective of multiple discrimination.  

  Assumed and associated discrimination 

a)  Discrimination by assumption 

In Bulgaria, the following national law (including case law) prohibits discrimination based 
on perception or assumption of what a person is:  

PADA defines “on [protected] grounds” as “on grounds of the actual, past or present, or 
presumed fact of one or more of these characteristics […]”.113 Therefore, discrimination on 
perceived  or  assumed  grounds  is  explicitly  prohibited.  Case  law  by  both  PADC  and  the 
courts expressly recognises this. 

b)  Discrimination by association 

In Bulgaria, the following national law (including case law) prohibits discrimination based 
on association with persons with particular characteristics:  
PADA defines “on grounds of” as “on grounds of the actual, past or present, or presumed 
fact  of  one  or  more  of  these  characteristics  in  the  person  discriminated  against,  or  in 
another person who is, actually or presumably, associated with the person discriminated 
against,  where  this  association  is  a  cause  of  the  discrimination”.114  Therefore, 
discrimination  by  association, including  presumed  association, is  explicitly  banned.  Case 
law  by  PADC  expressly  recognises  this.  The  law  is  in line  with  the  judgment  in  Case  C-
303/06. 

As  discussed  in  the  previous  section,  SAC  held  in  2016  that  a  parent  of  a  child  with  a 
disability  was  discriminated  against  on  grounds  of  disability  by  association  by  being 
rendered  ineligible  under  the  legislation  to  qualify  as  a  “personal  assistant”  (a  paid  for 
position) to their child (for being a convict).115 

2.2  Direct discrimination (Article 2(2)(a)) 

a) 

Prohibition and definition of direct discrimination 

In Bulgaria, direct discrimination is prohibited in national law (PADA, Article 4 (1); IPDA, 
Article  3).  It  is  defined.  PADA,  Article  4  (2)  defines  direct  discrimination  as  “treating  a 
person on grounds [...] less favourably than another person is treated, has been treated, 
or  would  be  treated  in  comparable  similar  circumstances”.  The  wording  “comparable 
similar”  has  not  led  to  a  restrictive  interpretation  contrary  to  EU  law.  The  “a  person” 
language  has  not  been  interpreted  as  limiting  the  scope  of  protection  to  an  individual, 
rather than a group of individuals, and is not likely to be interpreted in that fashion.  

On  30  December  2016,  PADA  was  amended,  and  a  new  definition  of  “unfavourable 

112  PADC Decision No 126 of 1 April 2014.  
113  PADA, Additional Provisions, § 1 (8). 
114  PADA, Additional Provisions, § 1 (8). 
115  PADC Decision No 126 of 1 April 2014.  

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
treatment”  was  adopted.  The  new  definition  for  unfavourable  treatment  is  as  follows: 
“Unfavourable treatment shall be any act, action or omission that results in less favourable 
treatment of a person compared to another on [protected] grounds, or that may place a 
person  or  persons  who  have  a  [protected]  characteristic  at  a  particular  disadvantage 
compared to other persons.” The former definition was as follows: “Unfavourable treatment 
shall be any act, action or omission that directly or indirectly affects rights or legitimate 
interests.”   

The new definition was adopted as a follow-up to the ruling of the Court of Justice of the 
European Union (CJEU) in case C-83/14 (the “Chez” case).116 The new definition seeks to 
clarify that less favourable treatment is not restricted to rights provided for under law. The 
effect, however, is dubious, the language being  unclear overall (unfavourable treatment 
shall result in less favourable treatment). 

IPDA,  Paragraph  1.3,  Additional  Provisions  defines  direct  discrimination  as  “placing  a 
person on grounds of disability at a disadvantage compared to another person who was, 
is, or could be placed in comparable similar circumstances”.  

b) 

Justification of direct discrimination 

PADA  does  not  permit  general  justification  for  direct  discrimination  with  respect  to  any 
ground.  It  provides  for  an  exhaustive  list  of  specific  exceptions  for  various  protected 
grounds,  including  the  six  EU  grounds.117  Because  of  the  open-ended  list  of  protected 
grounds,  combined  with  the  universal  scope  of  the  ban,  this  closed  list  of  express 
exceptions should generate problems for future jurisprudence. So far there have not been 
any problems with the five grounds relevant for this report. Problems with other grounds, 
such as personal status or property status, are out of scope for this report.  

  Situation testing 

a) 

Legal framework 

In  Bulgaria,  situation  testing  is  permitted  in  national  law.  The  law  is  silent,  but  general 
rules on evidence imply that testing results are admissible. General civil evidentiary rules 
put no limit on the admissible types of proof.118 Under general court procedure, judges and 
PADC are free to assess any evidence according to their own ‘inner conviction’. Therefore, 
testing is implicitly allowed as a matter of course. The admissibility and merit of testing 
data in a particular case will be for the court to decide. 

The  civil  courts,  including  the  Supreme  Court  of  Cassation,  have  expressly  rejected 
respondents’  allegations  that  activist  testers  were  not  credible  as  witnesses  because  of 
their professional commitment to rights defence, or because of the purposefulness of the 
testing  exercise.119  Judges  have  explicitly  stated  that  as  long  as,  based  on  an  overall 
assessment of the case file, there is no other evidence to refute testers’ allegations and 
testimonies,  the  latter  have  to  be  credited.  In  a  Roma  access  to  employment  case,  the 
court  expressly  held  that  testing  carried  out  by  activist  witnesses  was  justified  by  their 
involvement in rights work. Judges have expressly held that activist claimants of declared 
affiliation  with  Roma  rights  groups  have  suffered  more  serious  non-pecuniary  damages 
because  their  sensitivity  to  discrimination  was  exacerbated  as  a  result  of  their  rights 
work.120  

116  Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2015  
"CHEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria" AD v Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia. 
117  PADA, Article 7.  
118  Civil Procedural Code (Граждански процесуален кодекс), Article 12. 
119  Inter alia, Supreme Court of Cassation, Decision No. 591 of 12 March 2008. 
120  Inter alia, Sofia District Court, Decision in case No. 1969/2004, 9 July 2004; Pazardzhik Regional Court, 

Decision No. 622 in case No. 675/2005.  

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
Neither  judges,  nor  PADC  have  expressed  misgivings  about  testing  being  potentially 
misleading or provocative. They have not stipulated methodological requirements or other 
guarantees against bias. They have responded to testing as a natural means to verify a 
complaint of discrimination. PADC has not only unquestioningly accepted testing as a valid 
source of facts and evidence, but has done its own testing to verify complaints.121 It has 
explicitly  stated  that  testing  results  proving  the  invalidity  of  a  respondent’s  pretext 
constituted prima facie discrimination mandating a shift of the burden of proof. 

b) 

Practice 

In Bulgaria, situation testing has been used in practice.  NGO lawyers and activists have 
used  testing  as  a  means  to  procure  facts  and  evidence,  as  well  as  claimant  figures  for 
strategic  litigation  in  defence  of  Roma  rights.  They  have  tested  Roma’s  access  to 
employment, as well as to hotel/ restaurant/ café and other  catering services, including 
public swimming pools. In one case, testing accompanied by TV cameras was successfully 
used to document a practice of refusing Roma equal access to court buildings, and then 
admitted in court as evidence. In some cases, including a gay rights case, activist lawyers 
have used testing for purposes of discrediting respondents’ pretexts within the framework 
of  a  pending  case  (rather  than  prior  to  initiating  litigation).122  In  a  case  against  Sofia 
University concerning denial of access to a student sauna, the claimants successfully tested 
respondent’s defence that not gay men but non-students were excluded: testing revealed 
that non-gay non-students gained admission.123 

2.3  Indirect discrimination (Article 2(2)(b)) 

a) 

Prohibition and definition of indirect discrimination 

In Bulgaria, indirect discrimination is prohibited in national law (PADA, Article 4 (1); IPDA, 
Article  3).  It  is  defined.  PADA,  Article  4  (3)  defines  indirect  discrimination  as  “placing  a 
person or persons who have a [protected] characteristic, or, who without having such a 
characteristic, together with the former suffer less favourable treatment, or are placed at 
a  particular  disadvantage  deriving  from  an  apparently  neutral  provision,  criterion,  or 
practice, unless the provision, criterion, or practice are objectively justified with a view to 
a legitimate aim and the means to achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.” This 
definition was adopted on 30 December 2016 as follow up to CJEU’s ruling in case C-83/14 
(the Chez case). Under the former definition, indirect discrimination was “placing a person 
on [protected] grounds in a less favourable situation compared to other persons through 
an apparently neutral provision, criterion, or practice, unless that provision, criterion, or 
practice is objectively justified with a view to a legitimate aim and the means to achieving 
that aim are appropriate and necessary.” The new definition seeks to clarify that indirect 
discrimination by association is banned. The quality of its wording, however, is inadequate, 
calling into question its effect.  

IPDA,  Paragraph  1.4,  Additional  Provisions  defines  indirect  discrimination  as  “placing  a 
person on grounds of disability at a disadvantage compared to other persons through an 
apparently  neutral  provision,  criterion,  or  practice,  unless  that  provision,  criterion,  or 
practice  is  objectively  justified  by  a  legitimate  aim  unrelated  to  the  disability,  and  the 
means to achieve that aim are appropriate and do not exceed what is necessary to achieve 
it”.  

b) 

Justification test for indirect discrimination 

121  Protection Against Discrimination Commission (PADC) members, including a Roma person, and staff have 
visited unannounced a cafe and a swimming pool to verify whether older clients and Roma are served.   
122  For instance, Sofia District Court, Decision in civil case No. 6520/2004, 21 April 2005. No information on the 

existence of newer case law is available. 

123  Sofia District Court, Decision in civil case No. 6520/2004, 21 April 2005. 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
The test for justification is necessity. Neither the law (PADA, Article 4 (3)), nor the case 
law  has  specified  whether  this  is  to  be  understood  as  strict  proportionality  or  mere 
proportionality. There is no legislative or judicial guidance on what constitutes a “legitimate 
aim”. There is a dearth of indirect discrimination cases and the case law has not evolved a 
standard  for  either  “a  legitimate  aim”  or  “an  appropriate  and  necessary  measure”.  As  a 
rule, PADC and judges have failed to undertake a proper analysis of necessity, including 
by  looking  into  alternatives  to  impugned  measures.  In  most  cases,  they  have  accepted 
declarations  of  necessity  by  respondents  without  questioning  the  linkage  between  the 
asserted aim and the specific measures. In this way, they have failed to properly apply the 
shifting burden of proof rule,  de facto  excusing respondents  of their onus to  establish a 
justification for disparate impact.  

A number of judicial decisions have shown a lack of understanding of the concept of indirect 
discrimination,  some  fusing  it  with  (not  only  covert)  direct  discrimination  and  terming 
‘indirect  discrimination’  what  was  really  less  favourable  treatment.124  The  adverse 
implications in such cases are that the absolute ban on direct discrimination is then diluted 
by the general justification test valid for indirect discrimination.  
c) 

Comparison in relation to age discrimination 

In relation to age discrimination, national law does not specify how a comparison is to be 
made. 

  Statistical evidence 

a) 

Legal framework 

In  Bulgaria,  there  are  national  rules  permitting  data  collection.  Those  rules  are  not  in 
equality  law  and  make  no  provision  on  using  data  for  purposes  of  equality  litigation  or 
positive measures. Such use is implicitly permissible, on the same grounds as testing  – 
because  under  general  evidentiary  rules,  any  evidence  the  court  finds  relevant  is 
admissible.  

Data collection is provided for under the Statistics Act,125 the Protection of Personal Data 
Act,126  the  Census  2011  Act,127  the  Integration  of  Persons  with  Disabilities  Act,128  the 
Ministry of Interior Act,129 and the Bulgarian Personal Documents Act.130 These laws protect 
data regarding: rасial or ethnic origin; national origin; mother tongue; political, religious 
or philosophical convictions; membership in political parties, or organisations with political, 
religious, philosophical or trade union aims; health status; sexual life; personal life; human 
genome; or unlawful acts committed.131 Such data may not be collected unless the person 
concerned  consents,  or  in  specific  exceptions  accompanied  with  procedural  guarantees. 
The exceptions include where: 

124  For instance, recently the Supreme Administrative Court held that there was indirect discrimination against 
a Muslim prison inmate whose food included pork (denial of reasonable accommodation) compared to 
Muslim inmates in another prison who did receive food accommodation: Decision No. 2514 of 21 February 
2014, case No. 10989/2013. 

125   Statistics Act (Закон за статистиката; adopted June 1999, latest amendment 15 February 2013), Article 21.  
126  Protection of Personal Data Act (Закон за защита на личните данни; adopted January 2002, latest 

amendment 14 October 2016), Article 1 (3-5). 

127  Census 2011 Act (Закон за преброяване на населението и жилищния фонд в България през 2011 г.), 

adopted May 2009, latest amendment 28 January 2011), Article 2. 
128  Integration of Persons with Disabilities Act (IPDA), Articles 9 and 29.  
129  Ministry of Interior Act (Закон за Министерството на вътрешните работи; adopted June 2014, latest 

amendment 27 December 2016), Article 10 (2), Articles 25–26. 

130  Bulgarian Personal Documents Act (Закон за българските лични документи; adopted August 1998, latest 

amendment 20 December 2016), Articles 18 and 65. 

131  Respectively, Statistics Act, Article 21 (2); Protection of Personal Data Act, Article 5; Census 2011 Act, 
Article 6 (3). The Ministry of the Interior Act does not define personal or sensitive data. The Bulgarian 
Personal Documents Act defines personal data as “any information regarding a particular natural person” 
(Paragraph 1.13 of the Additional Provisions). 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
1) 
2) 

3) 

4) 

5) 

6) 

7) 

this is necessary to carry out specific duties under labour law;132 
it is necessary to protect human life or health, and the person concerned is unable 
to give their consent;133 
the  data  is  collected  by  a  non-profit  organisation,  including  with  a  political, 
philosophical,  religious  or  trade  union  aim,  in  the  course  of  its  lawful  activities, 
provided  that  this  only  involves  the  organisation’s  members  or  regular  associates, 
and the data is not published without the consent of the person concerned;134 
the data has been published by the person concerned, or its collection is necessary 
for rights enforcement in court;135 
this is necessary for medical prevention or diagnostics, or provision of health services, 
provided  that  the  data  is  processed  by  a  medical  professional  or  another  person 
legally under a duty to keep a professional secret;136 
this is only for journalistic or artistic purposes, provided that the right to privacy of 
the person concerned is not infringed;137 
or a special law provides so.138  

No law provides for the collection of ground-disaggregated data explicitly for purposes of 
equality litigation or policies.139  

Public  bodies  using  positive  measures  do  use  statistics  to  design  those.140  Statistics  are 
collected either by the National Statistical Institute, which is a public institution governed 
under the Statistics Act, or by public services themselves, or by private research agencies 
on commission.141 

In Bulgaria, statistical evidence is permitted by national law in order to establish indirect 
discrimination. National law implicitly permits any type of evidence in civil cases, including 
statistical evidence.142 There are no particular conditions for admission of  statistics. The 
admission  and  evaluation  of  all  evidence,  implicitly  including  statistics,  is  left  to  judges’ 
discretion.143  

b) 

Practice 

132  Protection of Personal Data Act, Article 5 (2.1). 
133  Protection of Personal Data Act, Article 5 (2.3). 
134  Protection of Personal Data Act, Article 5 (2.4). 
135  Protection of Personal Data Act, Article 5 (2.5). 
136  Protection of Personal Data Act, Article 5 (2.6). 
137  Protection of Personal Data Act, Article 5 (2.7). 
138  Protection of Personal Data Act, Article 5 (2.2). 
139  While “data collection [...] necessary for rights enforcement in court” - point (4), could theoretically be 

construed as applicable to equality rights also, this is not express, and there was no such intention behind 
this provision. The legislative intent was more likely to authorise the police to provide individuals with data 
concerning the identity of parties they might wish to sue in court. This would differ from data collection for 
policy-, or law-making ends. Further, personal data is not statistical data. Furthermore, disaggregation by 
ground is not provided for. While it may be possible to gather data regarding the race of someone in 
particular (based on police perceptions), this is not equivalent to gathering race-disaggregated statistics. 
More importantly, this provision only authorises data collection in exceptional cases (to be narrowly 
construed as a matter of course), and does not mandate it.   

140  In documents providing for positive measures, Government institutions have used statistical data to analyse 
the status quo. For example, the National Programme for Improvement of the Living Conditions of Roma 
2005-2015, in its "Analysis of the Situation" part, available at: 
http://www.nccedi.government.bg/upload/docs/NRP_07.03.2006_Final_2.htm (in BG) (this programme’s 
timeline is past but there is no replacement); the Health Strategy for Persons in Unequal Position Belonging 
to Ethnic Minorities, the "Identification of the Problem" part, available at: 
http://www.nccedi.government.bg/upload/docs/zdravna_strategia_prieta.htm (in BG). 

141  The National Statistical Institute gathers statistics based on self-determination. Other public services gather 
statistics based on self-determination in some cases, and, in others, on perception. Private sociological 
agencies gather statistics of both types.  

142  Civil Procedural Code, Article 12. 
143  Civil Procedural Code, Article 12 in conjunction with Article 10.   

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
In  Bulgaria,  statistical  evidence  in  order  to  establish  indirect  discrimination  is  used  in 
practice. It is not widespread, but it is not uncommon. There has been no reluctance on 
the part of judges or PADC to consider statistics. There is no such controversy.  

Sofia trial court judges have rendered several decisions in cases concerning sex quotas for 
admission  to  university.  The  courts  have  accepted  as  statistically  established  fact  that 
women with higher academic scores have been  denied admission for the benefit of men 
with lower results. In other cases, courts have accepted the predominance of Roma in the 
ethnic composition of certain residential areas as a fact based on statistics.144  

2.4  Harassment (Article 2(3)) 

a) 

Prohibition and definition of harassment 

In Bulgaria, harassment is prohibited in national law. It is defined. Under PADA, Additional 
Provisions,  §  1  (1) it is  “any  unwanted  conduct  related  to  [protected]  grounds  [...]  and 
manifested  physically,  verbally  or  in  any  other  manner,  having  the  purpose  or  effect  of 
violating the dignity of a person and of creating a hostile, degrading, humiliating, offensive, 
or intimidating environment”. The personal scope of PADA is universal: any person may be 
a victim and every person is bound by the bans. The material scope of PADA is universal 
as well: the bans apply to all  rights and legitimate interests.  In many cases, both PADC 
and  the  courts  have  qualified  public  hate  speech/  group  negative  stereotyping  as 
harassment.145 

The  term  `a  person`  in  the  definition  has  not  been  interpreted  as  limiting  the  scope  of 
protection to an individual, rather than a group, and is not likely to be interpreted in that 
way.  In  fact,  in  numerous  cases  of  hate  speech  targeting  communities,  PADC  and  the 
courts have found harassment.  

In Bulgaria, harassment does explicitly constitute a form of discrimination: PADA, Article 
5.  

In 2016, the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) ruled that for harassment to be found, 
different  treatment  had  to  be  established,  and  that  treatment  had  to  be  “conscious”.146 
This is as yet an isolated instance and an insufficient basis to conclude that SAC generally 
requires intent, and that, therefore, its case law is in breach of EU law. 

b) 

Scope of liability for harassment 

Where  harassment  is  perpetrated  by  an  employee,  in  Bulgaria,  the  employer  and  the 
employee  are  liable.  Each  individual  who  performs  an  act  of  discrimination,  including 
harassment, can be held liable. In addition, employers can be held liable for compensation 
for damages ensuing from actions of their employees or others carrying out work for them. 
This is  a  matter  of  general  tort  law,  applicable  to  any  legal  person.147  Further,  persons, 
including employers, can be held liable and sanctioned by a fine if they knowingly aided an 
act  of  discrimination,  including  harassment,  by  a  third  party.148  If  an  employee  suffers 

144  Inter alia, Plovdiv District Court, Decision No. 185 in civil case No. 1330/2005, 01.02.2006; Plovdiv Regional 

(appeals) Court, Decision No. 1934 of 24.10.2006 in civil case No. 862/2006; and Supreme Court of 
Cassation, Decision No. 1302 in civil case No. 1602/2006, 28.11.2007; PADC, Decision No. 58 in case No. 
10/2006, 29.11.2006. Those statistics were presented by complainants in some cases, by respondents in 
others, or established in proceedings by witness testimony, or by expert opinion on the basis of official 
census statistics. 

145  For instance: Supreme Administrative Court, Decision No. 16554 of 11 December 2013 in case No. 

27/2013; Protection against Discrimination Commission, Decision No. 397 of 29 October 2014 in case No. 
39/2012.  

146  SAC Decision No. 2368 of 1 April 2016 in case No. 7838/2015, p. 2. 
147  Obligations and Contracts Act (Закон за задълженията и договорите), Article 49. 
148  PADA, Article 8. 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
harassment  at  the  workplace  by  a  third  party,  and  complains  about  it  to  the  employer, 
s/he has a duty to take action to stop the harassment.149 If an employer fails to take such 
action, the affected employee could take legal action against them. 

2.5  Instructions to discriminate (Article 2(4)) 

a) 

Prohibition of instructions to discriminate 

In Bulgaria, instructions to discriminate are prohibited in national law. Instructions are not 
defined. PADA bans incitement to discrimination, going beyond the directives’ requirement, 
and defines it to expressly include instructions to discriminate.150 However, this definition 
may not be compatible with the Directives because it requires direct intent as an element. 
In many cases, both PADC and the courts have qualified public hate speech/ group negative 
stereotyping as incitement to discrimination.151 

In  Bulgaria,  instructions  do  explicitly  constitute  a  form  of  discrimination.  Under  PADA, 
Article 5, incitement to discrimination, including instructions to discriminate, is expressly 
defined as a form of discrimination. 

b) 

Scope of liability for instructions to discriminate 

In Bulgaria, the instructor and the discriminator are separately liable.152 The instructor is 
liable for the instruction, and not for the discrimination that ensued. There is no information 
on  case  law  concerning  instructions  as  such.  The  case  law  on  incitement  concerns  hate 
speech. 

2.6  Reasonable  accommodation  duties  (Article  2(2)(b)(ii)  and  Article  5 

Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Implementation  of  the  duty  to  provide  reasonable  accommodation  for  people  with 
disabilities in the area of employment 

In Bulgaria, the duty to provide reasonable accommodation is included in the law. It is not 
defined.  PADA,  Article  16,  provides  for  accommodation  for  persons  with  disabilities  in 
employment.153  The  limit  of  the  duty  is  when  “costs  are  unfoundedly  large  and  would 
seriously hinder” the employer.154 An identically-worded duty for employers is reproduced 
under  IPDA.155  Other  than  this  language,  there  is  no  guidance  under  the  law  what  is 
“reasonable” or a “disproportionate burden”.  

Under the Labour Code, employers are under a duty to provide accommodation for workers 
who are unable to perform their job because of illness or accident.156 This duty pre-dates 
both PADA and IPDA, as well as the directive.157 It has no disproportionate burden limit. It 
is  based  on  instruction  by  the  health  authorities.  An  employer  who  fails  to  comply  with 
such instruction owes the employee compensation.158 

149  PADA, Article 17. 
150  PADA, Article 5 in conjunction with Additional Provisions, § 1 (5).  
151  For example: Supreme Administrative Court, Decision No. 16554 of 11 December 2013 in case No. 

27/2013; Protection against Discrimination Commission, Decision No. 397 of 29 October 2014 in case No. 
39/2012.  

152  PADA, Article 71 and Article 78. 
153  The provision reads: “The employer is under a duty to adjust the workplace to the needs of a person with a 
disability upon the latter’s hiring or when the person’s disability occurs following their hiring, unless the 
costs of this are unfoundedly large and would seriously hinder the employer”. 

154  PADA, Article 16.  
155  IPDA, Article 24.  
156  Labour Code (Кодекс на труда), Article 314. Such accommodation can include both alleviations in work 

conditions for the same job, or reassignment to another job. 

157  Labour Code, including this particular provision, has been in force since 1986. 
158  Labour Code, Article 317 (4). 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
Under the Civil Servant Act, there is an absolute duty for employers to “adapt the workplace 
of  the  civil  servant  with  a  permanent  disability  in  a  way  that  makes  it  possible  for  the 
service to be carried out.”159 

Under the Healthy and Safe Work Conditions Act, employers are under a duty to provide 
the  appropriate  facilities  for  employees  with  reduced  work  capability,  e.g.  people  with 
disabilities, at their workplaces.160 Employers are to be assisted and consulted in adapting 
the job to employees’ capabilities, considering their physical and mental health, by special 
labour medicine authorities.161  

The lack of definition is not on record to have caused difficulties in implementation because 
there have been no reasonable accommodation cases yet, as far as information is available.  

b) 

Practice 

The duty applies to all employment relationships. There are no criteria under the law or 
case law for assessing ‘unreasonable’ or ‘disproportionate’. There is no provision on taking 
into account the availability of financial assistance from the State.  

c) 

Definition of disability and non-discrimination protection 

The definition of disability under IPDA applies for all purposes under the law, including non-
discrimination and reasonable accommodation.  

d)  Duties  to  provide  reasonable  accommodation  in  areas  other  than  employment  for 

people with disabilities 

In  Bulgaria,  there  is  a  duty  to  provide  reasonable  accommodation  for  people  with 
disabilities  outside  the  employment  field.  PADA,  Article  32,  provides  for  reasonable 
accommodation in education. The limit of the duty is, the same as in employment, when 
“costs are unreasonably big and would seriously hinder” the educator.162 IPDA also provides 
for accommodation duties for both schools and universities.163 These duties are absolute 
(no disproportionate burden defence). Under IPDA, the Minister of Education and Science 
has  a  duty  to  provide  children  with  disabilities  with  a  supportive  environment  for  their 
integrated education.164 This is an absolute duty, too. A court has held that this duty will 
only be satisfied when there is supportive environment for integrated education in every 
kindergarten and school in the nation. Further, the Minister of Education and Science has 
a  duty  to  create  educational  opportunities  for  children  with  disabilities  who  are  not 
integrated in a common educational environment.165 This duty, too, is absolute. It is not 
an  accessibility  duty  but  implicitly  refers  to  measures  directed  at  creating  specific 
opportunities  for  particular  individuals.  Higher  education  institutions,  too,  have  absolute 
accommodation duties.166 

Under the Physical Education and Sports Act, schools have a duty to create conditions for 
adapted  physical  exercise  and  sports  for  students  with  special  educational  needs.167 
Persons  with  disabilities,  in  general,  are  entitled  to  the  necessary  conditions  for  various 

159  Civil Servant Act (Закон за държавния служител), Article 30.  
160  Healthy and Safe Work Conditions Act (HSWCA) (Закон за здравословните и безопасни условия на труд), 

latest amendments 13 October 2015, Article 16 (1.4). 

161  HSWCA, Article 25 (2.3). Those authorities are charged, inter alia, with monitoring and analysing 

employees’ health status (HSWCA, Articles 25a (1.2) and (1.4)). 

162  PADA, Article 32.  
163  IPDA, Article 17 and Article 20. 
164  IPDA, Article 17 (2). 
165  IPDA, Article 18.  
166  IPDA, Article 20.  
167  Physical Education and Sports Act (Закон за физическото възпитание и спорта), Article 21 (4). 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
sports, although the law does not mention whose duty this is.168 The Ministry of Youth and 
Sports  has  a  duty  to  assist  through  targeted  funding  sportspeople  with  disabilities’ 
preparation  and  participation  at  Olympic  Games,  and  world  and  European 
championships.169 That Ministry has a duty to assist the activities of sports organizations, 
related to persons with disabilities’ adapted physical activity.170 

e) 

Failure to meet the duty of reasonable accommodation for people with disabilities 

In  Bulgaria,  failure  to  meet  the  duty  of  reasonable  accommodation  does  not  count  as 
discrimination. Under PADA, unlike other forms of conduct, such as building or maintaining 
an  inaccessible  public  architectural  environment,  it  is  not  defined  as  a  form  of 
discrimination.  There  is  no  provision  on  such  failure’s  relation  to  the  bans  on  direct  or 
indirect  discrimination.  This  is  also  valid  for  failure  to  meet  the  various  absolute 
accommodation  duties  under  IPDA,  the  Labour  Code,  and  the  Healthy  and  Safe  Work 
Conditions Act. Under PADA, there is a disproportionate burden defence for employers and 
educators, namely where the costs are "unreasonably big" or would "seriously hinder" the 
organisation.  Under  IPDA,  employers  have  the  same  defence,  but  public  bodies  and 
universities have absolute duties, with no defence. 

Under  PADA,  a  failure  to  provide  reasonable  accommodation,  as  a  breach  of  the  law,  is 
subject to fines in the amount of between EUR 125 (BGN 250) and EUR 1 000 (BGN 2 000) 
for a natural person, and between EUR 125 (BGN 250) and EUR 1 250 (BGN 2 500) for a 
legal person. 

Under PADA, the shifting burden of proof would apply if the court or PADC agrees that a 
case against a failure to provide reasonable accommodation constitutes “proceedings for 
protection against discrimination” within the meaning of PADA, Article 9. 

f) 

Duties to provide reasonable accommodation in respect of other grounds 

In Bulgaria, there is a duty to provide reasonable accommodation in respect of one other 
ground in the public and the private sector. 

Religion/ belief 

Under PADA, Article 13 (2), employers have a duty to provide reasonable accommodation 
for religion/ belief in terms of working hours and rest days, where “this would not lead to 
excessive difficulties [...] and where [it is possible] [...]  to compensate for the potential 
adverse consequences on the [business]”.171 There has been no litigation on record as yet 
based on this provision. It is unknown whether it is applied in practice or not.  

g) 

Accessibility of services, buildings and infrastructure  

In  Bulgaria,  national  law  requires  services  available  to  the  public,  buildings  and 
infrastructure  to  be  designed  and  built  in  a  disability-accessible  way.  PADA,  Article  5, 
stipulates that building and maintaining an architectural environment that hinders persons 
with  disabilities’  access  to  public  places  is  discrimination.  This  ban  is  absolute,  with  no 
defence. It has been relied on, successfully, in many discrimination cases (brought under 
PADA) before PADC.172 Under IPDA, public bodies have absolute duties to create disability-

168  Physical Education and Sports Act, Article 33 (1). 
169  Physical Education and Sports Act, Article 33 (2).  
170  Physical Education and Sports Act, Article 33 (3).  
171  Under discrimination law, there is no definition of religion or belief in this or any other context.  
172  For a recent example, see Supreme Administrative Court (SAC), Decision No. 158 of 8 January 2015 in case 

No. 7092/2014. SAC held that there was discrimination because the ramps installed did not afford 
independent access; access was limited and dependent on help; the ramps are immovable and could not be 
adjusted to different wheelchair types. Free admission for persons with disabilities into the establishment (a 
dolphinarium) had no relevance. SAC confirmed the penalty imposed on the company by PADC: EUR 250 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
accessible  architectural  environments,  transportation  services,  and  sports  facilities.173 
Compensation for failures to do so has been sought under general tort law.  

Under the Spatial Planning Act, construction works shall be done in accordance with the 
basic  requirements  under  Annex  1  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  305/2011  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 laying down harmonised conditions for the 
marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC, including 
accessibility in use (“4. accessibility […].”).174 Under that Act, the Minister of Regional and 
Urban Development singly or jointly with other competent ministers shall issue ordinances 
to  fix  the  requirements  for  construction  works,  including  for  accessibility,  including  for 
persons with disabilities.175 Executive bodies shall annually develop programs of measures 
to bring urbanized territory and existing individual buildings in accordance with accessibility 
requirements, and shall provide for funding for implementation.176  

Ordinance No. 4  of 1 July 2009 on Planning, Implementing and Maintaining Buildings in 
Accordance  with  the  Requirements  of  an  Accessible  Environment  for  the  Population, 
including People with Disabilities provides for extensive and detailed technical standards 
for accessibility of all urban environment and other areas. 

Ordinance No. 33 of 3 November 1999 on Public Transportation of Passengers and Cargoes 
on the Territory of the Republic of Bulgaria provides for accessibility requirements for bus 
stations.177 The duty to secure and maintain accessibility during working hours is for bus 
station owners.178 

A number of policies provide for accessibility. The Strategic Plan of the Ministry of Labour 
and Social Policy for 2013 – 2017 features financing for securing access to, and adaptation 
of,  cultural,  historical  and  sport  sites.179  The  National  Lifelong  Learning  Strategy  2014-
2020  provides  for  securing  support  and  an  appropriate  architectural  environment  for 
students, postgraduates and PhD researchers with disabilities.180  

The  National  „Accessible  and  secure  school“  Programme  2016  provides  for  accessibility 
measures.181 The 2016 – 2020 National Strategy for Persons with Disabilities does too.182 

All types of transportation – land, air, and sea, are to be adapted. Students with special 
educational  needs  are  to  be  provided  with  supportive  teachers,  special  technical  means 
and  equipment,  learning  materials,  etc.  The  Ministry  of  Labour  and  Social  Policy 
Employment  Strategy  and  the  National  Strategy  for  the  Child  provide  for  securing  an 
accessible environment too.183  

In Bulgaria, national law contains a general duty to provide accessibility by anticipation for 
people  with  disabilities.  PADA  expressly  states  that  building  and  maintaining  a  public 
architectural  environment  that  hinders  people  with  disabilities’  access  constitutes 

(BGN 500), a minimum amount under the law. SAC also confirmed PADC’s instruction for correctional 
measures: to “take the necessary action for constructing access for persons with disabilities to and inside 
the building”. 

173  IPDA, Articles 33-34, 36, 38. 
174  Spatial Planning Act (SPA) (Закон за устройство на територията), Article 169 (1.4). 
175  SPA, Article 169 (4). 
176  SPA, Article 169 (6). 
177  Ordinance No. 33 of 3 November 1999 on Public Transportation of Passengers and Cargoes on the Territory 

of the Republic of Bulgaria, Article 54 (2.11-12). 

178  Ordinance No. 33 of 3 November 1999 on Public Transportation of Passengers and Cargoes on the Territory 

of the Republic of Bulgaria, Article 54 (3). 

179  Available at: https://www.mlsp.government.bg/index.php?section=CONTENT&I=383. 
180  Available at: http://www.strategy.bg/StrategicDocuments/View.aspx?Id=880.  
181  Available at: http://www.minedu.government.bg/?go=page&pageId=381&subpageId=1315. 
182  Available at: http://www.strategy.bg/StrategicDocuments/View.aspx?lang=bg-BG&Id=1048. 
183  Available at: http://www.strategy.bg/FileHandler.ashx?fileId=4470. 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
discrimination.184 IPDA provides for integration of people with disabilities in the workplace 
via an accessible architectural environment.185 It absolutely mandates that free access to 
public  buildings  and  infrastructure  be  provided  to  people  with  disabilities  by  eliminating 
architectural, transportation and communications barriers.186 Under IPDA, state bodies and 
local government authorities are responsible for the planning of urbanized territory.187 The 
Minister  of  Regional  and  Urban  Development  is  responsible  for  adopting  standards  for 
accessible buildings and infrastructure.188  

The Civil Servant Act binds authorities to secure free access for people with disabilities to 
administration  buildings  by  bringing  down  architectural,  transportation  and  other 
barriers.189 The Spatial Planning Act provides that transportation infrastructure shall ensure 
“best  conditions”  for  accessibility  for  people  with  disabilities.190  It  provides  that  city 
planning shall set accessibility standards,191 and create conditions for environmental and 
technical infrastructural accessibility.192  

Ordinance No. 4  of 1 July 2009 on Planning, Implementing and Maintaining Buildings in 
Accordance  with  the  Requirements  for  an  Accessible  Environment  for  the  Population, 
including  people  with  disabilities  (Ordinance  No.  4)  sets  the  technical  standards  in 
considerable detail.  

The  Minister  of  Transportation  is  responsible  for  adopting  standards  for  public 
transportation  accessibility.193  Municipalities  are  responsible  for  building  accessible 
kindergartens and schools, and for providing accessible public transportation.194 Under the 
Spatial Planning Act, construction oversight officials are responsible for appraising a new 
building’s  accessibility  for  people  with  disabilities.195  The  Minister  of  Regional  and  Urban 
Development  is  responsible  for  control  over  the  implementation  of  this  law,  including 
accessibility standards for building.196  

Under  Ordinance  No.  4,  “accessible  environment”  is  defined  as  “an  environment  in 
urbanised  territories,  buildings  and  equipment  which  every  person  of  reduced  mobility, 
with or without disabilities, can use freely and independently”.197 The Ordinance applies to 
all  “urbanised  territory,  buildings  and  equipment”,  in  particular  “pedestrian  spaces, 
crossroads  and  zebra  crossings,  stairs,  lifts  and  wheelchair  ramps,  parking  lots,  public 
telephones and  automats,  seating  places,  post boxes,  toilets,  signs”.  All parties,  private 
and public alike, are responsible to secure accessibility. Public institutions responsible to 
guarantee  the  implementation  of  this  duty  include  the  Minister  of  Regional  and  Urban 
Development, central and local government bodies, and municipality mayors. 

The  legislation  provides  for  no  grounds  to  justify  a  failure  to  ensure  accessibility.  The 
statutory duties are absolute. The case law explicitly and strongly acknowledges this. The 
civil  court  of  last  instance,  the  Supreme  Court  of  Cassation,  as  well  as  the  Supreme 
Administrative Court, responsible as a final instance for judicial review of PADC decisions, 
have produced since 2008 a strong line of consistent decisions holding the Government, 

184  PADA, Article 5. 
185  IPDA, Article 2.4 in conjunction with Article 4.4. 
186  IPDA, § 6, Transitional and Final Provisions. 
187  IPDA, Article 32.  
188  IPDA, Article 33. 
189  Civil Servant Act, Amendment Act of 2008, § 11, Final Provisions. 
190  SPA, Article 75 (3).  
191  SPA, Article 107.5.  
192  SPA, Article 112 (4).  
193  IPDA, Article 34. 
194  IPDA, Article 38. 
195  SPA, Article 168.  
196  SPA, Article 220.  
197  Ordinance No. 4, Additional Provision, § 1.2. There are also definitions for several types of “accessible 

itinerary,” “accessible entrance,” “accessible website,” and “accessible information map”.  

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
local  councils  and  private  parties  liable  for  discrimination  against  people  with  physical 
disabilities by hindering their access to urban environment and transportation.198 

PADC too has taken a strong stance on accessibility. It has ruled that a lack of financial 
resources cannot be a justification for inaccessibility, nor can such a lack itself be justified 
because there was sufficient legal basis for the authorities to secure the necessary funds, 
and they had sufficient powers to do so.199 PADC instructed the Minister of Finance and all 
municipality mayors to budget the necessary funds to eliminate architectural barriers.200 It 
fined the Minister of State Administration and Administrative Reform with EUR 1 000 for 
failing to make accessible a polling station, with the same set of reasons.201 It instructed 
the Minister of Justice to reorganise the building of the Sofia District Court, finding that its 
inaccessibility constituted discrimination.202 PADC imposed a fine of EUR 500 on the Social 
Assistance  Agency  for  keeping  inaccessible  its  building,  expressly  holding  that  not  only 
proprietors of public buildings, but also organisations that use and manage such buildings 
are bound by the duty to make them accessible.203 The body ordered the agency to stop 
its  omission,  stipulating  a  3-months  timeline  for  it  to  report  on  the  action  it  has  taken. 
PADC  ruled  that  an  enterprise  providing  public  dolphin-watching  services  was  bound  by 
the law to secure accessibility so that persons with disabilities could gain unassisted access. 
The Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) upheld that decision.204  

In  2016,  in  5  cases,  SAC  held  public  bodies  and  private  businesses  liable  for  their 
inaccessibilities a regional court (BGN 2000 (EUR 1000) compensation for non-pecuniary 
damages);205  Parliament;206  a  Shell  gas  station;207  the  Minister  of  Justice  due  to  his 
responsibility  for  a  district  court’s  accessibility;208  the  Minister  of  Education  because  of 
municipal school.209 In all but the first case, SAC found direct discrimination. In the first 
one, the court did not specify. 

h) 

Accessibility of public documents 

There is no obligation under national law for public services to translate their documents 
in Braille. Under the Access to Public Information Act, persons with a visual impairment or 
hearing loss may request access to information in a form which suits their communication 
abilities.210  The  Bulgarian  National  Television,  the  Bulgarian  National  Radio  and  the 
Bulgarian Telegraph Agency have an obligation to provide information that is accessible to 
people  with  disabilities.211  They  have  to  include  specialized  shows  for  persons  with 
disabilities in their programme schedules.212 

198  Supreme Court of Cassation, Decision No. 1301 in civil case No. 5117/2007, Decision No. 556 in civil case 

No. 1514/2007, Decision No. 589 in civil case No. 1728/2007, Decision No. 1158 in civil case No. 
5162/2007, and Decision No. 1286 in civil case No. 3371/2007. A recent example: Supreme Administrative 
Court, Decision No. 158 of 08 January 2015 in case No. 7092/2014. 

199  PADC, Decision No. 60 of 08 April 2008. 
200  PADC, Decision No. 60 of 08 April 2008. 
201  PADC, Decision No. 45 of 27 February 2008. 
202  PADC, Decision No. 39 of 25 February 2008. 
203  PADC, Decision No. 171 in case No. 158/2008. 
204  More information is available in Section 12.2 below. 
205  SAC Decision No. 5748 of 16 May 2016 in case No. 5495/2015.  
206  SAC Decision No. 4922 of 26 April 2016 in case No. 11652/2015. No compensation was awarded as the case 

was originally brought before PADC which has no power under the law to award compensation. 

207  SAC Decision No. 6956 of 9 June 2016 in case No. 6376/2015. No compensation was awarded as the case 

was originally brought before PADC which has no power under the law to award compensation. 

208  SAC Decision No. 9030 of 19 July 2016 in case No. 4992/2015. No compensation was awarded as the case 

was originally brought before PADC which has no power under the law to award compensation. 

209  SAC Decision No. 17 of 4 January 2016 in case No. 1076/2015. No compensation was awarded as the case 

was originally brought before PADC which has no power under the law to award compensation. 
210  Access to Public Information Act (Закон за достъпа до обществена информация), Article 26 (4). 
211  IPDA, Article 39 (1). 
212  IPDA, Article 39 (2). 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
An  interpreter  has  to  be  appointed  to  participants  in  civil213  and  criminal214  judicial 
proceedings who are deaf and unable to speak. Participants in administrative proceedings 
who are deaf, unable to speak or blind are also entitled to an interpreter.215  

213  Civil Procedural Code, Article 4 (3). 
214  Criminal Procedural Code (Наказателно-процесуален кодекс), Article 142 (2). 
215  Administrative Procedural Code (Административнопроцесуален кодекс), Article 14 (5). 

49 

 
 
 
 
                                           
3 

PERSONAL AND MATERIAL SCOPE  

3.1  Personal scope 

  EU  and  non-EU  nationals  (Recital  13  and  Article  3(2)  Directive  2000/43 

and Recital 12 and Article 3(2) Directive 2000/78) 

In Bulgaria, there are no residence or citizenship/ nationality requirements for protection 
under  the  relevant  national  laws  transposing  the  directives.  Non-nationals  within  the 
territory, as well as nationals are entitled to protection from discrimination on any ground 
other than nationality.216 Legal residence is irrelevant to entitlement to anti-discrimination 
protection; only factual being within the territory is a condition. Non-nationals, however, 
are protected from discrimination based on nationality only insofar as such discrimination 
has no basis in primary legislation.217 Parliament may make law that discriminates against 
non-nationals, but executive bodies and private parties have no discretion to make such 
decisions.  Parliament  is  free  to  adopt  discriminatory  laws  based  on  nationality,  with  no 
constitutional limit to its discretion.218 

  Natural and legal persons (Recital 16 Directive 2000/43) 

a) 

Protection against discrimination 

In Bulgaria, the personal scope of anti-discrimination law covers natural and legal persons 
for  the  purpose  of  protection  against  discrimination  (PADA,  Article  3  (1)).  Legal  entities 
and non-incorporated associations are protected, as well as individuals, where the former 
suffer discrimination on grounds of characteristics of their employees or members.219 The 
courts and PADC have generally recognised legal persons’ victim standing.220 National law 
is in compliance with EU law. 

b) 

Liability for discrimination 

In Bulgaria, the personal scope of anti-discrimination law covers natural and legal persons 
for  the  purpose  of  liability  for  discrimination.  PADA  makes  no  distinction  between 
individuals and legal entities in terms of binding them by the ban on discrimination. The 
ban is expressly applicable erga omnes, including all legal persons.221 Case law consistently 
recognised this until recently. In 2014, however, the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC), 
acting as final instance of judicial review of PADC decisions, in two decisions held that a 
discrimination  perpetrator  could  only  be  a  natural  person:  a  legal  person  –  only 
exceptionally, in cases expressly provided for by law.222 A public authority could not be a 
perpetrator – only an individual exercising an authority’s competence.  

This  is  contrary  to  PADA.  Furthermore,  it  contradicts  many  rulings  rendered  by  SAC  in 
previous years, finding legal persons liable as discriminators. 

216  PADA, Article 3 (1). 
217  PADA, Article 7 (1.1). 
218  Constitution, Article 26 (2). 
219  PADA, Article 3 (2). 
220  For instance, SAC Decision No. 5539 of 11 May 2016 in case No. 3732/2016 where SAC expressly refuted 
the lower court’s reasoning that an NGO could not be a victim of discrimination, recognizing that legal 
persons’ victim status derived directly from PADA.  

221  PADA, Article 6 (1).  
222  Supreme Administrative Court, Decision No. 5645 in case No. 15991/2013 and Decision No. 15637 in case 

No. 1925/2014. 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
  Private and public sector including public bodies (Article 3(1)) 

a) 

Protection against discrimination 

In Bulgaria, the personal scope of national law covers private and public sector including 
public bodies for the purpose of protection against discrimination.223  

b) 

Liability for discrimination 

In Bulgaria, the personal scope of anti-discrimination law covers private and public sector 
including public bodies for the purpose of liability for discrimination.224 The prohibition is 
expressly  erga  omnes.  However,  in  2014,  SAC  initiated  a  line  of  case  law  in  direct 
contravention to PADA: in two decisions SAC held that a public authority could not be a 
discrimination perpetrator, only an individual exercising an authority’s competence.225 This 
is  contrary  to  PADA.  PADA,  as  such,  is  in  line  with  the  directives  but  this  new  SAC 
interpretation is not. Furthermore, the latter contradicts many rulings rendered by SAC in 
previous  years,  finding  public  authorities  liable  as  discriminators.  In  2016,  SAC  went 
against that approach, ruling in a number of cases that public authorities were liable for 
discrimination.226  However,  whether  that  amounts  to  conclusive  overturning  of  the 
problematic tendency, is not clear.  

3.2  Material scope 

  Employment, self-employment and occupation  

In  Bulgaria,  national legislation  applies  to  all  sectors  of  private  and  public  employment, 
self-employment  and  occupation,  including  contract  work,  self-employment,  military 
service, holding statutory office, for the five grounds.227 The respective provisions include 
the  general  ban  discrimination  which has  universal  scope  and  certain  specific  bans.  The 
specific provisions do not detail the material scope of the general ban on discrimination but 
instead provide for illustrative prohibitions in the fields relevant to this question (ex.: no 
discriminatory  job  requirements;  no  demands  for  information  about  protected  grounds 
from job applicants; no refusals to hire, and no hiring under worse conditions; equal pay; 
equal  opportunities  for  vocational  training  and  career  advancement;  right  to  equal 
conditions for access to a profession or activity, and to equal opportunities for exercising 
a profession or activity and for growing in them). Those specific provisions constitute Title 
I of PADA: “Protection in the exercise of the right to labour”. 

  Conditions for access to employment, to self-employment or to occupation, 
including  selection  criteria,  recruitment  conditions  and  promotion, 
whatever  the  branch  of  activity  and  at  all  levels  of  the  professional 
hierarchy (Article 3(1)(a))  

In Bulgaria, national legislation prohibits discrimination in the following areas: conditions 
for access to employment, to self-employment or to occupation, including selection criteria, 
recruitment conditions and promotion, whatever the branch of activity and at all levels of 
the  professional  hierarchy  for  the  five  grounds  in  both  private  and  public  sectors  as 
described in the directives.228 

223  PADA, Article 3 (1). 
224  PADA, Article 6 (1). 
225  Supreme Administrative Court, Decision No. 5645 in case No. 15991/2013 and Decision No. 15637 in case 

No. 1925/2014. 

226  Supreme Administrative Court, Decision No. 17 in case No. 1076/2015, Decision No. 9030 in case No. 

4992/2015, Decision No. 4992 in case No. 11652/2015, and Decision No. 5748 in case No. 5495/2015.   

227  PADA, Article 6 (1) and Articles 12-28.  
228  PADA, Article 6 (1), Articles 12-28 and Article 37 (2).  

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
  Employment and working conditions, including pay and dismissals (Article 

3(1)(c)) 

In  Bulgaria,  national  legislation  prohibits  discrimination  in  the  following  areas:  working 
conditions including pay and dismissals, for all five grounds and for both private and public 
employment.229 

3.2.3.1  Occupational pensions constituting part of pay 

Under PADA, discrimination is expressly universally banned, with respect to all legal rights 
and legitimate interests, implicitly including occupational pensions.230 There is, however, 
no  provision  or  case  law  that  occupational  pensions  are  part  of  “pay”  or  “working 
conditions”. They are covered under PADA irrespective of that.  

  Access  to  all  types  and  to  all  levels  of  vocational  guidance,  vocational 
training,  advanced  vocational  training  and  retraining,  including  practical 
work experience (Article 3(1)(b)) 

In  Bulgaria,  national  legislation  applies  to  vocational  training  outside  the  employment 
relationship, such as that provided by technical schools or universities, or  such as adult 
lifelong learning courses.231  

  Membership  of,  and  involvement  in,  an  organisation  of  workers  or 
employers,  or  any  organisation  whose  members  carry  on  a  particular 
profession,  including  the  benefits  provided  for  by  such  organisations 
(Article 3(1)(d)) 

In Bulgaria, national legislation prohibits discrimination in the following areas: membership 
of, and involvement in workers or employers’ organisations as formulated in the directives 
for all five grounds and for both private and public employment.232 

  Social protection, including social security and healthcare (Article 3(1)(e) 

Directive 2000/43) 

In  Bulgaria,  national  legislation  prohibits  discrimination  in  the  following  areas:  social 
protection,  including  social  security  and  healthcare  as  formulated  in  the  Racial  Equality 
Directive.233 All five grounds are covered.  

3.2.6.1  Article 3.3 exception (Directive 2000/78) 

PADA transposes the exception in Article 3 (3) of Directive 2000/78 with respect to age, 
and no other ground, as concerns eligibility for pension ages only.234  

229  PADA, Article 6 (1). Article 6 (1) does not list any specific fields of application. It does not mention 

dismissals or pay. It is a general norm providing for a universal scope, implicitly covering any specific field. 
It reads: “The ban on discrimination applies to all persons in the exercise and the defence of the rights and 
freedoms provided for under the Constitution and the laws of the Republic of Bulgaria.”   

230  PADA, Article 6 (1) and Articles 12-28.  
231  PADA, Article 6 (1) and Articles 29-35. Article 6 (1) is a general provision, implicitly covering these fields. 
Articles 29-35 do not list specific fields of application but provide for specific bans (bans on particular 
conduct) in the fields of education and training.  

232  PADA, Article 6 (1) and Article 36.  
233  PADA, Article 6 (1). 
234  PADA, Article 7 (1.8). 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
  Social advantages (Article 3(1)(f) Directive 2000/43) 

In  Bulgaria,  national legislation  implicitly  prohibits  discrimination  in  the  following  areas: 
social  advantages  as  formulated  in  the  Racial  Equality  Directive.235  All  five  grounds  are 
covered.  

In Bulgaria, the lack of definition of social advantages does not raise problems. 

  Education (Article 3(1)(g) Directive 2000/43) 

In Bulgaria, national legislation prohibits discrimination in the following areas: education 
as formulated in the Racial Equality Directive.236 All five grounds are covered. The scope 
of protection under PADA is universal. Discrimination is banned with regard to all rights 
and freedoms (Article 6 (1)). Therefore, any discriminatory treatment in school would be 
covered, including educational content.  

There are no legal developments with regard to refugees’ and migrants' anti-discrimination 
rights  (including  case-law),  except  a  draft  Ordinance  on  the  Terms  and  Procedure  for 
Admission  and  Training  of  Persons  Seeking  or  Having  Received  International  Protection 
offered for public consultation by the Ministry of Education. 237 The government has adopted 
two  general  non-legal  documents  relevant  to  asylum  seekers  and  migrants:  National 
Strategy for Integration of Asylum Receivers 2014-2020238 (concerning refugees); National 
Strategy in the Field of Migration, Asylum and Integration 2015-2020.239 

a) 

Pupils with disabilities 

In  Bulgaria,  the  general  approach  to  education  for  pupils  with  disabilities  does  raise 
problems.  In  2008,  the  European  Committee  of  Social  Rights  found  that  Bulgaria 
discriminated  against  children  with  intellectual  disabilities  by  limiting  their  educational 
opportunities.240  

Patterns  of  educational  exclusion/  segregation  of  children  with  disabilities  include:  1) 
children at home, or in the street (Roma children with disabilities) with no access to school 
at all; 2) children in social care “homes” where the vast majority receive no schooling at 
all, while a mere 6 % are schooled under substandard curricula inside the institution by 
special school teachers who visit for lessons; 3) children who visit day care centres as a 
substitute  for  schooling  and  are  taught  rudimentary  skills  there;  4)  children  in  special 
schools  for  children  with  hearing,  sight  or  physical  disabilities,  and  in  separate  special 
schools for children with intellectual disabilities where children are taught a substandard 
curriculum.  

While under the legislation formally inclusive education is the rule,241 the regulation lacks 
the necessary coherence and specificity to ensure implementation in practice. For instance, 

235  PADA, Article 6 (1). Article 6 (1) is a general norm providing for a universal scope, implicitly covering any 
specific field, including social advantages. It reads: “The ban on discrimination applies to all persons in the 
exercise and the defence of the rights and freedoms provided for under the Constitution and the laws of the 
Republic of Bulgaria.” There is no case law on social advantages. There has never been a decision, by the 
courts or the equality body, as far as I am aware, to deny the universal, all-encompassing scope of PADA.   

236  PADA, Article 6 (1) and Articles 29-35. Article 6 (1) is a general provision, implicitly covering these fields. 
Articles 29-35 do not list specific fields of application but provide for specific bans (bans on particular 
conduct) in the fields of education and training.   

237  Available at: http://www.mon.bg/?go=news&p=detail&newsId=2177 (in BG). 
238  Available at: http://www.strategy.bg/PublicConsultations/View.aspx?lang=bg-BG&Id=1327 (in BG). 
239  Available at: www.aref.government.bg/docs/strat.doc (in BG).  
240  European Committee of Social Rights, Decision on the merits of 3 June 2008, complaint No 41/ 2007. 
Available at: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/socialcharter/Complaints/CC41Merits_en.pdf.  
241  The National Education Act (Закон за народната просвета), latest amendments 16 October 2015, and 

secondary legislation on the education of students with special educational needs - Ordinance No. 1 оf 23 
January 2009, latest amendments 4 August 2015.  

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
while the rules provide that special education may be resorted to only after all possibilities 
for  inclusive  education  are  exhausted,  there  is  no  legal  definition  of  what  it  means  to 
exhaust  those  possibilities.  For  instance,  if  the  authorities  fail  to  provide  for  financial 
resources for inclusive education, they could then claim there are no possibilities for the 
latter. Under the legislation, institutionalized children may only study in special schools.242 
Children with profound intellectual disability are implicitly excluded from any schooling.243 
While children with mild intellectual disability are no longer to be sent to special schools,244 
there are no rules to govern the cases of children with such disabilities who already are in 
special schools. There are no adapted state educational requirements (specification of the 
requisite academic achievements) for children with developmental disability.245 In practice, 
inclusive education is thwarted by an inefficient institutional infrastructure, including a lack 
of planning, resource allocation, data collection and know-how, and sometimes, by vested 
interests  in  maintaining  special  schools.  There  is  inadequate  accessibility  in  terms  of 
architecture and communications. There is no unified methodology to teach children with 
developmental  disabilities,  or  suitable  teaching  materials.  Children  with  moderate  and 
severe intellectual disability are predominantly sent to special schools.  

There is no information available on the rights situation of children with physical disabilities 
in Bulgaria.  

b) 

Trends and patterns regarding Roma pupils 

In Bulgaria, there are specific patterns existing in education regarding Roma pupils, such 
as  segregation.  Roma  predominantly  live  in  segregated  areas  in  severely  substandard 
(inhuman) conditions, and Roma children predominantly study in schools located in such 
areas. Those schools are predominantly Roma, i.e. segregated, and seriously substandard. 
Other patterns of educational exclusion/ segregation of Roma include:  

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 

children at home, or in the street with no access to school at all; 
children in separate classrooms in mainstream schools;  
children in remedial schools (disproportionate representation); 
children in schools for juvenile delinquents (disproportionate representation). 

PADA bans racial segregation as a form of discrimination (Article 5). It defines it, however, 
in a way that is not compatible with European law because the definition explicitly requires 
the state of separation to be ‘forced’.246 It thus implies that segregation may be chosen, 
i.e.  that  segregated  persons  may  waive  their  right  not  to  be  discriminated  against, 
including not to be segregated on racial grounds. Yet, the European Court of Human Rights 
has  consistently  held  in  Roma  segregation  cases  that  no  waiver  of  the  right  to  non-
discrimination  in  this  context  is  possible  because  that  would  conflict  with  an  important 
public interest.247  

In a few cases brought to court to challenge all-Romani schools,248 the ‘forced’ element in 
the definition has proved an obstacle to effective protection. In one case, the appeals court 
explicitly confirmed that there was separation on ethnic grounds but found that it was not 
‘forced’ because it was “not a consequence of factors outside of the students’ will and did 

242  Ordinance No. 1 of 23 January 2009. 
243  Ordinance No. 1 of 23 January 2009. 
244  Ordinance No. 1 of 23 January 2009. 
245  Ordinance No. 1 of 23 January 2009. 
246  PADA, Additional Provision, § 1.6. 
247  For instance, European Court of Human Rights, D.H. v. Czech Republic, judgment of 13 November 2007; 

European Court of Human Rights, Sampanis v. Greece, judgment of 05.06.2008; European Court of Human 
Rights, Orsus v. Croatia, judgment of 16 March 2010 (GC). 

248  In one case, segregation of Turkish children in separate classes was successfully challenged before the 

equality authority too (PADC, decision No 91 of 08 November 2007 in case No 28/2007). 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
not occur against their will – it did not result from legislation or administrative decision”.249 
It  however  found  that  the  students  suffered  indirect  discrimination  because  the  school 
curricula and processes did not take account of their ethnic and linguistic differences. In 
two other cases the ‘forced’ hurdle prevented any protection.250 In a case concerning the 
disproportionate  representation  of  Roma  children  in  special  schools,  the  equality  body 
instructed  the  Minister  of  Education  to  take  measures  to  stop  the  admission  of  healthy 
children in such schools.251 

  Access to and supply of goods and services which are available to the public 

(Article 3(1)(h) Directive 2000/43) 

In Bulgaria, national legislation  prohibits discrimination in the following areas: access to 
and supply of goods and services as formulated in the Racial Equality Directive.252 This is 
ensured by both the general, all-encompassing ban on discrimination, and by the specific 
provision  of  Article  37  banning  any  refusal  to  provide  goods  or  services,  as  well  as  any 
provision of goods and services of lesser quality or under worse conditions. All five grounds 
are covered. It is not, however, clear whether this would extend to an obligation (breach 
of which is discrimination) to provide (design/ manufacture) goods which are easily usable 
by  people  with  disabilities.  More  likely,  the  courts  would  not  accept  that  this  obligation 
covers goods that are not existing (that need yet to be manufactured/ designed).  

3.2.9.1  Distinction between goods and services available publicly or privately 

In Bulgaria, national law does not distinguish between goods and services available to the 
public (e.g. in shops, restaurants, banks) and those only available privately (e.g. limited 
to members of a private association).253 In one case in the past, however, without formally 
making such a distinction, the Supreme Administrative Court found that higher prices for 
non-members  imposed  by  an  association  of  visually  impaired  persons  for  access  to 
phonographic library services did not constitute discrimination.254 

In 2015, CJEU gave a preliminary ruling in a case concerning discriminatory provision of 
services to inhabitants of a Roma residential area. Roma, as well as non-Roma were denied 
access  to  their  electricity  meters  as  the  electricity  distribution  undertaking  installed  the 
electricity meters for all consumers in that district at a height of 6-7m. In the non-Roma 
districts, meters are placed at a height of 1.70m, available for monitoring by consumers. 
According to the company, that difference in treatment was justified by frequent tampering 
with, and damage to meters, and by numerous unlawful connections to the network by the 
Roma.  The  equality  body  found  that  a  non-Roma  resident  was  discriminated  against 
compared with customers whose meters are accessible. On appeal, the court asked CJEU 
whether  the  contested  practice  amounted  to  discrimination  on  grounds  of  ethnic  origin. 

249  Sofia City Court, Decision of 27 February 2007, civil case No 3139 of 2005. The Supreme Court of 

Cassation, the final instance, confirmed this decision: Decision No 723 of 01 August 2008, civil case No 
6402 of 2007. 

250  Blagoevgrad Regional Court, Decision No 139 of 01 December 2005 in case 1154/2004; Sofia Regional 

Court, Decision of 16 December 2005 in case No 871/2005 (both confirming negative trial court rulings on 
appeal). The first case was brought by Roma students studying in exclusively or predominantly Romani 
classes in school. The courts in effect found that the authorities had done nothing to create this situation, 
and could do nothing about it because the right to, choice of school (of non-Roma parents/ students) was 
absolute and could not be interfered with. The second case was brought by the European Roma Rights 
Centre alleging that an all-Roma school was segregated (as well as substandard and ill-adapted to deal with 
the students’ language differences). The courts found that the authorities did not ‘force’ any of the students 
to study in that particular school, therefore, there was no segregation, or any other breach of equality law. 

251  PADC, Decision No 80 of 16 October 2007. The rationale would be that mistakes are made when officials 

decide for themselves what the ethnicity of other people is without consulting them and, no less important, 
that it is disrespectful to assume a determining role with respect to another’s identity rather than leave this 
to them.   

252  PADA, Article 6 (1) and Article 37.  
253  PADA, Article 6 (1) and Article 37.  
254  Supreme Administrative Court, Decision No. 451 of 14 January 2008 in case No. 10322/2007.   

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
CJEU confirmed that.255 To follow up on this ruling, Parliament adopted new definitions of 
indirect  discrimination  and  less  favourable  treatment  in  order  to  clarify  that  1) 
discrimination was outlawed with respect to all forms of disadvantage, and not exclusively 
regarding legal rights and legitimate interests; and 2) that discrimination by association 
was expressly banned.256  

  Housing (Article 3(1)(h) Directive 2000/43) 

In Bulgaria, national legislation prohibits discrimination in the following areas: housing as 
formulated in the Racial Equality Directive.257 The provision is general, implicitly including 
housing. That covers all five grounds. 

There is no provision on succession of tenancy rights for same-sex couples. Heterosexual 
unmarried  couples  do  not  benefit  from  succession  of  tenancy  rights.  Same-sex  couples 
would not either.  

There are no legal developments with regard to refugees’ and migrants' anti-discrimination 
rights (including case-law. The government has adopted two general non-legal documents 
relevant  to  asylum  seekers  and  migrants:  National  Strategy  for  Integration  of  Asylum 
Receivers  2014-2020;258  National  Strategy  in  the  Field  of  Migration,  Asylum  and 
Integration  2015-2020.259  The  former  one  provides  for  monies  to  be  accessible  to 
municipalities that apply to host refugees, providing housing. The latter one merely states 
that housing is a priority area, without providing for any specific measure. 

3.2.10.1 Trends and patterns regarding housing segregation of Roma 

In Bulgaria, there are patterns of housing segregation and discrimination against the Roma. 
The majority of Roma live in ghettoes in dire conditions in substandard housing, some of 
it  ramshackle,  with  very  limited  access  to  basic  infrastructure,  security  of  tenure  or 
essential  services,  such  as  public  transportation,  emergency  medical  aid,  garbage 
collection, policing, and, for some, even electricity and water supply.  

The housing situation of Roma is a clear case of discrimination. In many places, the local 
authorities  have  for  decades  ignored  their  housing  and  infrastructure  needs,  investing 
nothing  in  development  of  residential  areas  populated  by  Roma.  In  many  places,  the 
authorities have consistently refused to include Roma residential areas in urban planning 
and  to  regulate  them.  Forced  evictions  and  the  lack  of  social  protection  for  the  people 
rendered  homeless  by  them  have  further  compounded  this  situation.  In  2012,  the 
European Court of Human Rights rendered a decision against Bulgaria, in Yordanova and 
Others v. Bulgaria, a case of an impending collective forced eviction threatening an entire 
Romani community.260 The Court held that there was a breach of the rights to home and 
to private and family life, because the eviction would render the persons homeless, which 
the  authorities  failed  to  consider.  They  also  failed  to  consider  the  fact  of  their  own 
contribution, over decades, for the situation. The Court ordered the authorities to change 
the law by introducing a proportionality test for such eviction decisions, and forbade them 
to reconsider the impugned eviction decision before so amending the law. The judgment 
has not been implemented. Its implementation requires a change in a number of domestic 
acts providing grounds for evictions or demolition of unlawful buildings, in order to place 
all  relevant  authorities  under  a  duty  to  consider  the  affected  persons  individual 
circumstances, including their special vulnerabilities, as well as the authorities’ failures to 

255  Act to Amend and Complement the Protection Against Discrimination Act (Закон за изменение и 

допълнение на Закона за защита от дискриминация), adopted 22 December 2016. Available at: 

http://www.parliament.bg/bg/laws/ID/42259" 
256  New legislation available at: http://www.parliament.bg/bg/bills/ID/42259.  
257  PADA, Article 6 (1).  
258  Available at: http://www.strategy.bg/FileHandler.ashx?fileId=5023 (in BG). 
259  Available at: www.aref.government.bg/docs/strat.doc (in BG).  
260  European Court of Human Rights, Application No.25446/06. 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
deal with the situation sooner, and to provide alternative accommodation where warranted 
so as not to reduce dependent persons to homelessness.  

Other relevant rulings by supranational authorities include:  

- 

- 

- 

Aydarov  and  Others  v.  Bulgaria,  European  Court  of  Human  Rights,  application  No 
33586/15, communicated to the Government on 27 April 2016. The case concerned 
the threatened demolition of the houses in which the applicants, Roma, live. To stop 
the impending eviction, the applicants requested interim relief under Article 39 of the 
Convention.  The  Court  required  information  from  the  Government  regarding  he 
consequences of the eviction, and the domestic authorities decided to postpone it.  
Ivanova and Cherkezov v. Bulgaria, European Court of Human Rights, application No 
46577/15,  judgment  of  21  April  2016.  The  applicants  are  not  Roma.  The  case 
concerned the threatened demolition of the house in which they live. The Court held 
that  there  would  be  a  violation  of  Article  8  of  the  Convention  if  the  order  for  the 
demolition  of  the  house  were  to  be  enforced  without  a  proper  review  of  its 
proportionality in the light of the applicants’ personal circumstances. 
Naidenova and Others v. Bulgaria, UN Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 
2073/2011,  Views  adopted  by  the  Committee  at  its  106th  session  (15  October–2 
November  2012).  The  case  concerned  the  threatened  demolition  of  the  houses  in 
which the applicants, Roma, live. The Committee held that, in the light of the long 
history of the applicants’ homes, by not giving due consideration to the risk of the 
applicants’  becoming  homeless,  where  satisfactory  replacement  housing  is  not 
immediately  available  to  them,  the  State  violate  Article  17  of  the  Covenant,  if  it 
enforced the eviction order. 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4 

EXCEPTIONS 

4.1  Genuine and determining occupational requirements (Article 4) 

In  Bulgaria,  national  legislation  provides  for  an  exception  for  genuine  and  determining 
occupational requirements.261 That is valid for all grounds. The language is: “The following 
shall  not  constitute  discrimination:  [...]  different  treatment  of  persons  based  on  a 
characteristic  related  to  [protected]  grounds  [...]  where,  by  reason  of  the  nature  of  a 
particular occupation or activity, or of the conditions it is carried out in, such a characteristic 
constitutes an essential and determining occupational requirement, the aim is legitimate 
and the requirement does not exceed what is necessary to accomplish it [...]”. 

4.2  Employers with an ethos based on religion or belief (Article 4(2) Directive 

2000/78) 

In Bulgaria, national law provides for an exception for employers with an ethos based on 
religion  or  belief.262  The  exception  is  for  “different  treatment  of  persons  on  grounds  of 
religion, faith or gender with respect to an occupation carried out in religious institutions 
or organisations where, by reason of the nature of the occupation, or of the conditions it 
is  carried  out  in,  religion,  faith  or  gender  constitutes  an  essential  and  determining 
professional requirement in view of the nature of the institution or organisation, where the 
aim is legitimate and the requirement does not exceed the necessary to accomplish it;[...]”. 
There  is  an  inconsistency  in  wording  between  the  Directive  and  PADA:  rather  than 
“genuine, legitimate and justified”, under PADA the occupational requirement is “genuine 
and  determining”.  However,  that  may  not  be  material  in  practice.  PADA  also  exempts 
“different treatment of persons on grounds of religion/ faith […] in religious education or 
training, including training or education for the purposes of carrying out an occupation in 
a  religious-ethos  institution”.263  This  means  that  religious  discrimination  is  allowed  in 
access to religious education/ training with no proportionality required. There is no wording 
in  the  law  underlining  that  this  exception  should  not  lead  to  discrimination  on  grounds 
other than religion.  

 

Conflicts between rights of organisations with an ethos based on religion or belief and 
other rights to non-discrimination 

In Bulgaria, there is case law relating to conflicts between the rights of organisations with 
an ethos based on religion or belief and other rights to non-discrimination. PADC and the 
Supreme Administrative Court have explicitly ruled that PADC was not competent to hear 
disputes over alleged discrimination by religious institutions because the State could not 
interfere in the latter’s internal affairs, and, therefore, could not provide protection for any 
civil  rights,  including  equality,  vis-à-vis  them.264  The  case  concerned  the  dominant, 
majority  church,  the  Bulgarian  Orthodox  Church  and  the  alleged  discrimination  was  on 
grounds of Roma ethnicity. It has not been reproduced with respect to minority faiths. No 
information is available whether any party has made an application to the European Court 
of Human Rights about this. There can be no plans to do that in the future as the deadlines 
are long past. 

4.3  Armed  forces  and  other  specific  occupations  (Article  3(4)  and  Recital  18 

Directive 2000/78) 

In Bulgaria, national legislation does not provide for an exception for the armed forces in 
relation to age or disability discrimination. PADA makes no such exception. However, the 
special law governing the professional army provides for age and “ability” (both physical 

261  PADA, Article 7 (1.2). 
262  PADA, Article 7 (1.3). 
263  PADA, Article 7 (1.4). 
264  PADC, Decision No. 146 of 24 June 2013 in case No. 78/2012. 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
and psychological) requirements  for access to  recruitment.265 Both types of “ability” are 
required  to  be  medically  certified.266  This  legislation  and  PADA  are  in  conflict,  which  in 
practice  arguably  renders  the  age  and  disability  discrimination  ban  under  PADA  void  in 
relation to employment in the army.  

4.4  Nationality discrimination (Article 3(2)) 

a)  Discrimination on the ground of nationality 

In Bulgaria, national law includes exceptions relating to difference of treatment based on 
nationality. In principle, PADA treats nationality as a protected ground, banning all forms 
of discrimination based on it in all fields of life.267 It makes a significant exception, however, 
for  differential  treatment  based  on  nationality  provided  for  under  primary  legislation.268 
Therefore,  executive  and  local  government  bodies,  as  well  as  private  parties,  are  not 
allowed to treat non-nationals differently based on their nationality, unless Parliament has 
authorised  such  treatment  by  law.  Under  PADA,  both  nationality  and  a  lack  of  any 
nationality are included in the concept of nationality as a protected ground.269  

In Bulgaria, nationality (as in citizenship) is explicitly mentioned as a protected ground in 
national anti-discrimination law.270 

b) 

Relationship between nationality and ‘race or ethnic origin’ 

The law does not stipulate any relationship between nationality and race/ ethnicity, either 
in terms  of indirect discrimination, or otherwise. No case law has discussed any  overlap 
between nationality and race/ ethnic discrimination.271 

4.5  Work-related family benefits (Recital 22 Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Benefits for married employees 

In Bulgaria, it would constitute unlawful discrimination in national law if an employer only 
provides benefits to those employees who are married. PADA bans all discrimination based 
on family status.272 Family status covers marital status. 

In 2008, there was a debate  on  legalizing same-sex families. This took place within the 
framework  of  public  discussions  on  a  draft  new  family  Code  which  proposed  to  govern 
heterosexual de facto families. The debate on legalising homosexual families as well was 
opened  up  by  LGBT  activists  in  the  media,  and  not  by  MPs  or  parliamentary  parties. 
Opponents took the view that it was not in the interests of children to be raised in same-
sex families; that homosexual couples could not have children of their own; that this would 
undermine  marriage  as  a  union  between  and  a  man  and  a  woman  with  a  view  to 
reproduction, based on differing roles; that it would pave the way to legalising polygamy 
and incest; that homosexual relationships were not traditional, and recognising them would 
mean giving a social group special rights based on their sexual conduct. The equality body 
issued  a  recommendation  for  the  draft  Family  Code  to  include  same-sex  couples  in  the 

265  Defence and Armed Forces of the Republic of Bulgaria Act (Закон за въоръжените сили и отбраната на 

Република България), latest amendments 27 December 2016, Article 141 (1).  

266  Defence and Armed Forces of the Republic of Bulgaria Act, Article 141 (2-3).  
267  PADA, Article 4 (1). 
268  PADA, Article 7 (1.1). 
269  PADA, Article 7 (1.1) expressly exempts legal differences of treatment based on a lack of nationality, as well 

as nationality. 
270  PADA, Article 4 (1). 
271  In 2003, when the Directives were transposed via the PADA, there were a number of legal provisions 

differentiating on grounds of nationality. There still are. Those have never been reviewed to reveal whether 
they might be indirectly discriminatory against racial groups. 

272  PADA, Article 4 (1). 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
definition of de facto families. Eventually, the draft was adopted without any provision on 
de facto marriage. The debate died out, and has not been reopened since. There has been 
no further political or academic debate on the need of adoption of law on same-sex unions. 

b) 

Benefits for employees with opposite-sex partners 

In Bulgaria, it would constitute unlawful discrimination in national law if an employer only 
provides benefits to those employees with opposite-sex partners.273 

4.6  Health and safety (Article 7(2) Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Exceptions in relation to disability and health/safety 

In Bulgaria, there are no exceptions in relation to disability and health and safety (Article 
7(2), Directive 2000/78). There are no such exceptions for other grounds either. 

PADA  provides  for  none.  However,  under  the  Healthy  and  Safe  Work  Conditions  Act, 
employers have a duty to assign to their employees only tasks that are compatible with 
their  capabilities,274  considering  the  specific  dangers  for  employees  with  reduced  work 
capability.275 Further, there are a number of laws and secondary legislation instruments 
governing  specific  fields,  such  as  transportation,  including  aviation,  and  other  risk-
intensive occupations, that provide for health requirements for access to employment in 
those  fields. These norms providing for disability restrictions without any proportionality 
requirement conflict with PADA’s ban on disability discrimination in all cases, apart from 
exhaustively listed specific exceptions. 

4.7  Exceptions related to discrimination on the ground of age (Article 6 Directive 

2000/78) 

  Direct discrimination 

In  Bulgaria,  national law  provides  for  exceptions  for  direct  discrimination  on  grounds  of 
age. Under PADA, there are altogether six exceptions for age, three of those referring to 
other  laws  that  provide  for  age  differentiation.  For  the  latter,  the  law  does  not  require 
proportionality.276 For the other three exceptions, it does.277 

The  first  exception  for  age  discrimination  under  PADA,  which  is  not  subject  to 
proportionality,  is  for  pension  ages,  including  occupational  pensions.278  The  second 
exception which is not subject to proportionality is for measures and programs under the 
Employment  Encouragement  Act.279  Those  include  special  measures  based  on  age.  The 
third  exception  not  subject  to  a  proportionality  test  is  the  fixing  of  a  maximum  age  for 
eligibility for crediting under the Students and Doctoral Students Crediting Act.280 

The exceptions that do provide for objective justification are for: fixing of requirements for 
minimum age, professional experience or length of service for recruitment or for access to 
certain  advantages  linked  to  employment;281  fixing  of  maximum  age  requirements  for 
recruitment linked to the training requirements of the post in question, or the need for a 
reasonable period of employment before retirement;282 fixing of requirements for minimum 

273  PADA, Article 4 (1) in conjunction with Article 6 (1). 
274  HSWCA Article 16 (1.2a). 
275  HSWCA Article 16 (1.3). 
276  PADA, Article 7 (1.8-9) and (1.12). 
277  PADA, Article 7 (1.5-6) and (1.11). 
278  PADA, Article 7 (1.8). 
279  PADA, Article 7 (1.9). 
280  PADA, Article 7 (1.12). 
281  PADA, Article 7 (1.5). 
282  PADA, Article 7 (1.6). 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
and  maximum  age  for  access  to  training  or  education.283  The  latter  exception  may  fall 
within the scope of Directive 2000/78 as it implicitly applies to vocational training.  

a) 

Justification of direct discrimination on the ground of age 

In Bulgaria, it is not possible, generally, to justify direct discrimination on the ground of 
age. This is only possible in the exceptions outlined above. For three of those, no objective 
justification is required.  

In 2016, the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) held in two cases that persons dismissed 
on  grounds  of  having  become  entitled  to  an  old  age  and  seniority  pension  were  not 
discriminated  against  on  grounds  of  age  because  under  the  law,  the  grounds  for  their 
dismissal was not age but their entitlement to a pension, and their entitlement to a pension 
was  independent  of  age  as  seniority  was  taken  into  account.284  SAC  seemed  to  regard 
taking seniority into account as quite different from taking age into account, ignoring the 
link between the two, not elaborating why. It also ignored the fact that age per se was also 
a factor for pension entitlement under the law. 

b) 

Permitted differences of treatment based on age 

In Bulgaria, national law permits differences of treatment based on age for activities within 
the material scope of Directive 2000/78.285  

c) 

Fixing  of  ages  for  admission  or  entitlements  to  benefits  of  occupational  pension 
schemes 

In  Bulgaria,  national  law  does  not  allow  occupational  pension  schemes  to  fix  ages  for 
admission to the scheme or entitlement to benefits, taking up the possibility provided for 
by article 6(2). PADA does allow for age requirements for purposes of pensions in general, 
including occupational ones, but those requirements have to be fixed by law.  

The  Supreme  Administrative  Court  made  contradictory  rulings in  2014  on  whether  legal 
norms providing for age differentiation could, or  could not be considered discrimination, 
and  what  the  remedies  would  be.286  Recent  age  litigation  includes  a  challenge  to  age 
discrimination linked to a statutory age limit in access to the position of juror (successful), 
and  a  challenge  to  a  secondary  legislation  age  limit in  access  to  prison/  judicial  guards’ 
jobs (unsuccessful).287 In 2016, there was no case law reflecting either one, or the other 
approach.  

  Special conditions for young people, older workers and persons with caring 

responsibilities  

In Bulgaria, there are special conditions set by law for older and younger workers in order 
to  promote  their  vocational  integration,  and  for  persons  with  caring  responsibilities  to 
ensure their protection. Under the Labour Code, underage employees are entitled to special 
protection and an employer may assist young employees.288 The minimal age for access to 
employment is 16 years.289 As an exception, 15-to-16-year-olds may be employed for light 
jobs that are not dangerous or harmful to them, and do not hamper their regular schooling 
or  vocational  training.290  Such  persons  may  be  employed  only  after  a  comprehensive 

283  PADA, Article 7 (1.11). 
284  SAC Decision No. 611 of 12 July 2016 in case No. 1541/2016. SAC Decision No. 4418 of 14 April 2016 in 

case No. 4245/2016.  

285  PADA, Article 7 (1.5-6, 8-9) and (1.11-12). 
286  Please see Section 12.2 for details. 
287  See Section 12.2. 
288  Labour Code, latest amendments 30 December 2016, Article 294.6.  
289  Labour Code, Article 301 (1).  
290  Labour Code, Article 301 (2). 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
medical  examination  certifying  their  capability  for  the  job  and  that  it  won’t  harm  their 
health  or  development.291  Further,  the  employment  of  any  such  individual  must  be 
authorised by the authorities.292 Similar requirements are provided for 16-to-18-year-olds 
too.293 Underage employees may not do work which is beyond their capabilities, or harmful, 
or involving risks that an underage person is assumed to be unable to understand or to 
avoid due to their immaturity.294 Further, employers are under a duty to give special care 
to  underage  employees  by  providing  them  with  alleviated  conditions  for  work  and 
vocational training.295 An employer is under a duty to warn underage employees and their 
parents of the risks involved in the job and of the health and safety measures.296 Underage 
employees may not work more than 35 hours a week, or 7 hours a day, including vocational 
training  time.297  Such  employees  are  entitled  to  no  less  than  26  working  days  annual 
leave.298 Older workers have special protection too. In cases where workers are dismissed 
after reaching retirement age, regardless of the basis for their dismissal, they are entitled 
to compensation in the amount of 2 monthly salaries, and if they have worked with the 
employer  for  the  last  ten  years,  that  compensation  is  in  the  amount  of  6  monthly 
salaries.299 By contrast, workers who are made redundant prior to having reached pension 
age are only entitled to no more than one month’s salary in compensation.  

Under the Labour Code, nursing women are entitled to certain special protections.  

Under the Employment Encouragement Act, an employer who creates a new job and hires 
a person not older than 29 years to do it is entitled to public money for reimbursement of 
that person’s salary for up to 18 months.300 Further, an employer who creates a new intern 
position  and  hires  a  person  not  older  than  29  years  is  entitled  to  public  money  for 
reimbursement of that person’s salaries for up to nine months.301 If the intern has a basic 
education degree or lower and no qualifications, the reimbursement period may extend to 
12  months.302  In  all  cases,  recruits  must  be  registered  with  the  Employment  Agency  as 
employment seekers. Further, older workers are provided special conditions. An employer 
who creates a new job and hires a person older than 55 years is entitled to public money 
for reimbursement of that person’s salary for up to a year.303  

Under the Employment Encouragement Act, unemployed single parents (adoptive parents) 
and mothers (adoptive mothers) of children not older than 5 years enjoy special treatment 
too. Employers who hire them are entitled to state subsidies for their employment for up 
to a year.304 Vocational training institutions are also entitled to state subsidies for providing 
such workers with training where that is organised by the employer and the Employment 
Agency.305  

  Minimum and maximum age requirements 

In Bulgaria, there are exceptions permitting minimum and maximum age requirements in 
relation to access to employment (notably in the public sector) and training. PADA permits 
the fixing of requirements for minimum age, professional experience or length of service 

291  Labour Code, Article 302 (1).  
292  Labour Code, Article 302 (2). 
293  Labour Code, Article 303. 
294  Labour Code, Article 304. 
295  Labour Code, Article 305 (1). 
296  Labour Code, Article 305 (2). 
297  Labour Code, Article 305 (3). 
298  Labour Code, Article 305 (4). 
299  Labour Code, Article 222 (3). 
300  Employment Encouragement Act, Article 36. 
301  Employment Encouragement Act, Article 41. An intern in this case is a person with professional 

qualifications but no work experience (ibid.).  
302  Employment Encouragement Act, Article 41a. 
303  Employment Encouragement Act, Article 55a. 
304  Employment Encouragement Act, Article53a (1).  
305  Employment Encouragement Act, Article 53a (2).  

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
for recruitment or for access to certain advantages linked to employment, provided that it 
is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means to accomplish it do not exceed 
what  is  necessary.306  It  further  permits  the  fixing  of  maximum  age  requirements  for 
recruitment linked to the training requirements of the post in question, or the need for a 
reasonable period of employment before retirement, provided that it is objectively justified 
by a legitimate aim and the means to accomplish it do not exceed what is necessary.307  

  Retirement  

a) 

State pension age 

In Bulgaria, there is a state pension age at which individuals can begin to collect their state 
pensions. The ages at which individuals become entitled to receipt of an old age pension 
are fixed by law. Age is not the only criterion for entitlement to a pension. 

The number of years of service is taken into account too.308 The relevant ages are different 
for women and men.309 There is no need to defer receipt of one’s pension. One can continue 
one’s employment while collecting it. 

If an individual wishes to work longer, the pension can be deferred. 

An individual can collect a pension and still work. 

b)  Occupational pension schemes 

In  Bulgaria,  there  is  a  normal  age  when  people  can  begin  to  receive  payments  from 
occupational  pension  schemes  and  other  employer-funded  pension  arrangements.  If  an 
individual wishes to work longer, payments from such occupational pension schemes can 
be deferred. An individual can collect a pension and still work. Workers, both women and 
men, become entitled to receipt of occupational pensions at 60.310 As an exception, they 
can start collecting their occupational pensions 5 years earlier provided that this is provided 
for under a collective agreement.311  

c) 

State imposed mandatory retirement ages 

In Bulgaria, there are state-imposed mandatory retirement ages. They are not of general 
application. In some sectors only, such as the professional army,312 and the police,313 the 
relevant special laws imposes age limits after which both women and men can no longer 
serve. However, there is no bar for them to find other employment, and still collect their 
pension.  There  have  been  minor  changes  in  the  maximum  ages  for  the  army  in  recent 
years.  

In  addition,  under  the  Labour  Code,  one  is  subject  to  dismissal,  at  the  employer’s 
discretion, when one acquires the right to an old age pension.314 Furthermore, Professors, 
Assistant  Professors  and  Doctors  of  Science  are  subject  to  dismissal,  at  the  employer’s 

306  PADA, Article 7 (1.5). 
307  PADA, Article 7 (1.6).  
308  Social Security Code (Кодекс за социално осигуряване), latest amendments 30 December 2016, Article 

68. 

309  Social Security Code, Article 68. The respective ages are 60 for women, and 63 for men. These ages are to 

be gradually increased under the legislation until they reach 63 for women and 65 for men. However, age 
alone is not sufficient. A person needs in addition a certain number of years of work experience during 
which they made social security payments. 

310  Social Security Code, Article 243 (4). 
311  Social Security Code, Article 243 (6). 
312  Defence and Armed Forces of the Republic of Bulgaria Act, Article 160 (1). For soldiers, the limit is 50 years; 

that limit is raised for each higher rank, with 62 years as the limit for the highest ranking officers.  

313  Ministry of Interior Act, Article 226 (1). The limit is 60 years.  
314  Labour Code, Article 328.10.  

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
discretion, when they reach 65 years.315 They still, nominally, retain employment rights, 
but effectively have no protection against dismissal on age grounds. No publicly accessible 
reasons for this legislative decision were articulated. There is an exception for Professors, 
Assistant  Professors  and  Doctors  of  Science  for  whom  the  respective  academic  council 
decided to extend their labour contracts for a further year (but no more than three years 
for Professors and no more than two years for Assistant Professors).316 

A  further  age-based  provision  gives  employers  discretion  to  dismiss  a  worker  who  was 
hired after s/he became entitled to an old age pension, and exercised that right.317 In other 
words, employers can freely dismiss persons who they hired as pensioners.  

In  2015,  two  new  provisions  were  adopted  (in  force  as  of  1  January  2016)  making  it 
possible  for  the  employer  to  dismiss:  a)  an  employee  who  opted  to  receive  a  reduced 
pension a year earlier than the statutory old age upon acquiring the requisite number of 
years of service; and b) such an employee whom the employer hired after the employee 
had  opted  for  a  reduced  pension.318  Under  the  first  of  those  provisions,  there  has  been 
case law delivered but none on discrimination. Under the second provision, the case law is 
scarce, and does not relate to discrimination. 

d) 

Retirement ages imposed by employers 

In  Bulgaria,  national  law  does  not  permit  employers  to  set  retirement  ages  (or  ages  at 
which the termination of an employment contract is possible) by contract and/or collective 
bargaining  and/or  unilaterally.  Those  ages  are  imperatively  governed  by  legislation, 
namely  the  Social  Security  Code  in  the  general  case,  or  special  laws,  such  as  those 
applicable to the police and army. 

e) 

Employment rights applicable to all workers irrespective of age 

After  becoming  a  pensioner,  leaving  employment  is  the  prerogative  of  the  employee. 
Protection  against  dismissal  and  other  employment  rights  apply  to  those  workers 
irrespective of age. This applies to all workers, apart from those in the army and police, 
and some in academia.  

f) 

Compliance of national law with CJEU case law 

In Bulgaria, national legislation is, arguably, in line with the CJEU case law on age regarding 
compulsory  retirement.  While  under  PADA  three  age  exceptions  do  not  provide  for  a 
proportionality  test,  which  is  a  compliance  issue  per  se,  only  two  age-based  provisions 
actually  exist  that  are  thereby  exempted  and  those  do  not  appear  unreasonable/ 
disproportionate.  Under  the  Labour  Code,  those  two  only  provisions  govern  dismissal  of 
certain categories of university staff once they reach 65 years and of pensioners who were 
hired after they became pensioners. While judicial interpretation is required concerning the 
proportionality of those provisions, arguably, they are in line with CJEU case law. In both 
cases, the persons concerned can seek alternative employment. Further, the special laws 
governing the police and army provide for compulsory retirement of officers at specified 
ages. In those cases, retirees are free to engage in other employment while collecting their 
pensions.  

315  Labour Code, Article 328.10.  
316  Labour Code, Article 328.10.  
317  Labour Code, Article 328.10b. 
318  Labour Code, Article 328.10a and 328.c.  

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
  Redundancy 

a) 

Age and seniority taken into account for redundancy selection 

In  Bulgaria,  national  law  does  not  permit  age  or  seniority  to  be  taken  into  account  in 
selecting workers for redundancy. Under the Labour Code, the only criteria for selection 
for  redundancy  are  lesser  qualifications  and  worse  work  performance.319  However,  this 
barely  matters  because  once  an  employee  becomes  entitled  to  an  old  age  pension  and 
starts receiving it, this in itself is a legal basis for an employer to dismiss them, even if 
there  is  no  redundancy.320  It  is  the  same  for  persons  who  opted  to  receive  a  reduced 
pension one year earlier than their old age upon reaching the requisite number of years.321 
In the case of Professors, Associate Professors and Doctors of Science,  once they  reach 
the age of 65, this in itself is a legal basis for an employer to dismiss them, even if there 
is no redundancy (with limited exceptions based on decisions by the respective academic 
councils).322  

b) 

Age taken into account for redundancy compensation 

In Bulgaria, national law provides for compensation for redundancy. This is affected by the 
age of the worker.  

Workers who are dismissed after having become entitled to retire, on any basis, implicitly 
including  redundancy,  are  entitled  to  compensation  in  the  amount  of  two  monthly 
salaries.323 This is preferential treatment compared to workers who are made redundant 
prior to having become entitled to a pension - those are only entitled to no more than one 
salary in compensation.324 If workers dismissed after having become entitled to retire have 
worked with the employer for the last ten years, their compensation is in the amount of 
six monthly salaries.  

4.8  Public  security,  public  order,  criminal  offences,  protection  of  health, 
protection  of  the  rights  and  freedoms  of  others  (Article  2(5),  Directive 
2000/78) 

In Bulgaria, national law does not include exceptions that seek to rely on Article 2(5) of 
the Employment Equality Directive. PADA provides for no such exception. 

4.9  Any other exceptions 

In Bulgaria, another exception to the prohibition of discrimination (on any ground) provided 
in national law is the following:  

 

different treatment of persons on grounds of religion/faith in religious education or 
training,  including  training  or  education  for  the  purposes  of  carrying  out  an 
occupation in a religious-ethos institution.325 

319  Labour Code, Article 329 (1). 
320  Labour Code, Article 328.10.  
321  Labour Code, Article 328.10a. 
322  Labour Code, Article 328.10.  
323  Labour Code, Article 222 (3). 
324  Labour Code, Article 222 (1).  
325  PADA, Article 7 (1.4).  

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
5 

POSITIVE ACTION (Article 5 Directive 2000/43, Article 7 Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Scope for positive action measures 

In Bulgaria, positive action in respect of racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, 
age or sexual orientation is permitted in national law.  

PADA not only authorizes but mandates, in a general way, positive measures to equalize 
opportunities for disadvantaged groups. Several specific authorisations for positive action 
exist: 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

different  treatment  of  persons  with  disabilities  in  training  or  education  aimed  at 
equalising their opportunities;326  
special  measures  for  the  benefit  of  disadvantaged  persons  or  groups  aimed  at 
equalising  their  opportunities,  as  far  as  and  as  long  as  such  measures  are 
necessary;327  
special protection measures provided for by law for the benefit of parentless children, 
minors, single parents and persons with disabilities;328  
measures aimed at protecting the distinctive identity of persons belonging to ethnic, 
religious and linguistic minorities, and their rights, alone or with other members of 
their  groups,  to  preserve  and  develop  their  culture,  to  profess  and  exercise  their 
religion, and to use their language;329  
measures in training or education aimed at guaranteeing the participation of persons 
belonging  to  ethnic  minorities,  as  far  as  and  as  long  as  such  measures  are 
necessary.330  

PADA places a general duty on all authorities to take measures to equalise opportunities 
for  disadvantaged  groups,  as  well  as  to  guarantee  participation  by  ethnic  minorities  in 
education,  whenever  necessary  to  accomplish  the  objectives  of  equality  law.331  PADA 
requires authorities to take such measures as a priority for the benefit of victims of multiple 
discrimination.332 However, no such measures are on record.  

Under the Constitution, however, the position may be different. The Constitutional Court 
(CC) held 25 years ago that preferential treatment on constitutionally protected grounds, 
including  race/ethnicity,  sex,  and  religion/belief  is  unconstitutional.333  Therefore,  any 
legislation  providing  for  such  action  would  be  unconstitutional.  By  contrast,  preferential 
measures based on other grounds, excluded from the constitutional equality clause, such 
as disability or age, would be constitutional.334  

There  may  be  a  conflict,  therefore,  between  the  Constitution  and  PADA  insofar  as 
authorization for positive measures is concerned. The conflict may, however, be nominal. 
There are a number of positive policy measures in place for the benefit of ethnic groups, 
in particular, Roma, as well as sex quotas, which haven’t been challenged over a number 
of years based on the constitutional case law. If a challenge were to be brought before the 
CC, it might well revise its earlier position about the unconstitutionality of positive action, 
and declare positive measures on grounds of sex, religion or ethnicity compatible with the 
Constitution. There has not been another CC  ruling on this subject since.  If, in a  future 

326  PADA, Article 7 (1.10).  
327  PADA, Article 7 (1.14).  
328  PADA, Article 7 (1.15).  
329  PADA, Article 7 (1.16).  
330  PADA, Article 7 (1.17). The law does not specify the measures allowed. Any measure falling into that 

category is excepted.  
331  PADA, Article 11 (1).  
332  PADA, Article 11 (2).  
333  Constitutional Court ruling No. 14 of 1992. 
334  Constitutional Court ruling No. 14 of 1992. 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
case the CC were to reproduce its 1992 ruling, that should raise the issue of the supremacy 
of EU law. 

There are no legal developments with regard to refugees’ and migrants' anti-discrimination 
rights (including case-law. The government has adopted two general non-legal documents 
relevant  to  asylum  seekers  and  migrants:  National  Strategy  for  Integration  of  Asylum 
Receivers  2014-2020;335  National  Strategy  in  the  Field  of  Migration,  Asylum  and 
Integration 2015-2020.336 

b)  Main positive action measures in place on national level 

Quotas  

Under  the  Labour  Code,  employers  with  more  than  50  employees  are  under  a  duty  to 
annually set aside 4-10 % of all their workplaces for purposes of accommodating people 
with  disabilities  and  other  entitled  persons.337  ‘Accommodating’  here  means  transferring 
employees  who  become  disabled  while  in  employment  to  new  jobs  suitable  for  their 
altered/ reduced working abilities. Under the Integration of Persons with Disabilities Act, 
at  least  half  of  those  workplaces  are  to  be  reserved  for  people  with  permanent 
disabilities.338 Under the Integration of Persons with Disabilities Act, the employer is under 
a duty to announce any vacant workplaces adapted for persons with permanent disabilities 
with the unemployment offices.339 Accordingly, those workplaces may be taken by persons 
outside  the  employer’s  organisation,  including  persons  who  were  not  employed  before. 
Under the Labour Code, there is no explicit provision to such effect. However, the situation 
is similar in practice. Where a job applicant with a disability is qualified to take an adapted 
job,  they  will  be  hired  if  there  is  such  a  vacant  workplace.  Under  the  Labour  Code,  an 
employer who fails to discharge a duty under that Code is liable to a fine between EUR 750 
and  7  500  (BGN  1  500  and  15  000)  (Article  414).  In  addition,  labour  inspectorates  are 
competent to order employers to eliminate breaches of the Labour Code (Article 404). Not 
obeying such an order leads to a fine (Article 415). According to Agency for People with 
Disabilities’ statistics, in 2016, 32 859 workplaces were set aside; 18 756 of those – for 
persons with permanent disabilities; 11 083 workplaces were actually occupied by people 
with disabilities, and 11 829 – by people with permanent disabilities; 5 381 workplaces set 
aside were advertised as vacant.340 This data is incomplete and unreliable because, as the 
Agency  explicitly  recognises  in  its  2016  report,  65  out  of  98  territorial  labour  bureaux 
supplied data; possibly not all employers informed their bureau (2 346 did); there is no 
data on the number of employers who were under the duty; and the numbers stated for 
occupied  and  vacant  workplaces  don’t  seem  to  match  up  with  the  overall  number  of 
accommodated workplaces. “Accommodated” here means made suitable for persons with 
reduced/ altered working abilities.  

Disability quotas are also provided for under the Civil Servant Act.341 Authorities with more 
than  50  staff  are  bound  to  designate  at  least  2%  of  all  positions  for  such  people.342 
Authorities with staff between 26 and 50 are bound to designate at least one position.343 
Candidates  for  those  positions  compete  only  with  other  persons  with  disabilities.344  In 
2015, an amendment entered into force requiring 1 % to be set aside among civil servants 
in  the  Ministry  of  the  Interior  who  are  not  police  ‘organs’,  among  civil  servants  in  the 
‘National Security’ State Agency who are not directly involved in its specific activities, and 

335  Available at: http://www.strategy.bg/PublicConsultations/View.aspx?lang=bg-BG&Id=1327 (in BG). 
336  Available at: www.aref.government.bg/docs/strat.doc (in BG).  
337  Labour Code, Article 315 (1).  
338  IPDA, Article 27 (1).  
339  IPDA, Article 27 (2).  
340  Available at: http://ahu.mlsp.government.bg/portal/document/8444 (in BG). 
341  Civil Servant Act, Article 9a.  
342  Civil Servant Act, Article 9a (1.1). 
343  Civil Servant Act, Article 9a (1.2). 
344  Civil Servant Act, Article 9a (1.2). 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
among civil servants in the ‘Technical Operations’ State Agency (secret surveillance) who 
have employment contracts with the agency.345 

Preferential treatment narrowly tailored 

Under  the  Employment  Encouragement  Act,  younger  and  older  workers  are  entitled  to 
preferences. An employer who creates a job and hires a person 29 years old or younger (a 
younger person) is entitled to a subsidy for that person’s salary for up to 18 months.346 An 
employer who creates an intern position and hires a younger person is entitled to a subsidy 
for that person’s salary for up to nine months.347 If the intern has a basic education degree 
or lower and no qualifications, the period may extend to 12 months.348 In all cases, recruits 
must  be  registered  with  the  Employment  Agency  as  employment  seekers.  Further,  an 
employer who creates a job and hires a person older than 50 years (older person) is entitled 
to a subsidy for that person’s salary for up to a year.349  

Broad social policy measures  

Roma school desegregation measures are provided for under policy documents and a piece 
of  secondary  legislation:  the  Framework  Programme  for  Equal  Integration  of  Roma  into 
Bulgarian Society (2010-2020)350 and Decree No 4 of the Council of Ministers of 11 January 
2005 Creating a Centre for Educational Integration of Children and Students from Ethnic 
Minorities.351 352 

Housing measures for Roma are provided for under the Framework Programme for Equal 
Integration of Roma into Bulgarian Society (2010-2020).353 and the National Strategy of 
the Republic of Bulgaria for the Integration of Roma (2012-2020).354 

345  Civil Servant Act, Article 9a (1.3). 
346  Employment Encouragement Act, Article 36. These measures are not recent but they are significant because 

of being provided for by law and because of their scope.  

347  Employment Encouragement Act, Article 41. An intern in this case is a person with professional 

qualifications but no work experience (ibid.).  
348  Employment Encouragement Act, Article 41a. 
349  Employment Encouragement Act, Article 55a.  
350  Available at: http://www.nccedi.government.bg/page.php?category=35&id=1278 (in BG).  
351  Available at: http://coiduem.mon.bg/page.php?c=4&d=36 (in BG). 
352  Available at: http://coiduem.mon.bg/page.php?c=4&d=200 (in BG). 
353  Available at: http://www.nccedi.government.bg/page.php?category=35&id=1278 (in BG). 
354  Available at: http://www.nccedi.government.bg/page.php?category=125&id=1740, р. 13. 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
6 

REMEDIES AND ENFORCEMENT  

6.1  Judicial  and/or  administrative  procedures  (Article  7  Directive  2000/43, 

Article 9 Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Available procedures for enforcing the principle of equal treatment 

In Bulgaria, the following procedures exist for enforcing the principle of equal treatment 
(judicial/ administrative/ alternative dispute resolution such as mediation):  

Under PADA, two main procedures exist:  

- 
- 

judicial proceedings before the general courts;355  
specialised quasi-judicial proceedings before PADC, the independent equality body, 
with  judicial  review  by  two  instances  of  administrative  courts.356  This  is 
complemented  by  a  follow-up  procedure  for  damages  before  the  general  courts 
(administrative ones for public-law respondents, and civil ones for everyone else).357  

A  victim  can  choose  between  the  two.  The  general  courts  can  make  a  declaration  of 
discrimination and award compensation for damages, as well as order respondent to take 
remedial action, or to abstain from, or to terminate particular action or inaction found to 
be in breach of the law. The equality body can make a finding of discrimination, and order 
preventive or remedial action. It can also impose financial sanctions.358 It cannot award 
compensation.  

Under  PADA,  the  judicial  remedy  before  the  general  courts  expressly  points  out  as 
competent the civil courts, whoever the respondent. However, where respondent is a public 
authority, the case law is moving in the direction of recognising as competent not the civil 
courts, but the administrative ones. The PADC remedy is universally applicable, whoever 
the respondent. Both remedies are binding. 

If a discrimination allegation is made before another administrative body, such as a labour 
inspectorate, under a procedure provided for under other legislation, that body will likely 
refer  such  allegation  to  PADC,  the  latter  being  the  specialised  body  to  deal  with  such 
allegations. 

b) 

Barriers and other deterrents faced by litigants seeking redress 

Under PADA, both the general court and the PADC procedures are exempt from costs, both 
state fees and expenses.359 However, administrative case law does not respect this, and 
parties are ordered to pay each other’s costs on losing, as well as court fees. Not only that, 
but PADC demands to be awarded costs when complainants appeal against its decisions 
before the court.360 Where complainants are unsuccessful, the court orders them to pay 
PADC  lawyers’  fees.  The  reason  that  administrative  courts  ignore  PADA’s  exemption  of 
litigants  from  costs,  is  that,  under  that  rule,  costs  are  to  be  recuperated  from  courts’ 
budgets.  

355  PADA, Article 71. 
356  PADA, Articles 47, 50, and 68 (1). 
357  PADA, Article 74. 
358  The maximum amount of sanction imposable on an individual for an act of discrimination is the equivalent of 
EUR 1000. For legal persons this is EUR 1250. For a repeated offence, the sanction is automatically double. 
For a failure to abide by a decision of the equality body, the maximum sanction is EUR 5000. Where such a 
failure continues for more than three months after the decision imposing this sanction entered into force, 
the next sanction is up to EUR 10 000.  

359  PADA, Article 53 and Article 75 (2).  
360  PADC bases this practice on an interpretative ruling (тълкувателно решение) by the Supreme 

Administrative Court – No. 3 of 13.05.2010, rendered in commercial case No. 5 of 2009 (see PADC letter 
No. 44-00-1609 of 20.04.2015). This ruling is of general application, and not specific to cases under PADA. 
Its application to PADA cases contradicts PADA, Article 75 (2).  

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
Litigants  are  free  to  represent  themselves  in  both  the  judicial  and  PADC  procedures. 361 
Before the Supreme Court of Cassation only, a complaint needs to be signed by a lawyer,362 
but  complainants  can  appear  unrepresented  at  hearings.  In  practice,  litigants  without  a 
lawyer would be at a disadvantage in court where proceedings are complicated and formal. 
Before the equality body, which has quasi-investigative powers and whose proceedings are 
more informal and victim-friendly, complainants are not that dependent on a lawyer. On 
the other hand, PADC is located in the capital, posing a geographical barrier.  

Because of recent trends in case law shifting away from PADA provisions as regards the 
competence  of  civil  courts  in  discrimination  cases  against  public  authorities,  some  such 
cases  that  were  heard  years  ago  by  a  civil  court  are  on  appeal  being  remanded  to  an 
administrative  court,  to  start  all  over  again,  for  no  reason  other  than  the  courts’ 
contradictory  construction  of  competence  rules  in  such  cases.363  This  breaches  persons’ 
rights to reasonable length proceedings. It does not limit access to remedies in any other 
way. The case law is divided and various judicial competence disputes between the courts 
have taken place, with an interpretative case now pending at Supreme Court level brought 
ex officio to unify the case law.  

The time limit for the civil court remedy is the general one for civil cases – 5 years. For the 
PADC remedy it is 3 years. There is no limit on the amounts of compensation the courts 
can award. The maximum amounts of sanctions imposable by PADC are provided for under 
PADA, and appear reasonable. The rate of implementation of such decisions is not clear, 
however.  

c) 

Number of discrimination cases brought to justice 

In Bulgaria, there are available statistics on the number of cases related to discrimination 
brought to justice. However, those are not comprehensive, or updated. Statistics are only 
available for the Sofia City Administrative Court (SCAC), hearing PADC-decided cases on 
judicial review as a first instance. In 2013, 119 such cases were filed with that court.364 In 
2014,  180.365  In  2015,  the  cases  were  228.366  No  figures  are  available  for  2016.  No 
statistics are available for the number of such cases decided. There are no statistics for the 
Supreme Administrative Court, hearing PADC cases on judicial review as a last instance.367 
There are no statistics for the civil courts. There are no statistics for administrative courts 
hearing discrimination cases as a first instance. 

PADC  does  statistics  concerning  its  own  caseload,  as  a  part  of  its  annual  report  to 
Parliament, but the one for 2015 is not yet available. Although there is no such requirement 
under  the  law,  PADC  only  publishes  its  annual  reports  on  its  website  once  they  are 
approved by Parliament. Parliament can, in practice, delay that indefinitely. This happened 
in the years 2012 and 2013. The 2014 report was also delayed. The 2015 report has been 

361  For Supreme Court proceedings, both administrative (or judicial review) and civil, appellants only need to 
have a lawyer or juris consult to countersign their cassation appeal (Article 284 (2) of the Civil Procedure 
Code and Article 18 (1) of the Administrative Procedure Code) but the law does not require them to be 
represented at hearings. 

362  Civil Procedure Code, Article 284 (2). 
363  For instance, Decision No. 7685 of 18 November 2013 in civil case No. 10724/2013, Sofia City Court.  
364  See Report on the implementation of the law and the activities of administrative courts in 2013 (Доклад за 

прилагането на закона и за дейността на административните съдилища през 2013 г.), p. 226 
(http://www.sac.government.bg/pages/bg/progress-reports) (in BG). 

365  See Report on the activities of the Sofia City Administrative Court in 2014 (Доклад за дейността на 

Aдминистративeн съд София-град през 2014 г.) 
(http://www.admincourtsofia.bg/Засъда/Доклади/ДокладзадейносттанаАССГза2014г.aspx) (in BG). 

366  See Report on the activities of the Sofia City Administrative Court in 2015 (Доклад за дейността на 

Административен съд София-град през 2015 г.): 
http://www.admincourtsofia.bg/Засъда/Доклади/ДокладзадейносттанаАССГза2015г.aspx (in BG). 

367  Telephone interview with the Court’s Head Statistician, 23 April 2015.  

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
published,368  but  not  the  one  for  2016.  PADC  statistics  are  ground-,  and  field-
disaggregated.  

d) 

Registration of discrimination cases by national courts 

In Bulgaria, discrimination cases are registered as such by national courts. However, this 
only applies to the Sofia City Administrative Court, hearing PADC-decided cases on judicial 
review as a first instance.369 This data is published in the Supreme Administrative Court’s 
annual report  on the activities of administrative courts.  It is also published in Sofia City 
Administrative  Court’s  activity  report.370  Those  statistics  are  not  ground-,  or  field-
disaggregated. They are publicly available. 

6.2  Legal standing and associations (Article 7(2) Directive 2000/43, Article 9(2) 

Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Engaging on behalf of victims of discrimination (representing them) 

In  Bulgaria,  organisations  and  trade  unions  are  entitled  to  act  on  behalf  of  victims  of 
discrimination. Before the equality body, any entity may represent an individual or another 
entity.371  Before  the  civil courts,  trade  unions  and  legal  persons  for  non-profit  purposes 
registered  in  the  public  interest  may  represent  victims.372  Legal  persons  for  non-profit 
purposes are foundations or associations.373 The ones self-determined to be in the public 
interest register with the Ministry of Justice.374 They are subject to stricter requirements.375 
Arguably,  a  non-profit  not  registered  under  national  legislation  as  one  ‘in  the  public 
interest’ can still claim standing before the courts, by substantiating that in fact its activities 
are public interest ones.376 

There is no legal duty for NGOs or trade unions to act. 

b) 

Engaging in support of victims of discrimination 

In  Bulgaria,  organisations  and  trade  unions  are  entitled  to  act  in  support  of  victims  of 
discrimination.  Before  the  civil  courts,  trade  unions  and  legal  persons  for  non-profit 
purposes  in  the  public  interest  may  enter  victim-brought  cases  in  an  ‘interested  party’ 
capacity.377 There is no legal duty for NGOs or trade unions to do so. There is no formal 
possibility under the law for NGOs or trade unions to join cases before PADC.  

368  Available at: http://www.kzd-

nondiscrimination.com/layout/images/stories/2015/otchet/Otchet_2015_KZD.pdf. 

369  See Report on the implementation of the law and the activities of administrative courts in 2015 (Доклад за 

прилагането на закона и за дейността на административните съдилища през 2015 г.):  

http://www.sac.government.bg/home.nsf/vPagesLookup/progress-

reports~bg/$FILE/%D0%94%D0%9E%D0%9A%D0%9B%D0%90%D0%94%20%D0%97%D0%90%20%D
0%9F%D0%A0%D0%98%D0%9B%D0%90%D0%93%D0%90%D0%9D%D0%95%D0%A2%D0%9E%20
%D0%9D%D0%90%20%D0%97%D0%90%D0%9A%D0%9E%D0%9D%D0%90%20%D0%98%20%D0%
97%D0%90%20%D0%94%D0%95%D0%99%D0%9D%D0%9E%D0%A1%D0%A2%D0%A2%D0%90%20
%D0%9D%D0%90%20%D0%90%D0%94%D0%9C%D0%98%D0%9D%D0%98%D0%A1%D0%A2%D0%
A0%D0%90%D0%A2%D0%98%D0%92%D0%9D%D0%98%D0%A2%D0%95%20%D0%A1%D0%AA%D0
%94%D0%98%D0%9B%D0%98%D0%A9%D0%90%20%D0%9F%D0%A0%D0%95%D0%97%202015%2
0%D0%B3..pdf (in BG). 

370 The 2016 report is available at: 

http://www.admincourtsofia.bg/Засъда/Доклади/ДокладзадейносттанаАССГза2016г.aspx. 

371  Administrative Procedure Code, latest amendments 20 September 2016, Article 18 (2). 
372  PADA, Article 71 (2).  
373  Legal Persons for Non-profit Purposes Act (Закон за юридическите лица с нестопанска цел), latest 

amendments 27 December 2016, Article 1 (2). 

374  Legal Persons for Non-profit Purposes Act, Article 2 (1 and 3). 
375  Legal Persons for Non-profit Purposes Act, Chapter Three. 
376  The Legal Persons for Non-profit Purposes Act, Article 38 (1), specifies which activities qualify as public 

interest ones. 

377  PADA, Article 71 (2).  

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
c) 

Actio popularis 

In Bulgaria, national law allows organisations and trade unions to act in the public interest 
on their own behalf, without a specific victim to support or represent (actio popularis). 
Under PADA, any entity can bring proceedings before PADC without identifying a specific 
victim.378 No special requirements apply; incorporation is enough. However, in 2014, the 
Supreme Administrative Court has initiated a case law trend requiring a specific victim to 
be identified before a sanctionable breach of PADA can be established.379 That trend has 
not since been conclusively confirmed, or reversed. 

Before the civil courts, trade unions and public interest non-profits can take actio popularis 
action  ‘where  the  rights  of  many  parties  are  infringed’  (Article  71  (3)  PADA).  Entity 
incorporation is required. Non-profits not formally registered as being in the public interest 
need to substantiate how their activities are publicly useful in fact. Both trade unions and 
non-profits  need  to  substantiate  how  the  alleged  discrimination  affected  many  persons. 
There is no legal definition of ‘many’. In the past, in one case, judges have accepted as 
few as 10 to be enough. In another case, they have frustrated implementation of the legal 
provision  requiring  that  victims  be  enumerated,  and  each  one  –  individualized.  Trade 
unions  and  non-profits  can  seek  a  declaration  of  discrimination,  and  a  court  order  on 
respondent  to  stop  and  abstain  from  the  impugned  conduct.  No  special  rules  apply 
concerning the shifting burden of proof. However, in one case a trial court judge held obiter 
that the shifting burden of proof was not meant to apply in actio popularis cases because 
NGOs  had  the  resources  to  prove  discrimination,  unlike  victims.  Before  PADC,  actio 
popularis claimants can seek the same remedies as victims. 

d) 

Class action 

In  Bulgaria,  national  law  allows  organisations  and  trade  unions  to  act  in  the  interest  of 
more  than  one  individual  victim  (class  action)  for  claims  arising  from  the  same  event. 
Under general civil procedure law, organizations for the protection of a particular category 
of victims, or for the protection of persons from a particular type of violation have standing 
to bring collective claims in court.380 Such claims can be brought on behalf of all victims of 
a single violation where their ‘circle cannot be exactly defined but is definable’.381 Entities 
would  need  to  prove  incorporation  and  the  fact  of  existing  ‘for  the  protection’  of  the 
relevant  victim  category.  In  addition,  they  are  expressly  required  by  law  to  prove  their 
abilities to ‘seriously and in good faith’ defend the collective interest harmed, as well as to 
bear the burden of taking the case, including costs and expenses.382 Entities will have to 
explicate  the  circumstances  defining  the  relevant  ‘circle  of  victims’.  They  can  claim  on 
behalf  of  all  victims  that  a  tortious  action  or  inaction  be  declared  unlawful,  that  the 
respondent be ordered to abort the violation, and/or to correct its consequences for the 
collective interest, or to pay compensation.383 These general provisions on collective claims 
implicitly apply to discrimination cases too. No special rules on the shifting burden of proof 
apply. 

6.3  Burden of proof (Article 8 Directive 2000/43, Article 10 Directive 2000/78) 

In Bulgaria, national law requires a shift of the burden of proof from the complainant to 
the respondent. PADA requires this in all anti-discrimination proceedings, implicitly for any 
form  of  discrimination,  where  claimant  has  proven  facts  from  which  a  conclusion  for 
discrimination can be made.384 In 2014, a draft law was introduced to amend this provision. 

378  PADA, Article 50.3. 
379  Supreme Administrative Court, Decision No. 5645 in case No. 15991/2013; Decision No. 15637 in case No. 

1925/2014. 

380  Civil Procedure Code, Article 379. 
381  Civil Procedure Code, Article 379 (1). 
382  Civil Procedure Code, Article 380 (3). 
383  Civil Procedure Code, Article 379 (2-3). 
384  PADA, Article 9.  

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
It proposed the following language: “In proceedings for protection against discrimination, 
after the party claiming to have been discriminated against, establishes facts from which 
an inference that discrimination is at hand can be made, the respondent party has to prove 
that the principle of equal treatment was not breached.” In Parliament, the bill underwent 
an  unannounced  change  after  which  the  provision  read:  “In  proceedings  for  protection 
against  discrimination,  after  the  party  claiming  to  have  been  discriminated  against, 
produces  facts  from which an inference that discrimination is at hand can be made, the 
respondent party has to prove that the principle of equal treatment was not breached.”385  

Implementation of the shift of the burden of proof rule is rudimentary. Judges and equality 
body members and staff lack meaningful comprehension of that rule. There has been no 
training on that for judges. Only one case (sex discrimination) is on record where the ruling 
hinged on the shifting burden of proof. The Supreme Administrative Court found that sex 
was  the  reason  for  the  less  favourable  treatment  on  grounds  that  respondent  failed  to 
establish a legitimate reason.386  

In 2015, the shift of the burden of proof provision in PADA was amended. Article 9 now 
reads:  “In  proceedings  for  protection  against  discrimination,  after  the  party  claiming  to 
have been discriminated against, produces (presents) facts from which an inference that 
discrimination is at hand can be made, the respondent party has to prove that the principle 
of equal treatment was not breached” (emphasis added). Prior to the amendment, the law 
read: “In proceedings for protection against discrimination, after the party claiming to have 
been discriminated against, proves facts from which a conclusion that discrimination is at 
hand can be made, the respondent party has to prove that the principle of equal treatment 
was not breached.”387  

6.4  Victimisation (Article 9 Directive 2000/43, Article 11 Directive 2000/78) 

In Bulgaria, there are legal measures of protection against victimisation. PADA expressly 
prohibits  victimisation  as  a  form  of  discrimination.388  Victimisation is  defined  as:  a)  less 
favourable treatment of a person who has taken, or is presumed to have taken, or to be 
taking  in  the  future  any  action  for  protection  against  discrimination;  b)  less  favourable 
treatment of a person where a person associated with them has taken, or is presumed to 
have taken, or to be taking in the future any action for protection against discrimination; 
c) less favourable treatment of a person who refused to discriminate.389 The term ‘a person’ 
has  not  been  interpreted  as  excluding  groups  of  persons  from  protection.  Nominally,  it 
could be interpreted in that way but that is not likely. Therefore, protection is accorded for 
victimisation  by  presumption  and  by  association  too.  Action  for  protection  against 
discrimination may include, but is not limited to, bringing proceedings before the equality 
body or the court, in either victim or third-party capacity, or testifying in proceedings.390 
Therefore, any person who assisted any action against discrimination in any way is entitled 
to protection from victimisation. 

6.5  Sanctions and remedies (Article 15 Directive 2000/43, Article 17 Directive 

2000/78) 

a) 

Applicable sanctions in cases of discrimination – in law and in practice 

PADC  can  impose  financial  sanctions  between  EUR  125  and  1  250  (BGN  250  to  2  500), 
amounts that would be dissuasive to the majority of individuals and small enterprises.391 

385  Available at: http://www.parliament.bg/bg/bills/ID/15141/ (in BG). This version was adopted in 2015, after 

the cut-off date for this report (State Gazette issue No 26 of 7 April 2015). 

386  Decision No. 274 оf 09 January 2012 in case No. 1319/2011. 
387  For more information, see Section 12.1 below. 
388  PADA, Article 5. 
389  PADA, Additional Provision § 1.3. 
390  PADA, Additional Provision § 1.3. 
391  PADA, Article 78-80.  

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
While medium-sized and large businesses may not be deterred by the actual amounts, the 
bad  publicity  of  being  found  to  be  discriminators  motivates  them  to  actively  engage  in 
proceedings and in settlements where complainants are open to the latter. Those sanctions 
are administrative fines and are not awarded to the victim as compensation but go to the 
PADC budget.392 Where a  breach is repeated, the sanction is double.393 Those  sanctions 
are uniformly applicable to all sectors and fields, including the private and public ones, as 
well as fields outside employment. PADC can, further, order particular remedial action by 
discriminators, and suspend the execution of employers’ decisions where those may result 
in discrimination.394 The civil courts do not impose fines. They only award compensation 
for damages (Article 71 (1.3) PADA). 

b) 

Ceiling and amount of compensation 

There is no information available concerning the average amount of compensation awarded 
to victims. There is no maximum amount of compensation.395 The courts can award any 
amount that is fair (non-pecuniary damages) or proven (pecuniary damages). 

c) 

Assessment of the sanctions 

Whether sanctions are effective hinges on whether PADC decisions are implemented at an 
adequate  rate.  The  latter  is  unclear.  Fines  can  be  supposed  to  be  enforced,  and  their 
amounts seem dissuasive. However, remedial orders cannot be supposed to be enforced, 
and there is no information what their actual rate of implementation is. 

392  PADA, Article 83. 
393  PADA, Article 81.  
394  PADA, Article 76. 
395  This concerns indemnification of a victim’s pecuniary or non-pecuniary damages whatever those might be in 

the particular case, and not financial punishment by the state by decision of the equality body. 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
7 

a) 

BODIES FOR THE PROMOTION OF EQUAL TREATMENT (Article 13 Directive 
2000/43) 

Body/bodies  designated  for  the  promotion  of  equal  treatment  irrespective  of 
racial/ethnic origin according to Article 13 of the Racial Equality Directive 

Under  PADA,  the  Protection  Against  Discrimination  Commission  (PADC)  is  charged  with 
promoting and enforcing non-discrimination as a specialised equality body.396 

b) 

Status of the designated body – general independence 

PADC is independent by law.397 Its nine members are selected in part by Parliament (five), 
and in part by the President (four). Their term of office is five years. The budget of PADC 
is approved by Parliament directly.398 PADC is accountable to Parliament only. It reports to 
Parliament annually.399  

c)  Grounds covered by the designated body 

PADC deals with all protected grounds under PADA: sex, race, national origin, ethnicity, 
human genome, nationality, origin, religion or faith, education, beliefs, political affiliation, 
personal or social status, disability, age, sexual orientation, family status, property status, 
or any other ground provided for by law or by international treaty Bulgaria is a party to.400 

There are no legal developments with regard to refugees’ and migrants' anti-discrimination 
rights (including case-law). The government has adopted two general non-legal documents 
relevant  to  asylum  seekers  and  migrants:  National  Strategy  for  Integration  of  Asylum 
Receivers  2014-2020;401  National  Strategy  in  the  Field  of  Migration,  Asylum  and 
Integration 2015-2020.402 PADC has not undertaken any action in exercise of its powers 
with regard to refugees’ and migrants' anti-discrimination rights, except ruling on individual 
cases, most notably of hate speech. In a case involving hate speech against refugees by a 
parliamentarian,  PADC  found  discrimination  on  grounds  of  ‘personal  status’  (refugee 
status).403 

d) 

Competences of the designated body – and their independent exercise 

PADC  assists  victims  of  discrimination,404  carries  out  independent  research,405  and 
publishes  independent  reports.406  It  makes  recommendations  to  public  authorities, 
including for legislative change.407 It informs the public through the mass media on legal 
provisions against discrimination.408 

PADC is competent to: hear complaints by victims and communications by third parties; 
find  discrimination  by  legally  binding  decisions;  impose  financial  sanctions;  issue 

396  PADA, Article 40.  
397  PADA, Article 40. 
398  PADA, Article 40 (3). 
399  PADA, Article 40 (5). 
400  PADA, Article 4 (1). 
401  Available at: http://www.strategy.bg/PublicConsultations/View.aspx?lang=bg-BG&Id=1327 (in BG). 
402  Available at: www.aref.government.bg/docs/strat.doc (in BG).  
403  Decision No 163 of 22 April 2016 in case No 352/ 2013. 
404  PADA, Article 47.9. There is no public or institutional perception of a clash between the body’s adjudicator 

functions and its victim’s assistance mandate, and no debate. In practice, the assistance mandate is 
depressed: the body gives victims no assistance other than to explain how the procedure before it works 
and what they are expected to do in order to participate. It has initiated no court action. 

405  PADA, Article 47.10. 
406  PADA, Article 47.11. 
407  PADA, Article 47.6 and 47.11. 
408  PADA, Article 47.12. 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
mandatory  instructions  for  remedial  or  preventative  redress.409  It  can  initiate  its  own 
proceedings at its discretion, in all fields and on all grounds, against any perpetrator.410 It 
can review and give opinion on draft legislation.411 In practice, PADC does not deliver on 
all of these powers: it does not assist victims beyond a formal approach of providing basic 
procedural information; it does not carry out independent research; and it does not publish 
independent reports on discrimination issues. It only publishes an annual report on its own 
activities.  

e) 

Legal standing of the designated body 

In Bulgaria, the designated body has legal standing to bring discrimination complaints (on 
behalf  or  not  of  identified  victim(s))  or  to  intervene  in  legal  cases  concerning 
discrimination.412  In  practice,  PADC  has  not  initiated  any  lawsuits,  and  has  only  joined 
proceedings instituted by other parties in very few exceptional cases in the past. 

f) 

Quasi-judicial competences 

In Bulgaria, the body is a quasi-judicial institution. Its decisions make findings on points 
of law, as well as of fact, and are formally binding.413 The proceedings before it are public, 
with a hearing of both parties.414 It has the power to impose sanctions, including fines,415 
and  ‘soft’  penalties,  such  as  public  apology  or  publication  of  (information  about)  its 
decision. Its decisions are subject to two-instance judicial review.416 PADC does have some 
authority. It imposes additional sanctions on non-performing respondents.417  

g) 

Registration by the body of complaints and decisions 

In Bulgaria, the body registers the number of complaints and decisions (by ground, field, 
type of discrimination, etc.). These data are available to the public as part of the body’s 
annual report to Parliament. In practice, PADC only publishes its reports when Parliament 
approves them. There have been significant delays in recent years. 

h) 

Roma and Travellers 

PADC  has  not  made  the  problems  of  Roma  its  priority.  It  has  no  strategic  approach.  It 
deals with all grounds and issues in a neutral way. While this approach is not in breach of 
EU law, it still means that particularly marginalised ethnic/ racial minorities, such as the 
Roma and Syrian asylum seekers, are not accorded special protection as required by their 
particular vulnerability.   

409  PADA, Article 47. 
410  PADA, Article 47. 
411  PADA, Article 47. 
412  PADA, Article 47.5. 
413  PADA, Article 65. 
414  PADA, Article 61. 
415  PADA, Article 65. 
416  PADA, Article 68 (1). 
417  PADA, Article 82. 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
8 

IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES  

8.1 

 Dissemination  of  information,  dialogue  with  NGOs  and  between  social 
partners 

a)  Dissemination of information  

Information  action  taken  by  Bulgaria  has  been  limited.  Two  bodies,  mostly,  have  taken 
such  action  –  PADC  and  the  National  Council  for  Cooperation  on  Ethnic  and  Integration 
Issues  (formerly,  National  Council  for  Cooperation  on  Ethnic  and  Demographic  Issues 
(NCCEII)) within the Council of Ministers, and it has consisted in superficial and insufficient 
general awareness raising measures. In past years, PADC has broadcast advertisements 
on  the  radio  and  television,  and  disseminated  advertising  brochures  at  seminars.  Its 
members have given interviews to the media, and carried out seminars in various cities. 
PADC  carried  out  a  seminar  for  journalists  in  early  2014.  PADC  also  claims  to  regularly 
inform journalists of pending cases and hearings.418   

In recent years, according to its website, PADC implemented a one-year PROGRESS-funded 
project  that  ended  on  31.05.2014.  Its  main  objectives  included  dissemination  of 
information  regarding  EU  and  national  anti-discrimination  legislation.  Seminars  were 
organized for legal practitioners, Ministry of Interior officials, educators, journalists.  

There has been no community outreach. The media used have been the mainstream ones 
that may be inaccessible to isolated communities, such as Roma and people with sensor 
impairments, and the groups targeted by seminars have been predominantly people from 
the mainstream (officials, journalists, establishment-connected NGOs).  

b)  Dialogue with NGOs  

PADC has not involved NGOs in cooperation or dialogue in any inclusive or meaningful way. 
In the past, it engaged in selective contacts with some NGOs on a non-transparent basis, 
excluding others. There is no mechanism for NGOs to provide PADC with their input on the 
law  or  practice,  other  than  joining  individual  cases  in  an  ‘interested  party’  capacity  (on 
discretionary  permission  by  PADC).  PADC  has  not  engaged  important,  if  any,  NGOs  in 
consultations regarding amendments to the legislation it has reportedly initiated. None of 
the amendments to PADA were consulted with NGOs. 

c) 

Dialogue between social partners  

No such action is on record.  

Effectively,  there  is  no  body  appointed  on  the  national  level  to  address  Roma  issues. 
Allegedly, a Council for Roma Integration within the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy 
was set up in 2006 to support the National  Roma Decade Coordinator, meeting every 3 
months. It is said to include 29 representatives of Roma NGOs. The existence, activities or 
results of this body are not known.  

Within the Ministry of Culture there is said to be a Roma Public Council on Cultural Issues 
assisting the Ministry’s policy of cultural integration of minorities.419 There is no information 
on activity by this council. In late 2009, the then Minister confirmed during parliamentary 
control, that such a body existed.420 Its existence is, at best, nominal.  

418  Letter No 12-10-34 of 13 July 2015 addressed to a Bulgarian Helsinki Committee representative. 
419  Based on information published at the Ministry of Culture’s Internet site at: 
http://mc.government.bg/page.php?p=13&s=24&sp=0&t=0&z=0 (in BG).  
420  Available at: http://www.parliament.bg/bg/plenaryst/ns/7/ID/651 (in BG).  

77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
8.2 

 Compliance (Article 14 Directive 2000/43, Article 16 Directive 2000/78) 

a)  Mechanisms 

Under  general  legal  principles,  PADA  as  lex  specialis/  more  recent/  primary  law  should 
override general/ older/ secondary legislation that conflicts with it. However, in practice, 
this depends on judicial interpretation. A judge may consider that it is not PADA, but the 
other,  conflicting  rule  that  is  lex  specialis  in  the  case,  even  if  it’s  older  (or  secondary). 
There is no special mechanism to ensure that any discriminatory norms are set aside, other 
than  litigation  before  the  courts  or  PADC,  the  equality  body.  However,  in  2014,  the 
Supreme Administrative Court introduced a new, restrictive interpretation to the effect that 
PADC was incompetent to declare a norm discriminatory.421 First, the Constitutional Court 
(CC)  had  to  declare  it  unconstitutional  (concerning  primary  law),  or  the  administrative 
courts repeal it under general administrative procedure (concerning secondary legislation). 
However, standing to bringing such proceedings is limited: no individual can seize the CC, 
and only affected persons can seek judicial review of secondary legislation.  

In 2012, a provision was introduced in PADA, requiring all public authorities, including local 
governments, to respect the aim of not allowing any direct, or indirect discrimination, when 
drafting  legislation,  as  well  as  when  applying  it.422  This  general  mainstreaming  duty 
complements the original duty under PADA for all public authorities to take all possible and 
necessary measures to achieve the aims of PADA.423 Formally, this provides sufficient legal 
basis for bodies to revise any legislation that contradicts PADA. In practice, this has not 
been  done.  A  failure  to  do  so  could  be  challenged  before  PADC  on  general  non-
implementation  grounds  under  PADA,  there  being  no  special  provision  on  sanctions 
referring to this particular duty. PADC could then, under PADA, make a declaration, and 
impose a sanction, as well as issue an instruction, or recommendation for implementation. 
However,  in  2014,  the  Supreme  Administrative  Court  introduced  a  new,  restrictive 
interpretation to the effect that PADC could not hold liable, or sanction any public bodies.424 
It could only make recommendations to such bodies. 

b) 

Rules contrary to the principle of equality 

There  are  various  rules  in  primary  and  secondary  legislation  that  contradict  PADA.425  A 
major effort is required to ensure that all laws and regulations are brought into conformity 

421  Supreme Administrative Court, Decision No. 5645 in case No. 15991/2013; and Decision No. 15637 in case 

No. 1925/2014. 
422  PADA, Article 6 (2). 
423  PADA, Article 10. 
424  Supreme Administrative Court, Decision No. 5645 in case No. 15991/2013; and Decision No. 15637 in case 

No. 1925/2014. 

425  Examples of directly discriminatory legislation: Judiciary Act (Закон за съдебната власт), Article 162 

(mental health related disability (“mental illness”) bar 
(http://www.vks.bg/english/vksen_p04_06.htm#Chapter_five); Higher Education Act Закон за висшето 
образование, Article 4 (unfettered discretion for universities to differentiate on grounds of age, race and 
sex, inter alia) (http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/untc/unpan016453.pdf); Defence 
and Armed Forces Act, Article 141 (age bars to employment) (http://www.comd.bg/en/acts/republic-
bulgaria-defence-and-armed-forces-act); Ministry of the Interior Act, Article 155 (age and health bars to 
employment, referring to an ordinance by the Minister) (http://www.mvr.bg/NR/rdonlyres/5F939B72-40AD-
45AB-A78A-D09207DB695C/0/ZMVR_EN.pdf); Diplomatic Service Act (Закон за дипломатическата 
служба), Article 27 (mental disability (“chronic psychic illness”) bar) 
(http://www.lex.bg/bg/laws/ldoc/2135565718) (in BG); Classified Information Protection Act (Закон за 
защита на класифицираната информация), Article 40 (mental disability (“psychic illnesses”) bar) 
(http://www.mvr.bg/NR/rdonlyres/C4EA720F-B6D3-4316-A3F9-
CB4BEB9251B1/0/06_Law_Protection_ClassifiedInformation_EN.pdf); Access and Disclosure of Documents 
and Declaration of Affiliation of Bulgarian Nationals with State Security […] Act (Закон за достъп и 
разкриване на документите и за обявяване на принадлежност на български граждани към към 
Държавна сигурност […]), Article 6 (mental disability (“psychic illness”) bar to access to employment) 
(http://www.comdos.bg/media/Normativna%20osnova/ADDAABCSSISBNASA-15.02.2013.doc); Norms 
which discriminate indirectly would be far more numerous and time-consuming to identify. 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
with the principle of equality.426 

426  The whole body of legislation, including statutory law and secondary legislation, should be reviewed and 
analysed for incompatibilities with PADA. Careful thinking should be done to devise ways to harmonize 
conflicting norms with PADA. This will not only require conflicting norms to be amended or repealed, but 
also PADA to be revised in order to allow for additional legitimate exceptions. 

79 

 
 
 
                                           
9 

COORDINATION AT NATIONAL LEVEL 

A  number  of  structures  exist  within  the  executive,  with  mandates  to  promote  and/or 
implement  equality.  Some  are  public  bodies,  some  are  joint  governmental-civil  society 
consultative  councils.  The  latter  make  no  decisions  but  are  meant  to  inform  decision-
making processes. Some of the bodies are specialized in one or more grounds in one or 
more fields, while others are grounds-inclusive in specific fields. The relationships between 
the various authorities’ mandates are not clear and there is overlap. Their relevance for 
the directives’ implementation is limited, at best. They are mentioned for exhaustiveness. 

In 2013, the Council of Ministers set up a National Human Rights Coordination Mechanism 
(NHRCM).  The  NHRCM  aim  is  to  “contribute  to  better  implementation  of  the  country’s 
obligations  before  international  monitoring  and  control  mechanisms."427  This  body  is 
expected to improve coordination between state agencies and independent human rights 
bodies  by  distributing  tasks  relative  to  international  human  rights  reporting  duties.  It  is 
further meant to discuss the expediency of Bulgaria’s joining international human rights 
instruments, and to propose legislative changes relevant to human rights. The NHRCM sits 
twice yearly, chaired by the Foreign Affairs Minister, with participants from national human 
rights institutions, executive bodies and NGOs. In practice, it is an ineffective body, with 
no real output. NGO representatives are not allowed to take part in discussions, and may 
only sit as listeners.  

Within  the  Council  of  Ministers,  the  National  Council  for  Cooperation  on  Ethnic  and 
Integration Issues (NCCEII) is a consultative body with a mandate to assist governmental 
policy on minorities, and to coordinate between the government and minorities’ NGOs. 428 
NCCEII is comprised of senior public officials and ethnic minority NGO representatives. Its 
tasks include promoting ethnic equality, and studying the specific problems facing ethnic 
minorities.429  The  chairperson  of  NCCEII  serves  as  National  Coordinator  of  the  Roma 
Inclusion  Decade  2005-2015.  At  regional  level,  there  are  27  councils  on  ethnic  and 
integration  issues,  local  versions  of  NCCEII.  These  are  comprised  of  regional  and  local 
government representatives, regional communal services suppliers, NGOs, and municipal 
‘ethnic issues’ experts. Similar consultative councils also exist at municipal level. 

Under the Minister of Education, there is a Centre for Educational Integration of Children 
and  Students  from  Ethnic  Minorities.  Its  task  is  to  assist  the  Ministry  of  Education  in 
implementing  educational  integration  of  minority  students.430  It  develops  and  funds 
projects  promoting  ethnic  minority  students  equal  access  to  education.431  It  fundraises 
from donor institutions, and a subsidy from the Ministry of Education’s budget.432 

Within  the  Ministry  of  Labour  and  Social  Policy  (MLSP),  the  Policy  for  Persons  with 
Disabilities,  Equal  Opportunities  and  Social  assistance  Directorate  develops  policy  and 
programmes for vulnerable groups.433 Another directorate within MLSP, the Demographic 
Development, Ethnic Issues, and Equal Opportunities Directorate, deals with equality policy 
too. 

427  See a brief report on the government’s website: http://www.government.bg/cgi-bin/e-

cms/vis/vis.pl?s=001&p=0228&n=5467&g (in BG). 

428  Regulations on the Structure and Activities of the National Council for Cooperation on Ethnic and Integration 

Issues, Article 1 (http://www.nccedi.government.bg/page.php?category=103&id=1495) (in BG). 

429  Regulations on the Structure and Activities of the National Council for Cooperation on Ethnic and Integration 
Issues, Article 2 (1.5) (http://www.nccedi.government.bg/page.php?category=103&id=1495) (in BG).  

430  Decree N 4 of the Council of Ministers of 11 January 2005 establishing CEICSEM, Article 1. 
431  Decree N 4 of the Council of Ministers of 11 January 2005, Article 2. 
432  Decree N 4 of the Council of Ministers of 11 January 2005, Article 9. 
433  Information on the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy’s Internet site at: 

http://www.mlsp.government.bg/index.php?section=POLICIESI&lang=_eng&I=306 (in BG). 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
The  National  Council  on  Integration  of  People  with  Disabilities  is  a  similar  consultative 
body.434  Its  tasks  include:  assisting  the  implementation  of  the  policy  for  integration  of 
people  with  disabilities;  studying  and  analysing  disabled  people’s  needs,  and  making 
proposals for action to authorities, organizations, and commercial entities; giving opinions 
on draft legislation for disabled people’s integration; facilitating the coordination between 
authorities  and  other  organizations,  and  the  organizations  of,  and  for  people  with 
disabilities; interacting with other consultative bodies and disability NGOs and international 
organizations; raising public awareness of disability issues.435 

The  Agency  for  People  with  Disabilities,  an  executive  body  within  MLSP  is  charged  with 
implementing the public policy of integration of people with disabilities.436 Its tasks include: 
creating and maintaining a database on people with disabilities; keeping a register of the 
specialized  enterprises  and  cooperatives  of  people  with  disabilities;  developing 
programmes  and  funding  projects  for  stimulating  economic  initiatives  for  the  benefit  of 
people with disabilities; developing programmes and funding projects for social integration 
of people with disabilities; awarding employers funds for accommodating working places 
to  disabled  people’s  needs;  giving  opinions  on  draft  legislation  pertaining  to  disability; 
reporting annually on the measures for disabled people’s integration.437 

There is no governmental structure to deal with sexual orientation policy. There is also no 
department dealing with equality/non-discrimination issues relating to religion/ belief.  

There is no anti-racism or anti-discrimination National Action Plan.  

434  Regulations on the Structure and Activities of the National Council on Integration of People with Disabilities, 

adopted 17 December 2004, establishing NCIPD, Article 2.  

435  Regulations on the Structure and Activities of the National Council on Integration of People with Disabilities, 

Article 3 (http://www.nccedi.government.bg/page.php?category=103&id=1495) (in BG).  

436  Structural Regulations of the Agency for People with Disabilities, Article 2 (1) 

(http://ahu.mlsp.government.bg/portal/document/138) (in BG). 

437  Structural Regulations of the Agency for People with Disabilities, Article 2 (1) 

(http://ahu.mlsp.government.bg/portal/document/138) (in BG). 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
10  CURRENT BEST PRACTICES 

1. The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) has shortlisted and highlighted 
as an excellent practice the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee’s litigation in the European Court 
of  Human  Rights  (ECtHR)  case  of  Yordanova  and  Others  v.  Bulgaria.438  This  honourable 
mention was in the framework of the 2014 EESC Civil Society Prize, “Rewarding Excellence 
in Civil Society Initiatives: The Integration of Roma”. The ECtHR ruling in the Yordanova 
case was, further, voted best ECtHR ruling for 2012 by the Strasbourg Observers blog of 
the  Human  Rights  Centre  at  Ghent  University.439  The  ruling  is  considered  a  strong 
precedent of housing rights protection for vulnerable minorities. 

2.  In  2010,  the  Government  initiated  a  process  of  deinstitutionalisation  of  children 
(including children with disabilities) in social care ‘homes’. Deinstitutionalisation is meant 
to be accomplished in 2025 by closing down all institutions for children in Bulgaria, and 
providing for alternative care services. Its basis is the "Vision for Deinstitutionalisation of 
Children in Bulgaria" National Strategy. In 2010, when deinstitutionalisation started out, 
the overall number of institutions for children was 137, and the number of institutionalized 
children  -  5 695.  As  of  31  December  2014,  the  number  of  institutions  was  95,  and  the 
number of children in them - 2 218. Of those ‘deinstitutionalised’, 111 or 16.6 % are dead, 
and 88 or 13.1 % were transferred to another institution. Accordingly, 199 of the total of 
668 ‘deinstitutionalised’ children were, in fact, not deinstitutionalised.440 Still, the process 
is of great importance. 

3. In 2015, the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC), of its own motion, referred a set of 
questions concerning special protection on disability grounds to the Court of Justice of the 
EU (CJEU). The complainant in the case, a person with a psychosocial disability, was a 
public servant who was made redundant. She appealed against this order, claiming that 
under  the  Labour  Code  the  agency  employing  her  had  a  duty  to  ask  the  Labour 
Inspectorate for prior permission to make her redundant because she was a person with 
disability. The first-instance court held that the Labour Code did not apply to her as she 
was a public servant. The Public Servant Act applied to her and it did not provide for such 
special  protection.  On  appeal,  SAC  found  that  public  servants  with  disabilities  and 
employees  with  disabilities  (governed  under  the  Labour  Code)  were  treated  differently 
under the legislation in terms of special protection against dismissal, and decided to ask 
the CJEU whether the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), the 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and Directive 2000/78/EC should be interpreted 
as allowing such a difference.441  

438  See at: http://www.eesc.europa.eu/resources/docs/qe-04-14-791-en-c.pdf, p. 11. 
439  See at: http://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/01/15/poll-the-best-and-the-worst-ecthr-judgments-of-

2012/.  

440  All figures are official figures provided to the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee by the State Child Protection 
Agency (by letter of 27 January 2015) and by the Social Assistance Agency (by letter No. 05-14 of 29 
January 2015). 

441  See more information in Section 12.2 below. 

82 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
11  SENSITIVE OR CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES 

11.1 Potential breaches of the directives (if any) 

The law 

- 

- 

- 
- 

- 

The definition of incitement to discrimination, including instructions to discriminate, 
under PADA expressly requires direct intent. 
The  definition  of  racial  segregation  under  PADA  expressly  requires  the  state  of 
separation  to  be  ‘forced’.442  The  European  Court  of  Human  Rights  has  consistently 
held in Roma segregation cases that no waiver of the right to non-discrimination is 
possible.443 
PADA defines indirect discrimination in an unclear and confusing way.  
Parallel to PADA, pre-existing abstract bans on discrimination are in place under other 
laws. There is no coherence between PADA and those older bans, with differences in 
protected grounds, exceptions, and definitions. 
There is inconsistency between PADA and other directly or indirectly discriminatory 
norms. 

The case law  

In  2014,  the  Supreme  Administrative  Court  (SAC),  the  final  instance  reviewing  PADC 
decisions,  made  a  number  of  new,  restrictive  requirements  for  PADA  enforcement  that 
contradict PADA, as well as EU law.444 Specifically, those holdings contradict: Article 2.1 of 
Directive 2000/43/EC and Article 2.1 of Directive 2000/78/EC that ban all discrimination; 
Article 7.1 of  Directive  2000/43/EC  and Article 9.1  of Directive 2000/78/EC that require 
ensuring protection for all victims; as well as CJEU’s ruling in the Firma Feryn case.445 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

PADC could not declare every breach of PADA and other equality laws a breach, or 
sanction it: only those breaches that met the definition for an administrative breach 
under  the  general  Administrative  Breaches  and  Sanctions  Act.  That  required 
establishing a concrete action/ omission, a concrete perpetrator, a concrete victim, 
and guilt. 
A concrete victim needed to be identified. Discrimination, in order to be found, had 
to be a concrete fact, and not a hypothetical possibility.446 
A  perpetrator  could  only  be  a  natural  person.  Legal  persons  could  be  perpetrators 
only exceptionally, in cases expressly provided for by law. 
A  public  authority  could  not  be  a  perpetrator  –  only  an  individual  exercising  its 
competence. 
A legal provision could not constitute discrimination as it was not a concrete action/ 
omission.  The  adoption  of  a  legal  provision  was  not  a  concrete  action/  omission 
either. 
PADC  could  not  declare  laws  to  be  discriminatory:  a  law  that  was  not  declared 
unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court (CC) could not be discriminatory. 
PADC  could  not  declare  secondary  legislation  to  be  discriminatory  either:  such 
legislation  that  was  not  declared  unlawful  by  SAC  (under  general  administrative 
procedure) could not be discriminatory. 
Where  PADC  found  a  legal  norm  to  contradict  equality  law,  it  could  not  declare  a 
breach of the law. It could not order the responsible authority to repeal/ amend that 

442  PADA, Additional Provision, § 1.6. 
443  For instance, D.H. v. Czech Republic, judgment of 13 November 2007; Sampanis v. Greece, judgment of 05 

June 2008; Orsus v. Croatia, judgment of 16 March 2010 (GC). 

444  See Section 12.2. 
445  Judgment of the Court of 10 July 2008 in case C-54/07, Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor 

racismebestrijding v Firma Feryn NV. 

446  Supreme Administrative Court, Decision No. 15637 оf 19 December 2014 in case No. 1925/2014. The case 

concerned the application of an age bar under secondary legislation. 

83 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
norm. It could only make a recommendation, or take legal action before SAC (where 
secondary legislation is concerned). 

This tendency was not overturned in 2016. 

In 2016, SAC confirmed a ruling by the lower-instance court that a legal person that was 
found liable for an act of discrimination could not incur a fine as under PADA, legal persons 
could only be sanctioned for not having complied with a specific duty under PADA, and not 
for having discriminated.447 The lower-instance court repealed a financial sanction imposed 
by  PADC,  reasoning  that  PADC  had  not  specified  a  duty  under  PADA  that  the  company 
failed to comply with. The Sofia City Administrative Court (SCAC) held that under PADA, 
only natural persons could be fined for committing discrimination, and not legal persons. 
SAC confirmed that ruling. 

SAC has held that, for discrimination to  be at hand, a difference of treatment should be 
based solely on a protected ground, excluding „mixed motives” cases where a protected 
characteristic was one among other reasons for less favourable treatment.448 At the same 
time, SAC is inconsistent: in a recent case, it held that „discriminatory treatment is at hand 
regardless  of  whether  a  protected  ground  is  the  only,  or  one  of  the  reasons  for  less 
favourable treatment.449 

As mentioned, SAC has applied the justification test only relevant for indirect discrimination 
to cases of less favourable treatment, i.e. direct discrimination. It has applied the concept 
of  indirect  discrimination  to  a  number  of  cases  of  direct  less  favourable  treatment.  For 
instance, in 2014, in a case where a Muslim prison inmate complained that his food included 
pork  (denial  of  reasonable  accommodation),  SAC  held  that  there  was  indirect 
discrimination against this complainant compared to Muslim inmates in another prison who 
did receive food accommodation.450 

In  some  cases,  SAC  has  shown  a  serious  lack  of  understanding  of  the  concept  of  a 
comparator, holding that age requirements for access to employment did not constitute 
discrimination because they applied to all candidates, and not just the complainant.451 

SAC  has  required  intent,  often  holding  expressly  that  “treatment  [must  be]  carried  out 
knowingly on one of the [protected] grounds”.452 As mentioned, in 2014, SAC held twice 
that only conduct that was “guilty” could qualify as a breach under PADA.453 At the same 
time,  its  case  law  is  contradictory:  on  one  occasion  in  2014,  SAC  held  that  “direct 
discrimination did not require discriminatory intent, therefore, the lack of such is irrelevant 
for  qualifying  treatment  as  discriminatory,  including  where  it  was  based  on  an 
understanding that it was lawful”.454 

In  a  2014  case,  SAC  interpreted  “sexual  orientation”  as  having  to  be  innate,  and  not 
“consciously”  chosen,  in  order  to  be  protected.  SAC  denied  asylum  protection  to  a  gay 
Cameroonian because he “decided”, at age 35, to  “choose” a  sexuality that  was not his 
“innate”  one.455  The  Court  did  not  define  “to  decide”,  “to  choose”,  or  “innate”  in  this 

447  SAC Decision No. 13542 of 12 December 2016 in case No. 10756/ 2015.    
448  Supreme Administrative Court, inter alia, Decision No. 8277 оf 11 June 2012 in case No. 3852/2012.  
449  Supreme Administrative Court, Decision No. 274 оf 09 January 2012 in case No. 1319/2011. 
450  Supreme Administrative Court, Decision No. 2514 of 21 February 2014, case No. 10989/2013. 
451  Supreme Administrative Court, Decision No. 7096 оf 19 May 2012 in case No.3686/2012; Decision No. 

10734 оf 1 September 2014 in case No. 1463/2014. 

452  Inter alia, Supreme Administrative Court, Decision No. 8277 оf 11 June 2012 in case No. 3852/2012; 
Decision No. 3645 оf 14 March 2014 in case No. 12679/2013 (“conscious” perpetration requirement 
reiterated twice). 

453  Supreme Administrative Court, Decision No. 5645 in case No. 15991/2013, Decision No. 15637 in case No. 

1925/2014. 

454  Supreme Administrative Court, Decision No. 1048 оf 27 January 2014 in case No. 8033/2013. The case 

concerned the application of an age bar under a university’s regulations. 

455  Supreme Administrative Court, Decision No. 9467 оf 7 July 2014 in case No. 1381/2014. 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
context. Accordingly, the usual meanings of the words apply. The ruling is in breach of the 
Directive because it fails to give protection against “any” discrimination based on sexual 
orientation. It applies instead a restrictive definition of the protected ground that effectively 
authorizes discrimination as long as it is based on “chosen” as opposed to “innate” sexual 
orientation.  The  directive  does  not  define  sexual  orientation  in  any  way  and,  therefore, 
does  not  limit  it  in  any  way.  It  cannot  be  limited  at  the  national  level  to  only  sexual 
orientation that is “innate”. Under the directive, any sexual orientation is protected.  

SAC has often held that discrimination was “inequality provided for by law […]” thereby 
excluding discriminatory practices in breach of the law.456 

The equality body practice 

PADC,  as  a  rule,  refuses  to  consider  (on  admissibility)  or  uphold  (on  the  merits) 
discrimination complaints by persons with disabilities who failed to produce medical proof 
of  their  disability.457  It  has  failed  to  properly  apply  the  definition  of  disability,  which  is 
concerned with the fact of impairment, regardless of whether it was medically diagnosed 
or not. 

PADC,  like  SAC,  often  shows  a  lack  of  understanding  of  indirect  discrimination, in  some 
cases fusing it with direct discrimination.  

11.2 Other issues of concern  

PADC does not use its powers, including its competence to start ex officio proceedings, in 
any  strategic  way.  It  has  no  priorities.  It  has  failed  to  target  serious  issues  of 
discrimination, such as Roma segregation in education, Roma destitution and isolation in 
housing, people with disabilities’ institutionalization, etc.  

There is no reliable measurement of the implementation rate of PADC decisions. According 
to  PADC  members  and  staff,  PADC  binding  instructions  (orders)  have  a  poor  record  of 
execution by respondents.458 In such cases, the body has no formal powers other than to 
impose further fines. SAC, contrary to PADA, orders losing parties in proceedings for review 
of  PADC  decisions  to  pay  costs  and  expenses.459  PADA  is  express  that  proceedings  are 
exempt from all fees and costs but the courts frustrate this provision because it requires 
them  to  pay  the  latter  from  their  own  budgets.  The  case  law  on  this  means  that 
complainants against PADC decisions have to pay PADC legal representation costs. PADC 
actively seeks its costs at the expense of losing complainants, claiming to be bound by law 
to  do  so.460  Where  PADC  is  the  losing  party,  SAC  and  the  lower  court  order  it  to  pay 
expenses too.  

In 2016, vigilante groups became active around the southeast border, targeting asylum 
seekers  and  migrants  for  verbal  and  physical  violence,  robbery,  unlawful  detention  and 
other  crimes.  The  criminal  justice  authorities  have  not  dealt  with  that,  with  just  one 
unsuccessful  criminal  court  case  on  record.  Vigilante  activists  have  enjoyed  positive  to 
neutral  coverage  by  mainstream  media,  and  have  actively  used  the  media  to  incite  to 
organized  hate  crime  against  asylum  seekers.  Former  Prime-Minister  Borisov  publicly 

456  Among many other rulings, see SAC Decision No. 2368 of 1 March 2016 in case No. 7838/2015, p. 2. 
457  Inter alia, PADC, Decision No. 259 of 17 December 2008 in case No. 186/2008. 
458  Margarita Ilieva & Desislava Simeonova, Study on Equality Bodies set up under Directives 2000/43/EC, 
2004/113/EC and 006/54/EC (VT/2009/012), Bulgaria, April 2010: Focus Group Discussion with PADC 
members and staff.  

459  Inter alia, Supreme Administrative Court, Decision No. 10734 оf 1.09.2014 in case No. 1463/2014; Decision 
No. 1048 оf 27 January 2014 in case No. 8033/2013; Decision No. 1667 оf 6 December 2014 in case No. 
10013/2013; Decision No. 3645 оf 14 March 2014 in case No. 12679/2013.  

460  PADC letter No. 44-00-1609 of 20 April 2015 addressed to an individual named Boyko Boev. 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
praised  and  thanked  them  for  their  ‘help’,  stating  that  all  ‘help’  was  welcome.461  The 
Prosecutor’s  Office  refused  to  investigate  Borisov  for  incitement  to  discrimination  and 
violence, or for incitement to commission of crimes.462 

Equal  rights  defendants  are  at  risk,  with  a  number  of  instances  of  serious  threats  and 
verbal abuse online, as well as in the context of aggressive demonstrations, and at least 
two instances of physical attacks in 2016.463    

461  See news reports at: http://btvnovinite.bg/article/vodeshti-novini/bhk-sas-signal-sreshtu-premiera-bojko-

borisov-zaradi-blagodarnostite-kam-dobrovolcheskite-otrjadi.html; 
http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2016/04/10/2739769_borisov_dva_koraba_za_800_mln_lv_shte_budat_p
ostroeni/; 

https://offnews.bg/news/Obshtestvo_4/Borisov-blagodari-na-hajkite-za-bezhantci-vsiaka-pomosht-bila-dobre-

d_627393.html. 

462 See news reports at: http://www.segabg.com/article.php?id=810515; 

https://ureport.bg/122771/2016/06/27/politika/bulgaria/prokuraturata-otkaza-da-razsledva-borisov-za-
saprichastnost-kam-svinskite-opashki. 

463  See news reports at: http://btvnovinite.bg/article/kriminalno/neizvestni-napadnaha-predsedatelja-na-bhk-
nasred-sofija.html; http://clubz.bg/46257-napadnaha_i_biha_shefa_na_bylgarskiq_helzinkski_komitet; 
http://www.bghelsinki.org/bg/novini/press/single/bhk-osyzhda-bezdejstvieto-na-instituciite-pri-poredna-
proyava-na-tormoz-i-presledvane-na-organizaciyata/. 

86 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
12  LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN 2016 

12.1  Legislative amendments 

- 

Protection Against Discrimination Act 

On 30 December 2016, PADA was amended as new definitions for indirect discrimination 
and unfavourable treatment were adopted.464 

- 

Restricting the Wearing of Clothing Partially or Fully Covering the Face Act 

On  30  September  2016,  Parliament  adopted  a  law  banning  the  wearing  of  clothing  that 
fully or partially covers the face in public places.465 A ‘public place’ is defined as ‘any publicly 
accessible place on the territory of Bulgaria’. The Act defines a partially covered face as 
one where the mouth, nose or eyes are covered. Exceptions to the ban are exhaustively 
listed: if wearing of the clothing is imperative for health reasons, or because of the nature 
of  one’s  profession,  or  within  the  frameworks  of  sports,  cultural,  educational  and  other 
similar events where it is worn by participants in those events and is temporary; in prayer 
houses of registered religions; where a law provides otherwise. Breaking the ban results 
in the imposition of fines: BGN 200 (EUR 100) for a  first infringement; BGN 1500 (EUR 
750) for any following infringement. For officials the respective amounts are higher: BGN 
500  (EUR  250)  for  a  first  infringement;  BGN  2000  (EUR  1000)  for  any  following 
infringement. Persons who incite another to break the ban, or who fail to hinder them in 
breaking the ban, face the same penalties. The police are responsible for establishing and 
fining perpetrators. 

The Bulgarian Helsinki Committee (www.bghelsinki.org) challenged the law, motioning the 
Ombudsperson  (Омбудсман)  to  seise  the  Constitutional  Court  against  it.466  The 
Ombudsman declined. No other controversy marked the law’s adoption. 

12.2 Case law 

Disability 

Name of the court: Supreme Administrative Court  
Date of decision: 25 November 2016  
Name of the parties: K.I.M v. [A Company]  
Reference number: Decision No 12783 in case No 11712/ 2015  
Address of the webpage: 
http://www.sac.government.bg/court22.nsf/d038edcf49190344c2256b7600367606/7b33
b15440c2e64fc2258073003d6a9a?OpenDocument 
(in BG) 
Brief  summary:  The  Supreme  Administrative  Court  (SAC)  ruled  that  an  employer  had 
lawfully denied a job applicant with disabilities (diabetes, inter alia) and a 61 % medically 
certified long-term inability to work. SAC upheld a ruling by the lower court against the job 
applicant  that  in  turn  confirmed  the  equality  body’s  decision  against  her.  The  job  in 
question  was  a  cashier’s  in  a  food  store.  The  employer  requested  an  opinion  from  the 
medical authorities as to whether the applicant would be able to carry out the work that it 
said involved psychological stress, long hours of standing up and heavy object lifting. The 
medical authorities gave a negative opinion, and the employer refused the application. SAC 
held that this refusal was necessary in order to protect the applicant’s health, and that an 
employer  was  not  free  to  hire  a  person  with  a  disability  in  contravention  to  medical 

464  Available at: http://www.parliament.bg/bg/laws/ID/42259. 
465  Закон за ограничаване носенето на облекло, прикриващо или скриващо лицето, promulgated 11 

October 2016. Available at: http://www.lex.bg/en/laws/ldoc/2136914670.  

466  Motion available at: http://www.bghelsinki.org/bg/novini/press/single/20161012-open-letter-full-face-veil-

ban/ (in BG). 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
authorities’ recommendations.  
SAC  and  the  lower  instances  endorsed  a  formalistic  medical  approach  to  disability 
employment rights, ignoring the applicant’s own perception of her ability to do the job, as 
well as the issue of potential reasonable accommodation. SAC’s reasoning that an employer 
could  not  “at  their  own  risk”  disregard  a  negative  medical  opinion,  and  hire  a  person 
effectively transfers recruitment decisions to medical professionals who are not bound by 
the reasonable accommodation duty under equality law. 

Roma  

Name of the court: Supreme Administrative Court   
Date of decision: 12 December 2016 
Name of the parties: [A Company] v. [a Roma NGO] 
Reference number: Decision No 13542 in case No 10756/ 2015 
Address of the webpage: 
http://www.sac.government.bg/court22.nsf/d6397429a99ee2afc225661e00383a86/e328
8bd03c9de31cc225808400393d56?OpenDocument (in BG) 
Brief  summary:  SAC  ruled  that  a  national  TV  broadcaster  company  was  liable  for 
discrimination  on  account  of  having  failed  to  moderate  anti-Roma  hate  comments  by 
anonymous users on its website. This ruling confirmed a ruling by the lower-instance court 
that  in  turn  confirmed  a  ruling  by  the  equality  body.  The  lower  court  –  the  Sofia  City 
Administrative  Court  (SCAC),  held  that  by  omitting  to  moderate  anti-Roma  comments 
under a news piece on its website, the respondent company had committed discrimination. 
SCAC  ruled  that  the  impugned  comments  constituted  harassment  under  the  Protection 
Against Discrimination Act (PADA), and the broadcaster company was responsible for their 
content because it acquired rights over them as soon as they were published on its site. 
Moreover, the company’s own General Terms provided for a duty for the company to erase 
or edit user comments containing ethnic discrimination or insults to minorities. However, 
SCAC repealed the equality body’s injunction that the company publish the body’s ruling 
against it on its TV site. SCAC found that there was no basis in PADA for such an injunction. 
SCAC also repealed the financial sanction imposed by the equality body (BGN 2500, the 
equivalent of EUR 1250), reasoning that this sanction was not properly based on PADA: 
under the law, legal persons could only be sanctioned where they failed to comply with a 
specific duty deriving from PADA, and the equality body had not specified such a duty in 
its ruling. Instead, the equality body ruled that the sanction was based on the company’s 
having  committed  discrimination.  SCAC,  however,  held  that  under  PADA,  only  natural 
persons could be fined for committing discrimination, and not legal persons. The case was 
brought before the equality body by a Roma NGO using PADA’s actio popularis provision.  

SAC  agreed  with  SCAC.  In  addition,  SAC  found  that  the  impugned  comments  contained 
incitement  to  violence  against  the  Roma  community,  creating  a  hostile,  degrading  and 
offensive  environment.  The  Court  expressly  held  that  it  was  irrelevant  whether  the 
company aimed at such a result by  publishing the impugned comments.  The company’s 
defence in that sense was groundless as intent was irrelevant insofar as a result was at 
hand. SAC invoked the European Court of Human Rights’ Grand Chamber judgment in the 
case of Delfi AS v. Estonia467 to the effect that the media are liable for publications in their 
news forums that insult and incite to hatred. As an end result, however, no sanction was 
applied.  

A prevailing trend in Roma litigation is action against hate speech – complaints by Romani 
individuals and public interest motions by NGOs and others to the equality body alleging 
harassment and incitement to discrimination, as well as to the Prosecutor’s Office in more 
serious cases amounting to incitement to hatred or discrimination under the Criminal Code. 
The Prosecutor’s Office refuses to deal with such cases reasoning either that it was a matter 
of free expression, or effectively agreeing with the racist slander describing it as a matter 

467  DELFI AS v. Estonia, Grand Chamber Judgment of 16 June 2015, Application no. 64569/09. 

88 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
of public concern, or referring to more technical impediments to enforcement, such as that 
no  one  is  criminally liable  for  party  programs  because  those  were  adopted  by  collective 
bodies. The equality body generally takes an effective stance against hate speech.  

Two  other  trends  are  complaints  to  the  Prosecutor’s  Office  in  cases  of  hate-based  anti-
Roma  violence,  and  challenges  against  the  inaccessibility  of  electric  meters  in  Roma 
residential areas. Figures are not publicly available.  

Other ethnicity  

Name of the court: Supreme Administrative Court   
Date of decision: 30 May 2016 
Name of the parties: Darinka Gueorguieva v. Bulgarian National Radio and Blagoevgrad 
Regional Radio 
Reference number: Decision No 6397 in case No 7347/ 2015 
Address of the webpage: 
http://www.sac.government.bg/court22.nsf/d6397429a99ee2afc225661e00383a86/079b
210e95b0f2ddc2257fbc004af127?OpenDocument (in BG) 
Brief summary: SAC ruled that the National Radio and its regional station were not liable 
for  discrimination  against  a  complainant  of  Macedonian  ethnicity.  The  complainant,  an 
activist with a Macedonians’ NGO, allegedly asked the regional radio station to run an ad 
for an event organized by her NGO. The station, however, refused allegedly because of the 
NGO’s not being registered, covertly on grounds of their Macedonian ethnicity. The radio 
company claimed that the actual reason was that the complainant had not filed a written 
request  for  the  service,  and  under  the  relevant  law,  advertisement  contracts  with  radio 
broadcasters needed to be in writing. SAC agreed, as did the equality body and the first-
instance administrative court. The courts, however, did not reason why a contract in writing 
required a request in writing, nor did they take into account the lack of any evidence that 
the radio company in all cases required written requests for its advertising services, not 
only in the complainant’s case.     

89 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1: TABLE OF KEY NATIONAL ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION 

The  main  transposition  and  anti-discrimination  legislation  at  both  federal  and 
federated/provincial level. 

Country:  
Date:   

Bulgaria 
1 January 2017 

Title of 
legislation  
(including 
amending 
legislation)  

Title of 
legislation  
(including 
amending 
legislation)  

Title of 
legislation  
(including 
amending 
legislation)  

Title of the law: Protection Against Discrimination Act 
Abbreviation: PADA 
Date of adoption: 16 September 2003 
Latest amendments: 2 August 2013 
Entry into force: 30 December 2016 
Web link: http://lex.bg/bg/laws/ldoc/2135472223  
Grounds  covered:  sex,  race,  national  origin,  ethnicity,  human  genome, 
nationality,  origin,  religion  or  faith,  education,  beliefs,  political  affiliation, 
personal or social status, disability, age, sexual orientation, family status, 
property status, or any other ground provided for by law or by international 
treaty Bulgaria is a party to. 
Civil/administrative/criminal law: Civil 
Material scope: Universal 
Principal  content:  harassment,  sexual  harassment,  victimisation, 
incitement,  inaccessible  environment,  racial  segregation);  universal 
personal scope; reasonable accommodation duties; positive duties; shifting 
burden  of  proof;  specialised  body  to  adjudicate  and  promote  equality; 
judicial remedy; class actions and actio popularis claims; NGO interveners; 
exemption from costs. 
Title of the law: Integration of Persons with Disabilities Act 
Abbreviation: IPDA 
Date of adoption: 2 September 2004 
Latest amendments: 13 October 2015 
Entry into force: 1 January 2005 
Web link: http://lex.bg/bg/laws/ldoc/2135491478  
Grounds covered: disability 
Civil/administrative/criminal law: Civil 
Material scope: Universal 
Principal  content:  Bans  direct  and  indirect  discrimination;  reasonable 
accommodation duties employment, education, infrastructure etc.;  
positive measures. 
Title of the law: Ordinance No 4 on Planning, Implementing and Maintaining 
Buildings  in  Accordance  with  the  Requirements  of  an  Accessible 
Environment for the Population, including People with Disabilities 
Abbreviation: n/a 
Date of adoption: 1 July 2009 
Latest amendments: 15 July 2011 
Entry into force: 14 July 2009 
Web link: http://lex.bg/bg/laws/ldoc/2135639181  
Grounds covered: disability 
Civil/administrative/criminal law: Administrative 
Material scope: Architecture and infrastructure 
Principal  content:  Bans  direct  and  indirect  discrimination;  reasonable 
accommodation duties employment, education, infrastructure etc.;  
positive measures 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2: TABLE OF INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS 

Country:  
Date:   

Bulgaria 
1 January 2017 

Instrument  Date of 

signature  
(if not 
signed 
please 
indicate) 
Dd/mm/ 
yyyy 
Yes  
7 May 1992 

Date of 
ratification  
(if not 
ratified 
please 
indicate) 
Dd/mm/ 
yyyy 
Yes  
7  September 
1992 

Derogation
s/ 
reservation
s relevant 
to equality 
and non-
discriminati
on 
N/A 

Right of 
individual 
petition 
accepted? 

Yes  

Can this 
instrument 
be directly 
relied upon 
in domestic 
courts by 
individuals
? 
Yes  

No  

No  

N/A 

No  

N/A 

Revised 
European 
Social 
Charter 

Yes  
21 
September 
1998 

Yes  
7 June 2000 

N/A 

Yes 
8  October 
1968 

Yes  
21 
September 
1970 

N/A 

Ratified 
collective 
complaints 
protocol? 
Yes  
Yes  

Yes  

Yes  

Yes  
9  October 
1997 

Yes  
7 May 1999 

N/A 

N/A 

Yes  

Yes  
8  October 
1968 

Yes  
21 
September 
1970 

Yes  
1 
1966 

June 

Yes  
8 
1966 

August 

N/A 

No  

Yes  

N/A 

Yes  

Yes  

Yes  
17 
1980  

July 

Yes  
8 
1982 

February 

N/A 

Yes  

Yes  

91 

European 
Convention 
on Human 
Rights 
(ECHR) 
Protocol 12, 
ECHR 

International 
Covenant on 
Civil and 
Political 
Rights 
Framework 
Convention 
for the 
Protection of 
National 
Minorities 
International 
Covenant on 
Economic, 
Social and 
Cultural 
Rights 
Convention 
on the 
Elimination 
of All Forms 
of Racial 
Discriminatio
n 
Convention 
on the 
Elimination 
of 
Discriminatio
n Against 
Women 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Instrument  Date of 

signature  
(if not 
signed 
please 
indicate) 
Dd/mm/ 
yyyy 
Yes  
unavailable 

Date of 
ratification  
(if not 
ratified 
please 
indicate) 
Dd/mm/ 
yyyy 
Yes  
22 July 1960 

Derogation
s/ 
reservation
s relevant 
to equality 
and non-
discriminati
on 
N/A 

Right of 
individual 
petition 
accepted? 

N/A 

Can this 
instrument 
be directly 
relied upon 
in domestic 
courts by 
individuals
? 
Yes  

ILO 
Convention 
No. 111 on 
Discriminatio
n 
Convention 
on the Rights 
of the Child 

Convention 
on the Rights 
of Persons 
with 
Disabilities  

Yes  
31 
1990 

Yes  
3 June 1991 

May 

N/A 

N/A 

Yes  

Yes  
27 
September 
2007 

Yes  
26 
2012 

January 

N/A 

No  

Yes  

92 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS 

Free publications: 

•  one copy: 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); 

•  more than one copy or posters/maps: 

from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries 
(http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) 
or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*). 

(*)  The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may 
charge you). 

Priced publications: 

•  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu)  

 
 
 
 
 
 
D
S
-
0
1
-
1
7
-
4
5
7
-
3
A
-
N

ISBN: 978-92-79-68804-1 

doi:10.2838/02071