Bulgarian Anti-Discrimination Cases
Below are summaries of Roma discrimination cases initiated by Romani Baht
Foundation (Sofia) under Bulgaria’s anti-discrimination legislation during the timeframe of the TRAILER project, 2004 - 2006. Included are cases involving
discrimination in education initiated by Romani Baht in cooperation with the European
Roma Rights Centre under a project funded by the British Embassy in Sofia.
Information as of the 30th November 2006. For up-to- date information on the cases
please contact Romani Baht directly office@romanibaht.com
Case name
Case reference
Status of case
Area
D. versus Trade Catering LTD
3692/06 with the
Sofia District Court
Pending
Access to goods and
services
Four Roma families from
Philipovtzi Roma
neighborhood in Sofia
versus Electricity Company
2756, 27 – Sofia
District Court; 2751,
35 – Sofia District
court; 2755, 37 –
Sofia District Court;
01021 – Sofia City
Court.
Pending
Access to goods and
services
Romani Baht versus KFC (it
is Kentucky Fried Chicken)
Bulgaria, Samex LTD (which
is the Bulgarian Franchise of
the American firm)
S.N. versus Vali LTD
2168/2005 with the
Sofia District Court
Pending
Access to goods and
services
3435/2004 with the
Sofia City Court,
sent to the
Supreme Court of
Cassation to review
the Sofia City Court
decision, which was
in favour of the
respondent. The
Supreme court of
Cassation
scheduled the case
for 14.06.2007.
Pending
Access to goods and
services
K.P. versus the Bulgarian
Academy of Science (BAS)
2253/05 with the
Sofia City Court
Pending
Access to goods and
services
Romani Baht and the BHC
versus the Sofia Electricity
Company
A group of Roma Young
people against the “Riviera”
LTD – Shoumen
3755/04 with the
Sofia City Court
Pending
Access to goods and
services
145/05 with the
Shoumen Regional
Court
Pending
Access to goods and
services
Three Roma boys against
“Alex-Alexander” TF
1121/05 with the
Sofia District Court
Claim denied by
the Sofia City
Court
Access to goods and
services
Romani Baht Foundation
and European Roma Rights
Centre versus the 75th
school Todor Kableshkov
(Roma only school in
Fakulteta Roma district in
Sofia), Sofia Municipality
and the Ministry of
Education and Science
9427/2003 with the
Sofia District Court
Closed
Education
1
RBF versus the Professional
Gymnasium – Sofia,
11089/2004 with
the Sofia District
Court
Pending
Education
Roma children from 1st school
“Saint Kiril and Methodius” in
Blagoevgrad against the
Blagoevgrad Municipality
20041200501154/2
004 with the
Blagoevgrad
Regional Court
Closed
Education
The school for children with
learning disabilities in
Blagoevgrad
20051210100017/
2005 with the
Blagoevgrad
District Court
Closed
Education
ERRC versus the 103 Sofia
School, Sofia Municipality and
the Ministry on Education
3139/05 with the
Sofia City Court
Closed
Education
The case with segregated
Roma-only school in the town
of Ihtiman
1/ 2712.2004
Closed
Education
ERRC and Romani Baht
against the 110th school in
Sofia
666/2005 with the
Sofia District Court
Closed
Education
Y.Y. versus Carmelin LTD
10816/04 with the
Sofia District Court
Pending
Employment
Biliana Nedkova versus Olga
Ivanova
1306/06 with the
Sofia City Court
Pending
Employment
The case of Raikovi family
versus Trendafil Mihalkov
1305/05
Pending
Employment
A.A. versus Detelina LTD
10947/06 – Sofia
District Court
Closed
Employment
M.A. versus Lubimka LTD
2873/05 with the
Sofia City Court
Pending
Employment
AA verus Kenar
294/05
Pending
Employment
RBF versus K. Tretchev
7621/2004
Closed
Harassment
RBF versus Volen Siderov
2752/06 with the
Sofia District Court
Pending
Harassment
S. D. versus “St. Sofia” hospital
7808186911 with
the Sofia District
Court and under
revision of the Sofia
City Court
Pending
Healthcare
M.A. and others
150 of the Sofia
Military Prosecution
Office
Pending
Racial violence
Raikovi family versus Trendafil
Mihalkov
1305/05
Pending
Racial violence
Romani Baht Foundation
versus Mr. Konstantin
Tretchev – Leader of the
Professional Union
Podkrepa
7621/2004 with the
Sofia District Court
Pending
Racial violence
2
ACCESS TO GOODS AND SERVICES
D. versus Trade Catering LTD 3692/06 with the Sofia District Court
Facts: A group of Roma and Bulgarians approached a famous night club in Sofia.
Initially one of the Bulgarians went to ask if there are free places in the club. She was
answered positively and called the group to approach the entrance. At the entrance
the group was stopped by the guards. On the question “What is the problem?” the
guards answered “Face control”. Asked to give details on the answer, the guards
explained that they are told by the head manager not to allow Roma to enter. The
guards exclusively stated that the Bulgarians may enter.
Legal action: The case is filled under art. 71 of the Protection Against Discrimination
Act. The case is pending before the first instance court.
Four Roma families from Philipovtzi Roma neighborhood in Sofia versus
Electricity Company 2756, 27 – Sofia District Court; 2751, 35 – Sofia District court;
2755, 37 – Sofia District Court; 01021 – Sofia City Court.
Facts: The cases involves a claim of direct discrimination as the clients’ meters are
positioned at 11 metres high. The measuring devices in the Bulgarian neighbourhoods
are never put in such position. According to the law they should be available for visual
control by the client. Additionally the clients were billed with huge amounts of money
for electricity in the summer of 2005.
Legal action: The cases involve claims for direct discrimination under art. 71 of the
Protection Against Discrimination Act as well as claims for minimising the bills. The
cases are pending before the first instance court.
S.N. versus Vali LTD 3435/2004 with the Sofia City Court
Facts: The case involves a refusal of a shop to sell goods to a Roma person.
Ruling: Sofia District Court issued a decision in favour of the plaintiff. The respondent
appealed. However, there is an argument whether the appeal is addressed in the legal
term. As the Sofia City Court in its capacity of a second instance court ruled that the
respondent failed to appeal within the legal term, the case went to the Supreme Court
of Cassation to rule on that issue. The Supreme court rescheduled the case for 2005
and issued a decision stating that the respondent’s appeal has been sent to the court
in due time. The case has been sent back to the Sofia City Court to rule on the merits.
The decision was in favour of the firm-respondent and has been appealed by Romani
Baht before the Supreme Court of Cassation.
K.P. versus the Bulgarian Academy of Science (BAS) 2253/05 with the Sofia City
Court
Facts: The case involves BAS’s refusal to host an event organised for Roma persons
and Roma organisations.
Ruling: The first instance court found that the respondent performed direct
discrimination on an ethnic basis, ordered the respondent to discontinue the
discrimination and to pay 600 leva to the plaintiff for non-pecuniary damages. The
3
respondent appealed and presently the case is pending before the second instance
court. The legal team, however, has been contacted by the Head Professor of the
Academy with the proposal for an exhibition to be organised in the Academy premises
for popularisation of the Roma culture. The exhibition was organised in the summer of
2005 with the support of members of Studii Romani Association.
Romani Baht versus KFC Bulgaria, Samex LTD 2168/2005 with the Sofia District
Court
Facts: A pizza and chicken delivery service refused to deliver food in a Roma
neighbourhood. The case involves refusal of the firm to provide the Romani Baht
Foundation’s (RBF) staff members with fried chicken in the office because the office is
placed in a Roma neighbourhood.
Legal action: The case is filled before the Sofia District Court under Art. 71 of the
Protection Against Discrimination Act against the Bulgarian firm who has the franchise
to use the KFC trade mark in Bulgaria. RBF also prepared a statement to inform the
parent company about the incident as KFC states that the firm supports equal
opportunities. Evidence has been gathered at an open hearing and the first instance
court issued a decision in favour of the plaintiff, stating that the action of the
respondent amounts to direct discrimination. The respondent appealed and the case is
presently pending before Sofia City Court.
Romani Baht and the BHC versus the Sofia Electricity Company 3755/04
Facts: In January 2004 following a failure in the electricity system, more than 250
Roma households were cut off from electricity. When they called the Electricity
Company they were informed that no repairs would be made in the area since there
are number of people who do not pay their bills. There was, however, at least 30
households who paid regularly and still they were cut off. Romani Baht Foundation
(RBF) complained to the company stating that this was a form of collective
punishment. The company answered that the electricity will be restored when at least
70 percent of the bills are collected. For more than two months those who were regular
payers were deprived of electricity just because of being Roma in Roma
neighbourhoods.
Legal action: RBF and the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee initiated a court case under
the provision allowing NGOs to be plaintiffs when the rights of many are breached.
Sofia District Court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs but the respondent appealed. The
second instance court hearings were held in May 2005 and in October 2005. The
respondent presented new evidence to claim that the Roma live in illegal houses and
because of that the system was not repaired in time. The plaintiffs’ position is that
illegal or not, the houses were and are presently supplied with electricity.
The electricity company contacted RBF with a proposal for a friendly settlement. The
company proposed to financially assist RBF to organise a working station in Sofia, in
the Roma district, with the company’s software, which will allow every Roma client to
check the status of his/her electricity meter. However, RBF’s position was that they
would organise the station in one of their offices and in return will assist the company
in the collection of bills. As to the court case, it was agreed that it will continue and
both sides will accept the decision. The case is pending.
4
A group of Roma Young people against the “Riviera” LTD – Shoumen 145/05 with
the Shoumen district court
Facts: The case involves refusal of a sport complex in the town of Shoumen, Varna
region to allow Roma young people to use the swimming pool in the complex.
Legal action: Romani Baht Foundation tested the case and initiated a court case
under Article 71 of the Protection against Discrimination Act. The case has been ruled
in favour of the respondent. The decision has been appealed and presently the case is
pending before the second instance court. The second instance court rejected the
claim due to lack of sufficient evidence.
Three Roma boys against “Alex-Alexander” TF 1121/05
Facts: The case involves an incident of less favourable treatment of Roma clients in a
coffee place in Sofia. It was determined that Roma people, although allowed to enter
are served in plastic cups, whereas the Bulgarian clients are served with porcelain
cups.
Legal action: The case was initiated under art. 71 of the Protection Against
Discrimination Act. A positive decision was issued by the first instance court. It found
direct discrimination, ordered the respondent to discontinue the practice and to pay
non-pecuniary damages. The respondent appealed and the case is presently pending
before the second instance court. The second instance court rejected the claim due to
lack of sufficient evidence.
Cases involving discrimination in education initiated
by Romani Baht Foundation in cooperation with the European Roma Rights Centre
under a project funded by the British Embassy in Sofia.
Romani Baht Foundation and European Roma Rights Centre versus the 75th
school Todor Kableshkov (Roma only school in Fakulteta Roma district in Sofia),
Sofia Municipality and the Ministry of Education and Science 9427/2003 with the
Sofia District Court
Facts: The 75th school Todor Kableshkov is a Roma only school in the Fakulteta
Roma district in Sofia. Romani Baht Foundation (RBF) and the European Roma Rights
Centre (ERRC) allege violations of Bulgarian and international law arising from the
segregation of and discrimination against Romani students forced to attend poorquality, all-Roma schools in Roma settlements in Sofia – in this case – 75th Todor
Kableshkov School in Sofia. They allege that such actions violate constitutional
guarantees of equality and the right to education, as well as numerous international
treaties to which Bulgaria is party.
Legal action: In May 2003 a lawsuit was filed before the Sofia District Court on behalf
of 28 Romani school children against the Ministry of Education, the Municipality of
Sofia, and the 75th Todor Kableshkov School. It should be noted that when the case
was initiated before the court, the Bulgarian Protection Against Discrimination Act was
still not enforced.
A number of court hearings were scheduled for presenting the evidence of the parties.
The court gathered more than 1500 pages of written evidence and oral testimony,
5
including the initial evidence, presented by the plaintiffs with the claim. The evidence
included inter alias the comparative research made by the Regional Inspectorate on
Education – Sofia which described a comparative survey of the educational
achievements of the children in the ghetto schools, mixed schools and all-Bulgarian
schools; an extract of the last EU Commission Report on Bulgaria – regarding the
Roma situation; and an extract of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee’s book on
Desegregation of the Roma schools.
The plaintiffs also presented oral testimony – witnesses were called to support the
facts, expressed with the initial claim. Those witnesses were members of the Romani
Baht team – the legal programme director and the ERRC project researcher. The
respondents presented written evidence; the school representative presented school
attendance books, thus claiming that the plaintiffs have achieved lower results
because of not regularly attending school. All the respondents have been represented
by legal representatives who objected the basis of the claim, and at the final hearing
presented written pleas to support their arguments against the claim.
Ruling: On the 11th November 2004 the court issued a decision where it stated inter
alias: “The court found, based on the written evidences, that in the school at issue
during 2002/2003 school year 1800 children have been enrolled, all of the from Roma
origin; 349 out of them were first grades who formed 10 groups”. It was also
determined that: “There are more than 30 children in every class-group and in some of
the class-groups – more than 40. The number of the children in 75th school is few
times more than the number of the children in the other schools in the same subdistrict in Sofia”.
The decision also pointed out the poor material basis of the school, and that part of the
students study in a temporary building, which is placed in the school yard. “That
building can not secure a normal temperature” – stated the court. Later the court
wrote: “It has been also proved that during the winter the school was working on three
shifts with shorter school-time”. The court also took into account the results of the
Regional Inspectorate’s comparative survey, where it proved that the educational
achievements of the children in the segregated schools are lower, because of the lack
of bilingual educational system. The court also took into account the Bulgarian Helsinki
Committee’s report on the education in the segregated schools.
The court found, however, that the plaintiffs did not prove they suffered as a result of
the above. The court cited the Supreme Court of Cassation’ practice, where it is stated
that the plaintiffs should prove not only the negative facts, but also that they suffered
because of these facts. Normally in the Bulgarian civil process it is done by a witness
who states that the plaintiffs were disturbed and abused by the facts, found by the
court. The strategy of the team, however, was to urge the court to admit, that there are
some illegal practices, which by a necessity lead to moral damages. As the moral
damages were not proved, however, the first instance decision was issued in favour of
the respondents. The plaintiffs’ representative prepared an appeal and sent it to the
second instance court. The appeal court upheld the first instance court decision.
RBF versus the Professional Gymnasium – Sofia, 11089/2004 with the Sofia
District Court
Facts: The case involves a racist incident during May 2004 in a mainstream school
where the Roma children who visited it (accompanied by a Deputy Head teacher and
pedagogical adviser of the 75th school in Sofia) were beaten and refused access to the
classrooms by the Bulgarian children. The Bulgarians also demonstrated with
6
swastikas and portraits of Hitler. The visit was preliminary arranged between the Head
teacher of the 75th school (where the Roma children were enrolled) and the head
teacher of the Professional Gymnasium. The aim of the visit was to present the
professional school to the Roma children who are about to continue their education
after graduating to secondary level, so that they can informally chose between the
opportunities they have if continuing at the 75th school and the opportunities of the
professional education.
The idea of having Roma classmates, however, was apparently not pleasant for the
Bulgarian students who organised the above described “welcome” for the Roma
children. In the evening the incident was reported on the national news. The Bulgarian
students interviewed on TV stated that “white school for white people” and they will
“not allow the black race to enter”. The Head teacher and other teachers of the
Professional Gymnasium failed to stop the incident. To “save” the Roma children, the
teachers locked them in a classroom until the Bulgarians left the corridor.
Legal action: This case has been initially addressed to the Sofia Regional
Prosecution Office and respective police and educational authorities. The Prosecution
office initiated a criminal procedure against an “unknown perpetrator” and assigned the
local police authorities to perform a preliminary check on the case. As RBF received
information about the name of the student who allegedly organised the Bulgarian
students from the Gymnasium to perform against the Roma visitors, RBF informed the
Prosecution Office of this in a special letter. The Prosecution Office did not change the
title of the case – it is still against “unknown perpetrator”, and almost nothing is done
on the case. Several times RBF asked for information regarding the development. The
answers are quite uninformative – it is just stated that the Prosecution is still working
on the case.
Meanwhile the educational authorities within the regional Inspectorate on Education
gathered information on the case and submitted it to the Ministry on Education and
Science. RBF asked the Ministry for copies of the documents, but were refused
access. Following this, RBF initiated an administrative court procedure before the
Court against the Ministry under the Access to Public Information Act. The case was
declared in favour of RBF. The court obliged the Ministry on Education to hand the
requested information to RBF. Presently the Ministry appeals the decision (before the
Supreme Administrative Court where the case will be scheduled for an open hearing).
The organisation also initiated a civil procedure against the school where the accident
has happened. The Roma children (the victims – 12 students) asked the court to issue
a decision that they have been subject to discrimination on an ethnic basis and to
sentence the respondent to compensation for non-pecuniary damages. Since the
criminal procedure appears to be put on hold and no actions have been taken for a
long period of time, Romani Baht proposed such procedure to be initiated. The civil
case has been initiated under the Contracts and Obligations Act, where there is a
provision that if one causes damages to another person, that one should be
responsible for the damages caused. The claim also relies on one procedural provision
within the Protection Against Discrimination Act. The later has been enforced after the
incident concerned. However, as regards the procedural provisions – those should
imply ex tunc (from the date of the action). The provision in question is the one for
“reversal of the burden of proofs”. Using this provision RBF wanted also to test
whether the court would apply it. It was not applied.
Ruling: The first instance court found the claim ill-founded. The decision was
appealed and the case is currently pending before Sofia City Court.
7
Roma children from 1st school “Saint Kiril and Methodius” in Blagoevgrad
against the Blagoevgrad Municipality 20041200501154/2004 with the Blagoevgrad
Regional Court
Facts: The case involves a situation where the 1st school, (which exists for 42 years
and educated both Bulgarian and Roma children, thus creating a successful model of
an educational institution with mixed ethnic groups) is slowly turning into an all-Roma
school. Eight years ago the Municipality of Blagoevgrad accommodated the primary
courses (1st to 4th grade) of a Foreign Languages School in the building of the 1st
School “Saint Kiril and Methodius”. Right after this the Bulgarian parents started to
withdraw their children from the 1st school “Kiril and Methodius” and to move them to
the Foreign Languages school. Thus the Bulgarian children attend school, which is
nearby their homes, but with no Roma children in it – i.e. the Foreign Languages
school. The 1st school’s statistics shows that before the accommodation of the other
school’s classes it had 483 students (Bulgarians and Roma) and now it has only 326
students. This is estimated as a 32.5 % reduction. Those students who left, moved to
the Foreign Languages school and are all Bulgarians. As a result for the last academic
year the 1st school had only managed to form 2 first grade classes, one of which
consists only of Roma students, and the other has 50 % Roma and 50% Bulgarians.
The Head Teacher informed the project team that the Roma parents are highly
concerned that their children are segregated. The Head Teacher sent several
statements to the Municipality officials, describing the situation and asking for actions
to solve the above described problem. He has also organised “silent marches” with his
students in front of the Municipality’s building. The Head Person of the School Board
also addressed the municipality officials with several statements to support the efforts
of the Head Teacher. The project team also addressed the Ministry of Education, the
regional Inspectorate on Education in Blagoevgrad, and the Blagoevgrad City Council
with letters of concern.
RBF organised a meeting with a group of Roma parents whose children are educated
in the 1st school. The group of parents was later constituted as plaintiffs for the court
case. The pleading asked the court to find the actions of the Municipality and the City
Council as discrimination because they led to segregation of the Roma children. RBF
also ordered the respondents to act to stop the segregation and to change the
situation back to integrated education. There were several open court hearings for
presenting the evidence. The case also received and continues to receive broad media
attention. The local press is very active and regularly reports on the case. The national
media is also interested and releases regular materials.
Ruling: It was proved during the court sessions that most of the children enrolled in
the 1st school are from Roma ethnic origin. The court stated that in practice this led to
split of the children from Bulgarian and Roma origin in the two schools. The court
stated that many of the written evidences show that the Head Teacher of the 1st school
addressed all the relevant institutions with the problem, but no positive results have
been reached. The court also elaborated on the legal provisions concerned. In the
decision it stated that the aim of the Protection Against Discrimination Act is to secure
equality and effective remedies against discrimination. It stated that this also concerns
education and that segregation is a form of discrimination. It is also elaborated on the
provision on the reversal of the burden of proof, and stated that the respondent should
prove the non-existence of discrimination.
However, the court found that the evidence gathered in the proceedings can not
conclude that the plaintiffs are victims of discrimination because of their ethnic
segregation. The court stated that under the Education Act it is the decision of the
parents that determines where the child will study. As a conclusion the court stated
that the separation of the Roma children in the 1st school is not a result of segregation
8
on an ethnic basis but due to the free choice of the parents. The court found that the
act of the municipality did not create different schools for different ethnic groups.
The court decision was appealed but lost on appeal.
The school for children with learning disabilities
20051210100017/ 2005 with the Blagoevgrad District Court
in
Blagoevgrad
Facts: Over 85 percent of the children who attend a school for learning disabilities are
Roma. Romani Baht Foundation (RBF) interviewed the parents to see whether they
would have their children transferred into a normal school. Most of the parents
answered negatively because they would loose the benefits that the special school is
providing for them. Such benefits generally include free meals, some clothes and
medicine. The families are extremely poor and they stated that they need these
benefits.The team interviewed some 19 families whose children are enrolled in the
special school. They stated that they do not remember signing consent for their
children to be enrolled in a school with children with learning disabilities. 14 out of the
19 interviewed families were not even aware that this school is for special needs
children. It seems that they have been informed that this school provides education to
poor children.
RBF also interviewed 14 children. They stated that they do not remember any tests,
and that some “few months ago a doctor has examined them”. However, the team was
unable to find out what kind of medical examination had taken place. The team also
identified families where the parents have also graduated from the same school. In
some of the cases the team identified brothers and sisters attending the school. Also
the non-pedagogical personnel (people who appeared to be mainly Roma) have their
children enrolled in the same school.
It should be noted that the children stay in the school up to eight grade but upon
graduation they do not receive secondary stage diploma and could not practically
continue their education. The families stated, however, that they would rather not
challenge their children’s enrollment in the school, because of loosing the social
benefits.
Legal action: RBF initiated the case on behalf of the organisation, claiming that the
children’s right to education is damaged and that predominantly Roma suffer, which
amounts to discrimination on an ethnic basis. The case is against the school and the
Regional Inspectorate on Education. In this case Romani Baht also had some
problems to enable them as an NGO to appear as the plaintiff on its own behalf when
the rights of many are violated. A long correspondence on the question was carried out
with the court on that issue. After this problem was solved the court decided that the
school does not have the status of a legal entity and because of that terminated the
procedure against the school and left the Regional Inspectorate as the only
respondent.
The above ruling was appealed before the higher instance court because according to
the Educational Act every school does have the status of a legal entity.
The case was lost and closed.
ERRC versus the 103 Sofia School, Sofia Municipality and the Ministry on
Education 3139/05
9
Facts: The school in Philipovtzi Sofia Roma district enrolls children form first to twelve
grade. There are about 450 children in the school. The school has an extremely poor
material basis. Most of the children are in the classes up to seventh grade. For 8 th, 9th,
10th, 11th and 12th grades there is only one class for each of the grades. Moreover, the
classes can not fill the minimum number of children required from the Ministry on
Education and Science for a class. As a result there are cases where children are
enrolled but in fact they do not attend the school.
During the last academic year the school produced only 7 children that graduated from
11th grade. The other children failed their exams and will attend 11th grade again.
Those who graduated from 11th grade can not form a class because there are not
sufficient numbers. As a result the class is closed and the children are moved to 75th
school in Fakulteta. The two districts are not close to one another; Philipotzi district is
within Liulin subdistrict and Fakulteta – in Krasna Polyana subdistrict. However, the
children have been moved to the other segregated school, instead of being moved to
some other school in Liulin subdistrict. There are many schools in Liulin, which can
easily accommodate the children from the school in Philipovtzi.
Legal action: The case is initiated on behalf of the European Roma Rights Centre.
The claim involves a challenge of the fact that the children are educated in a
segregated environment and receive lower quality of education compared to that in the
other mainstream schools. The claim asks the court to declare that the children are
victims of segregation as a form of forbidden discrimination and also asks the court to
close this educational institution. The respondents are the school itself, the Sofia
Municipality and the Ministry on Education and Science.
Ruling: The court found that the children of Roma origin, who have attended or
currently attend the school have been and continue to be subjected to segregation and
unequal treatment constituting discrimination, and that their right to equal and
integrated education is violated. The respondent appealed before the Sofia City Court
and the case is currently pending.
The case with segregated Roma-only school in the town of Ihtiman
1/ 2712.2004
Facts: The Roma only school in Ihtiman is placed near to the Roma district – Iztok
district. The school enrolls children from first to eight grade. There are about 700
children in the school. There are three preschool classes, three first grade classes,
four second grade classes, three third grade classes, three fourth grade classes, two
5th grade classes, three 6th grade classes, two 7th grade classes, and two 8th grade
classes. The material basis of the school is significantly poorer than in the other
schools in Ihtiman. There is no central heating. There are also special classes for
disabled children.
Legal action: The case is initiated on behalf of the European Roma Rights Centre and
Romani Baht Foundation. The claim involves a challenge of the fact that the children
are educated in a segregated environment and are receiving a lower quality of
education compared to that in the other mainstream schools. The plaintiff asked the
court to declare that the children are victims of segregation as a forbidden form of
discrimination and asked the court to close this educational institution. The
respondents are the school itself, the Ihtiman Municipality and the Ministry on
Education and Science.
Ruling: The case was lost.
10
European Roma Rights Centre and Romani Baht Foundation against the 110th
school in Sofia 666/2005 with the Sofia District Court
Facts: From the beginning of the current academic year 2004-2005 Romani Baht
Foundation (RBF) worked with five Sofia schools on its desegregation programme –
taking children from the Fakulteta Roma district and enrolling them in other
mainstream schools. In every one of those five schools RBF explained the aims of the
desegregation programme and placed Roma young people to work as assistant
teachers for the Roma groups bussed from the Fakulteta. It was an unpleasant
surprise for RBF when the assistant teacher for 110th school informed us that there are
two first grade classes in the school, and all of the Roma children are placed in one of
them while the Bulgarians are in the other.
Legal action: A court case was initiated on behalf of the ERRC and Romani Baht
Foundation against the school claiming segregation on an ethnic basis. Prior to that
the team discussed the situation with the Roma parents. Although disappointed and
disturbed by the fact that the children are separated, the parents did not want to initiate
a case by themselves fearing that the children could be victimized by the school
administration. The second is scheduled for the next court
Prior to the hearings the head teacher contacted the team to propose a plea bargain to
be endorsed by the court. The respondent admited to a violation of the law and
agreed to take responsibility for rearrangement of the classes.
EMPLOYMENT
A.A. versus Detelina LTD 10947/06 – Sofia District Court
Facts: The case involves refusal of a firm to allow a Roma person to appear for a job
interview. The refusal was motivated by the candidate’s ethnic origin.
Legal action: A court case was initiated under Article 71 of the Protection Against
Discrimination Act. The first instance court found the claim as ill-founded. An appeal
was made by Romani Baht Foundation and the second instance court allowed for new
evidence to be presented. Additional witnesses were called and questioned. The
second instance court found direct discrimination and ordered the respondent to pay
non-pecuniary damages. The decision is final.
A.A. versus Kenar LTD 294/05 with the Sofia City Court
Facts: The case involves refusal of a firm to allow Roma person to appear for a job
interview. The refusal was motivated by the candidate’s ethnic origin.
Legal action: A court case was initiated under Article 71 of the Protection Against
Discrimination Act.
Ruling: The first instance decision was in favour of the plaintiff. The respondent
appealed. The appeal was scheduled for a hearing at Sofia City Court. Two open
hearings have been held. On the first one the court called the plaintiff to answer
questions put by the respondent. After the second hearing, which was held on 26th
April 2005 the court declared the case clear for decision. The decision was in favour of
the firm-respondent and has been appealed by Romani Baht Foundation before the
Supreme Court of Cassation.
11
The case is currently pending.
M.A. versus Lubimka LTD 2873/05 with the Sofia City Court
Facts: The case involves refusal of a firm to allow a Roma person to appear for a job
interview. The refusal was motivated by the candidate’s ethnic origin.
Legal action: A court case was initiated under art.71 of the Protection Against
Discrimination Act.
Ruling: The first instance court found that the respondent performed direct
discrimination on an ethnic basis, ordered the respondent to discontinue the
discrimination, and to pay the plaintiff 600 leva for non-pecuniary damages caused by
the discrimination on an ethnic basis. The respondent appealed and the case is
pending before the second instance court.
Y.Y. versus Carmelin LTD 10816/04 with the Sofia District Court
Facts: The case involves refusal of a firm to appoint a Roma person to work because
of her ethnic origin. The person saw an advertisement in a newspaper for a firm
recruiting new staff. She called to get more information and was informed she can not
apply because the firm does not recruit Roma. Romani Baht’s staff members also
called and received the same answer.
Legal action: The case was initiated under art. 71 of the Protection Against
Discrimination Act. The court ruled in favour of the respondent with no reasoning.
Under the law there is an obligation of the court to provide reasoning. An appeal was
made and the case is pending.
Biliana Nedkova versus Olga Ivanova 1306/06 with the Sofia City Court
Facts: The case involves a claim for ethnic discrimination in the sphere of labour
relations. The respondent is Bulgarian who harassed and discriminated a Roma
colleague.
Legal action: The case, under art. 71, para 1 of the Protection Against Discrimination
Act, is pending before the second instance court after the first instance court rejected
the claim.
HARRASSMENT
Romani Baht Foundation versus Volen Siderov 2752/06 with the Sofia District
Court
Facts: The case involves a claim that the respondent, the leader of the nationalist
party ATAKA, repeatedly harassed the Roma community in written and oral
declarations.
Legal action: The case involves a claim under art. 71 of the Protection Against
Discrimination Act. Romani Baht Foundation is the plaintiff as the Bulgarian law
provides this opportunity for public interest law organisations in cases where the rights
of many are claimed to be violated. The court was asked to find Volen Siderov
12
responsible for incitement to discrimination on an ethnic basis and for causing
harassment. The case is pending.
HEALTHCARE
S. D. vs “St. Sofia” hospital 7808186911 with the Sofia District Court and under
revision of the Sofia City Court
Facts: S. was four months pregnant when she suddenly had a spontaneous
miscarriage. It happened in her house in the night. S. went to a hospital – “St. Sofia” for a medical check-up and post abortion medical examinations. Despite being in pain,
she was sent back by a medical person because she was told to pay 5 leva but she
had no money. At the same time a woman from Bulgarian origin was accepted for
medical examinations without any conditions. On the next day S.’s condition
worsened. She had a high fever and was very much in pain. At that time her husband’s
brother asked for help from a psychologist from an NGO who took her to a Medical
Academy for treatment. All the necessary examinations were done there. S. was given
antibiotics for treatment of the infection she got because of the late treatment.
Legal action: A civil claim was prepared under the provisions of Articles 49 in
connection with 45 of the Contracts and Obligations Act. Romani Baht foundation
wanted to test how the Bulgarian court will use the international provisions within the
European Social Charter – revised and the Convention for Elimination of all Forms of
Racial Discrimination – both ratified by Bulgaria and under the Bulgarian
Constitution.The case is pending for questioning of the witnesses.
RACIAL ATTACKS
M.A. and others 150 of the Sofia Military Prosecution Office
Facts: Four young Roma were attacked on the street. The attack was unprovoked and
followed a pre-election campaign of a nationalist movement ATAKA, which entered the
Bulgarian Parliament after the last elections. It is believed to be performed by young
nationalists.
Legal action: The case is presented before the Sofia Military Prosecution Offices and
is pending for investigation under the Penal code.
Raikovi family versus Trendafil Mihalkov 1305/05
Facts: The case involves the murder of Raikovi’s minor son by Mihalkov who was a
private military guard at the military premises near the Fakulteta Roma district. The
victim was killed with fire gun because the guard “feared” that the Roma child will steel
something from the military base.
Legal action: Romani Baht claimed that the defendant acted due to racial prejudices.
The case was reviewed by the first instance court and the perpetrator has been
sentenced to 9 years of imprisonment and to pay 80 000 leva non pecuniary damages.
The sentence is being appealed by the defendant and is currently pending before the
second instance court.
13
Romani Baht Foundation versus Mr. Konstantin Tretchev – Leader of the
Professional Union Podkrepa 7621/2004 with the Sofia District Court
Facts: The case involved the claim that the respondent harassed the Roma
community in a written declaration. At the beginning of August 2004 the respondent
made a special declaration at a press-conference. With that declaration he urged the
Bulgarian society to form special armed civilian forces or National Guard to protect
Bulgarians against the Roma community, where all the people are criminals. He added
within that declaration that Roma are a disgrace for Bulgaria because they sell their
babies for money and prostitute on the highways in Bulgaria and abroad. He stated
that the possession of guns should be not limited among the Bulgarian civilians
because they should be able to protect themselves and their families against the
Roma criminals.
Legal action: Romani Baht Foundation (as a plaintiff – a possibility given under the
Protection Against Discrimination Act) initiated a court case under the Protection
Against Discrimination Act, claiming harassment against the Roma population in
Bulgaria. The court issued a decision, stating that the respondent has made
harassment on an ethnic basis against the Roma community in Bulgaria and provoked
society to discriminate against the Roma. The court ordered the respondent to restrain
from further actions of a similar nature. After issuing the decision the case files were
stolen from the court registry service. Romani Baht Foundation (RBF) suspects that
this is made with the attempt to prevent the media from getting information regarding
the case and the court decision. After this incident the respondent lied in public stating
that the court decision was in his favour.
RBF organised a press-conference to inform the media about the unusual
development of the case and distributed copies of the court decision for the media
because meanwhile the respondent announced he will run for MP at upcoming
parliamentary elections.
Ruling: The court found incitement to discrimination on ethnic basis and harassment
performed by the respondent. When the decision was issued the respondent decided
not to appeal. This is the first court decision under the anti-discrimination act to enter
into force in Bulgaria.
14