1 OBEKTIV

Can a minority

discriminate the majority?In late April 2008 the Protection Against Discrimination Commission (PADC)

ruled on an argument that appeared to be more of a linguistic issue. Can aproverb, turned inside out, be an act of discrimination? It turned out it can.

Vasil Chaprazov, editor-in-chief of a Roma newspaper, Drom Dromendar, wasconvicted for an article entitled “Evelina Doseva from the Council of Ministersis Lying Like an Old Bulgarian Woman”, published in July 2007. He had topublish an apology and abstain from such statements in the future.

The decision had an unusual media response. First of all, because it was aprecedent. For the first time a representative of a minority was accused ofdiscrimining a representative of the majority. We are used to expect that the law,the Protection Against Discrimination Act (PADA), is designed to protect theminorities. Secondly, because Ms. Doseva is an employee of the governmentalNational Council for Cooperation on Ethnic and Demographic Issues (NCCEDI),a body of the Council of Ministers. And thirdly, because the proverb in its originalversion – “Lie like an old Gypsy woman” – is used every day.

The academic dictionary contains a series of derisive expressions for theRoma ethnic group. “Behaves like a Gypsy” and “a Gypsy job” are expressionsknown and used in everyday speech and in the media. This is why some publicfigures criticized the conviction of a Roma newspaper for such an expression.Not because of the formal aspect of the issue, since no one objects thecorrectness of the anti-discrimination commission’s decision from a legal pointof view. The critics believe that this decision created a misbalance, placingboth the commission and the plaintiff in a delicate situation.

Is it at all possible for a minority to discriminate a majority? What is the caselaw of the PADC and the courts on similar cases? Are the decisions enforced?To discuss these issues, we invited Ms. Esen Fikri, attorney, PADC memberand a member of the jury that ruled on the Doseva v. Chaprazov case. We alsoinvited Mr. Krassimir Kanev, chair of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee. Wealso invited the parties to the case to express their arguments in separateinterviews featured below.

THE PLAINTIFF:

THEY VIOLATED MY DIGNITY ON PURPOSE

- Ms. Doseva, how did you learn about the Drom

Dromendar article? Are you a subscriber, did you see it

by chance or did others tell you about it?

- I was told by representatives of Roma organizations

who attended the conference [discussed in the article].

At first I read the article in the newspaper’s electronic

publication, then in the print version. The National Council

for Cooperation on Ethnic and Demographic Issues is

subscribed.

- What insulted you - the heading or the text?

Where do you see discrimination?

THE DEFENDANT:

I LOST FAITH IN THE COMMISSION

- Mr. Chaprazov, when did you find out about Ms.

Doseva’s complaint?

- Several months ago. I received a copy of the com-

plaint accompanied by a request to send the issue with

the article, a current status certificate for the publishing

company and the editor’s office internal rules. I did noth-

ing. It seemed ludicrous. It never crossed my mind that

the PADC might make such a decision, to hold us re-

sponsible for the title. On such a basis, even a hundred

years won’t be enough for them to start proceedings

on account of ·creation of a hostile and insulting envi-

OBEKTIV 2

- I believe that an article with such a heading is a

violation of my dignity and honour. Not only because

the statement is not true, but also because the purpose

of the tone that is used is to violate my human dignity.

The Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria, the Uni-

versal Declaration of Human Rights, the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European

Convention on Human Rights proclaim that everyone

has the right to protect him- or herself against a violation

of their honour and dignity.

In this case, both my dignity (i.e. my regard of my-

self) and my honour (i.e. the regard of the others for

me) were unlawfully violated. This was done by words

published in a public Roma printed periodical. Starting

with the heading, the article purposefully underlines my

ethnic origin. It opposes a Bulgarian to the Roma com-

munity.

Furthermore, in this specific case I am mentioned as

an expert at NCCEDI, a structure in which many Roma

organizations participate. The quoted cream of the joke

in the article, as well as its overall tone, creates a hostile

and insulting environment to me. The essence of my job

requires everyday contacts with the Roma community

and its self-organized structures; the successful implemen-

tation of my duties depends to a great extent on the

confidence the Roma community has in me. In this re-

spect, the content of the article matches the definition of

·abuse” under the Protection Against Discrimination Act.

In this case, there is a violation of Art. 5 of the Act, as

the defendant has published an article that is in viola-

tion of this provision. What I asked in my complaint to

PADC is the commission to require that in the future the

defendant abstain from such and similar discriminatory

actions, as well as to reinstate the situation prior to the

violation by publishing an appropriate apology.

- Why did you chose to go to commission and not the

court, which can also review complaints under the act?

- Because it is a more specialized body and because

by law the proceedings take 30 days. Only in cases of

factual and legal complexity can the deadline be ex-

tended by up to 30 days.

- What would you do if the newspaper doesn’t publish

an apology?

- The law requires the commission to exercise control

on compliance with the involuntary administrative mea-

sures. Under Art. 67, para 2 of the act, the person who

has been imposed a penalty or an involuntary adminis-

trative measure must initiate actions to implement the

compulsory recommendations and must notify the

Commission in writing about this within a deadline de-

fined in the decision, but up to a month. Otherwise, the

act provides for a fine of BGN 2,000 to BGN 10,000 (be-

tween EUR 1,000 and 5,000).

My actions are targeted solely to Vassil Chaprazov in

his capacity of editor of the newspaper, and not to the

Roma community. The laws must be observed so that

we could feel free, and as a Bulgarian citizen I respect

and trust our judiciary.�

ronment”, for racist, discriminatory and insulting publi-

cations against the Roma.

- Did you appear at the Commission’s hearing?

- No. I’ve seen how the commission works. Last year

I was a witness in the proceedings against the mayor

of the Ovcha Kupel municipality, Plamen Yordanov,

who had said on radio that it’s better to have a landfill

than Roma housing in the municipality. The meeting

was in the same composition, immediately before the

local elections. The mayor was not convicted. To the

contrary, the commission created a reputation for him

of a person who can say whatever he wants about

the Roma without any consequences. ·Such a Roma

settlement would be more dangerous in proximity to

residential neighbourhoods than a landfill” was what

mayor Yordanov had said on national radio and hadn’t

apologized for it. And he was spared by the commis-

sion. Wasn’t that in fact an election ad promoting im-

punity when actions, words are targeted at Roma. In

the end, this person, the representative of the state,

was re-elected.

- What is you opinion about the complaint and the

decision?

- I haven’t received the decision yet, I read about it

in the newspapers.- Will you appeal before the Supreme Administrative Court?- I don’t want to. It enormously time- and energy con-

suming and I don’t see any point. I think that the journalistic

community and the Union of Bulgarian Journalists are the

ones that need to react to it.

- Will you publish the apology demanded by the PADC?

- Absolutely not. If I were born a hundred more times, I

would still refuse to do it. It is insulting to Bulgaria, not to me.

The state law is forcing a double standard on us. Every day

someone in the media is pouring vile on the Roma, not on

Ivan or Hasan who is Roma. Here is a title from the Telegraph

daily: ·Man kills, dismembers and sets buddy on fire”. The

ethnic origin of this one is not mentioned. Another title from

the Telegraph: ·Roma methods humiliate Themis” - it’s about

the behaviour of Ataka supporters?! And it’s part of this civil

servant’s job to fight to overcome this attitude. Neither

Evelina Doseva, nor the NCCEDI where she works, react. But

we, the Roma, must accept them, trust them. And when

they feel personally affected - support them (the jury that

convicted Drom Dromendar was chaired by a Roma, Lalo

Kamenov).

- So you have reserves not only to the commission, butalso to the NCCEDI?

- Of course. The board has never reacted to what we

read in the newspapers daily; it doesn’t notice the unlawful

acts against the Roma. Desislav Chukolov from Ataka, a

member of the European Parliament, tells all of Europe that

the Roma in Bulgaria are criminals, that Roma killed the

Belneyski sisters, and not a single politician, not a single state

institution reacts. Has the NCCEDI signalled the commission?

This didn’t stop their employee from filing a lawsuit against

the only Roma newspaper that barely makes ends meet. It

must be stopped, the Roma must fear the civil servant.

- Is this your interpretation of the complaint?- Yes. The board drained the blood of the Roma organi-

zations, transformed their leaders into lapdogs. If you have

doubts, read the audit report of the National Audit Office

and the NCCEDI report for 2007.�

ESEN FIKRI

3 OBEKTIV

OBEKTIV: The PADC decision on the complaint by

Evelina Doseva had a great media impact. It turned into

news of the ·man bites a dog” type, a Roma newspa-

per has discriminated a Bulgarian woman. Is this the only

reason behind the interest in this case?

ESEN FIKRI: I don’t see any extraordinary interest in

this case. Many PADC decisions get public attention be-

cause they are taken in connection with requests to

amend discriminatory provisions or practices. The pub-

lic attitudes are such that the intolerance is targeted first

at the representatives of the Roma community. Our polls

have not found Roma intolerance to the majority or to

other ethnic groups. The polls register intolerance by all

other ethnic groups to the Roma. This may be of interest

but I don’t think that this individual case could be used

to make general conclusions about minorities discrimi-

nating the majority.

OBEKTIV: Have you had other such cases?

ESEN FIKRI: No. We had a similar complaint filed with

us, but it didn’t include a direct complaint, it was derived

from its context. The proceedings on that complaint were

terminated due to deficiencies that were not eliminated

within the respective deadline.

KRASSIMIR KANEV: This decision is interesting not only

as a precedent. Besides challenging public opinion, I

believe it left a feeling of injustice among wide circles in

Bulgarian society. We can’t say that the measure im-

posed by the commission is not proportional. But the

decision is problematic in a wider social context. When

you read it and you see the powers vested in PADC by

law, you’ll see why it leaves a feeling of injustice and

causes quite a few angry reactions.

What do I mean? The publication is entitled ·Ms

Doseva Is Lying Like an Old Bulgarian Woman”. The sub-

ject of the complaint is not whether the article if truthful

if the invitation to the conference [discussed in the ar-

ticle] was sent or not. Even if it were truthful, we could still

talk about abuse. On the other hand, phrases like ·Lie

like an old Gypsy” are widely used in Bulgarian society,

not only at the individual level, but in the public area as

well. Run an Internet search and you’ll find thousands

of places where such expression are used. This discrimi-

natory speech against the Roma has become idiom-

atic.

The Protection Against Discrimination Act provides

two opportunities for review of complaints: in court or by

the commission. If the commission were a court, I

wouldn’t have a problem with its approach because

the court makes rulings on the basis of complaints. The

legal and the social role of the two bodies, however, is

different. Article 50, item 2 of the act reads: ·Cases may

be reviewed on the initiative of the commission”, while

the court does not have the right to self-referral. When

the commission has ruled on this unique case in Bulgar-

ian public space, we have the right to ask what is the

frequency of its self-referrals with regard to drastic dis-

criminatory public speech and public writing against the

minorities?

The national-socialism ideology is openly preached

in Bulgaria. Hate against Roma, Jews, Turks is instilled on

a wide ideological level. Books preaching this ideology

are on sale in some of the largest bookstores in our coun-

try. If the anti-discrimination commission would like to

act in a really just manner, it should have made thou-

sands of decisions on instilling hate, on abuse against

ethnic minority representatives, before making a just

decision convicting an ethnic minority representative

of abusing the majority. This is the only way in which the

commission can build trust and respect, given the role

prescribed it by law.

KRASSIMIR KANEV

OBEKTIV 4

ESEN FIKRI: This individual case should not be used to

make general conclusions. The law is the same for ev-

eryone and we are applying it as such, regardless of the

fact that in this case a majority representative is filing a

complaint against a minority representative.

KRASSIMIR KANEV: I agree with you completely, but

the way the commission is implementing the law is dif-

ferent than the way a court does. The commission has

the authority to enforce the law in such a way as to

create a wider sense of justice than the court on a spe-

cific case. I have no comments with regard to your rul-

ing on this case, but given that we are surrounded by

an environment in which hate speech is spilling from all

directions and is assuming extreme forms, that the com-

mission has made only a couple of decisions on hate

speech - one of them against a minority representative

- is extremely insufficient. Considering the fact that the

commission had the option of self-referral and didn’t

make use of it, the public will feel its role is inadequate. It

should care about its image.

ESEN FIKRI: The public has an acute sense of justice,

but the PADC cannot decide frivolously its cases based

only on the principle of justice, as there is a certain legis-

lative framework. If the commission was the body that

delivered the final judgment, I could have agreed that

justice should have greater weight in comparison to

written law; but as it is, the commission, like any other

administrative body, is subject to judiciary control and it

doesn’t make sense for us to go beyond the law be-

cause our decision can be repealed, no matter how

just it is. This is why we enforce the law in the same way

to everyone.

OBEKTIV: In similar cases, why doesn’t the commis-

sion use self-referral instead of waiting for complaints?

What is the share of self-referrals in all cases reviewed?

ESEN FIKRI: The commission uses the statutory oppor-

tunity of self-referral on issues of public importance. We

have a series of self-referrals about access to emergency

aid. An example of a self-referral about hate speech

was the information contained in the news bulletin men-

tioning the ethnic origin of Roma only. If you access the

websites of the regional directorates and conduct a

search of their news bulletins for 2006 and before, you’ll

see news about registered crimes committed by ·un-

known perpetrators of Roma origin”.

These are two mutually exclusive things - that the per-

petrator is ·unknown” and ·of Roma origin”. Another

example is when the perpetrator is indicated by his initials

and the addition that he is of Roma origin. Our decision

was that the Ministry of Interiormust eliminate this prac-

tice. That the ministry is appealing the decision before

SAC is another issue. But the self-referral had a preventive

role.

OBEKTIV: Why is the Interior Ministry appealing the

decision?

ESEN FIKRI: They claim procedural violations and re-

quest that the decision is repealed. We didn’t fine them,

just like we didn’t fine Mr. Chaprazov. I wouldn’t agree

that a 1,000 or 2,000 leva (EUR 500 or 1,000) fine would

put an end to discrimination. If we had fined the minister

of interior affairs with the maximum amount of BGN 2,000

and hadn’t issued a recommendation, there would have

been no result.

As for the criticism that the commission should have

issued at least a thousand decisions with regard to hate

speech against minorities, regardless of whether in the

press or in the electronic media, I suppose this number

was conditional. The commission has ruled on such

cases, upon self-referrals, signals and complaints. This

was the case with the National Guard show on BBT, in

which Mr Kanev also participated, on a signal by Toma

Nikolaev. The topic of the broadcast was ·The Gypsies:

Citizens with precedence”. In another decision, we es-

tablished harassment by ethnic origin in a bTV news re-

lease, again upon signal. The broadcast was about a

raped girl and the text of the news didn’t indicate that

the child and the perpetrators were Roma; the video,

though, revealed this.

The commission should not be the only entity criti-

cized. Other bodies that have special powers in this

field should also be considered. The commission has

no right to terminate a broadcast or to revoke the li-

cense of a television operator. This is within the compe-

tence of the Council for Electronic Media (CEM). For

every violation of the Protection Against Discrimination

Act that falls within the scope of the Radio and Televi-

sion Act (RTA), we send the file and our decision to

CEM which can apply adequate measures. In the Na-

tional Guard case, we sent the decision in which we

had established harassment and the video that the TV

station had provided us. The Council replied there was

no violation of the RTA.

We don’t want to desert from our powers but there is

a special regulator. When discrimination is found, we send

them our decision and the materials. I believe Mr Kanev,

who participated in that show, would agree with me.

We can’t physically monitor all newspapers, radio

and TV broadcasts, and initiate a self-referral for every

phrase used. As to the self-referral rules, every member

of the committee can submit a report. The law provides

no framework or provision in what cases the commis-

sion may use self-referral. So it’s at the discretion of each

commission member, as well as at the discretion of the

commission, which is the body that decides to initiate

proceedings on a self-referral proposal.

KRASSIMIR KANEV: PADC is not a court that can only

review cases that come in by complaint. It should es-

tablish a wider sense of justice and a more systematic

approach to the issue of discrimination. If I were a mem-

ber of the commission, I would say: ·Let’s see where

hate speech is most widely used, where it gets an ex-

pression through channels with widest access, and

where it can affect the largest number of people.” That’s

where I would initiate a self-referral in the first place.

For example, Volen Siderov preaches hatred from

the parliamentary tribune. His words are then relayed

5 OBEKTIV

by all newspapers. He is a politician and thus has access

to many media. It would be logical for the commission

to target its self-referral to such a source.

There are different types of hate speech. Someone

called someone else ·an old Bulgarian woman”, we all

agree that it’s hate. But take the book The Foundations

of National Socialism by a prominent Bulgarian author,

The Boomerang of Evil by Volen Siderov or The Proto-

cols of the Zion Sages, take the Ataka newspaper, which

is published daily in a large circulation incomparable to

that of the Drom Dromendar, and you’ll see they con-

tain much more intense hate speech. It borders even

Bulgaria’s obligation to criminalize this type of hate

speech.

Art. 4a of the International Convention on the Elimi-

nation of All Forms of Racial Discrimination stipulates that

the states ·shall declare an offence punishable by law

all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or

hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all

acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any

race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic

origin”. Preaching a fascist ideology, instilling national and

racial hatred and enmity, instigating discrimination must

be prosecuted. Many of the things that are published

and that are hate speech meet these criteria. Whether

speech should be criminalized is a different issue. The

powers of the commission do not cover this but it can

deal with this speech within the framework it has been

given by law.

OBEKTIV: Does the PADC have summaries of what

people are complaining of most often - employment

discrimination, etc. - like the summaries of case law?

ESEN FIKRI: Yes. Summaries are published in the

commission’s report. Periodically, almost every month,

we calculate the share of the different types of com-

plaints by different criteria. Our analyses indicate that

people complain of discrimination mostly with regard

to their right to employment and not with regard to

hate speech. When the discrimination arises from leg-

islation, the commission reviews the case in its 9-mem-

ber composition and issues instructions and recom-

mendations to the competent authorities to amend

the respective document and eliminate the discrimi-

natory texts.

As for systematic and targeted hate speech on be-

half of some media, when there is premeditation the

act borders with crime. There are two texts in the Penal

Code but no lawsuit has been filed under either of them.

In 1991-92, there was a proposal for an interpretive deci-

sion on one of the texts; it was rejected because there

was no case law to interpret and harmonize.

OBEKTIV: Last year your jury heard the case against

the mayor of the Ovcha Kupel municipality in Sofia,

Plamen Yordanov. Has it been completed?

ESEN FIKRI: Yes. We heard the final statements of the

parties. We gave them the opportunity to submit written

comments. We received such comments. We’ll soon

announce our decision.

OBEKTIV: The complaint against Plamen Yordanov is

for words spoken on November 14, 2006. There is still no

decision, even though the deadline is 30 days, plus an-

other 30 days if one of the parties cannot be found.

Evelina Doseva is a similar case. She filed her complaint

on July 19, 2007, and the subpoena was sent to Vasil

Chaprazov on December 5, i.e. 5 months later. What

were the reasons for this delay?

ESEN FIKRI: Ms. Doseva’s complaint was against the

Kuna Publishing House. As we were unable to find such

a publishing house in the Commercial Registry, we had

no choice but instruct her to indicate the name of the

person she was complaining from. She filed a complaint

against the newspaper’s editor-in-chief. It was estab-

lished that the publisher was not a legal entity but a sole

proprietor. It was then that the actual proceedings be-

gan.

Mr. Chaprazov obviously doesn’t know how many

letters we’ve sent him before December 9! Some of

them returned without reaching the addressee, others

were refused. We sent him the case materials by e-mail.

The problem of notifications is serious for any proceed-

ings, administrative or judicial. We are sending our case

documents by post. Some cases are flabbergasting, say

the documents are sent on April 12 and have not been

received by May 16! That’s why we are using e-mail and

telephones.

In Mr. Yordanov’s case, records and signatures

were disputed, appraisals were conducted, additional

evidence was collected and all this resulted in extend-

ing the proceedings but it was not the commission’s

fault.

KRASSIMIR KANEV: I think PADC has problems ob-

serving the deadlines. It is headed to becoming bogged

down by cases. This is why we need to consider amend-

ing the law, so as to be able to respond to the increas-

ing number of complaints to the commission. Other-

wise a time will come when reviewing them would be

pointless, as that would take two or three years, as it is in

court.

The number of commission members needs to be

increased, regional divisions need to be established,

more juries need to be formed that could review com-

plaints, so that the proceedings can be effected in

shorter timelines. The time for this has come. What’s good

is that, unlike other commissions, this is a functioning

body, but it seems it will face serious problems in the

future.

OBEKTIV: Is there a danger the commission to start

scheduling meetings five or six months after receiving

the complaints?

ESEN FIKRI: I don’t think that it will come to that, but

the growth in complaints is indeed significant. They in-

crease by the day. We are a state administration and

we have a deficit of human resources in two aspects.

Firstly, staff numbers are regulated for the state as a

whole. Even if we could increase the number of our

staff positions, without the respective budget they will

OBEKTIV 6

remain vacant because we couldn’t pay the experts.

Secondly, civil servants’ salaries are regulated strictly,

which makes the private sector more attractive.

As for the regional representatives, we’ve initiated a

change and we already have procured premises in

some of the regional centers and have planned the

necessary staff positions, but we don’t have the finan-

cial resources for their salaries. I think that this problem

will be solved, so that the complaints could be reviewed

faster.

Initially we ask the party against which a complaint

or a signal has been filed to submit its opinion. This party

has the right to defend itself. We give it seven days but

often new facts and circumstances appear that need

to be reviewed by the commission, the collection of ad-

ditional evidence may be needed. I don’t think that it’s

appropriate and beneficial for us to formulate a deci-

sion with a ton of procedural violations, and have it re-

pealed in court, in which case we would have to repeat

the same study.

OBEKTIV: Mr. Chaprazov declared he will not comply

with this decision. What share of PADC’s decisions is en-

forced?

ESEN FIKRI: Our decisions are enforced. I observe a

process that may be interesting to the readers of

Obektiv: even when the PADC decision is appealed,

even when it is repealed by SAC, it is enforced. There

are many examples to this end.

Such an example is the decision against the Electric-

ity Distribution Company - Plovdiv for rationing the elec-

tricity supply of bona fide clients in the Stolipinovo

neighbourhood. The commission ruled that this is dis-

crimination and instructed the electricity distribution

company to provide permanent electricity supply to all

clients who pay their bills on time. SAC terminated the

preliminary implementation of our instructions and re-

pealed our decision; nevertheless, the company imple-

mented the respective measures and currently has a

system that allows it to shut down the electricity supply

to clients who have not paid their bills on an individual

basis.

Another example. There were proceedings against

an order by the National Revenue Agency’s executive

director that set up a methodology and criteria for se-

lection during lay-offs. We found some discriminatory

elements and prescribed their amendment. The

Agency’s director appealed our decision but in reality

implemented the instructions and repealed the rules on

the selection during lay-offs.

We have a decision that went through lawfulness

control at SAC; our decision was confirmed but was nev-

ertheless not implemented by the instruction’s recipi-

ent, so he was penalized. For a first violation, the penalty

is a fine of BGN 2,000 to BGN 10,000 (EUR 1,000-5,000).

KRASSIMIR KANEV: I have no information on the en-

forcement of the commission’s decisions but they have

to be implemented like the instructions of any other state

body.

OBEKTIV: Is there a difference between the case law

of the commission under the Protection Against Discrimi-

nation Act and the civil courts?

ESEN FIKRI: The case law under the Protection Against

Discrimination Act has two aspects: claims filed with the

civil courts and lawfulness control exercised by the SAC

with regard to our decisions. There is no significant differ-

ence in the case law of the commission and that of the

civil courts. I know this from the case law collection that

we are preparing, and from the collection of civil courts’

case law with regard to claims filed under the Protection

Against Discrimination Act.

There are certain differences in the case law of PADC

and that of SAC, which are probably due to the fact

that SAC exercises control on the compliance with pro-

cedural rules. The decision could be correct but a for-

mal error may have been made that could become

the grounds for its repeal.

There is a need for specialized conferences and dis-

cussions, because before the commission the parties

are represented by lawyers and attorneys who have

repeatedly reiterated that the law is exotic as it has a

different burden of proof. It provides that a claim can

be filed and proceedings can be initiated not only by

victims but by third parties as well, which appears strange

to many lawyers. There is also a constant investigation

whether there are any specific persons affected by the

act of discrimination. It is very difficult to prove who they

are in cases when the discrimination is targeted at a

wide group within society, consolidated by a common

feature.

OBEKTIV: What is the share of the decisions that are

appealed, and what is the share of the appealed deci-

sions that are repealed?

ESEN FIKRI: We provide such statistics in our annual

report. Quite a large number of our decisions are ap-

pealed. Some of them are confirmed, others are re-

pealed and returned for another review. There are very

few cases in which SAC has repealed a decision without

returning the case for another review.

KRASSIMIR KANEV: Our organization will conduct a

large summary of the commission’s jurisprudence and

that of the courts. We have collected all decisions un-

der the Protection Against Discrimination Act with the

exception of the decisions of the Sofia City Court (SCC)

which refused to provide them. We appealed their re-

fusal to the Sofia Administrative Court and it ruled that

SCC must provide them to us. When that happens, we’ll

be able to publish a study summarizing the case law of

both the courts and the commission. However, it’s not

comparable on all aspects. For example, the commis-

sion cannot award compensation. Comparison is pos-

sible with regard to how they approach the different

signs of discrimination, its forms - direct, indirect, abuse,

etc. We are still to see whether this jurisprudence is

adequate.�

The questions were asked

by Krum Blagov