View
221
Download
0
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Publication of the journal Obektiv, number 158 of 2008 The interview was taken by Krum Blagov
Citation preview
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
Recommended