HUMAN RIGHTS IN BULGARIA, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES (Minority Rights)

HUMAN RIGHTS IN BULGARIA, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES (Minority Rights)

TRAKYA UNIVERSITY EDIRNE 2016

TRAKYA UNIVERSITY ISBN: 978-975-374-198-9

Trakya University Publication No: 176

Book Name

HUMAN RIGHTS IN BULGARIA, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES (Minority Rights) “2014 REPORT”

Assistant Professor Bulent YILDIRIM (Editor/Coordinator) Prepared by

Assistant Professor Bulent YILDIRIM …………………………. s. 1-28 (Trakya University) Assistant Professor Kader OZLEM ……………………………. s. 29-37 / s. 149-177 (Trakya University Associate Professor Selda ÇAGLAR……………………………. s. 38-78 (Trakya University Research Assistant Fatma RODOPLU ………………………. s. 79-148 (Trakya University)

Printed in Trakya University Printing House EDIRNE/ TURKEY June 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................... I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................2 GENERAL VIEW OF THE COUNTRY'S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS .......................................................................................................................29 A-GENERAL VIEW OF THE COUNTRY ................................................................ 29 B-FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS ....................................................38 1. POLITICAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS .................................................38 2. ECONOMIC RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS ................................................47 a. Right and Freedom to Work ........................................................................48 b. Right To Health ............................................................................................. 53 c. Right to Social Security .................................................................................58 d. Right to Housing............................................................................................ 61 3. ORGANIZATION RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS .......................................69 a. Right and Freedom to Found/Be a Member of a Political Party ...............70 b. Right and Freedom to Establish/Be a Member of Trade Unions ..............74 c. Right and Freedom to Establish/Be a Member of a Non-Governmental Organization (Society-Foundation) .................................................................76 4-CULTURAL RIGHTS and FREEDOMS ....................................................79 a. An Overview of Cultural Rights in Bulgaria ..............................................79 b. Public Use of Turkish ...................................................................................82 c. Past Fifteen Years After Signing of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.....................................................................86 5- RIGHTS and FREEDOMS to EDUCATION ............................................93 a. Education of Minority Children-Legal Framework ...................................93 b. Minority Children's Problems with Bulgarian Language .......................101

I

c. Problems in Teaching Turkish as Mother Tongue ...................................109 d. Educational Integration Strategy of Children and Students who are Members of Ethnic Minorities .......................................................................113 6. RELIGIOUS RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS ...............................................115 a. Legal Regulations ........................................................................................117 b. Problems with Foundation Properties .......................................................120 c. Accreditation Problems of the High Islamic Institute .............................. 129 d. Problems with the Building of the New House of Worship .....................132 e. Religious Rights Violations .........................................................................139 C-MEDIA OUTLOOK ................................................................................................ 149 1. Chronological Order of Highlights and Positive and Negative Events in the Country within a Year within the scope of Human Rights Violations ............................................................................................. 150 2. Examples of News Related with Armenians..............................................174 3. Examples of the News about the Jews .......................................................175 THE RESULT ..................................................................................................................178 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................180

BULGARIA REPORT 2014

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recently, the issue of human rights and fundamental rights and freedoms has gained importance on an international scale. This situation is directly proportional to the fact that the issue of human rights has grown out of the scope of pure domestic law and has gained a universal look. International independent civil society organizations on human rights and developed countries, as well as institutions such as UN and the European Union have published country reports on the subject regularly. Human rights violations taking place in any country in the world today arouse interest and provoke reaction not only in that country but all over the world, and can be questioned. In particular, the rights of minorities living in a country and their benefiting from the rights of citizenship have become a universal value. Significant changes have occurred in Bulgaria in the structural sense, which entered into a democratization process following the downfall of the Zhivkov regime in 1989. The mentioned amendments have brought about various developments related to human rights in the country. While various arrangements were being made on the issue in this regard, the human rights violations taking place in the country, in particular those of minorities were intended to be prevented in the new period. It is seen that adherence to the arrangements on human rights, defined in the country's constitution by various parties and totalitarian regimes in power, had remained on a symbolic level since Bulgaria became an independent country splitting from the Ottoman Empire. On the other hand, the human rights conventions of the international organisations such as the United Nations and the OSCE, which Bulgaria was a party to especially during the communist regime, were not much binding for the government in Sofia. As a democratic regime was facilitated with the constitution of 1991 in the country, the issue of human rights also emerged as an important topic. Since the goal of being a member of Euro-Atlantic organisations became a foreign policy priority for the Sofia government in 1990's, this situation ensured Bulgaria to move in a more sensitive way to human rights. Additionally; Bulgaria, a member of the Council of Europe, became a party to the framework Convention on the protection of national minorities in 1999. In the context of EU accession talks particularly in the 2000‟s, it put signature to various reforms in the country on human rights and fundamental freedoms. In the light of the issues mentioned, this report approaches the issue of fundamental rights and freedoms in 2014. In the report; an objective assessment is aimed with the titles of Overview of the country, Political Rights and Freedoms, Economic Rights and Freedoms, Organization Rights and Freedoms, Cultural Rights and Freedoms, Educational Rights and Freedoms, Religious Rights and Freedoms, as well as has tried to make an objective assessment scanning, and by scanning the media in the country. As known, Bulgaria is demographically diverse. We aimed to determine the progrees made by Bulgaria, having problems regarding humans rights, in particular, the Muslim Turkish minority in the international arena Prior to 1989, on the 25th anniversary of the over throw of the Zhivkov regime. The current status of the issue has been investigated in Bulgaria, who became a member of the leading organisations on human rights such as the EU, the EC, the UN and the OSCE during the intervening 25 years.

1


INTRODUCTION A HISTORY OF BULGARIA PRIOR TO MODERN BULGARIA The founders of the first Bulgarian State which gave its name to today‟s Bulgaria were the people that were resulted when Atilla's son Irnek left Central Europeand traveled to east and met with another Turkish tribe Ogura. According to the Hungarian Turkologist Gyula Németh the word “Bulgar” is a Turkish word meaning mixing; which was derived from the verb “bulgamak” - “the action of mixing”.1 The remainders of Itil Bulgarians; Kazan Tatars are currently using thebolgat - to mix, bolga - mix with and bolganış–blurry words.2 The homeland of Bulgarian Turks during the birth of Jesus were the middle Itil and Kama regions, and during the II. Century A.D. the homeland were Itil and the Ural River environs. It is understood that; during the III.andIV Centuries A.D.and onwards, Bulgarian Turks have moved to the Caucasus regions.3 In 630; after the interregnum period of Turkic Khaganate in Turkestan; Bulgarians left the Gök-Türk tribes unity like Khazars and formed the Great Bulgarian State. But this State did not last long; shortly after the death of its founder, the State wasbroken apartunder the influence of the Khazar Khanate pressure.The larger part “Thirty-Oguras” were pushed to the North; and later on formed the Itil Bulgarian State.4 Bat-Bayan who was one of the Kurt‟s sons; remained liable to Khazars, and remained as the leader of Hungarians and the “Ten-Oguras”and remained in their Country in the Caucasus. But Asparuh the little brother of Bat-Bayanmoved to the Danube River environs in the Balkans along withamassive Bulgarian population and after capturing these prosperous lands formed the Danube Bulgarian State in 679.5 The newly established Bulgarian Danube State was faced with two major problems; to have secure and definite borders and commingling with the Slavs who weresettled in the Balkans since the 5th Century. The most distinctive feature of Bulgarians different iating them from Slavsis their ability to form very strong military organizations, political organizations and their unity.6 Since its inception, Danube Bulgarian State was in struggle with the Byzantines and from time to time achieved considerable accomplishments. During the periods of Krum Khan AyĢe Kayapınar, “Tuna Bulgar Devleti (679-1018)”, Türkler, V. 2, Yeni Türkiye Publications., Ankara 2002, p. 630. Ogura Bulgarians which were originated from a Turkish tribe Ogura that their homeland was based in Kobdo ve Semipalatinsk region (seven tents, seven tribes) in north of Tarbagatay mountains were first named under in the sources regarding the Byzantine emperor Zeno's request for help against Ostrogoths King Theodoric in year 482 (Kayapınar, ibid, p. 630). For the origins of Bulgaria see Kazi T. Layponov, Ġsmail M. Miziyev, Türk Halklarının Kökeni, (Translated by Hatice Bağcı), Selenge Publications, Istanbul 2008, pp.124-129. 2 Tatarca-Törekçe Suzlek, Kazan 1997, p. 54. 3 Géza Fehér, Bulgar Türkleri Tarihi, (Hungarian to Turkish Translation made by a committee.) TTK. Publ., Ankara 1999, s. 15. 4 For detailed information on Ġtil Bulgarians see Ġklil Kurban, Yaşlı Tarihin Yankısı Bulgar-Tatar Tarihi ve Medeniyeti, AD Kitapçılık Publications, Istanbul 1998, pp. 49-57. 5 Ġbrahim Kafesoğlu, Türk Milli Kültürü, Boğaziçi Publications, Third Publication, Ġstanbul 1984, pp. 190-191. Chuvash “ÇavuĢça” is the sole representative of today's languages spoken by Danube “Tuna” Bulgarians. For detailed information on Danube Bulgarians and Turkish inscriptions dating from Danube Bulgarians see Talat Tekin, Tuna Bulgarları ve Dilleri, TDK. Publications, Ankara 1987, pp. 33-60. 6 R.J. Crampton, Bulgaristan Tarihi, (Translated by Nuray Ekici) Jeopolitika Publications, Istanbul 2007, pp. 3-5. 1

2


and Omurtag Khan; the Danube Bulgarian state reachedits largest borders. Krum Khan defeated the Byzantine Emperor Nikephoros and killed Emperor Nikephoros in the war. After that Krum Khan besieged Istanbul in 814.However, during the most intense attacks on April 13, 814 he died at instant after blood coming from his mouth and nose.7 During the period of Omurtag Khan which was theson of Karim Khan; (814-831) Belgrade and its environs were conquered and Macedonia and its environs which were consisting of Slavs, were seized also by benefiting from the turmoilin Byzantine. In 852 Boris I came into power and during his period the State officially accepted Orthodoxy (864) and merging with the Slavic which were already Christian increased. After becoming distant from the Turkish Culture and being dominated by the Byzantine and Slavic Culture influences to the Bulgarian culture; the Bulgarian State has started to be weaken since the I. Simeon era (893-927) and disappeared after merging with Byzantines and joining into Byzantine territories in 1018.8 Bulgarians were under the Byzantine rule for 167 years till 1185. After Eleventh Century another Turkish tribe, Cumans began to dominate the Balkans and played a significant role during the establishment of the Second Bulgarian State in 1185.9 11th Century Byzantine rivals were Pechenegs and Uz (Oghuz) tribes on the right bank of the Danube River. The Byzantines had used Cumans to end the Pechenegs‟ dominion. Cumans started to dominate the Balkans since 1091.10 In 1185 Asen and Peter brothers who were land owners near Tarnovo in Bulgaria rebelled against Byzantium and this revolt spread throughout eastern Bulgaria. In the end; Asen and Peter declared the Tsardom of Tarnovo.11 Following this event; the Byzantine Emperor Isaakios II walked over the rebels, and defeated them in the summer of 1186. It is said that after the Byzantine defeat; Asen and Kafesoğlu, i.b.i.d., pp. 192-193. Crampton, i.b.i.d., pp. 16-17. As per the famous Turcologist László Rásonyi; Continuous Slavization of Bulgarians, were almost completed in IX. Century. Bulgarian-Turkish year calendar is observed in 821 in the column of Omurtag Khan in Çatalar. The Turkish names are rarely mentioned in Dynasty. For example, “BayamuĢ”, son of Simeon; Commander Alpbagatur in 927; then the Commander of Berat, Elinag in the period of Czar Samuel; and Kavkan bothers are observed in the history (László Rásonyi, Tarihte Türklük (Turkic Nations in History), Türk Kültürünü AraĢtırma Enstitüsü Yay. (Turkish Culture Research Institute Publ.), 3. Vol., Ankara 1993, p. 93). 9 Kumans were named as Kumanos in the sources of Byzantian sources; Kumanos, Kumanoi and Komani in Latin sources, Kıpchak in Arabian sources; Kun in Hungarian sources; Polovets in Russian sources; Valwen, Pallidi, Valani, Falben in German and other Western sources; Khartes, Hartesk in Armenian sources. The common meaning of these names given to Kumans is „yellow, yellowish, light yellow and straw-yellow‟. It has been stated in the Russian Almanacs that they are from the same origin as Turkmen, Pechenek and Torks (Uz)(Mualla Uydu Yücel, İlk Rus Yıllıklarına Göre Türkler, TTK. Yay., Ankara 2007, s. 56). Kuman-Kıpçaklar For detailed information Fahrettin Kırzıoğlu, Yukarı-Kür ve Çoruk Boylarında Kıpçaklar, TTK. Yay., Ankara 1992; O. Pritsak. “Polovetsler ve Ruslar”, Çev. EĢref Bengi Özbilen, Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları Dergisi, S. 94, Ġstanbul ġubat 1995, s. 153–169; Ahmet Gökbel, Kıpçak Türkleri (Siyasî ve Dinî Tarih), Ötüken Yay., Ġstanbul 2000;Murat Adji, Kaybolan Millet (Deşt-i Kıpçak Medeniyeti), (Çev. Zeynep Bağlan Özer), Atatürk Kültür Merkezi BaĢkanlığı Yay., Ankara 2001; Murat Adji, Kıpçaklar (Türklerin ve Büyük Bozkırın Kadim Tarihi), (Çev. Zeynep Bağlan Özer), Atatürk Kültür Merkezi BaĢkanlığı Yay., Ankara 2002; Sercan M. Ahincanov, Türk Halklarının Katalizör Boyu Kıpçaklar, (Çev. KürĢat Yıldırım), Selenge Yay., Ġstanbul 2009. 10 István Vásáry, Kumanlar ve Tatarlar, Osmanlı Öncesi Balkanlar’da Doğulu Askerler 1185–1365, (Çev. Ali Cevat Akkoyunlu), Yapı Kredi Yay., Ġstanbul 2008, s. 10. 11 Crampton, a.g.e., s. 19. 7 8

3


Peter brother scrossed the Danube River and took refuge to Cumans along with their remaining forces.Cumans supported Asen and Peter brothers and later on they crossed the Danube River with them and spread into the Balkan countries. Therefore by the support of Cumans, II. Bulgarian State was established (1185-1393). Especially Byzantine and Latin sources give the main role to Cumans and Vlachs on the freedom movements in Bulgaria sometimes even ignoring the Bulgarians. Therefore, most historians agree that; if there were no continuous support of Cumans; II. Bulgarian State could not be established.12 After establishment of the II. Bulgarian State, Cumans in the Country government was also very effective. Cumans were the founders of three consecutive Bulgarian dynasties (Asenids, Terterids and Shishmanides). Except Ivaylo (1277-1280) and Smilec (1292-1297) as the illegitimate governors for the interim periods of the throne; all dynasties of the Second Bulgarian Empire were of Cuman origin.13 The Second Bulgarian State came to end after coming of the Muslim Ottoman Turks into the region. Ottomans‟ conquest of Bulgaria was finalized after the Niğbolu (Nicopolis) victory in 1396 and five centuries of Ottoman rule in Bulgaria started. Emerging of modern Bulgaria was the result of the loss of Ottoman Empire of the 1877-1878 Ottoman-Russian War. During the 1877-1878 Ottoman-Russian War, Russia defeated the Ottoman forces and in the west and came up to YeĢilköy (Ayastefanos) near Istanbul and captured in the east some parts of the Armenian resided lands from Ottoman Empire. Ottomans had no other choice but to make a treaty in harsh conditions. The treaty of San Stefano of March 3, 1878; was dictated by General Ignatiev to Ottoman Foreign Minister Saffet Pasha. It was covering main parts of the Bulgarian nationalists‟ dreams.Articles 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Treaty were about the establishment of the Principality of Bulgaria14, which would be affiliated to Ottoman Empire and were about its administration type, borders and relations with the Ottoman Empire. Bulgarian Principality's borders to be established were set out in Article 6 of the Treaty in detail.15 According to the Article; the lands from Danube river to Rhodope Mountains; from Black Sea to Morava which was covering the whole boundaries of today's Republic of Macedonia; up to the Vardar Valley and the cost of Aegean Sea from Strumica river up to Thessaloniki; the inner lands up to Monastery and Ohrid were constituting the Bulgarian borders.16 As a matter of fact; these vast areas were also covering the areas even Bulgarians Vásáry, a.g.e., s. 30-31. According to László Rásonyi, the foundations of the second Bulgarian State in XII. Century was laid by Kuman Turks, who were assimilated within the Bulgarian people. Rásonyi, a.g.e., s. 93. 13 Vásáry, a.g.e., s. 175; According to László Rásonyi, the Kumans were not only the allies and helpers of Czar Asen, who established II. Bulgarian State, but the name “Asen” itself is from Kumanic origin. Russian Chronicles mentioned a Kuman Chief with the name “Asen” one hundred years ago. The dynasties after the Asen Dynasty, like ġiĢmanlar, Dorman, Elitemir, and Terters are all from Kuman origin. (László Rásonyi, Doğu Avrupa’da Türklük, Yay. Haz. Yusuf Gedikli, Selenge Yay., Ġstanbul 2006, s. 139). In addition, it is also accepted that the Pomaks, who are living in Bulgaria today, also come from the Kuman origin. For detailed information on this, please refer to Ġlker Alp, Pomak Türkleri (Kumanlar-Kıpçaklar), Trakya Üniversitesi Yay., Edirne 2008, s. 5-30. 14 The official name of the Bulgarian Principality in the Ottoman State was “Bulgarian Emareti”, which means the same as principality. 15 Muâhedât Mecmuası, C. IV, Ceride-i Askerîye Matbaası, Dersaadet 1298, s. 188–189. 16 R. J. Crampton, Bulgaristan Tarihi, (Çev. Nuray Ekici) Jeopolitika Yay., Ġstanbul 2007, s. 70. 12

4


were not having demographic majority. In addition; “designing this part of the Balkans alone by Russians”, was deeply disturbing to the other regional Powers of that period; such as, Germany, England and Austria-Hungarian Empire. Therefore, a new conference was held in Berlin to re-arrange the agreement. The Berlin Treaty replaced the borders of Great Bulgaria which had been established by the San Stefano Treaty in favor of Ottoman Empire. By this Treaty; The Great Bulgaria which had been established by the San Stefano Treaty was divided into the parts to remove the concerns of the United Kingdom and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Bulgaria which was configured as a Principality also was limited with the lands between the Danube River and the Balkan Mountains. The area between Balkan Mountains and Rhodope Mountains was organized as an Autonomous Province under the name of Eastern Rumelia Province17 and was affiliated to the Ottoman Empire. Macedonia was left to the Ottoman Empire administration provided that a reform would be implemented there.18 Thus, 163,965 square kilometers of Great Bulgaria State which had been established by the Treaty of San Stefano was divided into three parts by the Berlin Treaty. The Principality of Bulgaria which was a tax payer Province to Ottoman Empire to be administered independently covering an area of 63,972 square kilometers only, and the 32,594 square kilometer Southern Province was given to Ottoman Empire under the name of Eastern Rumelia as an Autonomous Province also, and the remaining 67,399 square kilometer Macedonia region was abandoned directly to the Ottoman Empire‟s ruling.19 The first twelve articles of the Treaty of Berlin were related to the administration within the borders of Bulgarian Principality and the relations with the Ottoman Empire. As per the Article Bulgaria was constituted as“an autonomous and tributary principality, under the suzerainty of His Majesty the Sultan. It will have a Christian Government and a national militia.”20 In the Second Article; the territories of the Principality of Bulgaria were identified in details. In the Third Article it was stated that; “The Prince of Bulgaria shall be freely elected by the population and confirmed by the Sublime Porte (Bâbıâli), with the assent of the Powers. No member of any of the reigaing Houses of the Great European Powers shall be elected Prince of Bulgaria.” The Article five was indicating equal conditions for everyone by stating that; “distinction of religious belief or confession shall not exclude or incapacitate any one”.Sixth and seventh Articles were about the temporary administration of Bulgaria for 9 months from the date of signing the Treaty by the Russian commissioner.The eighth Article was stating that; all trade and other agreements that have been signed between the other states and the Ottoman Empire were valid and should apply in the same way to Bulgarian Principality.21 12th Article of the Berlin Treaty was mentioning about the rights of; “Musulman proprietors or others who might fix their

For detailed information on Eastern Rumelian Province, please refer to Mahir Aydın, Şarkî Rumeli Vilayeti, TTK Yay., Ankara 1992. 18 R. J. Crampton, a.g.e., s. 170. 19 Mahir Aydın, Osmanlı Eyaletinden Üçüncü Bulgar Çarlığı’na, Kitabevi Yay., Ġstanbul 1996, s. 127-128. 20 Berlin AnlaĢması 1. Madde, Muâhedât Mecmuası, C. V, Ceride-i Askerîye Matbaası, Dersaadet 1298, s. 113. 21 Berlin AnlaĢması 8. Madde, Muâhedât Mecmuası, C. V, s. 118. 17

5


domicile without the Principality might retain their lands in it by leasing them or allowing them to be administered by third parties.” 22 As we have seen Bulgarian Principality‟s status has been clearly determined with the Berlin Treaty and it has emphasized the validity of all trade and other agreements that have been signed between the other states and the Ottoman Empire. Therefore Bulgaria chieftainship was not entitled to make any commercial or political-military agreements with the third parties. Also operating rights of Muslims‟ property and possessions remained within the Chieftainship boundaries were recognized andthe rights of the Turkish Muslim minority living were guaranteed by the “everyone will have equal rights regardless of religion or sect” provision. However, since the inception of Bulgarian Principality in practice the pressures against the Muslim and Turkish population were continued and hence the migration continued for many years since the war.23

Muâhedât Mecmuası, C. V, s. 119; Mahmud Celaleddin, Mirat-ı Hakikat,(Haz. Ġsmet Miroğlu) Berekât Yayınevi, Ġstanbul 1983, s. 688. 23 For detailed information on this, please refer to Nedim Ġpek, Rumeli’den Anadolu’ya Türk Göçleri, TTK. Yay., Ankara 1994, s. 122-154; Faruk Kocacık, “Balkanlar‟dan Anadolu‟ya Yönelik Göçler (1878-1890), Osmanlı Araştırmaları, C. I, Ġstanbul 1980, s.137-190. 22

6


B) GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE MINORITIES LIVING IN BULGARIA 1. TURKS Although the presence of the Turkish Muslim minority in Bulgaria started with the Ottoman Empire; The Bulgarian territory inhabited by the Turkic tribes coming from north of the Black Sea, long before the inception of the Ottoman Empire. It is known that European Huns advanced up to Thrace by passing over Danube River in year 378.In addition to the Huns other Turkic tribes which have been observed in the Balkans and Bulgaria were: Avars, Oguras (Bulgarians), Pechenegs, Uz (Oghuz) and Cumans.24 However, the settlement of Turkish Muslim minority in Bulgaria started after the advance of the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans as a continuation of the Turkic settlement in Anatolia.Bulgaria is one of the first country conquered after the passage of the Ottoman Turks into Rumelia. After the first battle of Kosovo in 1389, the resistance of the Balkan states represented by the Serbians was completely broken, and all of Bulgaria up to Danube River and Vidin was conquered and came under the Ottoman rule and Turkification process began.25 Hence the first Ottoman conquest in the border with Bulgaria took place during I. Murad. During the conquest of Edirne, Cirman (Çirmen) which was located in a strategic location for the defense of Edirne was conquered. Then Timurtas Pasha conquered Yanbolu and Lala ġahin Pasha seized Zagra (Zağra) and it‟s environ. From Anatolia so many Muslim Turkish immigrants were brought to the newly conquered territories and hence Muslim Turkish populations increased. The region was administratively attached to the Province of Rumelia. The Çirmen Sanjak administration which was one of the first Ottoman Sanjaks was established; covering Cirman (Çirmen), Haskovo Hasköy, Chirpan (Çırpan), Akçakızanlık, Nova Zagora (Yeni Zağra) and Ergene region of today‟s Thrace along with Eynepazar and Tekfurdag. In the 16th Century, 1530; 88% of the Sanjak‟s population was consisting of the Muslim Turks, and 12% was consisting of Bulgarians, Greeks and other non-Muslims. Bulgaria‟s conquest was finalized in the year of 1393 by Ottoman forces under the command of Bayezid I‟s eldest son Suleyman Chelebi, after taking the Bulgarian capital of Veliko Tarnovo and ending the Bulgarian kingdom in the year 1393.26 In parallel to the progress in the completion of the conquest of Bulgaria and the Balkans; dense Turk-Islam population movements towards these areas have been observed. Since the start of the Ottomans‟ advances in the Balkans, it is observed that Turkmens (Turkomans) have begun to settle in those areas, too. After the number and importance of Turkoman tribes increased the need to create laws and regulations to place them in a military organization and to create laws and regulations for them emerged. The Turkoman tribes who were settled in Bulgaria and the Balkans were recorded in the cadastral record Ali Ahmetbeyoğlu, “Türkistan‟dan (Orta Asya) Doğu Avrupa‟ya Yapılan Türk Göçleri”,Türkler, (Editörler, Hasan Celal Güzel, Kemal Çiçek, Salim Koca), C. 2, Yeni Türkiye Yay., Ankara 2002, s. 523-527. 25 Halil Ġnalcık, Tanzimat ve Bulgar Meselesi, TTK. Yay., Ġstanbul 1992, s. VII. 26 Yusuf Halaçoğlu, “Bulgaristan” Maddesi, DİA., C. 6, Ġstanbul 1992, s. 396-397. 24

7


books under the following names: Naldöken Turkomans, Tanrıdağı Turkomans, Ofcabolu Turkomans, Vize Turkomans and Kocacık Turkomans. In addition, there were also Tatars having the same legal and financial status with the Turkoman tribes. According to the Land Registry and Cadastral Archives of 16th.&17th centuries; the located Turkmen populations in the Balkans, mainly in Bulgaria,were estimated as at least 500,000.27 It was determined by the archives that in the end of the 19th Century, especially after Timur‟s Anatolia campaign, the nomadic Yörük groups (Yorouks) came and settled in the Strandja (Istranca) Mountains and the Balkan mountain range, the Deliorman and Dobrogea (Dobruca) regions. Yörük groups (Yorouks) were settled in time from Vize to Danube, from Thrace region to Thessaloniki (Selanik).28 Another factor accelerating the Turkish-Islamic population settlement in the Balkans is there-settlement of Muslim neighborhoods formed around new buildings in the cities and settlements around the lodges and zawiyas which were attracting the population. The evidences of this phenomenon were common in the Bulgarian Cadastral Record Books.29 As a result of the settlement policies determined in Bulgaria; which were under the rule of Ottoman Empire 500 years without interruption, from 16th Century to 19th Century, according to the Bulgarian records also the Turkish Muslim population were forming majority till 1878.30 2. POMAKS After ending the Ottoman rule in Bulgaria, the Pomaks were the most pressure and assimilation policies exposed group which belong to the Turkish-Islamic culture. Pomaks always expressed themselves as Turks and they were accepted as Turks by the Bulgarian authorities also after the following periods of the Bulgarian Principality established by the 1878 Berlin Treaty. Pomaks were defined by the subsequent Bulgarian rulers as “forcibly Islamized Bulgarians in the Ottoman period”and were subjected to forced Christianization and Bulgarisation campaign under the “return to the essence policy” framework. After the Balkan Wars, when the Rhodope region which wasinhabited by the Pomaks came under Bulgarian occupation and the ruling of Ottomans was finalized Pomaks were tried to be assimilated five times in 1912, 1942, 1948, 1962 and 1971-1974 periods and they were forced to change their names. In addition, during the forced name changing campaigns in 1912 and 1942, the Bulgarian government sent priests to the Pomak villages for the forced Christianizing activities.31 YaĢar Yücel, “Balkanlarda Türk YerleĢmesi ve Sonuçları”, Bulgaristan’da Türk Varlığı, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yay., Ankara 1987, s. 73-75. 28 Halil Ġnalcık, “Türkler ve Balkanlar”, Bal-Tam Türklük Bilgisi, S.3, Balkan Türkoloji AraĢtırmaları Merkezi Yay., Prizren Eylül 2005, s. 32-33. 29 Yücel, a.g.m., s. 75. 30 G. Th. Danailof, Bulgaristan Nüfus İstatistiklerine Ait Tetkikler, (Çeviren Ġbrahim Darcan), BaĢvekâlet Matbaası, Ankara 1937, s. 26. 31 Ali Dayıoğlu, Toplama Kampından Meclis’e Bulgaristan’da Türk ve Müslüman Azınlığı, Ġstanbul 2005, s. 6263. About 200 thousand Pomaks were converted into Christianity by pressure and brutality especially during the Balkan Wars. For detailed information on this topic, please refer to the following works, which have been 27

8


Each Balkan Country where the Pomak population lives raises different claims about the origin of Pomaks. While the Bulgarian governors claim that they are “forcibly Islamized Bulgarians during the Ottoman period”; Greek Government especially since the 1970s has begun to defend their thesis of “Pomaks are forcibly Islamized Helens” in their requested political approaches.32 Also one of the claims about the origins of Pomaks is assuming their Arab origin. This claim first time appeared in the book of Mehmet Dursunski “The History of Ahrians (Pomaks)”.33 However, the geography of Bulgaria was inhabited before the Ottoman Turks by many ancient Turkic tribes. Cumans, who were settled in the region by the 11th Century after Pechenegs Uz (Oghuz), moved first to the Danube environs of northern Bulgaria and Dobrogea region. Later on they moved to the southern parts and were settled in Eastern parts of Rodopi and Macedonia. Cumans also gave their names to the geographical regions which were still being used; Kumanovo in Macedonia, Kumantsi in Sofia, Kumança in Nevrekop, Kumaniçevo in Kesriye (Kastorya), Cumani island in Vidin, Komana in Niğbolu (Nikopol), Kumanitsa in Lofça (Lovech).34 Considering that Pomaks were also resident both in Lofça (Lovech) environs and mainly in the Rhodopes; the settlements of ancient Turkic tribes Cumans and Pomaks were mapping.35 3. ROMA PEOPLE Roma people which are considered to be of Indian origin have migrated from the middle and especially northwest India and have reached the Balkans in two separate migration waves after the 5th Century. The Roma people were settled to the South of Balkans with the first wave of migration from the route of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Anatolia. The second wave of migration has been settled to the North of Balkans from the route of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and the former USSR territory.36 The earliest reach of Roma people to Bulgaria was extending back to the IX. Century, and it is understood that their settlement were much before the conquest of Balkans by the Ottoman Empire.37 Roma people living in Bulgaria mainly converted to Islam after Ottoman Empire rule in the region was established and have been able to have more comfortable living prepared by making use of the Turkish and Bulgarian archives and sources; AĢkın Koyuncu, “Balkan SavaĢları Sırasında Pomakların Zorla Tanassur Edilmesi (1912-1913)”, OTAM, S.33, Ankara 2014, s. 139-196. 32 Ġlker Alp, Pomak Türkleri (Kumanlar-Kıpçaklar), T.Ü. yay., Edirne 2008, s. 8-24. 33 Ġsmail Cambazov, Bulgaristan’da BaşThe Office of the MuftiTarihi I (1878-1944), BaĢThe Office of the Muftiyay., Sofia 2013, s. 41. 34 Ahmet Gökbel, Kıpçak Türkleri, Ötüken yay., Ġstanbul 2000, s. 82-83. 35 For detailed information on the existence of the Kumans in Bulgaria, please refer to Valerie Stoyanov, “Bulgar Tarihinde Kumanlar (XI.-XIV. Yüzyıllar)”, Terc. Zeynep Zafer, Türkler Ansiklopedisi, Cilt 2, Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, Ankara 2002, s. 798-809;Thomas Brüggemann,“Cumans in Southern Dobrudja: Some Remarks on the Second Bulgarian Empire during the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries”, Chronica: Annual of the Institute of History, Cilt: 10, Szeged 2010; Yılmaz, Salih, “Kıpçak Türkleri ve YerleĢtikleri Sahalar”, Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları Vakfı Dergisi, Sayı:140, Ġstanbul 2002; Mualla Uydu Yücel, Balkanlarda Peçenekler, Uzlar ve Kumanlar”, Balkanlar El Kitabı, Cilt I: Tarih, Der. Osman Karatay, Bilgehan A. Gökdağ, Karam (Karadeniz AraĢtırmaları Merkezi) & Vadi Yayınları, Çorum / Ankara 2006. 36 Dayıoğlu, a.g.e., s. 58. 37 Ġsmail Altınöz, Osmanlı Toplumunda Çingeneler, TTK, Ankara 2013, s. 33.

9


opportunities than other parts of Europe. Today‟s Romani communities living in Bulgaria are divided into several subgroups according to their religion, way of life and languages. The Roma groups called “Jerlii” make up the largest groups which descend from the first settlers of Roma people in Bulgaria. This group was divided into two subgroups, namely; “Horohans” called Muslims and “Gajikans” and “Dasikans” called mainly Christian groups. The second largest Roma group in Bulgaria is called “Kardashiler” which are generally Christians. Among the people in general the Roma people who do not know Roma language and speaking Turkish language are called “Millet (nation)” and “Millet Gypsy”.The Roma language speaking Muslims are called “Çingene (Gypsy)”, whereas the people only living in tents and having nomadic lifestyle were called “Çingene” or “Kopanar” and the Christian Roma people are called “Rom”.38 Moreover the Muslim Roma people are called as “Turkish Gypsies” and Christian Roma people were called as “Bulgarian Gypsies”. Even though Bulgarian authorities have declared that in general the Roma people were Christians; according to many sources, the majority of the Roma people were Muslims. During the Bulgarian Principality period (1878-1908), the proportion of Muslims in the Roma population was around 75-80%. In 2001, former Grand Mufti of Bulgaria Selim Mehmed and the Former Grand Mufti Fikri Salih Hasan stated that; approximately 80% of the Roma populations were Muslim. Fikri Salih Hasan also noted that; the nomadic parts of Roma groups were mainly composed of Christian populations. Besides, foreign researcher Hugh Poulton have stated in study named “The Balkan’s: Minorities and States in Conflict”, 75% of the Roma population were Muslim.39 But nowadays especially due to the direct missionary activities exerted on theRoma people as described below in detailed, these figures have begun to change drastically and in some areas switching en masse to Christianity have been seen. Another controversial issue is their population. As per the official statistics of the Bulgarian state; 370,908 Roma people were living in Bulgaria in 2001. According to the data from the Bulgarian Ministry of Interior of 1989; the Roma people‟s population was 576,927. Experts generally suggest that the Ministry of Interior Data should be taken as the base.While noting the decline in recent years, having the highest birth rate and population growth rate among the ethnic groups in Bulgaria, the Roma people population is estimated to be at least 650,000 and at most 800,000 today.The EU data are based on the highest figures. One of the reasons for the failure of determining exact Roma people population in Bulgaria was their registry. Turkish speaking Roma population was identifying and registering themselves as Turks and some parts of Christian Roma population was identifying and registering themselves as Bulgarian during the Census. Increasing migration to Europe after the EU membership also made it difficult to identify their exact population.

38 39

Dayıoğlu, a.g.e., s. 58-60. Dayıoğlu, a.g.e., s. 61.

10


It is known that; in terms of ethnic and religious identity almost all Muslim Roma groups describe themselves as Turks and react when they are told otherwise. The Bulgarian Communist regime began name changing and assimilation activities for Muslim Roma population in 1958, much earlier than starting forced name changes for the Turks.40 The superstition, witchcraft, astrology and fortune telling in Roma population were seen in greater extent in parallel going apart from religious institutions and clergy were seen much more compared to the other groups. According to some researchers, the religious beliefs of Roma people that identify themselves as Turks are weaker than Roma people that identify themselves as Bulgarians.41 According to the Board of Religious Affairs; the number of registered communities in Bulgaria is 30 as of 30 June 1995. Bulgaria is a country hosting maximum Turkish population in the Balkans after Turkey. These religious communities are; the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, the religious organization of Muslims, the Catholic Church, the Armenian Church and the Jewish Rabbinate.Almost all of the remainder constitutes from churches and communities belonging to the Christian missionary organizations are grouped under the common name of Protestantism; ranging from the Methodist, the Evangelists, Mormons and Lutheranism.42 According to reports in the Bulgarian newspapers, the missionaries have accelerated their activities in the Rhodope regions that almost all of their populations were composed of Turks and Muslims. Turkish speaking populations around old Zagra (Stara Zagora) and also the Muslim Gypsies who were presenting themselves as Turks; were also under the influence of Protestant missionaries.43 The activities of Evangelical, Methodist and Protestant Christian communities, such as Jehovah's Witnesses in Bulgaria are very strong. These missionary groups generally perform the propaganda activities within the Muslim Roma groups.Until 10 years ago; the majority of Roma groups were Muslim, but unfortunately they are mainly Christians nowadays.The missionary activities within the Roma groups are usually carried out by German, Swiss and US-supported missionary organizations.To convert the attraction of the Emin Atasoy, Beşeri ve Kültür Coğrafyası Işığında Bulgaristan, MKM yay., Bursa 2010, s. 32-35; Dayıoğlu, a.g.e., s. 61. 41 Atasoy, a.g.e., s. 34. 42 Ömer Turan, Avrasya Coğrafyasında Misyonerlik Faaliyetleri, http://www.turksam.org/tr/a238.html. 43 The list also sholud inclıde Missionary organisations which act without permission. The prominent organisation of tahat kind is Witneses of Jehowah upon the denial of their appeal tobbe accepted as an official religion they have been acting as a company. They are estimated to have around 2000 members in Bulgaria. According to newspapers of that time A group of 800 people including Turks Pomaks and Gypsies from Bulgaria participated in the congress held in Brasov and Cluj towns in Romania. Bulgarian Newspapers also write that they were affiliated with Greece and books which were tried to be imported from this country were forbidden. An association with Northrern European origin helds a demonstration in Vasil Levski Stadium in Sofia in 1995. Pomaks and Turks living in the Rhodops in southern Bulgaria were carried to the demonstration by buses. The program started after the stadium was completely full. Young girls danced and made demonstrations. But every 15 or 20 minutes theologists, priests and professors from different countries gave a five minute speech. The following day newspapers wrote that the ones who held the meeting were protestants known as Moonists. (Ömer Turan, Avrasya Coğrafyasında Misyonerlik Faaliyetleri, http://www.turksam.org/tr/a238.html). 40

11


Muslim Roma groups to the Churches; great magnitudes of food and clothing assistances to them were on-going. In addition, the church-houses are constructing within the dense Roma groups inhabited Cities and villages, successful Roma students are educated in the institutions of Bulgaria or abroad, and then are appointed as priests. Orphanage missionaries, hospitals and clinics which are operating in the country are also working to Christianize the Muslims. As a result of the activities of these missionaries; the Roma population living in the western Bulgaria as Sofia, Montana, Vidin, Vratsa, and Kyustendil (Köstendil), largely has severed ties with Islam, and has experienced the bulk transition to Christianity.44 According to the data of the Bulgarian National Statistical Institute in 2001 census; 24,651 people, more than half of Protestants in Bulgaria were Roma.45 Considering much more intense missionary activities are observing since 2001; it is understood that this figure is continuing to increase. 4. ARMENIANS The Armenian Presence in Bulgaria has been started by driving of the Armenians to Thrace and Balkans by the Byzantines in the Byzantine Empire era due to the sectarian differences of Byzantines with the Armenians. Since the 6th Century until 12th Century the Byzantine Empire expelled Armenians out of their homelands to Bulgaria, Macedonia and Thrace in some intervals. In the reign of Constantine V with the Byzantine army raids to MaraĢ, Malatya and Erzurum, thousands of Armenians and Syrian Monophysites were collected and re-placed in Thrace. It is known that in the 10th Century; the Emperor Ioannes (969-976) collected numerous populations mainly of the Armenian people from Anatolia and re-placed them in a location known as, Philippolis (Plovdiv) in Thrace. At the end of 10th Century, nearly in 988 this time the Armenians were re-placed in Macedonia by the Emperor II. Basil (976-1025). One Armenian historian wrote the following about the replacement of the Armenians in Macedonia: “they were placed here to serve as a shield against the Bulgarians and to help to increase the prosperity of the country”.46 During this period Armenian soldiers were placed in the forefront with their success in all battlefields in the Balkans and in Syria under the command of Byzantines.During the second campaign of Emperor II. Basileios against Bulgarians starting in 991 ending in 995; there were Grigorios, his son Ashod and Sahak named commanders among the commanders which came from the Armenian Prince‟s families. 47 The last mass deportation of Armenians to Bulgaria occurred during the Byzantine period in the beginning of 12thCentury during Emperor Alexius (1081-1118) period and the

Ayhan Demir “Bulgaristan‟daki Misyonerlik Tehlikesi” Rumeli (Haber Sanat AraĢtırma ve Yorum Dergisi) Gebze ġubat 2012, Sayı: 22, s.26. 45 Atasoy, a.g.e., s. 34. 46 Peter Charanis, “The Transfer of Population as a Policy in the Byzantine Empire”, Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol.3, No.2 January 1961, s. 144, 146, 151. 47 Rene Grousset, Başlangıcından 1071’e Ermenilerin Tarihi, (Çev. Sosi Dolanoğlu), Aras Yayınları, 2. Baskı Ġstanbul 2006, s. 511-512. 44

12


Armenians were directed to Plovdiv (Filibe) and its surroundings also.48 The continued migrations of Armenians to Bulgaria in intervals during five centuries resulted in the establishment of various Armenian colonies.Armenians who migrated in the first periods were assimilated by the local Christian elements, however for the later periods there is a possibility that Armenian migrants kept their Armenian identities. The reason for the Byzantine repression to Armenians and deportation of Armenians under the Byzantine rule lies in the fact of cultural and sectarian disputes.As theByzantine Empire adopted Greek culture and the Orthodox faith also sought to impose these principles to its dominated elements. But the Armenians who adopted the decisions of Ephesus Council in 431, and not recognizing Chalcedon (Kadıköy) Council decisions; were defending that, they were representing Christianity in its purest form and their Churches were national and autonomous.49 It is seen that the Armenians were settled in these lands with their consents, which were quite favorable in terms of trade and agriculture, after the completion of Bulgaria's conquest by the Ottoman Empire. The first significant Armenian migration to Bulgaria in Ottoman period took place in the Celali rebellion during the reign of Mehmed IV. During this period Armenians migrated from various regions of Anatolia and settled in Bulgaria's Shumen (ġumnu), Provadia, Razgırad, Aytos and the Plovdiv (Filibe) Cities. In addition, Sultan IV. Mehmed issued a decree in favor of the Armenians who had migrated to Plovdiv (Filibe) in 1674 and gave the Greek Orthodox Church in Plovdiv to Armenians.The name of this Church was Sveti Kevork and is operating today.50 Sofia, after the 17th century became a center of attraction for Armenians due to its increasing importance of commercial activities. Armenians living there in this century were jewellers, bakers, and forger like professions. The head baker in Sofia was also a Vartazarmyan named Armenian master. According to the registries of 1669 there was an Armenian baker named Ovanes in Akbunar Turkish neighborhood. According to the information provided by the Austrian ambassador Gervard Kornalius at that time an important part of Armenians in the City were traders and there were many Armenians at high positions. Armenian Quarter was placed between today‟s Graf Ignatiev, Alabama's, Yurko, V. Levski streets and the Armenian Church was located in the same area. Turkish Bali Efendi Quarter was located in today's Levski Street right next to the Armenian neighborhood.51 Cyril Mango, Byzantium New Roman Empire, (translated by Gül Çağalı Güven), Yapı Kredi Publ., Istanbul 2008, p. 80. According to the Armenians and Byzantines in Filibe, the local Christians who believed in aberrant Bogomil cult, resisted against Byzantian administration together and caused constant problems. For detailed information, please refer to Anna Kommena, Alexiad, Anadolu ve Balkan Yarımadasında İmparator Alexias Kommenos Döneminin Tarihi, (Çeviren, Bilge Umar), Ġnkılâp Kitabevi, Ġstanbul 1996, s. 469–478. 49 Ali Arslan, Kutsal Ermeni Papalığı Eçmiyazin Kilisesi'nde Stratejik Savaşlar, Truva Yay., Ġstanbul 2005, s. 1112; Abdurrahman Küçük, Ermeni Kilisesi ve Türkler, Ocak Yay., Ankara 1997, s. 62–63. 50 Vırban Stamatov, “Poznavame li ce Dostatıçno ?” (Birbirimizi Yeterince Tanıyormuyuz?), Bılgari i Armentsi Zaedno Prez Vekovete(Bulgarlar ve Ermeniler Asırlarca Birlikte), Sofia 2001, s. 26. 51 Mihran Bohosyan, Armentsite v Sofiya Istoriçeski Oçerk, Nastoyatelstvo Na Armentskata Tsırkva Surp Asdavadzadzin, Sofiya 1999, s. 15. 48

13


In the Platelet marble placed on the wall of Armenian St. Bogoroditsa Church in Ruse (Rusçuk) it was written that; the construction of the Church was in 1610, the repair was in 1832 and conversion into a museum was in 1987. Therefore, the construction and repairing of the church were incurred during the Ottoman period. The Armenian neighborhoods were also established in Varna and Burgas cities and Armenian Churches were also constructed in these cities. There were about 10 thousand Armenian populations in Bulgaria just before the 1877-1878 Ottoman-Russian War.52 5. JEWS The first major Jewish communities, who came to Bulgaria, were the Sephardic Jews which were expelled from Spain in 1492 and accepted as refugees by the Ottoman Empire and resettled in these territories. In subsequent years, as a result of pressure and threats from countries such as France, Germany, Austria, Hungary and Poland; some portions of the Ashkenazi Jews who had found shelter and took refuge in the Ottoman Empire were accepted as refugee to Bulgaria.53 Also the oldest Jewish community in the country was the Romaniote Jews who were living in the Balkan Peninsula during Byzantine and Roman Empires. After addition of the Russian Jews into these groups there were four large Jewish communities in Bulgaria.54 In the first periods of Bulgarian Principalitythe Jewish populations were 20,000 in 1880, 40,067 in 1910 and 48, 398 in year 1934. The Bulgarian Jewish life completely changed after the Second World War. After domination of socialism in Bulgaria and after the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, in less than a year 32,106 Jews have been migrated to Israel. After the 1989 post totalitarian period, the Jewish immigration from Bulgaria have been continued and only 653 of total 1,363 Jews living in the Country had registered themselves as having Jewish religion during the population statistics. Today the Jews in Bulgaria are continuing their Culture and beliefs within the 19 regional establishments organized under the “Shalom” organization.55

Armenians and their activities in Bulgaria. For detailed information, please refer toBülentYıldırım, “Bulgaristan Emaretinin Kurulmasından Sonra Bulgaristan‟daki Ermeni Kiliselerinin Statüsü”, Türk Tarihinde Balkanlar (Balkans in The Turkish History), Edt; Zeynep Ġskefiyeli, M. Bilal Çelik, Serkan Yazıcı, Sakarya Üniversitesi Balkan AraĢtırmaları Uygulama ve AraĢtırma Merkezi Yayınları, Sakarya 2013; Yıldırım, Bülent, Bulgaristan’daki Ermeni Komitelerinin Osmanlı Devleti Aleyhine Activityleri (1890-1918), Türk Tarih Kurumu yay., Ankara 2014. 53 The Jews who took refugee in the Ottoman Territory especially from Eastern Europe. For detailed information, please refer to Ali Arslan, Avrupadan Türkiye’ye İkinci Yahudi Göçü, Truva yay, Ġstanbul 2006. 54 Atasoy, a.g.e., s. 22-23 55 Atasoy, a.g.e., s. 24. 52

14


C) BULGARIA'S DEMOGRAPHIC STRUCTURE ACCORDING TO THE BULGARIAN OFFICIAL STATISTICS DATA After the establishment of Bulgarian Principality; ministry staff Petku Karavelov was given the task of organizing a statistical institute after a budget was assigned considering the needs for newly-established state to the statistics by the Finance Ministry in June 25, 1880. After establishing the Institute, Petko Karavelov assigned Mikhail K. Sarafov as the first director. After Mihail K. Sarafov was assigned as the Education and Enlightenment Minister in December 1880, the Statistical Institute which was managed by Mihail K. Sarafov was transferred to the Ministry.During the period of Konstantin Ġreçek as the Education and Enlightenment Minister based on a report prepared by him, the Statistical Institute was renamed as the Bulgarian Statistical Institute (Bılgarsk to Dırjavn to Statistiçes) in order to become more sophisticated and autonomous institution after revision by a decree on August 19, 1881. The Institute, which had an autonomous structure, was attached to the Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce in 1894, and renamed as “Direktsiya Na Statistikata Na Knejestvo Bılgariya” by a new law enacted in 1897. And in 1910, its administration was given to the Ministry of Industry. By this time, the Institute had made several progress and improvements, and was ruled from 1908 to 1927, under the administration of General Director Kiril G. Popov, except for a short period.56 According to the data published by the official Statistics Institute of the Bulgarian State in 1911; In the Bulgarian Principality, there were 2,424,371 Greek Orthodox, 676,215 Muslims, 18,505 Catholics, 1,358 Protestants, 24,352 Jewish, 9,574 Armenians and others were living in 1887. The Total Population was 3,154,375 and it was constituted by the following religious groups: 76.86% of the population was Greek Orthodox, 21.44% was Muslims, 0.59% was Catholics, 0.04% was the Protestants, 0.77% was the Jews and 0.30% was Armenians and others.57 The demographic situation in 1892 was as follows: There were 2,606,786 Greek Orthodox, 643,258 Muslims, 22,617 Catholics, 2,384 Protestants, 28,307 Jewish, 6,643 Armenians and 718 others were living. The Total Population was 3,310,713 and it was constituted from the following religious groups: 78.74% of the population was Greek Orthodox, 19.43% was Muslims, 0.68% was Catholics, 0.07% was the Protestants, 0.86% was the Jews and 0.20% was Armenians and 0.02% wasthe others. The demographic situation in 1900 was as follows: There were 3,019,999 Greek Orthodox, 643,300 Muslims, 28,569 Catholics, 4,524 Protestants, 33,663 Jewish, 13,809 Armenians and 419 others were living. The Total Population was 3,744,283 and it was constituted from the following religious groups: 80.66% of the population was Greek Orthodox, 17.18% were Muslims, 0.76% was Catholics, 0.12% was the Protestants, 0.90% was the Jews and 0.37% was Armenians and 0.01% was others. A. MaĢiah, “Sızdavaneto na Tsentralno Dırjavno Uçrejdenie za Stastistiçeski Ġzuçavaniya v Bılgariya” (Bulgaristan‟ın Ġstatistik AraĢtırmaları Devlet Merkez Kurumunun KuruluĢunun Tarihçesi), 100. Godinî Bılgarska Dırjavna Statistika (1881-1981), (Edt., P. ġapkarev, A.N.Ü. Totev), Sofia 1985, s. 23. 57 Statistiçeski Godişnik na Bılgarskoto Tsarstvo 1910 (Godina Vtora), (Bulgar Çarlığı‟nın Yıllık Ġstatistiği 1910 Ġkinci Yıl), Glavna Direktsiya na Statistikata, Dırjavna Peçatnitsa, Sofiya 1911, s.46. 56

15


The Censuses of 1887, 1892 and 1900 data revealed a decrease in the Turkish Muslim population both in number and as proportion to total population.Greek-Orthodox column representing the Bulgarian population has drawn attention by a significant increase in both in number and as proportion. In the table below the numbers and proportion of the Turkish and Bulgarian populations to the total population in the first three general censuses were illustrated. Year 1887 1892 1900

Greek-Orthodox 2,424,371 2,606,786 3,019,999

% 76.86 78.74 80.66

Muslims 676,215 643,258 643,300

% 21.44 19.43 17.18

The reason for this serious decline in the Turkish Muslim population was the continuation of migration to Turkey due to the fact that their life and property safety in Bulgaria could not be fully achieved by the new Bulgarian administration and creation of various difficulties for them. According to the Bulgarian statistics data; during the period sincethe 1877-1878 Ottoman-Russian War until to the end of 19th Century, 4 to 7 million acres of land seized by the Bulgariansoriginally belonged to the Turks.58 Between 1893 and 1902, according to official Bulgarian statistics 70,603 people migrated to the Ottoman Empire from Bulgaria.59 The distribution of migration by years is as follows: Years Number of Immigrants 1893 11,460 1894 8,837 1895 5,095 1896 1,946 1897 2,801 1898 6,640 1899 7,354 1900 7,417 1901 9,339 1902 9,717 In this case, since the Bulgarian census dated 1892 until the census dated 1900 up to 51,547 people migrated. According to the Bulgarian statistics; Turkish Muslim population were 643,300 in 1900, which were 643,258 in 1892. If the Bulgarian statistics data is assumed to be correct; Turkish Muslim population increased by 42 people in 1900 in spite of the high immigration figures. Due to the economic and social challenges it would not be anticipated a rise in the rate of population growth of the Turkish Muslim population during the eight years period. Therefore a discrepancy in the Bulgarian Data can be stated.

İkonomika na Bılgariya, Cilt 1, Sofia 1969, s. 329. Bilal N. ġimĢir, “Bulgaristan Türkleri ve Göç Sorunu” Bulgaristan’da Türk Varlığı, TTK. Yay., Ankara 1987, s.52. 58 59

16


The results of the 1905 census were published in more details. As per the official Bulgarian Statistics Institute, Bulgaria‟s Population distributions of the provinces in 1905 were as follows:60

631

259

3,422

1,090

Total

Others

ArmenianGregorian

Jews

39,720

Protestants

290,772

Catholics

Muslims

Burgas

GreekOrthodox

Provinces

Population of Bulgarian Principalityin 1905 by religious and sectarian distribution

335,958 4 4

Varna

182,252

114,352

608

682

2,250

4,939

305,134 1 1

Vidin

205,646

7,840

310

1 152

Vratza

268,959

12,244

1 3,182

Köstendil (Kyustendil)

209,500

1,430

Filibe (Plovdif)

348,780

7

47,859

313,633

21,430

,

Rusçuk (Ruse)

211,007

159,948

7 783

Sofia

412,504

4,750

2 2,614

Eski Zağra (Stara Zagora)

383,536

33,517

1 141

Tarnovo

390,438

25,949

5 5,917

ġumnu (Shumen)

128,492

135,188

4 434

Sofia City

66,162

2,027

2 2,453

Total Urban Population Total RuralPopulation TOTAL

628,959

101,991

8

8

1

6

8

1

2

422,769 4 46

847

10,703

420,372 5 5

81

1,269

663

4

2

8

433,361 1 197

439

205

81

4

2

1

378,932 5 55

439

2,136

133

2

1

5

338,979 3 33

2,558

11,846

558

4

4

1

418,547 2 2

46

4,164

1,011

2

6

4

213,661 1 14

2,091

605

417

3

6

9

285,461 9 9

3

6,132

984

1

2

9

216,077 1 14

16

2,581

900

2,248

6

6

1

7 73

644

60

12,743 Plevne (Pleven)

4 407

73

2 2,402

266,324 1 13

4 431

3

82,621 1 182

1

8,256

2,675

36,097

11,193

2,716,560 501,876

21,428

2,969

1,559

1429

3,345,519 603,867

29,684

5,644

37,656

12,622

789,689 1 18 65

583

3,245,886 4,035,575

By looking into the first detailed data from Bulgarian Statistics; especially during 1877-1878 Ottoman-Russian War, in the areas where Russian Army had advances and in 60

Statistiçeski Godişnik na Bılgarskoto Tsarstvo 1910 (Godina Vtora)…, s. 44-45.

17


the routes where the conflicts were conducted, large Turkish Muslim population declines have been illustrated. In ġumnu (Shumen) and Varna cities which were not occupied by the Russians or given back after the agreements, nearly half or more than half of the population were Turks. This is the evidence of this situation. Another point to be noted is that the Turkish Muslim population decreased by 39,433 people compared to the 1900 population census.The migrations to Turkey continued in this period also, even thoughthere was a lack of information about the intensityof the migration compared to the previous periods. Even assuming the migrated population was in the same rate during this period; this time the result of nil population growth rate compared to the previous period has been observed. This reflects another discrepancy on the subject.The chart below shows the provincial distribution of population according to religions and sects according to the 1905 census: 450.000 400.000 350.000 300.000 250.000 200.000 150.000 100.000 50.000 0

Grek-Ortodoks

Müslüman

Katolik

Protestan

Yahudi

Ermeni-Gregoryen

Diğer The Orthodox and Muslims which were forming the main Bulgarian population are shown as per the total percentages of population in the main provinces, excluding other ethnic and religious groups, in the following chart.

18


120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Percentages of Muslims Müslüman yüzdesi

Percentages of Greek-Orthodox Grek-Ortodoks Yüzdesi

The chart above illustrates that only in ġumnu (Shumen) Turkish Muslim population was more than Bulgarians and in Rusçuk (Ruse) and Varna Cities were in very close proportions to the Bulgarians. When 1910 data were analyzed, compared to the 1905 census Turkish Muslim population did not show any increase but in reverse showed a noticeable reduction of 1,679 people. According to religions and sects 1910 population data were as follows:61

Statistiçeski Godişnik na Bılgarskoto Tsarstvo 1913-1922 (Godinî V-XIV),Glavna Direktsiya Na Statistikata, Dırjavna Peçatnitsa, Sofiya 1924, s. 52. 61

19

1,850,166 1,794,401 3,644,567

6,720 5,552 12,272

General Total

Protestants

20,001 20,075 40,076

Catholics

310,591 291,597 602,188

ArmenianGregorian

Jews

Male Female Total

Muslims

Gender

Greek-Orthodox


15,994 16,161 32,155

3,213 3,042 6,255

2,206,685 2,130,828 4,337,513

The censuses could not be performed until 1920 due to the Balkan Wars and World War I. However, when we look at the 1920 census data Turkish Muslim population showed an increase of 88,546 persons compared to the 1910 population census. According to religions and sects 1920 population data were as follows:62 RELIGION

Urban population

Rural population

Male

Female

TOTAL

% of Total Population

GreekOrthodox

804,486

3,257,343

2,027,344

2,034,485

4,061,829

83.80

Muslims

97,543

593,191

346,840

343,894

690,734

14.25

Catholics

8,746

25,326

16,661

17,411

34,072

0.70

Protestants

2,551

3,066

2,780

2,837

5,617

0.12

Jews

42,464

768

21,117

22,115

43,232

0.89

ArmenianGregorian

10,229

619

5,628

5,220

10,848

0.22

Undeclared

249

29

200

78

278

0.01

Former beliefs

18

250

142

126

268

0.01

Others

89

4

72

21

93

0.00

General TOTAL

966,375

3,880,596

2,420,784

2,426,187

4,846,971

100

When the 1920 census was carried out in Bulgaria borders were changed the Rhodope region having large majority of Muslim and Turkish population were left to Romania and one part of the Dobrogea region also having considerable amount of Turkish population, were included in Bulgaria during the Balkan wars.While 7,966 square kilometers of land were abandoned to Romania the land taken from Turkey were 23,187

Statistiçeski Godişnik na Bılgarskoto Tsarstvo -1923-1924 (Godinî XV-XVI), Glavna Direktsiya na Statistikata, Dırjavna Peçatnitsa, Sofiya 1925, s. A64-A65. 62

20


square kilometers.63 But in the lands taken from Turkey in southern Bulgaria; the Cities of Blagoevgrad (Cuma-i Bala), Smolyan (PaĢmaklı), and Kardzhali (Kircaali) having more densely populated Turkish Muslim populations, population growth of Turks were observed. When 1926 census data were analyzed, compared to the 1905 census Turkish Muslim population showed a sharp increase.However, between 1920 and 1926, the migration to Turkey continued. Assuming that the data is accurate a very high population growth rate in 6 years should have been occurred. Therefore, the discrepancies in the census were observed again.According to religions and sects 1926 population data were as follows:64 Gender

GreekMuslims Catholics Protestants Jews Orthodox

Male

2,285,547 397,688

19,833

3,326

22,735 12,904

992

2,743,025

Female

2,283,226 391,608

20,514

3,409

23,696 12,498

765

2,735,716

Total

4,568,773 789,296

40,347

6,735

46,431 25,402

1,757

5,478,741

%

83.39

0.74

0.12

0.85

0.03

100

14.41

ArmenianGeneral Others Gregorian Total

0.46

When the data of 1934 have been looked at the Turkish Muslim populations showed an increase of 32,002 people but showed a decrease compared to the percentage of the general population. During this period, regular migrations to Turkey were being observed to Turkey in particular after signing of the Treaty of Friendship between Bulgaria and Turkey and Settlement Agreement in 18 October 1925.65 From 1923 to 1934 total 110,189 people were migrated to Turkey.66 1934 year Population Distributions were as follows:67 Gender

GreekMuslims Orthodox

Catholics Protestants Jews

Male

2,574,232 416,798

22,342

4,087

23,822 11,674

938

3,053,893

Female 2,554,658 404,500

23,362

4,284

24,576 11,802

864

3,024,046

Total

5,128,890 821,298

45,704

8,371

48,398 23,476

1,802

6,076,137

%

84.41

0.75

0.13

0.79

0.02

100

13.51

ArmenianGeneral Others Gregorian Total

0.38

When the data of Bulgarian statistics agency from 1887 up to 1934 were examined; the rate of Turkish Muslim population to the general population showed a continuous decline. But only during the Balkan Wars after occupying the lands having higher Turks Celal Aybar, Bulgaristan Nüfusu, Devlet Matbaası, Ankara 1935, s. 3. Statistiçeski Godişnik na Bılgarskoto Tsarstvo -1929-1930 (Godinî XXI-XXII), Glavna Direktsiya na Statistikata, Dırjavna Peçatnitsa, Sofiya 1930, s. 26. 65 For detailed information, please refer to Ġsmail Soysal, Türkiye’nin Siyasal Andlaşmaları (1920-1945), C. I, Türk Tarih Kurumu, Ankara 1983, s. 260-263. 66 H. Yıldırım Ağanoğlu, Osmanlı’dan Cumhuriyet’e Balkanların Makus Talihi Göç, Kum Saati Yay., Ġstanbul 2001 s. 319. 67 Prebroyavane na Naselenieto 31. 12. 1934, Obşti Rezultati, Kniga I, Glavna Direktsiya na Statistikata, Dırjavna Peçatnitsa, Sofiya 1938, s. 22-23. 63 64

21


populated regions and leaving to Bulgaria showed a noticeable increase in 1920 census. Then with the 1925 Treaty the migration processes were organized after an arrangement between the two countries and about 10 thousand people per year immigrated to Turkey. After this period, the rate of Turkish Muslim population to the general population did not show any increase. The Bulgarian Orthodox Christian population has increased steadily in each period and the rate of their population to the general population always increased. The chart below illustratesthe percentages of both groups in general population over the years: 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1887

1892

1900

1905

Percentages of Muslims

Müslüman yüzdesi

1910

1920

1926

1934

Percentages of Greek-Orthodox

Grek-Ortodoks Yüzdesi

As seen from the chart; the rate of Turkish Muslim population to the general population showed an increase only during 1910-1920 interval and descended after the 1920 census. By looking at the rate of Bulgarian population in the years 1910-1920 it showed a stand still as a result of the increase in the range of Muslim lands seized during the Balkan wars then showed an increase again. Due to coinciding of the next census with the World War II years, first data after this period was released in the 1946 census data after entering of Bulgaria under USSR control. As per the 1946 census; Bulgaria's total population was 7,029,349 people.

22


The distribution of this population into the major ethnic groups is as follows:68 Ethnic Group

Population

Bulgarian

6,073,124

Turkish

675,500

Roma (Gypsy)

170,011

Armenian

21,637

Albanian

1,128

German

1,407

Greek

3,623

Jews

44,209

Italian

580

Romanian

2,459

Russian

13,200

Slovak

656

Sloven

545

Serbian

723

Tatar

8,133

Magyar

778

Czech

1,868

The census showed a significant reduction in Turkish population compared to the 1934 census. During this period, especially after the 1934 fascist coup in Bulgaria, Turkish migration to Turkey increased parallel to the increasing pressure on the Turks. A total of 26,942 families forming 97,181 people, migrated from Bulgaria to Turkey, having residency or not, between the years 1934-1939.69 However, migration took place in small numbers during the World War II. But the decreases in the numbers of 1946 census were higher than the migrated population. During this period, by taking the natural population growth into account, this difference could be attributed to; registering Pomaks which were having Turk-Islam Culture as Bulgarians and, considering Turkish speaking Romans in another category. One of the important population data published in the Communist era was the result of the 1956 census.The data in this census remained close to the 1946 data. However, Rezultati Ot Prebroyavane na Naselenieto na 31 12. 1946, Dırjavno Upravlenie za Ġnformatsiya Pri Ministerkiya Savet, Kniga II, Sofia 1970, S. 16. 69 For detailed information on this period, please refer to Yıldırım, Bülent, "Bulgaristan'daki Müslüman Türk Azınlığa Baskılar ve Göç (1934-1939)" Balkanlar ve Göç, Edt. Ali Fuat Örenç, Ġsmail Mangaltepe, Bursa Kültür A.ġ. yay., Bursa, 2013, s. 421- 429. 68

23


migration of 1950-1951, which was one of the largest migration waves from Bulgaria to Turkey have taken place between the two censuses.154,393 Turks migrated from Bulgaria to Turkey in these two years.70 1956 Population Census Results as per their Nationalities71 Nationalities

Male

Female

Total

%

Bulgarian

3,236,760

3,269,781

6,506,541

85.6

BMacedonian

94,994

92,795

187,789

2.4

Russian

6,246

4,305

10,551

0.1

Serbian

257

227

484

-

Czech

426

773

1,199

-

Other Slavians

501

599

1,100

-

Turkish

334,844

321,181

656,025

8.6

Tatars

3,033

2,960

5,993

-

Roma (Gypsy)

99,611

98,254

197,865

2.6

Armenian

10,627

11,327

21,954

0.3

Romanian

1,644

2,105

3,749

-

Greek

3,976

3,461

7,437

0.1

Jews

2,954

3,073

6,027

-

Albanian

643

462

1,105

-

the Karakachani

1,064

1,021

2,085

-

the Kutsovlasi

228

259

485

-

Magyar

261

410

671

-

German

232

515

747

-

Other not Slavians

1,055

845

1,900

-

GENERAL TOTAL

3,799,356

3,814,353

7,613,709

After this census no data was published in the Communist era about the ethnicity of the groups. Also up to 130 thousand Turks migrated to Turkey with 1969-1978 Close Relatives‟ Agreement. In 1985-1989 period; during the oppression and assimilation policies against Turkish Muslim population who had the attention of whole world to force them to change their names, around 350 thousand Turks migrated to Turkey.72

Bilal ġimĢir, Bulgaristan Türkleri, Bilgi yay., 3. Baskı, Ankara 2012, s. 246. Prebroyavane na Naselenieto v Narodna Republika Bılgariya na 1. 12. 1956 Godina, Tsentralno Statiçesko Upravlenie Pri Ministerkiya Savet, Kniga II, Sofia 1960, s. 106-109. 72 ġimĢir, a.g e., s. 361, 457. 70 71

24


The 2001 and 2011 censuses held in post-totalitarian period provide important information about the demographics of Bulgaria today. The following two tables illustrate the ethnic and religious structure of Bulgaria, according to the administrative distribution found in the 2001 census. Population distribution of provinces as per the ethnicity based on 1.03.2001 Census of Bulgarian National Statistical Institute73

PROVINCES Total

Bulgarian Turkish

Roma

Others

Undeclared Unknown

Total

7 928 901

6 655 210

746 664

370 908

69 204

62 108

24 807

Blagoevgrad

341 173

286 491

31 857

12 405

5 519

4 242

659

Burgas

423 547

338 625

58 636

19 439

3 728

1 919

1 200

Varna

462 013

393 884

37 502

15 462

9 866

3 830

1 469

Veliko Tarnovo

293 172

259 099

22 562

6 064

2 495

2 014

938

Vidin

130 074

118 543

139

9 786

528

553

525

Vratsa

243 036

223 692

2 000

14 899

608

984

853

Gabrovo

144 125

131 494

9 109

1 611

939

615

357

Dobrich

215 217

164 204

28 231

18 649

1 588

1 854

691

Kurdzhali

164 019

55 939

101 116

1 264

385

4 565

750

Kyustendil

162 534

152 644

146

8 294

416

508

526

Lovech

169 951

152 194

8 476

6 316

891

1 522

552

Montana

182 258

157 507

235

22 784

649

322

761

Pazardzhik

310 723

261 260

20 448

23 970

1 461

2 978

606

Pernik

149 832

145 642

108

3 035

375

270

402

Pleven

311 985

280 475

16 931

9 777

1 702

2 135

965

Plovdiv

715 816

621 338

52 499

30 196

7 274

2 869

1 640

73

http://www.nsi.bg/Census_e/Census_e.htm (e.t. 20.11. 2015)

25


Razgrad

152 417

67 069

71 963

8 733

1 444

2 739

469

Ruse

266 157

213 408

37 050

9 703

3 076

2 071

849

Silistra

142 000

84 178

48 761

6 478

1 461

656

466

Sliven

218 474

163 188

22 971

26 777

3 193

1 597

748

Smolyan

140 066

122 806

6 212

686

250

9 696

416

Sofia-cap.

1 170 842

1 124 240

6 036

17 885

13 652

4 645

4 384

Sofia

273 240

253 536

654

16 748

821

661

820

Stara Zagora

370 615

319 379

18 529

26 804

2 400

2 308

1 195

Targovishte

137 689

76 294

49 495

9 868

324

1 259

449

Haskovo

277 478

224 757

31 266

17 089

1 143

2 302

921

Shumen

204 378

123 084

59 551

16 457

2 344

2 350

592

Yambol

156 070

140 240

4 181

9 729

672

644

604

Population distribution of provinces as per the religion based on 1.03.2001 Census of Bulgarian National Statistical Institute74 PROVINCES

Total

Christian

Muslim

Others

Undeclared Unknown

7 928 901

6 638 870

966 978

14 937

283 309

24 807

Blagoevgrad

341 173

270 791

62 431

274

7 018

659

Burgas

423 547

342 444

64 568

737

14 598

1 200

Varna

462 013

396 501

45 672

1 827

16 544

1 469

Veliko Tarnovo

293 172

258 442

26 085

203

7 504

938

Vidin

130 074

125 603

139

77

3 730

525

Vratsa

243 036

230 962

4 223

142

6 856

853

Total

74

http://www.nsi.bg/Census_e/Census_e.htm (e.t. 20.11. 2015)

26


Gabrovo

144 125

132 027

8 860

177

2 704

357

Dobrich

215 217

163 654

44 277

144

6 451

691

Kurdzhali

164 019

35 551

114 217

71

13 430

750

Kyustendil

162 534

155 641

231

487

5 649

526

Lovech

169 951

148 023

10 501

136

10 739

552

Montana

182 258

171 972

283

103

9 139

761

Pazardzhik

310 723

253 729

46 338

536

9 514

606

Pernik

149 832

146 589

178

94

2 569

402

Pleven

311 985

282 725

15 681

336

12 278

965

Plovdiv

715 816

635 261

62 595

2 772

13 548

1 640

Razgrad

152 417

65 915

81 835

97

4 101

469

Ruse

266 157

216 483

41 997

747

6 081

849

Silistra

142 000

84 468

54 174

87

2 805

466

Sliven

218 474

184 043

21 668

309

11 706

748

Smolyan

140 066

41 792

58 758

97

39 003

416

Sofia-cap.

1 170 842

1 128 787

8 614

3 383

25 674

4 384

Sofia

273 240

264 502

3 368

207

4 343

820

Stara Zagora

370 615

334 244

21 423

363

13 390

1 195

Targovishte

137 689

75 591

58 838

78

2 733

449

Haskovo

277 478

229 865

33 780

912

12 000

921

Shumen

204 378

122 645

72 544

229

8 368

592

Yambol

156 070

140 620

3 700

312

10 834

604

According to the Bulgaria‟s latest official population census data of 2011; Bulgaria‟s population was 7.36457 million inhabitants. Compared to the 2001 census, the population of the country decreased by 564 331 people. In this case the reduction rate of

27


annual population between two censuses is 0.7%. The distributions of the Bulgarian population into the ethnic groups were as follows.75 Ethnic Group

Total

%

Bulgarian

5,664,624

84.8

Turkish

588,318

8.8

Roma

325,343

4.9

Others

48,321

0.7

Undeclared

53,391

0.8

General Total

6,679,997

100

In the groups expressed as Others there are; 9,978 Russians, 6,552 Armenian, 3,684 Vlachs, 1379 Greek, 1,162 Jews, 2,556 of Karakachani, 1,654 Macedonians, 891 Romans, 1,789 Ukrainian and 19,659 undeclared populations. With regard to the mother tongue 5,659,024 people (85.2%) declared Bulgarian language; 605,802 people (9.1%) declared Turkish language; 281,217 people (4.2%) declared Roma language as their mother tongues voluntarily.76

75 76

http://www.nsi.bg/census2011/PDOCS2/Census2011final_en.pdf p. 3, 26 (e.t. 20.11. 2015) http://www.nsi.bg/census2011/PDOCS2/Census2011final_en.pdf p. 3-4. (e.t. 20.11. 2015)

28


GENERAL VIEW OF THE COUNTRY'S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS A-GENERAL VIEW OF THE COUNTRY  CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM In the second half of 1980s due to changes in the international system; the structural changes took place in Bulgaria. In this regard, the Communist regime collapsed which were in place since the end of World War II and Democracy has been identified as the form of government. And this situation has been certified by the Constitution and has been attested in 1991. The Constitution still are in force with the amendments made in 2003, 2005, 2006 (twice) and 2007. As per the Bulgaria Constitution the basic principles for the government of the Country are defined as follows:77 -Bulgaria shall be a republic with a parliamentary form of government. The entire power of the State shall derive from the people. The people shall exercise this power directly and through the bodies established by the Constitution. -The power of the State shall be divided between legislative, executive and judicial branches. In this context, the principle of separation of powers is adopted. - As per the Bulgaria Constitution; the National Assembly shall be elected for a term of four years. In case of war, its mandate could be extended. - The National Assembly shall have the authority in addition to pass the laws also on the followings; to approve the budget and to schedule the Presidency elections for the President of the Republic; to elect and remove the Prime Minister and the members of the Council of Ministers; to decide on the declaration of war and to approve international agreements. - Since the formation of the constitutional judiciary in Bulgaria, the emphasis of the audit conducted by the Supreme Court has been concentrated on the legislature. The Constitutional Court has the authority to supervise directly the legislature by auditing the norm control of the laws and other parliamentary legislation, and by monitoring of the compliance of a law enacted with international agreements to which Bulgaria is a party. Thus the Constitutional Court was given the task of “guard the guards” for the monitoring the new law-makers. - Executive power is used by the President and the Government headed by the Prime Minister. Although was elected by the people, the President has limited executive powers, but has only the duty of representation. Prime Minister‟s authority has the strong power of execution. - The armed forces shall guarantee the sovereignty, security and independence of the country and shall defend its territorial integrity. The activity of the armed forces shall be

For the current Bulgarian Constitution, please refer to. “Konstitutsiya na Republika Bılgariya”, Narodna Sıbranie na Republika Bılgariya, http://www.parliament.bg/bg/const/, (e.t. 27.08.2015). 77

29


established by law. The Council of Ministers shall ensure the public order and national security and shall guide the state administration and the Armed Forces. - International treaties which have been ratified in accordance with the constitutional procedure, promulgated and having come into force with respect to the Republic of Bulgaria shall be part of the legislation of the State. They shall have primacy over any conflicting provision of the domestic legislation. The Constitutional Court shall rule on the compatibility between the Constitution and the international treaties concluded by the Republic of Bulgaria. • EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM The relevant provisions of the Constitution entitled to education are included in Chapter Two Fundamental Rights and Duties of Citizens. As per these regulations the following fundamental issues are in front: - Everyone shall have the right to education and School attendance up to the age of 16 shall be compulsory. - Primary and secondary education in state and municipal schools shall be free. In circumstances established by law, the higher educational establishments shall provide education free of charge. - Higher educational establishments shall have the academic autonomy. - Citizens and organizations shall be free to found schools in accordance with conditions and procedures established by law. However the education they provide shall fit the requirements of the State. - The State shall promote education by opening and financing schools, by supporting capable school and university students, and by providing opportunities for occupational training and retraining. In addition shall exercise control over all kinds and levels of schooling. - While the religious education also was covered by the curriculum, there are elective religion classes‟ applications. Each registered religious groups can request to be included in the curriculum of their religion. Currently the education system is carried out within the specified main framework in Bulgaria. It is understood that the population groups are educated by considering the 98.4% of literacy rate78 in the country. This subject is reflected also into the social life. Education Law and Higher Education Law both was the main framework of the law level of education in Bulgaria. The decision authority for the establishment and closure of the universities is the Bulgaria Parliament. As of 2014 data, there are 52 Universities in total as Private and State Universities in Bulgaria.  RELIGION - Freedom of religion and belief is guaranteed under the Constitution. The practicing of any religion shall be unrestricted. “CIA – The World Factbook”, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos /bu.html, (e.t. 10.07.2015). 78

30


- Religious institutions are kept separate from the state. - Any religious institution, community or faith cannot be used for the political purposes. - Eastern Orthodox Christianity shall be considered the traditional religion in the Republic of Bulgaria to be represented by Bulgaria Orthodox Church under the 1991 Bulgarian Constitution. - Religions Act enacted in 2002 constitutes the legal framework for religious life in Bulgaria. - According to the year 2011 census data 79, the population of the country consists of the following religious groups: 76% Orthodox Christian, 10% Muslim, 1.1% Protestant, 0.8% Catholic, 4.7% not having religious beliefs and 7.1% those who did not specify their religious beliefs. In fact, such data does not reflect the reality the Muslim population were shown less than their exact numbers. It is estimated that the country's Muslim population is in 15-20% band. - Bulgaria has two main government agencies concerned with religious congregations and communities: the Communities Administration within the Education and Science Ministry and the Human Rights, Religion, Citizens' Complaints and Petitions Committee within the Bulgaria Parliament. - Religions Act of 2002, gives a legal presence to the Bulgaria Orthodox Church. All other religious groups are required to register in order to gain a legal entity status. All other religious groups except the Bulgaria Orthodox Church are obliged to have Court Registries in order to gain their national recognition. - The state does not allow headscarves in documents‟ official photos. The Bulgaria State recognizes; the Orthodox Christmas, Good Friday and Easter as a religious holiday and declares holiday. Also respects the religious holidays of; Muslim, Catholic, Jewish, Evangelical Christians and Baha'is and declares holiday for the members of these religions on these days.  LANGUAGE - Bulgarian shall be the official language of the Republic as per Article 3 of Bulgaria Constitution. - Bulgarian Constitution does not give place to the clear regulations on minorities however by the provision of 2nd paragraph of Article 36 as following, the minority language rights in the country later on has been adopted in closed; “Citizens whose mother tongue is not Bulgarian shall have the right to study and use their own language along side the compulsory study of the Bulgarian language.” - Similarly by the Article 54 of the Constitution by the provision of “Everyone shall have the right to avail himself of the national and universal human cultural values and to develop his own culture in accordance with his ethnic self-identification, which shall be

Bkz. “Statistical Reference Book Population Census 2011”, National Statistical Institute, Sofia 2002, s. 52, http://statlib.nsi.bg:8181/isisbgstat/ssp/fulltext.asp?content=/FullT/FulltOpen/P_222011_SRB.pdf,(e.t.27.08.2014) 79

31


recognized and guaranteed by the law.” the minorities‟ rights to develop their culture, language has been considered in closed in the framework. - Bulgaria as a party to the “Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities”, undertakes the regulation on the linguistic rights of the Convention. However, in practice several problems are being encountered. Minorities in the country are studying their mother tongue in the compulsory electives status. 'Compulsory elective course' concept, means choosing the course among other foreign language courses in order to get their own mother tongue language for the minorities in Bulgaria. While the students in schools are selecting English, French and German as a foreign language, the minorities‟ own languages are also in foreign language elective courses status in Bulgaria. Therefore, Turkish students which are having Turkish language as their mother tongue cannot select English or other languages as their elective course.  DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS - As per the 1991 Constitution, Bulgaria is a democratic and social state. The institutions and the rules of democracy are guaranteed by the Constitution and laws. - In the preamble to the Constitution, “liberty”, “peace”, “humanism”, “equality”, “universal human values”, “the rights, dignity and security of the individuals”, “state integrity”, “democratic and social state, governed by the rule of law” concepts are in front. - According to Article 6 of the Constitution, “All persons are born free and equal in dignity and rights. All citizens shall be equal before the law. There shall be no privileges or restriction of rights on the grounds of race, national or social origin, ethnic self-identity, sex, religion, education, opinion, political affiliation, personal or social status or property status”. On the other hand, various provisions have been placed in the Bulgarian Constitution concerning the protection of the rights and freedom such as; right to live, housing, personal freedom and inviolability, freedom and confidentiality of correspondence and inviolability of all other communications, freedom of movement, conscience, thought and expression and inviolability of the choice of religion, working, social security, health and education.  POLITICAL PARTIES After the communist regime in Bulgaria that took place between the years 19441989 in December 1989 political life with multi-party regime was adopted. In January 16, 1990; the 1/2. And 1/3. Articles of the 1971 Constitution which were dominating the Bulgarian Communist Party's monopoly on politics ceased. After 1989 new political parties were seen in the political arena in Bulgaria while entering into a new era. The Union of Democratic Forces (UDF) was established in 7 December 1989, as a result of a combination of various non-governmental organizations. Taking part in politics and political fabric of the country of the Union of Democratic Forces (UDF) was an important factor to remove the structural view from the socialist axis in a sense. In addition to UDF,

32


roughly 100 new parties in this period participated in political life, such as; the Bulgarian Social Democratic Party, the Bulgarian New Democracy, the Bulgarian National Union, the Democratic Party, the Green Party of Bulgaria, the Bulgarian People's Party. As this case is believed to have the Bulgaria's polyphonic structure; these parties established during the transition period were being unable to go beyond to be derivatives of each other. Currently there are around 300 political parties existing in Bulgaria.80 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS IN BULGARIA and NUMBERS OF MEMBERS OF PARTIES IN THE PARLIMENT (1990-2014) Party Name 1991 1994 1997 2001 2005 2009 2013 2014 1990 BSP 211 106 125 58 48 82 40 84 39 UDF (DGB) 144 110 69 137 51 NDSV (İSUH) 120 53 MRF (HÖH) 23 24 15 19 21 34 38 36 38 Attack 21 21 23 11 (ATAKA) GERB 116 97 84 RB 23 ABV 11 Bulgaria without 15 Censorship Patriotic Front 19

As per the 11th Article of the current 1991 Bulgarian Constitution political parties‟ status, functions and limitations are determined; in the context of this article; political activities in the Republic of Bulgaria are founded on the principle of political pluralism. It is stated that; no political party or ideology shall be proclaimed or affirmed as a party or ideology of the State. It is also stated that there would be no political parties on ethnic, racial or religious lines, nor parties which seek the violent seizure of state power and the conditions pertaining to their activity would be established by law. This law is the Political Parties Law which was entered into force on 01.04.2005. GERB: (Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria) is the largest party in the country since 2009 located on the center right and having conservative features. The party is advocating the western values it has Bulgarian nationalists elements in it. BSP: (Bulgarian Socialist Party) The party in the nature is continuation of the Bulgarian Communist Party having leftist values. Although it is advocating the western values, it has strong ties with Russia. “V Bulgariya ima Mnogo Partii, no Malko Polititsi”, Dnes Bg, http://www.dnes.bg/politika/2014/05/31/vbylgariia-ima-mnogo-partii-no-malko-politici.227428, (e.t. 06.07.2015).  As of 1990, the Bulgarian Parliament consisted of 400 MPs, and this became 240 with the acceptance of the Constitution in 1991.  HOH expelled twoMPs from the party group after the early general elections on October 5, 2014; and the number of the MPs in the Parliament Group decreased to 36. “DPS Ġzklyuçi Dvama Svoi Deputati Zaradi Ġzpolzvana Preferentsiya”, Kapital, 30.11.2015, http://www.capital.bg/ politika_i_ikonomika/bulgaria /2014/11/30/2429296_dps_izkljuchi_dvama_svoideputati_zaradiizpolzvana/ (e.t. 06.07.2015). 80

33


MRF (HÖH): (Movements for Rights and Freedoms) the majority of the members of the party is consisting of Turks and it was founded in 1990. The party has been represented in the parliament since 1990 till now and define itself as “liberal”. UDF (DGB): (Union of Democratic Forces) The party which is in Democratic line has been effective in the year 1990 in the Bulgarian political life. NDSV (İSUH): (National Movement Simeon II) NDSV which is expressed as Tsar Simeon‟s Party is a center-right party and were influential in the first 10 years of the 2000s in the political life in Bulgaria. Attack (ATAKA): The Attack Party is founded in 2005 and is in line with ultranationalist thoughts having populist rhetoric campaign against Turkey and the Turkish minority. It has a pro-Russian trend. RB: (Reformist Block) The block is consisting of a combination of 5 parties. One of the parties is the People's Party for Freedom and Dignity – FDPP (HġHP) mainly composed of Turkish majority. The Block is following the center-right policy and founded in 2013. ABV: (Alternative for Bulgarian Revival) ABV is following the center-left policy and adopted a Social Democrat line. It is founded by former Bulgarian President Georgi Parvanov's political wing after separating from BSP structure in 2014. Bulgaria without censorship: The party is founded in 2014, and is in line of antiparty argues that the existing order should be changed by making radical reforms. Party is also in a line against Turkey and was formed as a coalition of different parties. Patriotic Front (Bulgaria): The party is founded in 2014 in line with ultranationalist politics. The party also is in an attitude against Turkey and the Turkish minority and was formed by a coalition of different parties and is trying to attract the ATAKA voters.  ECONOMY After the collapse of communism in 1989, the economics of Bulgaria has shown allotted periods with sharp lines. However the stabilization factor did not occur literally when Bulgarian economy made structural transitions parallel to the transition into democratic period. Migrating of more than 300 thousand Turkish population to Turkey due to the assimilation policies in 1989, and in the same year the overthrow of the Zhivkov regime in economic downturn, was the beginning of the economic troubles chain until today. Accordingly, both loss of a substantial portion of the labor force in the country and the current economic bottleneck were encountered in the beginning of the democratic transition period. Thus at the beginning of 1990, Bulgaria started to a new era with a disadvantage without being implementing the decision for the transition to a free market economy yet. Two economic crises occurred in macro-scale in 1994 and 1996 in the country showed the indicators of; both Bulgaria had been unable to adapt to the free market economy as well as the leftover of the Zhivkov period. The Bulgarian economy has become much weaker by the effect of number of components such as corruption, bribery, illegal criminal organizations, and creation of illegal pressure groups for interest.

34


Bulgarian Government objectives of being members in Euro-Atlantic institutions have been reflected by entering into a more stable form of economic transformations in 1997. In particular, structural reforms were carried out for the functioning of the market economy in the EU accession process. Bulgarian economy has been presented in a more stable perspective through these reforms and symbolical aid funds made by EU. Within the 2000 getting the benefits of EU membership Bulgaria has also the right of free movement in the EU in 2001. However, the occurrence of this situation has caused to the labor migration from Bulgaria to the Western Europe Countries until today. Although Bulgaria was an EU member in 2007; the Country‟s economy has not been gained a stable outlook. The published Conclusion Reports during the EU membership process were mentioning the satisfaction on the reforms made in Bulgaria; also have emphasized the need to put more effort on the subjects of especially bribery, corruption, organized crime organizations and the weakness of justice system. As a result this situation has been continued by various means after 2007.In February 2013, protests led to a change of political power in the country due to the hikes in electricity; this case also has been a reflection of the dissatisfaction with the economic conditions of the Bulgarian people. After the post-2013 era; the most significant threat to Bulgaria was the economic instability as being expressed by the Bulgarian politicians. Overview of Bulgaria‟s economy as per economic data is as follows:81 -

Gross Domestic Product (GDP): $128.6 billion (2014)

-

Country comparison to the World: 78th (2014)

-

GDP - Real Growth Rate: 1.7% (2014)

-

GDP – Per capita: $17.100 (2014)

-

Position by sectors: Agriculture 4.1% , Industry 31.2%, Services 63.1% (2014)

-

Unemployment rate: 11.5% (2014)

-

Minimum wage: 340 Leva – 175 Euro (2014)

-

Export: $ 29.25 Billion (2014)

Germany 12.6% , Italy 8.8% , Turkey 8.6 % , Romania 7.9 % , Greece 7.1% , France 4.4 %. -

Import: $ 33.50 Billion (2014)

Russia 18.6% , Germany 10.9% , Italy 7.5% , Romania 6.7% , Turkey 5.7% , Greece 5.6% , Spain 5.3% .

81

The relevant data are transferred from the Bulgarian part of the CIA - The World Factbook. Please refer to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bu.html, (e.t. 10.07.2015).

35


 CIVIL SOCIETY While Article 44 of the Constitution of Bulgaria is stating that; all citizens would be free to associate; their conditions and procedures would be organized by law. But some restrictions for the mentioned association rights were also placed in the regulations. It is also stated that; none of the organization‟s activity would be contrary to the country's sovereignty and national integrity, or the unity of the nation, or would incite racial, national, ethnic or religious enmity or an encroachment on the rights and freedoms of citizens; would establish clandestine or paramilitary structures. Bulgaria was a member of the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War; therefore it is not possible to talk about the existence of a built-in civil society culture in the country until the 1990s. It is a reality that having Civil Society existing in the Country should be conducted in parallel with the democratization process. This situation has prompted the realization intertwined with democratic transformation after 1990 in Bulgaria. In another words; priority for the settlement of the expression of Democracy in the Bulgarian political literature, the formation of democratic consciousness, the spreading the concept of civil society and the permanency of this concept are essential integral elements of the democracy. Although there was only one (1) legally operating non-governmental organization in Bulgaria in 1989, this number has been increased after the 1990‟s. The main feature of civil society organizations in this period are the reflection of the transformation of the political changes into the civilian life. In other words, the dominant political life had directly impacts in the face of civil society organizations. Also main feature observed of these organizations in the 1990‟s, is the creation of civil society in line with the commitment to the democratization of political power. In this case the initiative of civil society has not been created by the civil consciousness but formed by the government directives. In 1997, a pro-Western government came into power and fundamentally effected the internal and external political orientation of the government in Sofia. It was observed increase in the number of non-governmental organizations qualitatively and quantitatively, during Bulgaria's accession process to the Euro-Atlantic institutions which was become evident and the main foreign policy objective. The increased qualitative feature was realized as a direct effect of the EU accession process. As a result; partly progress on the fundamental human rights and freedom is provided through the structural reforms made in this process; democratization of country; transition to a free market economy. Thus, civil society consciousness has been increased, and there was a noticeable increase in the quantity of civil societies. For example, as of 2014 data, about 40,000 non-governmental organizations82 are registered but the numbers of active NGO‟s are around 5,000.

“The 2014 CSO Sustainability Index for Central andEastern Europe and Eurasia”, s. 54; http://crjm.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/07/2015-06-CSO-susten-2014.pdf, (e.t. 15.08.2015). 82

36


When Non-Governmental Organizations were mentioned in Bulgaria; trade chambers, charity organizations, local associations, environmental organizations, youth and women's rights associations, cultural associations (ethnic groups are mainly located under this structure) were coming to the fore. Currently, the country's leading non-governmental organizations are: -

Bulgarian Red Cross Green Balkans “Dimitar Berbatov” Foundation Foundation for Future for Bulgaria Four Paws SOROS Foundation Open Society Roma Youth Centre National Catholics Federation (CARITAS) Federation of Consumers in Bulgaria Bulgarian Helsinki Committee

 THINK-TANK ORGANIZATIONS There are numerous in non-profit status civil society think-tank organizations engaging in politics, foreign policy, public administration and economics in Bulgaria. According to the 2014 Global Think-Tank Organizations Report, there are a total of 33 think-tank organizations in Bulgaria.83 Their weighted appearances are their in-close cooperation with corresponding western institutions. The main think-tank organizations in Bulgaria are as follows: -

Institute for Security and International Studies – ISIS

-

Institute of Modern Politics

-

Center for the Study of Democracy

-

European Institute

-

Center for Liberal Strategies - CLS

-

Risk Monitor Foundation

-

Institute for Market Economies – IME

-

Institute for Public Affairs – IPA

-

The International Center for Minority Studies and Intercultural Relations –

IMIR

James G. McGann, “2014 Global GoToThink Tank Index Report”, Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program, 3. 1. 2015, s. 55,http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=think_tanks, (e.t. 18.07.2015). 83

37


B-FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS 1. POLITICAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS As per the Bulgarian Constitution; Bulgaria is a democratic and social state, governed by the rule of law (Preface section) and is a republic with a parliamentary form of government. (A. 1/1).The power of the State are divided between legislative, executive and judicial branches (A. 8). Considering; the legislation which is one of the State bodies; and the execution (Government) originated from this body which was coming into power by the general elections; and also as a part of execution, the local governments which were coming into power by the local elections; the political rights and freedoms which were closely related to; one side the elections and representations and on the other side; the formation and activities of the political parties which mediates the formation of political will freely and pursue the goal of government. In this respect, political parties and elections have been given wide existence as an instrument of using political rights and freedoms in the Bulgarian Constitution As per the Constitution; o “All elections and national and local referendums shall be held on the basis of universal, equal and direct suffrage by secret ballot. (A.10) o Political activity in the Republic of Bulgaria shall be founded on the principle of political pluralism. (A.11/1) o No political party or ideology shall be proclaimed or affirmed as a party or ideology of the State. No political party or ideology shall be proclaimed or affirmed as a party or ideology of the State. (A.11/2-3) o The procedure applying to the formation and dissolution of political parties and the conditions pertaining to their activity shall be established by law.(A.11/3) o There shall be no political parties on ethnic, racial or religious lines, nor parties which seek the violent seizure of state power. (A.11/4) In terms of the political participation, the real situation is that people are slowly getting away from politics through elections. The results of the parliamentary elections held in 5 October 2014 showed once more; The people of Bulgaria does not have enough confidence to bring the power of any single political party in the level of bringing into power. In this elections; Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria (GERB) Party has taken 33% of votes; Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP) has taken roughly 16% of votes; Movements for Rights and Freedoms Party (MRF) (HÖH) having majority of the members consisting of Turks has taken 15% of votes; Reformist Block (RB) which was having as the Other political platform of the Turks the People's Party for Freedom and Dignity – FDPP (HġHP) has taken 9% of votes; And from the Nationalist line; Patriotic Front has taken 7% of votes and Bulgaria without Censorship has taken 6% of votes. ATAKA which was emphasizing the racist rhetoric words, and Alternative for Bulgarian Revival ABV Parties have entered parliament after narrowly passing the 4% threshold. In the last two years having two early general elections since 1997 no party leader had succeed to manage forming a government successively twice. The reluctance of people on the turnout might be

38


contributed largely to the political dissatisfaction. Conducted researches are showing that; in 2014 of Bulgaria, the public confidence shown to the main democratic institutions and to public establishments have fallen to the extent in bottom levels and has reached the lowest figures for the last 6 years.84The least confiding institutions of those surveyed have been; the Government with 8%; Parliament with 5% and Political Parties with 4%.In fact, 40% of the rate of participation in the October 5th local elections, and being around 50% in the previous elections were proving the case.85 After the last general elections held and following lengthy negotiations, GERB which is representing center-right has signed a coalition of parties „agreement with the Reformist Bloc, and racist, nationalist The Patriotic Front (PF) and leftist Alternative for Bulgarian Revival (ABV) parties and formed the Government. The Patriotic Front (PF) is a neo-totalitarian formation consisting of the National Front for Salvation of Bulgaria (NFSB) and Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (VMRO) and some other less nationalistic parties. Both NFSB and VMRO are known for their anti-minority rhetoric and for the denial of basic political democracy principles and human rights. In public appearances, as well as in broadcast on the SKAT cable channel, their representatives often instigate hate, discrimination and violence on ethnic and religious grounds, more specifically against Roma, Muslims and asylum-seekers. For example in its electoral political agenda, the Patriotic Front called for the demolition of all illegal buildings in Roma neighborhoods and involuntary placement of their residents in trailers and envisioned 24/7 police presence for these concentration camp-like facilities. The agenda also includes Islamophobic calls. When considering Reformist Block has played an active role to have the Patriotic Front as a coalition partner and having also ATAKA party known for years for its racist and xenophobic rhetoric words in the Bulgarian parliament; it seems difficult to have expectations for the need of the formation of policies and the implementation of human rights in Bulgaria. In fact the negative effects became evident immediately after the constitution of the new government, the Health Minister and PF deputies, both in Parliament and in front of public; have demonstrated negative attitudes towards the human rights after the attack against the emergency medical service in thermo neighborhood. According to the Minister's statement; the emergency medical service personnel would be able to enter into the Roma neighborhood, if the local neighborhood community leaders took the responsibility or could arrive to a consensus with the police. After this racist threat; the Roma community and human rights activists have demonstrated angry responses, some were found a criminal complaint to the Minister on the grounds of committing the incitement to hatred and discrimination offence.86 Another example showing the attitude in Bulgarian politics towards the minorities was not an exemption are the anti-MRF statements made by Bulgarian politicians. AraĢtırmaya katılanlar arasında en fazla CumhurbaĢkanlığı ve emniyete güvenildiği belirtilmiĢ, fakat bu rakamlar (%19-20) bile ĢaĢırtıcı ölçüde düĢük çıkmıĢtır. See, Public Attitudes Towards Hate Speechin Bulgarian 2014, Report Sofia, 9 December 2014, Open Society Institute Sofia, p.4 85 Kader Özlem, http://www.aljazeera.com.tr/gorus/bulgaristanda-sandiktan-cikan-yeni-kaos (e.t.0.8.2015). 86 Human Rights in Bulgaria in 2014, Annual Report of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, Sofia, March 2015, pp. 4-6. 84

39


However, MRF is in view of a Party which were not making any emphasis on Turks very frequently and making integrative comments in contrary to the reparative comments, based on liberalism. Parallel tithe guarantying of the civil and political rights and freedom by the 1991 Constitution, on the other hand, banning of the establishment of political parties based on ethnic and religious devotion; MRF, has become a protective structure covering all minorities in Bulgaria avoiding radical stance.87 The party is getting most of the Roma people votes in most areas; even though it remains in the symbolic level, is receiving the votes of the some Bulgarians also. Initially, MRF was not permitted to be established as a political party based on the accusations to its racist grounds and shortly after being founded in 1990; it was requested to be closed for the same reason.88 This kind of attitude to MRF was not intimidating for the party from the political fight; on the contrary have created a new power and motivation against the exclusion of minorities. But in reality, attempting to take away by the politics itself; the right to do politics freely and under equal conditions as a means of using other rights and freedoms was considered as not only being non-ethical and illegal, also was a political attitude. In 2014 the research results for the analysis of the public attitudes towards the hate speech, shows that politicians were widely using hatred and animosity language. Although of the participants‟ responses to this question; compared to 2013 (67.9%); in 2014 (48.6%) were showing less hate speech, in reality this decline is not realistic, because the attitude of the people focused more on economic and political crisis experienced in 2014 and therefore said to be perceptually manipulated.89 Moreover, as per the public's perception, the hate speeches in 2014 are used mostly by the politicians compared to other professional groups and people. Another issue that restricts political rights and freedoms of political parties; which majority of its members having another native language than the Bulgarian, established to protect the fundamental minority rights; is the ban on the Political Parties Act Article 6. As per this Article; Political parties shall conduct their public events, make public addresses and draw up their documents in the Bulgarian language. As a result of this provision the political parties, in their meetings, the written and oral explanations shall not use any other language other than Bulgarian. For the freedom of expression as well as for the political freedoms this ban was very solid and strident therefore parties generally founded by members of Turkish origin have very much objection and complaints on this subject. This ban also was criticized by the EU and the European Council (EC).The Venice Commission Burcu Burhanzade, “Komünizm Sonrası Bulgaristan‟da Azınlık Politikaları “Azınlıkların Siyasal Katılımı”, 2011, s.11. https://www.academia.edu/859446/KOM%C3%9CN%C4%B0ZM_SONRASI_ BULGAR %C4% B0STAN_DA_AZINLIK_POL%C4%B0T%C4%B0KALARI_AZINLIKLARIN_S %C4%B0YASAL_KATILIMI (e.t. 11.8.2015). 88 Erhan Vatansever, “Bulgaristan Türklerinin Hakları ve Demokrasi Döneminde Bulgaristan Türkleri (1989 ve Sonrası)”, s.145-146, http://www.bilgesam.org/incele/2000/-bulgaristan-turklerinin-haklari-ve-demokrasidoneminde-bulgaristan-turkleri--1989-ve-sonrasi-/#.Vcnt_HHtmko (e.t. 11.8.2015). 89 Public Attitudes Towards Hate Speechin Bulgarian 2014, Report Sofia, 9 December 2014, Open Society Institute Sofia, p. 15. 87

40


which is an organization of the Council of Europe, in its report on draft electoral law prepared by the Bulgarian Government in 2014; has criticized not lifting of this ban and has repeated its proposal for lifting this ban from the draft electoral law once more.90 The number of ethnic minorities working in the local government bodies and in Bulgaria Parliament or being a member of the Bulgarian political parties were not achievable, therefore it is difficult to give quantitative information about the active political participation of minorities. Because according to the Bulgaria Constitution; ethnic and religious identities of individuals, including public officials, are considered as a personal situation and individuals cannot be requested to disclose their identities. Therefore, there is no official data and statistics available. Therefore it is not possible to achieve accurate results by the requested information in the census, such as; the date and place of birth, spoken language, education level, previous work places, position in the family, and political carriers of the person. For example, Roma people living in Bulgaria generally are speaking Bulgarian, and the identity of the names cannot be understood. Also Pomaks are overwhelmingly using Muslim names and surnames having “ov” or “ev” suffixes. Again some Pomaks names used before 1989 have been replaced with the non-Muslim names. The identity removal from the names of Turks, Armenians and Jews cannot be confirmed for each incident. In fact, Chi ova are a fairly common name and surname in Bulgaria can be used by all sections.91 A definite number cannot be given for the number for the participation of minorities in politics, and also it is possible to state that except the Turkish minority other ethnic groups in Bulgaria are excluded from the active politics. For example, it is observed that; Roma communities founded political parties can able to set their policies only by participating to the coalition which was not effective and the number of Roma origin deputies in the Parliament, were not exceeding one or two. The Pomaks were not able to establish political parties, it is not yet even known they were able accepted themselves for the official ground of their ethnic origin. Armenians, Jews, Russians, Vlachs, Greeks, Ukrainian, Romanian originate relatively small minority groups are largely continuing an integrated life with the Bulgarian community. Ethnic marriages made with the Bulgarians have increased the level of integration. However in conjunction with this, small minority groups generally did not prefer to be in the political structure. However, desiring to protect and maintain their culture and traditions are shown in a great extent in almost all of these groups.92 Macedonians having a smaller minority population compared to Rama and Pomaks preferred to have political organizations. Different than the other minorities; since 19. Century; although its intensity were changing within the historical context and process, within the public and political arena to emphasize the identity of their nationality, and restructuring efforts of their Macedonian identity have not ended, even though were

90

European Commission for Democracy Through Law (Venice Commission) and Osce Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (Osce/Odihr) Joint Opinion on The Draft Election Code of Bulgaria, Strasbourg, 24 March 2014 Opinion No. 750 / 2013, p. 19. 91 Marko Hajdinjak, a.g.m., s. 9. 92 Ġbid. s. 2-4.

41


rejected or often blocked by the Bulgarian official institutions.93 At first Independent Macedonian Association – Ilinden was acquiring official identification as a nongovernmental organization, but even their this demand was rejected by various excuses. After that they are restructured under the name of United Macedonian Organization (UMOIlinden – PIRIN) have attempted to fight in the political arena with the name-registered as a political party, but one year after the date this party was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court and has been pushed out of the system again.94 In later years their repeated registration applications have been rejected. Bulgaria, although has ratified the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of National Minorities in 1999, the Macedonian communities do not benefit from this protection under this Agreement as they were not accepted national minority. If it is looked at the point of mainstream political parties existing in the system, mainstream parties of the ethnic majority have by and large failed to reach out to Roma as candidates or voters, openness to Roma issues has been limited at best and, at worst, is said to jeopardize the political standing of those seeking to address Roma issues.95 As a result it can be stated that the ethnic politics are not sufficiently reflected the minorities in Bulgaria, while mainstream politics were away from the ethnic minority‟s problems. Bulgarian Constitution, in terms of the right to vote and freedom has brought a weaker position than other EU countries. The voting rights held by a single article state that; (A. 42)“Every citizen above the age of 18, with the exception of those placed under judicial interdiction or serving a prison sentence, shall be free to elect state and local authorities and vote in referendums.” (A. 42/1). “The organization and procedure for the holding of elections and referendums shall be established by law.”(A. 42/2). The comprehensive law regulating the right to elect is the Electoral Law. According to the Election Code in order to use the right to choose the mayor and city council members it is not required to be a Bulgarian citizen. The EU member states citizens, even if they have not Bulgarian citizenship, being at least 18 years of age on the Election Day, those not placed under judicial interdiction or serving a prison sentence, having constant and continuous residence in the Republic of Bulgaria and being resided in place of elections to be held since the last 6 months, shall be free to vote in local elections (A. 369/2). Bulgarian citizens, being at least 18 years of age on the Election Day, those not placed under judicial interdiction or serving a prison sentence, being resided in place of elections to be held since the last 6 months, shall be free to vote in local elections (A. 369/1). The right to be eligible for election is organized by Article 65 of the Constitution. For this any Bulgarian citizen who does not hold another citizenship, is above the age of 21, 93

Minorities in Southeast Europe Macedonians of Bulgaria, Center for Documentation and Information on Minorities in Europe - Southeast Europe (CEDIME-SE), pp. 3-8, http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/pdf/cedime-sebulgaria-macedonians.PDF (e.t. 20.9.2015). 94 ibid.pp.11-12; ayrıca bkz. http://www.omoilindenpirin.org/about.asp (e.t. 2.9.2015). 95 Roma Political Participation in Bulgaria, Romania, and Slovakia National Democratic Institute for International Affairs Assessment Mission February-March 2003, National Democratic Institute, Fundebythe Open SocietyInstitute, s. 5-6.

42


is not under a judicial interdiction, and is not serving a prison sentence is eligible for election to the National Assembly. The electoral law has reduced the age of candidacy to 18 in local elections, all citizens over the age of 18 and having the above conditions can be candidates for the elections (A.397/1). Individuals who are not citizens of Bulgaria, fulfilling the conditions to be entitled to vote in local elections as mentioned above; can also be a candidate and elected in the local elections (A.397/2). In addition, individuals having long-term or permanent residence from the Republic of Bulgaria; or EU residents for at least 6 months before the elections in any state have the right to be elected as a member of the European Parliament for the Republic of Bulgaria. President to be Bulgarian President should be the Bulgarian born Bulgarian citizen and must be over 40 years old. The restrictions on the right to vote in the Bulgarian Constitution and Electoral laws were found extensively heavy by Venice Commission and criticized by some European institutions. In particular, for all of the people suffering imprisonment regardless of the severity of their crimes being deprived from categorically to vote is considered as a serious and disproportionate restriction. In Bulgaria as in other EU countries, of the type and weight prisoners committed as forfeit final crime, or making a distinction based on the severity of the punishment for minor crimes and heavy penalties should be recognized as the right to vote in the prisons and detention centers. Otherwise, these individuals shall be considered not being able to use their political rights and freedoms categorically in a manner contrary to general principles of law and justice. European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in a recent decision concluded that; depriving of the vote of Bulgarian citizens with dual citizenship was a violation of Article 14 of European Human Rights Convention; Protocol No. 1 Article 3 which was regulating the prohibition of discrimination.96 Another criticism of the Venice Commission regarding the new draft electoral law, were on making, monitoring, auditing the elections and appealing mechanisms on the election results. Lack of an expert organization an effective referral system in this regard to appeal against any decision taken regarding the elections was seen as a major shortcoming of the draft law. The Venice Commission has brought the following suggestions in this regard97:  Balancing in the party representatives‟ appointment and composition of the Central Election Commission-Crewmembers which is responsible for the supervision and auditing of the elections;  Harmonizing the various deadlines of the electoral process, including deadlines regulating the complaints and appeals procedures;

European Court of Human Rights Grand Chamber, CASE OF TĂNASE v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 7/08), Judgment Strasbourg, 27 April, 2010. 97 European Commission for Democracy Through Law (Venice Commission) and Osce Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (Osce/Odihr) Joint Opinion on The Draft Election Code of Bulgaria, Strasbourg, 24 March 2014 Opinion No. 750 / 2013, p. 5. 96

43


 Granting an effective mechanism for challenging election results to all electoral contestants, as well as individual citizens on the grounds of irregularities in the voting procedures;  Reviewing the draft Code to ensure the right to vote of Bulgarian citizens holding a dual citizenship were granted;  Strengthening the authority of the National Audit Office to check the accuracy of the campaign finance reports. The draft law which was criticized by the European Authorities without taking into account much consideration was adopted by the Bulgarian Parliament in February 21, 2014.But the President expressed his concerns about the sections regarding; the formation of Central Election Commission (CEC), the lack of changes in the voter registration system, proposal for the experimental transmission from electronic voting to voting with machinery and the sections with preferential voting system; vetoed the law and sent it back to the Parliament. However, the Parliament has adopted the same law as it was to eliminate President‟s veto in 4th March. Therefore the President has signed the law and put into effect by force.98 Political rights and freedoms in the Bulgarian Constitution are arranged in twodimensional structure. In one hand; the right to political participation through political parties, in other words, the right to be a candidate in general and local elections; on the other hand to participate in elections as voters, namely the right to vote was linked to certain assurances. However, as it mentioned before; the prohibition of the establishment of political parties based on the ethnicity, religious etc., identities by Constitution, and connecting mainly to the Bulgarian citizenship of using the right to voting and to be electing and especially the politics ban, avoiding using the minority concept, existing provisions that are not counting minorities holding double passport and were living in Bulgaria, make it difficult to use in practice of political rights and freedoms.99 According to the Bulgarian Constitution, it is possible to use number of different languages with the exceptions in the field of educational fields and individuals have the right to be able to maintain their cultural and religious rituals. But also while expressing these rights in the Constitution the “minority” term is not being used, instead “mother tongue non-Bulgarian

Office for Democratic Institution and Human Rights Republıc Of Bulgarıa Early Parlıamentary Electıons 5 October 2014, Osce/Odıhr Needs Assessment Mıssıon Report 18-20 August 2014, Warsaw 27 August 2014, http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/122987?download=true (e.t. 13.8.2015). 99 However, many ethnical and religious minorities in real numbers live in Bulgaria as Bulgarian citizens. The majority of these ethnical groups consist of the Turks and Romans. Ulahs, Armenians, Karakacans, Greeks and Jews are also accepted as minorities; and the minority identities of the Macedonians and Muslim Pomaks are rejected in official theses. For detailed information, please refer to Bilgehan Atsız Gökdağ, "Balkan Ülkelerinin Anayasalarında Dil Kullanımı Ġle Ġlgili Düzenlemeler", Turkish Studies- International Periodical For The Languages, Literature and History of TurkishorTurkic Volume 7/4, Fall 2012, Ankara-TURKEY, s.76; Marko Hajdinjak, “Thou Shalt Not Take the Names Ethnic or Minority, and I Will Bless Thee: Poltical Participation of Minorities Ġn Bulgaria”, s.2-4, http://www.rednetwork.eu/resources/toolip/doc/2011/11/15/imir_ political_participation_eng.pdf (e.t. 2. 9. 2015). 98

44


citizens” and “developing own culture depending on the ethnic identity” terminologies were used for the minorities indirectly by these statements. Likewise, for the Presidential candidate nomination apart from being citizen, providing of a 5-year residency requirement, were hindering for the competent citizens to become president, who were serving abroad. Also, a large number of immigrants living in Bulgaria could not vote because of their condition of residences and their ages and their participation in politics in their country were being blocked. However, thousands of immigrants especially from Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, Macedonia and Turkey were living with permanent or long-lasting residences in Bulgaria. Therefore these individuals should have at least the right to vote in local elections and referendums. However the residence as shown was a key condition for participation in politics in Bulgaria.100 Looking for the living condition in order to vote in local elections and local referenda and to be nominated in the region that the election to be held at least 6 months before, was emerging as a prohibiting condition that were preventing Bulgarian citizens which were forced to reside elsewhere temporarily working abroad due to education, health or other reasons to vote for their own settlements. In almost all political elections, the allegations of buying of votes and manipulated elections are other problems shadowing democratic values of political rights and freedoms to have universal rules in Bulgaria. For example in 2009, both the election of members to the EU Parliament and in the general elections for the Bulgarian Parliament; there was complaints on buying of votes. Especially when the complaints on the occurring of multiple voting and frauding votes in the registration of citizens living in Turkey have been increased, the National Assembly has established a committee to investigate these allegations. The report indicating the results of the Committee's investigation was stating that, most of the irregularities (64.4 percent of the reported facts) were not deliberately acts, reported that they were due to the incompetence of the authorities or negligence of the some procedures relating to the voting results processing. Likewise election observers in the European Parliament elections in 2009, claimed that voter's choices were changed by 1016% rate of votes by purchasing or being manipulated by moving voters from different regions by bus, and have filed complaints about 158 people. And the court has sentenced 97 people for this reason.101 Also in 2013 early elections purchasing of votes allegations were in place; but Election Observation Mission established by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)/Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) reported that this election was conducted in accordance with the law and was fair.102 In fact for the same election; Transparency International-Bulgaria (TI-B) Observers had different 100

http://www.migrant-participation.eu/soubory/5.pdf (e.t. 18.9.2015). http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/160182.pdf (e.t. 18.9.2015). 102 Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA EARLY PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS 5 October 2014, OSCE/ODIHR NEEDS ASSESSMENT MISSION REPORT 18-20 August 2014, Warsaw 27 August 2014, http://www.osce.org/ odihr /elections /122987? download=true (e.t. 13.8.2015). 101

45


results in their election monitoring reports. I-B in their monitoring report; based their assessments on two fundamental issues which were in place also in the previous elections monitoring reports in Bulgaria; first whether the election process was taken place in accordance with democratic standards, transparent and in honesty or not. And the second one was the level of accountability and transparency for the financing of election campaigns. In other words, TI-B has monitored and evaluated whether a free, fair and democratic elections were done or not; and has identified 1167 violation events for the Election Day. The largest group within these violation events was related to the organization of the elections (58.9%).This was followed by illegal campaigns (19.37 %), supervised Votes (18.68%) and the buying of votes (3.10%).103 There was not any negative situation reported by the national and international observers related to the 2014 Elections in general. Needs Assessment Mission NAM working on behalf of OSCE/ODIHR; only expressed their concern on the transparency of the process due to lack of describing the new electoral law experimental machinery voting application regarding its hardware and software.104

103

For detailed information, please refer toTransparency and Integrity in The Election Process Report on The Monitoring of the 42nd National Assembly Elections Held on 12 May 2013, Transparency Ġnternational – Bulgaria, Sofia 2013, pp. 59-66. 104 ibid. http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/122987?download=true (13.8.2015).

46


2. ECONOMIC RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS As per the Bulgarian Constitution; the economy of the Republic of Bulgaria shall be based on free economic initiative (A. 19).In the introduction section of the Constitution by stating Bulgarian Republic is a social state; this arrangement was trying to balance by limiting the State‟s intervention into the economy and continuing developing the economy in the line with liberal free-market line. Because as per the Social State, in order to ensure social peace and social justice the active state intervention to social and economic life by the state is necessary and legitimate. In this sense, the social state needs providing and guaranteeing the peace and prosperity of the individual, establishing a balance between individual and community, organizing a balance between labor and capital relations, arranging security and stability of private sector operations, providing a descent living of workers and developing the stability of working life, taking social, economic and financial measures to protect the workers and preventing unemployment, taking appropriate measures for the distribution of the National income in justice, establishing a fair legal system and counting responsible itself for the sustainability of this system and implementing a realistic state of freedom regimeis required to function depending on the commitment to the law.105 Bulgarian Constitution has provided provisions for the situations in which conditions the intervention could be based on the free economic initiative by the state. The Constitution has stated that; „the economy of the Republic of Bulgaria should be based on free economic initiative‟in Article 19/1 and; „the State should establish and guarantee equal legal conditions for economic activity to all citizens and legal entities by preventing any abuse of a monopoly status and unfair competition, and by protecting the consumer‟in Article 19/2. In this framework „All investments and economic activity by citizens and legal entities should enjoy the protection of the law‟ and „The law should establish conditions conducive to the setting up of cooperatives and other forms of association of citizens and legal entities in the pursuit of economic and social prosperity‟ (A.19/3-4). And also „The State shall establish conditions conducive to the balanced development of the different regions of the country, and should assist the territorial bodies and activities through its fiscal, credit and investment policies „statements were in the provisions of Article 20 of the Constitution. The right to property and inheritance should be guaranteed and protected by law. Property should be private and public. Private property should be inviolable. The regime applying to the different units of State and municipal property should be established by law. Forcible expropriation of property in the name of State or municipal needs should be effected only by virtue of a law, provided that these needs could not be otherwise met, and after fair compensation had been ensured in advance.‟ statements were in the provisions of Article 17 of the Constitution.

For detailed information, please refer to Uğur Yazıcı, Sosyal Devlet, T.C. ÇalıĢma ve Sosyal Güvenlik Bakanlığı, http://www.csgb.gov.tr/csgbPortal/ShowDoc/WLP+Repository/per/dosyalar/duyurular/sosyaldevlet (e.t.4.9.2015). 105

47


Balancing Bulgaria's state approach based on free economy by its commitment to the social state, also requires an assessment of the economic rights and freedoms over this balance. In this context, the right to sheltering and the housing, the right and freedom to work, the right to social security and the right to health, which were implemented within the scope and content based on the Constitutional and legal grounds in Bulgaria how the protection mechanisms were handled and at what level the legal situation was coping with the social and economic policies will be evaluated in the light of the data obtained. a. Right and Freedom to Work In A. 16 of the Constitution it is stated that; „Labour should be guaranteed and protected by law‟. Besides this general principle; Work was regulated both in rights and freedoms dimensions by Article 48 to Article 50 of the Constitution. If it is looked at by the “right” direction, it is a shortcoming giving right to work only to Bulgarian citizens. In spite of this; „the State should take care to provide conditions for the exercising of this right‟ statement is a positive attitude (A. 48/1). This statement is repeated by Article 48/2; „The State shall create conditions conducive to the exercising of the right to work by the physically or mentally handicapped‟. By the Articles 42/3-4; „Everyone shall be free to choose an occupation and place of work. No one shall be compelled to do forced labour‟ statement, Freedom to Work has been put under the guarantee of the Constitution. By the provision (A. 48/5); „Workers and employees shall be entitled to healthy and non-hazardous working conditions, to guaranteed minimum pay and remuneration for the actual work performed, and to rest and leave, in accordance with conditions and procedures established by law‟ the working people in Bulgaria are protected in terms of working conditions and wages by the Constitution. Although rights and freedoms for the establishment of trade unions and strike are recognized by the Constitution to ensure the protection of the rights granted to workers and other employees by the employees; this part will be included in the rights and freedom of association section. The provisions relating to working rights and freedoms in Bulgaria Constitution are in line with the United Nations Economic Social and Cultural Rights (UN ICESCR) which is broadly in line with the relevant provisions which Bulgaria is party since 1970. 106 But unlike the Bulgarian Constitution, the contract has specified the criteria for minimum wage as stating the employee's wages for themselves and their families should be given to provide a decent living wage to the employees. (A.7/a-ii).We believes that there are benefits to Bulgaria to include this measure to Constitution and in addition to Legislation which is extremely important in terms of human rights in order to maintain the dignity and respectful human life. However, as will be described later, Bulgaria within the European Social Charter is not counting himself bounding by this provision. In this research aimed evaluating the legal aspects of the economic rights in Bulgaria to remain within the limited domestic law provisions shall conclude with missing assessments. Therefore also examining the relationship between the Country‟s domestic 106

http://indicators.ohchr.org/ (e.t. 5.9.2015).

48


legislation and the concerned international law binding documents are also required. In this context; the relationships in order to protect the second-generation rights ratified 107 by the member state of the Council of Europe (EC), Bulgaria on 07.06.2000; and The European Social Charter (ESC) 108 adopted by EC in 1961 and revised in 1996 are of great importance for us. In the first section of the European Social Charter (revised) fundamental social and economic rights and principles related for the disadvantaged groups to exercise these rights including right and freedom to work are regulated by short terms. Whereas in the second section; the measures to ensure effective implementation of right to work and fair remuneration, fair and safe working conditions and requirements of healthy working conditions are regulated in detail, and the obligations of the States participated are explained in general. The organization rights of employees and employers and the collective bargaining rights of employees are organized under the right to work, the professional orientation and vocational training are organized as a right linked to this right. Starting from here, it can be stated that; the European Social Charter (ESC) is a comprehensive right hosting many elements including the right to work. However the ESC; except for the provisions to be adopted as mandatory, giving the possibility of selecting a number of provisions of certain parts of the document and the rights enshrined in the Charter could not agree with the broad scope of the criteria, that they might be connected with some of the provisions in relation to each other to the States participated. For example, Bulgaria, did not bound itself to the following provisions 109 such as; situated in the right to fair working conditions; “With a view to ensuring the effective exercise of the right to just conditions of work, the Parties undertake: to provide for reasonable daily and weekly working hours, the working week to be progressively reduced to the extent that the increase of productivity and other relevant factors permit;”(A. 2/1); situated in right to a fair remuneration; “With a view to ensuring the effective exercise of the right to a fair remuneration, the Parties undertake: to recognize the right of workers to a remuneration such as will give them and their families a decent standard of living;” (A.4/1);The right to vocational guidance (A. 9); The right to vocational training (A. 10); situated in the right of persons with disabilities to independence, social integration and participation in the life of the community “to promote persons with disabilities’ access to employment through all measures tending to encourage employers to hire and keep in employment persons with disabilities in the ordinary working environment and to adjust the working conditions to the needs of the disabled or, where this is not possible by reason of the disability, by arranging for or creating sheltered employment according to the level of disability” (A. 15/2);The right to engage in a gainful occupation in the territory of other Parties (A. 18); and The right of migrant workers and their families to protection and assistance (A. 19); The right of 107

http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/socialcharter/Presentation/Overview_en.asp (e.t. 5.9.2015). For the full text of the document, which is called as “Revised Social Condition”, which was revised in 1996, please refer to. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/163.htm (e.t. 9.9.2015). 109 For the judgments list that were accepted and not accepted by Bulgaria together with the other parties, please refer to http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/socialcharter/Presentation/ProvisionTableRevMarch2015_ en.pdf (e.t. 10.9.2015). 108

49


workers with family responsibilities to equal opportunities and equal treatment with a view to ensuring the exercise of the right to equality of opportunity and treatment for men and women workers with family responsibilities and between such workers and other workers; (A. 27/1).In addition, the report should provide the information required by the Committee in the framework relating to Thematic Group 3 “Labour rights” (Articles 2, 4, 5, 6, 21, 22, 26, 28 and 29of the Revised Charter), in the event of non-conformity for lack of information.110 The reviews on this subject can be found in the “Conclusions” delivered to Bulgaria against the reports issued by Bulgaria. From the date Bulgaria has adopted the Revised Social Charter; Bulgaria submitted 13 reports on the application of the Revised Charter. 111 Conclusions in respect of 13nth Country Report will be published in January 2016. 13 Country Reports have been presented to the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR) which was supervising the implementation of the provisions of the Charter as the authority to take the complaint application. We do not know what will be in the 13. ECSR Report for the Country application response which will be published in January 2016. However, views on the Committee's previous reports will be enough to give us an idea about the legal and real aspects of the right to work in Bulgaria. The first country report by Bulgaria to the Committee was delivered in March 2002. The corresponding Conclusion Report by the Committee to Bulgaria containing the results has been given in 2003, concluding insufficiency for almost all items under the right to work heading and requested additional information.112 The Committee in the next Conclusion Report which was written based on the information provided in spite of taking into account the effects of the economic crisis in Bulgaria has criticized both the high unemployment rate and the low levels of funding allocated for the retention of this work and the measures taken in this regard and did not find developments compatible with 1/1 provision of the Charter. Another criticism of the Committee was the application of the related provisions of Labor Code only to the Bulgarian citizens which were banning all forms of discrimination in working life. Foreign workers are remaining outside the scope of this Act and are therefore deprived of recourse before the courts. The Committee has evaluated this as direct discrimination and exclusion to the Labour Code effective against the discrimination cases and also to foreign workers with a proportional removal mechanism has been proposed to be amended to provide procedural safeguards. Again in the same Report; The followings are stated; the legal regulations and administrative mechanisms for the protection of young workers in Bulgaria does not cope with the relevant provisions of the Charter and in conjunction with this the young workers were working off the record, and they were denied from the fair wages, paid vacation and the right to work in a reasonable time, prohibition of night work were not applied to this portion, therefore, the Labour Code was inadequate to protect young workers, and these

110

Bkz. http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/socialcharter/CountryFactsheets/Bulgaria_en.pdf (e.t. 10.9.2015) ASHK will sometimes be mentioned as “The Committee”. http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/socialcharter/Conclusions/State/Bulgaria2003_en.pdf (e.t. 10.9.2015). 111 112

50


aspects were contrary to the relevant provisions of the Charter.113 The Committee in the next Conclusion Report has identified that Bulgarian Labour Law does not have any provisions for the rights of pregnant women in maternity leave and prohibiting the disposal from work and has evaluated this situation as a violation of the Charter.114 Committee in its report of 2006 has expressed concern to see not changing of the situations not compatible with the Charter in the previous years, in addition drew attention to the discrimination based on sacking to the lack of compensation in the Labour Law.115In parts of the next reports, the Committee has stated clearly that; in the absence of information to the extent that they want, to decide Bulgaria acted contrary to the relevant provisions of the Charter, by recognizing the time until the next report on Bulgaria.116In the last Conclusion Report it is mentioned that; by providing satisfactory progress to be noted in the next country report some of the elements of the right to work were compatible with the Charter. Furthermore, the Charter has stated that on the basis of gender discrimination with regard to dismissal proceedings there were still insufficient and inappropriate compensation schemes, and also the payment deductions were assessed to be too much and was a violation of the right to fair wages.117 During this process; in order to ensure the fulfillment of the right to work with all the elements, Bulgaria has put into force the legal arrangements such as; the Employment Promotion Act118, Protection of Workers' Claims in Case of Employer's Insolvency Act 119, Protection Against Discrimination Act120, by making some changes in the Labour Code has tried to harmonize domestic laws with the UN, EC and EU legislation. On the other hand it has ratified the following ILO (International Labour Organization) Charters; Right of workers with family responsibilities to equal opportunity and treatment 156 Numbered Right of workers with family responsibilities to equal opportunity and treatment - Charter 121 , 181 Numbered Private Employment Agencies – Charter 122, 173 Numbered Protection of Workers' Claims in Case of Employer's Insolvency - Charter 123, 183 Numbered (Revised) The Charter on the Protection of Pregnant Women 124, 122 Numbered Employment Policy Charter 125 and put into effect as domestic laws.126 113

http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/socialcharter/Conclusions/State/Bulgaria2004_en.pdf (e.t. 10.9.2015). http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/socialcharter/Conclusions/State/Bulgaria2005_en.pdf (e.t. 10.9.2015). http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/socialcharter/Conclusions/State/Bulgaria2006_en.pdf (e.t. 10.9.2015). 116 http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/socialcharter/Conclusions/State/Bulgaria2007_en.pdf; http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/socialcharter/Conclusions/State/Bulgaria2008_en.pdf (e.t. 10.9.2015). 117 http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/socialcharter/Conclusions/Prep/Bulgaria2014_en.pdf (e.t. 10.9.2015). 118 State Gazette No. 112 of 2001, effective 1 January 2002 119 State Gazette No. 37 of 2004, effective 1 January 2005 120 State Gazette No. 86 of 2004, effective 1 January 2005 121 State Gazette No. 9 of 2006 122 State Gazette No. 10 of 2005 123 State Gazette No. 58 of 2004 124 State Gazette No. 85 of 2001 125 State Gazette No. 33 of 2008, effective 9 June 2009 126 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, “Implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights- Fourth and fifth peridic reports submitted under articles 16 and 17 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights” Bulgaria, E/C.12/BGR/4-5, 9 May 2011, p. 3. 114 115

51


Whereas providing many improvements in the last 10-15 years in Bulgaria, as it was stated in Bulgarian State Country Report to International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, (ICESCR); in general the socio-economic rights issues and in particular relating to the right to work in Bulgaria have-not been solved yet. A portion of the population is still living below the European standards. The economic recovery observed in recent years, has not been reflected into wide layers of Bulgarian society in terms of quality of life and living standards improvement. Poverty continues to be a social problem affecting a portion of the population. The majority of this population is elderly and young people. The pensions of elderly are low and the wages paid to the educated young people is not satisfactory. Nevertheless, an increase in employability of the active population in Bulgaria has been experienced in recent years, and the gap with the EU average has been reduced to a few points. But the dramatic differences between the employment rate of the population living in rural and urban populations are still continuing. 77.6% of the active population in urban areas and 22.4% of the active population in rural areas can be employed. There are significant differences between urban and rural environments as well as disparities between regions. Bulgaria continues its efforts to ensure the employability of people living in rural areas with the EU and other international institutions‟ financed projects and programs. In particular, by the increase in foreign aid with EU membership, the Bulgarian government implemented various action plans and programs in order to reduce the unemployment rate, to improve the welfare, and has reduced the unemployment rate in a noticeably level. Again to resolve disruptions experienced during the payment of wages by employers in 2002 and 2003, and to ensure full and timely payment of wages the Labor Code was amended in 2004 and significant commitments have been put in force for the employers. In order to create a healthy and safe working environment, to compensate the losses incurred significant changes have been made in the Occupational Health and Workplace Safety Act in favor of employees.127 However, the Roma survey performed in 2011 in 11 EU Member States including Bulgaria “Poverty and employment: the situation of Roma” showed that Roma has been excluded from the economic life in Bulgaria compared to other social sectors. Self declared main activity status „paid work‟ (including full time, part-time, ad hoc jobs, self employment) Roma rate of working was 30%, while for Non-Roma rate of working was 41%, The National average was 47% in Bulgaria. Employment rate patterns of Roma have shown that; 55% in full-time paid work, 11% in half-time paid work, 3% self-employed and 31% paid work – adhoc jobs.128 It can be stated that almost half of the Roma working for the wages were employed in less secure jobs. For example; 51% of Roma said they have not any medical insurance but were in paid work. This rate was 21% for Non-Roma social

Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, “Implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights- Fourth and fifth periodicrep or tssubmitte dunder articles 16 and 17 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights” Bulgaria, E/C.12/BGR/4-5, 9 May 2011, pp. 320. 128 Roma survey – Data in focus Poverty and employment: the situation of Roma in 11 EU Member States European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), 2014, pp.17-22. 127

52


portion. In addition, 87% of Roma live at risk of poverty. 31% of Roma at 45 and over age never think that they could be retired. This rate was 5% in the other group.129 The same research has shown that there was a very striking difference among unemployment between Roma population and other population in Bulgaria. While the ratio of unemployed Roma population was 45%; the unemployed rate for the non-Roma population was around 13-14%.Almost in all countries surveyed, Roma population reported that they were discriminated both during the job search and at work because they were Roma origin. This perception is relatively low compared to other countries among the Roma in Bulgaria.15% have experienced discrimination in the last five years because of being Roma and 41% have experienced discrimination when looking for paid work of the Roma participated to survey in Bulgaria. These results reveal that Roma encounter less ethnic discrimination after entering the job but facing more discrimination during the recruitment process.130 It is possible to state that the Roma population are facing discrimination in the same way in the other EU countries, which was the most important factor underlying the unemployment. Main activity pattern of Roma men and women; only 14% retired, 2-3% permanently disabled, 3% in education training, 5% fulltime homemaker (all women) were not working.131 Here it can be concluded that 20% of the Roma population cannot be able to work based on other factors. Education has a significant share among the reasons not to be employed of the Roma and being uneducated or less educated has caused them to be excluded from almost every area of the social life. It seems that; as education, employment and social security affect and feeding each other; excluding of the Roma communities from one of them impact the other areas. b. Right To Health The Health is organized under the title as “service” (health care) not a “right in Bulgarian Constitution. However, this provision is located on “Fundamental Rights and Duties of Citizens” section of the Constitution. Therefore, the provision should not be evaluated only by the title, but the content of the regulation accordingly. As per the Article 52 of the Constitution; (1) Citizens shall have the right to medical insurance guaranteeing them affordable medical care, and to free medical care in accordance with conditions and procedures established by law. (2) Medical care shall be financed from the state budget, by employers, through private and collective health-insurance schemes, and from other sources in accordance with conditions and procedures established by law. (3) The State shall protect the health of all citizens and shall promote the development of sports and tourism.

Ġbid., p. 31-35. Ġbid., p. 28. 131 Ġbid., p. 25. 129 130

53


(4) No one shall be subjected to forcible medical treatment or sanitary measures except in circumstances established by law. (5) The State shall exercise control over all medical facilities and over the production and trade in pharmaceuticals, biologically active substances and medical equipment. As can be seen in the Bulgarian Constitution Health is not a right it is the subject of the service. The relevant provision of the Constitution explains not the right to health, but the corporate system for securing the health. Particularly, in second generation rights, namely required intervention of the state by taking active measures, which cannot be used unless the availability of this merit in this group, coming to the forefront of the “service” understanding is not surprising. But the “Health” is regulated as a right standing on certain principles and standards in Article 12/1 of the “International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)” which was ratified also by Bulgaria, it is stated that; The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. The provision appears to be quite abstract in this form later on was explained by rather concrete measures by the reviewing and auditing body “International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)”; has been presented a guide in the fulfillment of this right (14 No General Comment) in order to lead the participating States. As per this;  Right to Health cannot be understood as a right to be Healthy. The right to health contains both freedoms and the rights. Freedom here includes; including on sexual and reproductive Health and individual‟s right to control their own health and body, the right not to be subjected to have an intervention: the right not to be tortured, the right not to be subject to medical treatment and processing without consent.  In accordance with article 12.1 of the Covenant, States parties recognize “the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health”, is not limited by only “the right to Health care”. On the contrary; it is clear from the recorded preparation and oral statements during the adoption phase of this provision; the Right to Health covering a wide range of determinants of health has a coverage of key elements including socio-economic factors including defining the basic elements of health as a healthy environment for the people developing conditions that will allow them access to safe and potable water and adequate sanitation, an adequate supply of safe food, nutrition and housing. “The highest attainable standard of Health” concept takes into account the available resources of the State as well as individuals‟ both biological and socio-economic conditions.132

132

General Comment No. 14 (2000) The right to the highest at tainable standard of health (article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, E/C.12/2000/4, 11 August 2000, para. 8-9.

54


The right to health in the European Social Charter, which is another Charter that Bulgaria, was a part of it; the state's obligation to protect was taken as essential adjustments and reclassifications. In accordance with the Charter right to protection of health under Article 11; “With a view to ensuring the effective exercise of the right to protection of health, the Parties undertake, either directly or in cooperation with public or private organizations, to take appropriate measures designed inter alia: 1. to remove as far as possible the causes of ill-health; 2. to provide advisory and educational facilities for the promotion of health and the encouragement of individual responsibility in matters of health; 3. to prevent as far as possible epidemic, endemic and other diseases, as well as accidents.” As it can be seen in the international laws the right to health contain both elements having the right and as well as state obligation as a whole; “healthy development right, right to live in a healthy environment and conditions, preventing, treatment and control of diseases, the creation of conditions assuring all medical services and medical attention in case”. In almost all of the international agreements containing the human rights issues, the right to health, like all human rights, imposes three types or levels of obligations on States parties: the obligations to respect protect and fulfill. In turn, the obligation to fulfil contains obligations to facilitate, provide and promote. The obligation to respect requires States to refrain from interfering directly or indirectly with the enjoyment of the right to health. The obligation to protect requires States to take measures that prevent third parties from interfering with the guarantees. Finally, the obligation to fulfil requires States to adopt appropriate legislative, administrative, budgetary, judicial, promotional and other measures towards the full realization of the right to health. As per the comments of International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR); States parties have the responsibilities as following; to prevent forced social or traditional practices that were harmful to health of individuals; to combat discriminatory acts preventing equal access to health services; to ensure necessary training, experience and ethical conduct of medical staff; or to take necessary measures to prevent restrictive privatization applications by blocking the Access to Health care of individuals. In fact, in case of states parties were backtracking undertaking these roles, the possibility that results could not be obtained otherwise and therefore the right to health of people would be damaged. To apply a comprehensive health policy that includes complementary service areas such as preventive, protective and curative health services and medicine; to ensure equal access for all to the underlying determinants of health, such as food and water and basic hygiene and assignments, such as the development of legislation intended to provide such purposes are in this context.133 However, the “right to Health” has not been mentioned in the 1991 Constitution and the Health Act which was adopted in 2004.134 The Health Act settles the public relations in ibid., para. 33; For detailed information on this, please refer to Özgür Temiz, “Türk Hukukunda Bir Hak Olarak Sağlık Hakkı”, Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, Cilt 69, No. 1, 2014, (165 – 188), s.176-181. 134 Law of Health Prom. SG. 70/10 Aug 2004, amend. SG. 46/3 Jun 2005, amend. SG. 76/20 Sep 2005, In force from 1st of January 2005. 133

55


connection with the preservation of the health of the citizens. In this context; the principles of the national health services to be subjected, authorized institutions, functioning system and financing systems, personnel, rules, and institutions like all elements are described in detail in the Act. The rights dimension to the health was only handled within the context of “Patients‟ Rights”. Accordingly; A. 86/1 stated that; “As patient anybody shall have right to: respect of his civil, political, economic, social, cultural and religious rights’ care by the community he is living in; accessible and high quality health care; more than one medical statement about the diagnosis, the treatment and the prognosis of the disease; protection of the data, referring to his health status; remuneration for the work he implements, equal with the one he receives if he is not ill; acquaintance in intelligible language with his rights and obligations; clear and accessible information about his health status and the methods of his eventual treatment.” Additionally; the Health Act Art. 148. Stated; “the basic principles at the treatment of persons with psychic disorders shall be: minimum restriction of the personal freedom and respect of the rights of the patient; reduction of the institutional dependence of the persons with psychic disorders on durable hospital treatment under the condition that this does not contradict with the approved medical standards; creating of wide network of specialized establishments for off hospital psychiatric care and priority of the care in the family and in the social environment; integration and equality of the psychiatric care with the other medical directions; observing of the humanitarian principles and norms at implementing the healing process and social adaptation; stimulation of self-help and mutual help and ensuring active public and professional support for the persons with psychic disorders; specialized training, professional training and re-qualification of the persons with psychic disorders with objective their social adaptation; participation of humanitarian non-government organizations in the process of treatment and social adaptation.” 135 In order to implement this policy and to fulfill legal obligations; the Council of Ministers has adopted the 2004-2012 Mental Health Policy and National Action Plan.136 Law for the Health Insurance which was entered into force on June 22, 1998, to ensure people's access to health services and receive appropriate health care 137 due to its name is a law related to protect the right to Health services not to protect the right to Health. As per the Article 40/2 of the law, the health insurances were fully covered for all students up to a certain age; the people with disabilities up to certain percentage and their families, the unemployed, refugees under certain conditions, immigrants, veterans, persons in need of care lack of social security, the socio-economically disadvantaged people, and for some individuals under certain conditions and for the listed groups were covered in-half by the State while the rest were covered by themselves or employers. As per the “Health

135

Article 148 of the Health Act. National report submitted in accordance with paragraph 15 (a) of the annex to Human Rights Council Resolution 5/1 Bulgaria, 12 August 2010, A/HRC/WG.6/9/BGR/1, p. 18. 137 Law for the Health Insurance [Bulgaria], 22 June 1998, http://www.refworld.org/docid/3de656104.html (e.t. 10.9.2015). 136

56


strategy concerning people in disadvantaged position, belonging to ethnic minorities” adopted by the Bulgarian government in 2005 covering the years 2005 to 2015; is devoted to measures to be taken for the target practices to overcome negative attitudes about the health status of disadvantaged ethnic minorities, guaranteeing equal access to health care services, increasing the population of the ethnic communities to be included in the compulsory health insurance system and reducing the pregnant women and child mortality. Again in this context, in 2010 the health mediators (health agents) have been established which were called as the mobile health services units. The costs of the health care provided by these units have been covered from the state budget and the implementation was being carried out by the municipalities. Health mediators have played important role in improving the health, culture and particularly awareness of vulnerable groups.138 In this context, mobile health offices were established mainly in Roma neighborhoods, and prophylactic (disease prevention, preventive) inspections and tests having priorities were conducted. Health agents have conducted HIV/AIDS prevention and tuberculosis control programs and the fight against infectious diseases such as malaria.139 Although Bulgaria was trying hard to make health services accessible and offer to provide appropriate services for everyone; the budget allocated to health was so low; therefore to protect and fulfill the right to health in a sense within the scope of international agreements in which Bulgaria is a party is not possible with this budget. This is the main reason for Bulgaria remaining far below the EU averages in health care.140 Whereas the gross domestic product portion to health care services in EU countries were in average 7%; in Bulgaria 4% of the GDP were allocated to health care services. Bulgaria‟s overall number of staff and the number of physicians employed in the health field are below the European average.141On the other hand, shortages related to access to health care of Roma s and discrimination cases are continuing. According to a survey performed by the government in 2013, 30% of Roma s is not registered to the general practitioner and 78.8% of Roma s cannot go to the dentist as they have not any Health insurance. Also, the quality of health personnel and social workers which were giving medical care services to the Roma are very low. However, once again it is necessary to state that; National Health Mediators Network has played an important role in eliminating the problems of Roma community access to the right to health services.142 „Action Plan of the Republic of Bulgaria Roma Inclusion Decade‟ shows that; Bulgaria treats the subject as solutionoriented and in a planned manner and revealing that shows a political will by; Roma health mediators of health care access problems starting from prevention through pregnancy and 138

National report submitted in accordance with paragraph 15 (a) of the annex to Human Rights Council Resolution 5/1 Bulgaria, 12 August 2010, A/HRC/WG.6/9/BGR/1, p. 21. 139 Human Rights Council, Report of the independent expert on minority issues Addendum Missionto Bulgaria (4 to 11 July 2011, 3 January 2012, A/HRC/19/56/Add.2, pp. 12-13. 140 For the list showing the expenses on health according to years of Bulgaria and the other European countries, please refer to http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do (e.t. 14.9.2015). 141 For separated data, please refer to http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/health/health-care/data/database(e.t. 14.9.2015). 142 Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and LaborCountry Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2014 Bulgaria, http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm#wrapper (e.t. 15.9.2015).

57


childbirth recording; and addressing preventive and therapeutic treatment in a comprehensive framework for the goal of providing all health services. 143 c. Right to Social Security The right to social security is organized in Article 51 of the Bulgarian Constitution in general terms. In the first item it is mentioned that “Citizens shall have the right to social security and social assistance”. In the second item “the provision of social security for the temporarily unemployed by the State in accordance with conditions and procedures to be established by the law” was declared. The last item has stated that; “The aged without relatives and unable to support themselves, as well as invalids and the socially weak shall receive special protection from the State and Society”. Following two Articles of the Constitution were about „social security and health insurance as an element of social welfare services and medical care‟. Accordingly; “(1) Citizen shall have the right to medical insurance guaranteeing them affordable medical care, and to free medical care in accordance with conditions and procedures established by law. (2) Medical care shall be financed from the state budget, by employers, through private and collective healthinsurance schemes, and from other sources in accordance with conditions and procedures established by law.” (A. 52/1-2). The most important parameters of social security rights as expressed in the Constitution, A. 51/1 provision, was about the pension system and how to finance it. In 1999, Bulgaria has passed into the tripartite pension system from the single pension system by making a comprehensive pension reform. In the new system; the pension insurance has been constructed according to three separate systems: 1. Compulsory state insurance based on pre-financing (step 1), 2. The mandatory pension insurance to be completed by the general public funds for those born after 31 December 1959 (step 2), 3. Optional supplementary pension insurance (step 3). In this system, depending on all income in operating life and the length of working time has revealed a new formula to be used in the numerical calculation of retirement insurance contributions. For step 1; with the condition of the registration of all work contracts after 2000, the minimum threshold for insurance branch and national maximum threshold were set for the insurance income thus early retirement has been limited and subjected to strict conditions and the number of people able to have early retirement became very low in real terms. Nevertheless, the biggest problem of the Bulgarian insurance system was the insufficiency of public insurance to provide an adequate supply for the retirees. This difficulty is due to financing of the public insurance system‟s own 143

http://www.romadecade.org/cms/upload/file/9296_file11_national-action-plan-bulgaria.pdf(15.9.2015); For detailed information, please refer to Roma Health Mediators Successes and Challenges, Roma Health Project Open Society Public Health Program, Open Society Foundations, October 2011, pp. 47-49, https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/roma-health-mediators-20111022.pdf (e.t. 17.9.2015).

58


budget within their institutional system, apart from the state budget. Medium and long-term financial stability of the system has not been achieved. Currently in the Bulgaria pension system is in financial instability and is dependent on the state budget.144 Increased government participation in the financing of the insurance system (mainly through tax revenues), has led to the questioning of the current and future financial stability. The efforts to accelerate the next phase of the initiated Pension Reform in order to balance the pension system of Bulgarian society and continuation of an adequate and sustainable pension scheme were continued. As a results of these efforts comprehensive changes were made on the action plan adopted in 2010 and the retirement age and required insurance period have been started to be increased gradually since the beginning of 2012.As per the amendment, the retirement age for all people, no matter what were their job categories, to be increased four months for each calendar year up to 2020.Thus the working periods of 37 years for men and 34 years for women for their retirement to be increased to 40 years for men and 37 years for women for their retirement. Likewise retirement age of 65 for the insufficient people in various aspects, will be increased gradually to 67 years old by 2017 with the condition that they have worked for at least 15 years. As of January, 2014, men acquire the right to retirement pension if they have a contribution period of 37 years and 8 months, and women, if they have contribution period of 24 years and 8 months in the third-category labor. In businesses outside this category the retirement age differ for men and women of 3 years will be reduced to two years. Previously the right to retirement pension for servicemen pursuant to the Law on Defense and the Armed Forces were granted regardless of their age upon having 25 years of total contribution period, this period has been changed to 27 years by adding 2 years. Men and women who have worked in difficult and harmful labor conditions may retire upon coming to a certain age, if they have worked 10 years in the conditions of first-category labor or 15 years in the conditions of second-category laborite was stated that for a period of January 1st, 2014 by December 31st, 2020, teachers would be entitled to retirement pension provided the insurance premium to be paid for 25 years and 8 months for women and 30 and 8 months for men.145 As a continuation of the measures adopted amendments have been made to the Public Social Insurance Budget Act for 2014 in order to ensure the monitoring of policies to increase the retirement income. The minimum pension and the maximum total amount of revenue derived from pension assurance have been increased by the Law. In order to meet this increase; the minimum figure to be obtained from the specified sources has been identified. The social old-age pension has also been increased.146 Naturally, these changes have increased the number of new retirees and pension payments in 2014. According to figures in 2012; the rate of contribution made by the Ivan Neykov, “Annual National Report 2012 Pensions, Health Care and Long-term Care Bulgaria”, March 2012, Analytical Support on the Socia-Economic Impact of Social Protection Reforms, On behalf of the European Commission DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, pp. 5-6. 145 Ġbid., pp. 6-7; Additionally, please refer to REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA National Social Report of the Republic of Bulgaria 2013-2014 (Adopted by the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Bulgaria on 30.04.2014), pp. 2628. 146 Ġbid., pp. 28-29. 144

59


government to the Social Insurance Fund was 54.2%.The Fund's income also was consisting of from other sources such as; 26.5% of employer contributions, 15% of individual contribution of workers, 2.7% of optional insurance contributions and 0.5% of other incomes. This case has led to the questioning of reforms made to access the target of increasing the welfare of retired and active old age by both workers and employers segments of civil society. Pension reform has been analyzed by the EU Commission the weakness of the planning for the expenditure and control of resources has been suggested. According to the EU Commission, the extra revenue generated prior to the economic crisis, would go to the other unplanned additional expenditures due to a decrease in social insurance contribution rates. Even though the Bulgarian authorities have set up a control mechanism on expenditure by generating monitoring and accountability system, long-term sustainability of public finances are at risk.147 According to the Commission's Recommendations Report, in 2013, Bulgaria took a step back from past commitments in the area of pension reform. Early retirement schemes were not reduced as envisaged. The planned annual increase in the statutory retirement age was postponed. No progress was made with regard to harmonizing the retirement age for men adwomen and no steps were taken to tighten eligibility criteria and controls to limit abuse in the allocation of invalidity pensions. Bulgaria has one of the most rapidly ageing populations in the Union, which has negative implications for the labor market, for growth potential in the economy and for the financing of its pension system. Bulgaria therefore needs to continue the reform of its pension system.148 Bulgaria also faces important challenges in the rationalization and management of the hospital sector. One of the main problems is the lack of transparency in hospital financing and insufficiently developed services for out-patient care. Furthermore, the high level of formal and informal payments borne directly by the patient effectively excludes certain segments of the population from access to healthcare. Health status indicators are weakening comparison with other Member States, indicating that structurally higher public expenditure on Health may be required in the future.149 The most important indicator for the risk of the sustainability of the public pension system in financial terms is the discrepancies between income and expenditure system with resources and the decisions taken on the financial situation without the projection vision. Another long-term problem is the reduction and aging of the population. According to calculations by the National Statistical Institute; Bulgaria's population by 2050 will be decreased by more than 1.6 million. According to this forecast, while the working age population decreasing the older population will be increased. Currently, while 100 people in the working population have to support 25 elderly people; in 2050, 100 people would be Ivan Neykov, “Annual National Report 2012 Pensions, Health Care and Long-term Care Bulgaria”, pp. 9-10. COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION of 8 July2014 on the National Reform Programme 2014 of Bulgaria and delivering a Council opinion on the Convergence Programme of Bulgaria, 2014 (2014/C 247/02), Official Journal of the European Union, C 247/7, 29.7.2014. 149 ibid., para. 11. 147 148

60


required to support the system for 56 seniors. It is envisaged that by increasing the number of pensioners and working age population decreasing the financial stability of the pension system will be adversely affected. To overcome this problem additional measures are to be needed. A few of these measures are as follows. 150  Ending the reduction in the contribution rates and to determine the contribution rates on the basis of social insurance and precise actuarial calculation principles. If there is a reduction in the contribution rate; should be linked to the conditions on very well defining of targets, creation of new business areas, and employment areas for workers working in certain categories and the payment of wages above the minimum insurance thresholds. 

Increasing monitoring and control activities of the collection of contributions.

 Connection to more stringent criteria for the eligibility for retirement due to increasing the average life expectancy and aging of the population.  Gradually raising the retirement age for men and women and eliminate discrimination in terms of retirement conditions. 

Restriction of early retirement.

 Rational calculation of the contribution period and amount forth earlypension insurance by taking into account the duration to receive a pension.  Avoiding misuse during evaluation of disability pension and having several restrictions on entitlement to disability pension.  Providing exchange of documents and information in electronic form between National Insurance Institute, and health care organizations and employers regarding the temporary incapacity for work.  Modernization of the supplementary pension insurance by re-considering the general pension fund contribution rates.  Encouraging additional optional insurance extending the existing tax credit exemption rate from 10% to 15% d. Right to Housing The Right to Housing which was understood as; “the right to have a space allocated with the settlement purpose in accordance with the human dignity” was emerged social and economic rights group to ensure the right to live in human dignity. The right to housing is expressed as the right to have housing in the narrow sense, which was required with the minimum qualifications to make a suitable and sufficient housing. Every human being has a right to acquire a safe robust housing; the state also has the responsibility to provide options for diversity and accessibility for the housing. 150

Ġbid., pp.11-12.

61


Right to Housing is a right protected by international conventions as well. In the 1966 dated International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Article 11/1 it was re-stated as; “… recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions.” The right to housing was organized in more detail in the European Social Charter (Revised) (A. 31) as; “ensuring the effective exercise of the right to housing, the Parties undertake to take measures designed: 1. to promote access to housing of an adequate standard; 2. to prevent and reduce homelessness with a view to its gradual elimination; 3. to make the price of housing accessible to those without adequate resources.”Thus, the parties of the Charter States have been entered under the responsibility of protecting the right to housing and providing housing environment and the needs for everyone. For the violations of the right to housing complaints brought in front of the ESC; the relevant provision of the European Social Charter acknowledges that housing should have the following qualifications151: 1.

A housing; that is structurally safe;

2. Meeting all the basic needs such as; water, heating, waste disposal, sanitation, and electricity; 3.

In accordance with the size of the residing family;

4.

Guaranteeing right of savings by the laws

The basic reason for including the right to housing in international documents and the contracts is that; housing was seen as a fundamental human right; and to be in a position not meeting the needs was a violation of the fundamental human rights.152 In this context Bulgaria Constitution does not have regulations for the right to housing. The inviolability of housing (A. 33) and freedom of residency location (A. 35) are secured by the Constitution, in spite of this the homeownership, suitable housing or housing rights did not take place as the elements of the right to housing in the Constitution. However as per the Article 5/4 provision; “International treaties which have been ratified in accordance with the constitutional procedure, promulgated and having come into force with respect to the Republic of Bulgaria shall be part of the legislation of the State. They shall have primacy over any conflicting provision of the domestic legislation.”As per the assurance given by this provision it is noted that; when the right to housing in Bulgaria was not organized in an appropriate context to international conventions; directly specific Collectıve Complaints Procedure Summaries Of Decisions On The Merits 1998 – 2012, European Committee of Social Rights 30 Mai 2013, pp. 61-62. 152 Z. Gönül Balkır, “Konut Hakkı ve Ġhlalleri: Kentli Haklarının DoğuĢu”, Sosyal Haklar Ulusal Sempozyumu, http://www.sosyalhaklar.net/2010/bildiri/balkir.pdf (e.t. 17.9.2015), s.241-243; For the precautions that will be taken by the European Council and the EU about the housing rights of the Romans and on which context the housing right was accepted, please refer to Housing conditions of Roma and Travellers in the European Union Comparative report, European Union Agency For Fundamental Rights (FRA), October 2009. 151

62


application of the relevant provisions of the contract would be in effect. Therefore it‟s possible to say that Bulgaria has obligations to fulfill in accordance with the international conventions for the part of the right to adequate housing of individuals living in the territory of Bulgaria. Housing in Bulgaria was included in the Law on Property, the Law on State Property and the Law on Municipal Property within the context of property rights and expropriation conditions in general. But the Municipalities have been assigned with the Municipal Property Law to meet the housing needs and housing units of all Bulgarian citizens who depend on them by the establishment and management of the units such as the municipal lodgings. Territorial and urban planning is regulated by the Law on the Organization of Territory. The law governs the designation of different types of territories and lands, the planning and construction requirements, urban infrastructure development sewerage, water supply and energy supply infrastructure, procedures and measures to prevent or remove illegal construction. The basic problems posed by the strict construction requirements as regards Roma neighborhoods are related to ascertaining the ownership by the respective official body and issuing the deed to the property, as well as building up and maintaining the community infrastructure.153 Therefore, there are benefits in establishing special provisions aimed at solving the housing problems of the Roma in the relevant legislation. According to information obtained from the 2011 census framework, 29% of households in Bulgaria have energy saving and 15.5% of households have the heat insulation facilities. Also 97.9% of households have television, 93.2% have oven, 93.3% have fridge.54.1% of households residing in urban areas and 18.1% of households residing in rural areas have computers in their homes and 82.1% have bathroom which5.9% of installations were outside of the building, 3.2% were inside the building, but outside the housing. In 8.8% of the housings there were no bathroom, in 74.1% of the housings there were restrooms available and 1% does not have the opportunity to have a toilet. The rate of toilet availability outside the housing but inside the building was 4.4%, and rate of toilet availability completely outside the building was 20.5%.The wood and coal were mainly used for heating of households (57.9%), 26.2% of households were using electricity for heating, 13.7% were using central heating, and 1.2% were provided with natural gas central heating. Almost all households have electricity, only a small part of the households in mountainous and inaccessible region (at 0.02%) have no electricity. There were water and sewer systems in 92.4% of households in urban areas, 0.3% of water are being supplied, but there was no sewage system. There was neither water nor sewage in 1.7% of households in urban areas. This rate is 6.8% of households in rural areas.154 Within this context it can be stated that; a certain people living in Bulgaria were deprived of the most basic right as to live in suitable and adequate housing, which were in

153

Bulgaria RAXEN National Focal Point Thematic Study Housing Conditions of Roma and Travellers, March 2009, p. 4; daha tasnifli bilgi için bkz. pp. 40-45. 154 http://www.nsi.bg/census2011/PDOCS2/Census2011final_en.pdf, p.6 (e.t. 22.9.2015).

63


place the domestic law of developed countries as well as in international law. 155 The most important social group deprived of this right are of Roma within the framework of universally accepted elements of housing rights. Within the context of the European Roma Rights Center‟s complaint in 2015 to the Bulgarian state; the ECSR Committee has stated that; “The houses inhabited by Roma in Bulgaria were found as not appropriate to meet the basic needs of families on the grounds according to Article 16 of Charter regulating right to housing.” Therefore; the Committee has decided that; “the evacuation of Roma that have illegally occupied space and housing in a manner was contrary to the principles of respect for human rights; and in the absence of any legal guarantees in this regard it was the violation of the E provisions prohibiting discrimination. “provision of alternative shelter space and payment of compensation to the Roma family of impugned individual event considering the Bulgarian government has not taken any legal or practical adequate measures to the previously addressed problems, and the lack of implemented effective strategic plans and programs and the Law to protect other Roma.156 Following this decision issued on 18.10.2006, Bulgaria has taken action together with the protection from discrimination of Roma and other rights and has taken political measures to provide shelter and housing rights. The Council of Ministers in March 2006 has put into effect the “National Program for Improving Housing Conditions of Roma (2005-2015) and the Action Plan”. This program, improving the existing public technical and social infrastructure in Roma neighborhoods to support the construction of new housing, thus aiming to improve the living conditions of the Roma. The program was directly aimed at local communities, the private sector and the business community and local and national governments, communities and civil society and was based on partnership and cooperation between organizations. In the program, 2009 - 2012 period, city development and land use plans under the National Program on the basis of the compilation of cadastral maps and records were studied. Where local government officials authorized in the creation of new residential areas predominantly Roma people living and the construction of urban redevelopment areas and have focused on the legalization of illegal housing as possible instead of demolition, it has been decided to provide financing from the state budget.157 Within the “2007-2013 Regional Development Operational Program” under the heading of supporting modern social housing for socially disadvantaged groups, minorities and vulnerable people; “Prioritized Sustainable and Integrated Urban Development” (Housing Policy) Project was adopted. The Project was planned to be carried out with the financial support of the European Union through the European Regional Development Fund, and the municipalities benefiting from the Project were defined with their total budget and resources.158

COLLECTIVE COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE SUMMARIES OF DECISIONS ON THE MERITS 1998 – 2012, European Committee of Social Rights 30 Mai 2013, pp.61-62. 156 ibid. pp.61-63. 157 Third Report Submitted by Bulgaria Pursuantto Article 25, Paragraph 2 of the Framework Convention ForThe Protection of National Minorities, ACFC/SR/III(2012)004, 23 November 2012, pp.10-11. 158 Ġbid.10-11 155

64


After adopting of Bulgaria the “2020 National Roma Integration Strategies EU Framework” of the European Commission in 2011; which were focusing on four key areas, education, employment, health and housing like other member states, “The Republic of Bulgaria National Roma Integration Strategy” was adopted and put into effect.159 In 13. Periodical report given to the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR) by Bulgaria “building and providing social housing” and “housing conditions” headings placed in “The Republic of Bulgaria National Roma Integration Strategy”, it was stated that the following measures and actions were put in place160: 1. Within the frame work of “Regional Development” Operation Plan 20142020 “Support of modern social housing for vulnerable, minority and socially disadvantaged groups as well as other disadvantaged population groups” improving their standard of living were aimed. As the Specific targets of this task;  To provide modern social housing for vulnerable, minority and socially disadvantaged groups as well as other disadvantaged population groups;  To ensure social inclusion, spatial integration and equal access to adequate housing conditions of disadvantaged and vulnerable population groups; were planned. 2. As a model for the implementation of the scheme based on determination of pilot projects an interdepartmental working group was selected to the Council of Ministers for preparation of the concept for an integrated project under Operational Program “Human Resources Development” 2007-2013 and Operational Program “Regional Development” 2007-2013 for building housing for disadvantaged population groups and for preparation of a mechanism for coordination with other horizontal policies financed with EU funds. 3. The selected pilot municipalities have been authorized for the implementation of sustainable integrated projects for sustainable social housing, or repairing/reconstructing existing social housing, energy efficiency measures, and financed under the above mentioned projects. New housing intended for social housing on plots, and repairing, reconstructing and renovating existing housing, that were completely located on municipal property have been started. Appropriate equipment and furniture for the above stated buildings/rooms, related to the provision of basic living conditions have been delivered. The above stated buildings/rooms have been designed for the access of persons with disabilities also the adjoining surroundings of these housing under this scheme. In recent years, to ensure the Roma in Bulgaria and disadvantaged social groups and minorities participation in all aspects of social life a number of strategies, programs and action plans have been put into effect and different plans and strategies have been developed for solving local problems in municipalities by the “2012-2020 National Roma Integration Strategy” within the Country in all regions. However, according to the Advisory 159

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/roma/eu-framework/index_en.htm (e.t. 22.9.2015). European Social Charter 13th National Report on the implementation of the European Social Charter submitted by The Government of BulgariaFollow up to Collective Complaints No. 31/2005, 41/2007, 46/2007, 48/2008Complementary in formation on Articles 11§3 and 14§1, 4 December 2014 CYCLE 2015, pp. 7-8. 160

65


Committee stating their views on the final report of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities of Bulgaria, these strategies and plans have not yet been funded. Advisory Committee in connection with this attachment, although providing good progress in areas as education, occupational health, where the exclusion of the Roma community has expressed most of the Roma were living in regions with poor infrastructure and also expressed their concern of them being at risk to continue to live in poor housing conditions and forced evictions. Strategies, plans and programs in the budget were allocated on paper and in reality were not given to municipalities, and municipalities have not implemented the actions intended by taking share from their budget. The Advisory Committee, for the elimination of this case proposed the authorities to be in close consultation with the representatives of the Roma community, and suggested having regular coordination with them to review and identify and to remove the deficiencies through revised action plans and at the same time; for the integration of Roma to perform current national, regional and local strategies and a specific action plan for the implementation of the budget preparation to make a call to the authorities at all levels.161 In the report the Advisory Committee, indicated the protective and supervisory institutions as the Ombudsman established by the Bulgaria government, as the “Committee to Protect Against Discrimination”; Discrimination of Roma in access to social rights in which they were facing and the demolition of the housing they build illegally and forcibly in cases such as personal evacuation, were functioning well. But also reminded that; instead of such type of individual solutions to the problems, more inclusive and radical measures to be implemented for this kind of common problems. Accordingly; Recommendation No.13 on Combating Anti-Gypsyism and Discrimination Against Roma adopted On 24 June 2011 Published by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) in combat anti-Gypsyism as regards housing and the right to respect for the home, the followings were recommended; accordingly162: a.

To afford Roma access to decent housing;

b.

To combat de facto or forced segregation in respect of housing;

c. To ensure that the provision of new social housing for Roma aids their integration and does not keep them segregated; d. To ensure that Roma are not evicted without notice and without opportunity for refocusing in decent accommodation; e. To take steps to legalize the occupation of Roma sites or dwellings built in breach of town planning regulations once the situation has been tolerated for a long period of time by the public authorities; Advisory Committee on The Framework Convention For The Protection of National Minorıties Third Opinion on Bulgaria adopted on 11 February 2014, ACFC/OP/III(2014)001, Strasbourg, 30 July 2014, pp. 15-39. 162 Çingene KarĢıtlığı ve Romanlara KarĢı Ayrımcılıkla Mücadelede 13 Sayılı Genel Politika Tavsiye Kararı, CRI - Irkçılığa ve HoĢgörüsüzlüğe KarĢı Avrupa Komisyonu, CRI(2011)37, Strasbourg, Eylül 2011, s. 7-8. 161

66


f. To promote coexistence and mutual understanding between persons from different cultures in neighborhoods in which Roma and non-Roma live; g. To combat prejudice and stereotypes concerning Roma and Travelers in respect of access to housing; h. To combat any act of discrimination against Roma in respect of housing, particularly by ensuring that the legislation, including anti-discrimination legislation, is duly applied; i. take effective measures against refusal to enter Roma in the register of inhabitants when they wish to settle permanently or temporarily; j. To ensure that spatial planning regulations do not systematically impede the traditional life of Travelers; k. To ensure that appropriate encampment areas, whether for permanent occupation or transit, are available to Travelers in sufficient numbers on suitable and duly serviced sites; l. To encourage consultation between all local players and Travelers about the positioning of encampment areas destined for them; m. To ensure that acts of discrimination against Roma in respect of housing are prosecuted and punished; Also the European Parliament has made similar suggestions in 2013 accompanied with the EU Framework Strategy aimed at the ensuring of implementation of the national strategy of member states.163 The European Roma Information Office “EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies for 2020 Period” that determine the main challenges in the member states for the implementation and suggesting solutions Report and was stated in the “Implementing National Roma Integration Strategies Challenges and Solutions for Local Authorities - 2014”Report, Member States usually fail due to the following reasons for implementing their national strategies164:  Local authorities due to the lack of their administrative and technical capacities could not be able to manage the opportunities coming from the European Social Investment Funds (ESI). It was identified that another reason for using of the (ESI) funds ineffectively was not being aware of local authorities of these funds.  An additional challenge faced by local authorities when it comes to the use of ESI funds; Local authorities have to ensure to provide the necessary co-funding for accessing ESI funds as it was required for accessing ESI funds; 50% to 70% of the total 163

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-20130594+0+ DOC +XML+V0//EN (e.t. 22.9.2015). 164 Implementing National Roma Integration Strategies Challenges and Solution for Local Authorities, European Roma Information Office, 2014, pp.4-16, http://www.erionet.eu/doc-paper-las_2014 (e.t. 22.9.2015).

67


budget of the National strategy would be provided from the funds; and the remaining part to be covered from the local administration budget as co-funding. Failure to use of the ESF effectively due to the lack of co-financing amount given by the local management. Cofunding can be ensured through national budget. However most of the member states were not willing to invest part of their budget in Roma inclusion.  A further challenge often faced by local authorities relates to a feeling of isolation and a lack of support from national governments and sometimes from the National Roma Contact Points.  The lack of Roma participation was pointed out as a major challenge in particular in Bulgaria, when developing the national strategies and measures targeting Roma communities. This is also stated in the EU Framework as a prerequisite for success: the National Roma Integration Strategies must “be designed, implemented and monitored in close cooperation and continuous dialogue with Roma civil society”.  Local management in general was not being able identifying the needs of the Roma community and did not know how they would be involved in the process.  The avoidance of political parties which were fearing from the social reaction and fear of losing votes to take an active stance regarding Roma integration, and to remain indifferent.  The economic crisis also had a role in Bulgaria, which was deeply affected compared with other EU member states, for the implementation of the national strategy for Roma integration and in the fulfillment of commitments. This report is not only about the right of the Roma issue underlying housing problem, but for the general challenges and solutions placed in the EU Framework covering also the housing problem. As a result; it is necessary for Bulgaria to implement and manage the measures adopted from the Roma Integration Strategies more satisfactorily to be implemented in different fields of the national system such as education, health, housing and employment.

68


3. ORGANIZATION RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS Right to freedom of association, is coming together in a unit to achieve a goal to meet political, religious, ideological, economic, labor, social, sporting, cultural or professional qualifications as a basic human demand. This freedom is among the freedoms which embody the political democracy which is one of the fundamental values of the Council of Europe. European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) has organized this freedom, under Article 11 Freedom of Assembly and Association, including the right to form and to join trade unions. Accordingly; “Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.” (A. 11/1). This right may be subjected to restrictions in cases stipulated by the national law, the restrictions (intervention) with the legitimate aim necessary in a democratic society. Also in exceptional cases the use of this right can be stopped (derogation) against the dangers threatening the nation's life which were declared. In ECHR Convention the restrictions on freedom and the use of these rights were subjected to strict conditions and for certain reasons, therefore States Parties were prevented to put arbitrary limits on the freedom of these basic values of democracy. As per Article 11/2 of ECHR, “No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”In the continuation of this Article it was stated that; the Article should not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State. Similar provisions were placed in “Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) Article 8” and “UN - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 22/2 provisions. Article 5 of the European Social Charter stated that; applying the guarantees provided by this article to the security forces and armed forces within the context of promoting the freedom of workers and employers to form organizations to be determined by national laws or regulations. It is a matter of fact that all articles of this association should be understood within the limits and criteria set by the Convention framework to all the States parties rather than the authority's discretion, within a “margin of appreciation”.165 As can be seen from the text of international conventions; the protected freedom of forming organizations right of members of the community is the freedom to establish or participate in it to achieve their common goal (collective entity) or association. In other words, the freedom of individuals to come together to form a collective organization which represent them to protect their interests. In this sense, freedom of association are protected providing many forms of organization such as; political parties, trade unions and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR); have 165

For a detailed assessment of this judgment of the European Convention for Human Rights, please refer to Osman Doğru (2006), "Ġnsan Hakları Avrupa SözleĢmesi Uygulamasında Toplanma ve Örgütlenme Özgürlüğü", TBB Dergisi, Sayı.64, s. 39-69.

69


stated the interventions preventing forming trade unions, political parties and associations/organizations, as well foundations within the scope of Article 11 of the Convention. Thus, both civil and political aspects of this right and also its economic aspect are concerned. While the Civil aspect was providing protection of the people from unlawful interventions from the State; the Economic aspect particularly was aiming to improve individuals‟ economic interests in the labor market through the unions. Political aspect of the right; were protecting the interests of individuals against other individuals and State by coming together and organizing.166 The right to Freedom is organized in the Constitution and Laws in Bulgaria which was a party of all referenced Conventions within the context of political parties, trade unions and civil organizations (associations / foundations, etc.). We will conduct our assessment through the description of three organization types in this regard. a. Right and Freedom to Found/Be a Member of a Political Party As stated before in the section dealing with political rights and freedoms; 11. Article of Bulgarian Constitution; “Political activity in the Republic of Bulgaria shall be founded on the principle of political pluralism.” (A. 11/1) But “No political party or ideology shall be proclaimed or affirmed as a party or ideology of the State.” (A 11/2), “There shall be no political parties on ethnic, racial or religious lines, nor parties which seek the violent seizure of state power.” (A. 11/4); determined the boundaries of political freedom. While the Article 11/1 and 2 of the Constitution were found to comply with the fundamental values of democracy, 4th paragraph first sentence were being interpreted as a provision preventing ethnic, or religious groups from making political activity and in every platform on the European institutions and bodies stretching or removal of the provision were requested. Because Bulgaria is the only country in the EU Constitution in countries holding such a ban.167 This prohibition is applicable in 2005 Political Parties Act (PPA).Article 4 of the Act “Political parties shall be organized and shall function on the basis of the Constitution, the laws, and in accordance with the statutes of the said parties.” expression shows that political parties have to comply with the prohibitions and limitations imposed by the Constitution. As per the interpretation of the Bulgarian Constitutional Court; the subject prohibited by this provision of the Constitution, was the delimination by the provision in the statutes of the party membership of a particular political party, race, ethnicity or religious affiliation. Therefore, this provision did not creating a result that prevented the organization of religious or ethnic minorities or religious groups. Conversely, there are political parties and also associations having their vast majority of the members of a

"Sivil Topluma Aktif Katılım: Uluslararası Standartlar, Ulusal Mevzuattaki Engeller, Öneriler", Türkiye‟de Sivil Toplumun GeliĢimi ve Sivil Toplum-Kamu ĠĢbirliğinin Güçlendirilmesi Projesi, Hazırlayanlar: Gökçiçek Ayata/ UlaĢ Karan, Türkiye Üçüncü Sektör Vakfı (TÜSEV), ġubat 2014, s. 9. 167 Fernando Casal-Bértoa, Daniela Romée Piccio&Ekaterina R. Rashkova (2012), Party Law in Comparative Perspective, Working Paper Series on the Legal Regulation of Political Parties, No.16, p.8, http://www.partylaw.leidenuniv.nl/uploads/wp1612.pdf (e.t. 25.9.2015). 166

70


particular ethnic group in Bulgaria.168There were some cases in the past which were indicating invalidity of this interpretation by Bulgaria which has been taken in place in the 3. Periodic Report to the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - Human Rights Committee in 2009.In 1999 the Constitutional Court declared United Macedonian Organization (UMO Ilinden – PIRIN People's Integration and Economic Development Party) unconstitutional on the grounds that party leadership and members were having activities against the territorial integrity and threating national unity and annulled the Party in 2000.169 Following this decision, the United Macedonian Organization Ilinden has applied to the European Court of Human Rights - ECHR on the grounds of violation of Article 11 regulating the right of association and freedom by Bulgaria. ECHR in 20 October 2005 (Final 20.1.2006) dated decision has ruled against Bulgaria and made the following assessments170:  Political parties are one of the main forms of organizations for fully processing of the democracy. .. An organization like a political party could not be considered to be excluded from the protection afforded by the Convention just as undermining the constitutional structures of the state's activities by national bodies which were considered exceeding the set limits...  “..., the exceptions set forth in Article 11 should be interpreted in very narrow when parties are concerned. The restriction of the freedom of political parties can be justified only with fully convincing and compelling reasons. Dissolution of political parties is very serious and radical decisions. This type of compelling could only be under the existence of credible and forcing reasons, establishment of clear and concrete relationship between attitudes and behaviors threatening democracy and the political party and the this case should be referred only if the damage to democracy to be revealed.  Contracting States have a limited area while deciding whether or not there was a requirement under the second paragraph of Article 11. The Rules inserted by the 168

Human Rights Committee, Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 40 of the Covenant Third periodic report of States parties Bulgaria, CCPR/C/BGR/3, 4 December 2009, p. 69. 169 Ġbid. p.71; This decision was made as based on the former Political Parties Law dated 1990. The reasons for the rejection of establishing a political party in the law, which brought too many restrictions in terms of the establishment and activities (m.3/2):  If its activities have the purpose of being against the territorian integrity or sovereignty of the country, the unity of the nation, and the rights and freedoms of the citizens;  If its purposes are against the Constitution and laws of the country;  If it is depending on religious or etnical principles or if it is encouraging racist, national, etnical or religious hatred;  If it tries to use violence or illegal methods to reach its goals or if it defends fascist ideology. For the former Political Parties Law dated 1990, please refer to Political Parties Act Promulgated State Gazette No. 29/10.04.1990, Amended SG No. 87/1990 & 59/1996 170 Case of The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden – Pirin and Others v. Bulgaria(Application no.59489/00) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 20 October 2005, FINAL20/01/2006.

71


National bodies and the decisions given by the courts for the implementation of these rules, to be carried out together with the European attentive supervision hand in hand...”  If Article 11 of the Convention will be maintained to be limited only to the establishment of an organization, the rights guaranteed by this article, will remain largely theoretical and illusory. Because this organization may be banned immediately by the National authorities, without acting in accordance with the Convention. Accordingly; the protection provided by Article 11, continues throughout the entire life of the organization. The closure of an organization by competent National bodies must comply with the conditions in the second paragraph of Article 11.  The Closure and banning of political parties, could only be justified in case of the party to defend the use of violence or using violence as a political tool to subvert the democratic constitutional order to eliminate the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the constitution. In democratic regimes to demand changes of the constitutional system in a peaceful way by a Political party, without resorting to violence, is not enough of for its closure. In this regard, the parties even if they propose projects leading to the violation of democracy which do not contain acts of violence and do not call for violence, should not be banned. In the light of this determination and evaluating the status of the case the ECHR, decided in the scope of Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights that the applicant party‟s dissolution was not either an emergency as being a social need of emergency or believed to be in need of a democratic Society and decided that Bulgaria has violated Article 11 of the Convention. But the ECHR‟s decision unfulfilled by Bulgaria, and the registration request of United Macedonian Organization UMO Ilinden – PIRIN People's Integration and Economic Development Party as a political party was rejected permanently (3 times) by the related courts and generally the lack of procedural application documents were shown for reasons relating to the refusal. After the following type of reasoning for the rejection as; the organization purpose, clear goals and tasks were not explained in party statute, expressing of some provisions of an non-profit organization rather than a political party, did not contain the minimum number of signatures of the founders, delivered signatures were only meeting former political Parties Act but not the new Act, etc.,171 United Macedonian Organization UMO Ilinden were applied to the ECHR in 2007 and again in 2008 based on the same cause. However, following the application before the ECHR in 2007 to monitor the fulfillment of the decisions of the ECHR, the Council of European Committee of Ministers having the authority to audit the States in this regard, decided to come together with the Bulgarian authorities and the applicant. Because the Council of European Committee of Ministers has thought that after Bulgaria was adopted the new Political Parties Act of 2005, Therefore the new applications of United Macedonian Organization UMO Ilinden for its party registration should be subjected to the new procedures of the Political Parties Act of 2005 and has thought that the Bulgaria 171

For the decisions of the Bulgarian Courts and events about this, please refer to Case of The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden – Pirin and Others v. Bulgaria (No.2) (Application no.41561/07and20972/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 18 October 2011, FINAL 8/3/2012, para.7-36.

72


Government information provided would relocate the process and has decided leading to the solution of this problem in 2009. Accordingly, If United Macedonian Organization UMO Ilinden to fulfill the requirements of the Political Parties Act of 2005 procedures, to organize the party statute according to the Constitution and the Act, will remain no obstacle to its registration as a political party. The Bulgarian government and the authorities have also assured this matter to the European Committee of Ministers and adopted this solution. In addition, the Political Parties Act was amended in 2009 and 5000 signatures requirement necessary to establish a Party was reduced to 2500 signatures. This was a positive development that makes easier establishment of a Party. The European Committee of Ministers has decided separately for each application (3 times) for registration of United Macedonian Organization UMO Ilinden and has decided compensation payment for some portion of taking measures for the non-pecuniary damage and personal application costs, taking general precautions creating awareness on freedom of assembly and association in the form of training by the State of Bulgaria. Thus assuming fulfillment of the requirements of the decisions of the ECHR in 2005, the European Committee of Ministers has ended the responsibility of Bulgaria for the decision in 2009.172 The 2009 decision of the European Committee of Ministers for the solution had affected the outcome of the application to the ECHR done in 2007 and in 2008 by United Macedonian Organization UMO Ilinden. In the combined case due to the application on the same subject; the ECHR has decided Bulgaria did not violate Article 11of the Convention based on 2009 decision of the European Committee of Ministers underlying the decision taken in 2009.173 Another example of the negative effects of the ban on political organizations of minorities in the Constitution was especially the Pomaks‟ experiences. Pomaks living in Bulgaria despite their struggle since the 1990s have not united under one political roof. The first initiative in this regard was done by JiltuĢa village headman Kamen Burov and a Pomak party was founded under the name of “Democratic Labour” in 90s.However, the Democratic Labor Party, allegedly due to “pressure on the founders” could not be organized, and dissolved after a short period. In 2009, Prof. Adrian Palov, declared that Development and Welfare Pomak Party was established, but also this Party did not realized. Later on a few times more attempts for the establishment of a Pomak Party have been observed but all were failed. Finally, the President of the European Polar Institute Efrem Mollova, has taken a step last year for political representation the Pomak citizens living in Bulgaria, the founding meeting of Patriotic Union for the Culture, Originality, and Diversity Party has taken place in Plovdiv (Filibe)in November 2013. In a press release in April 2014, pointing to the oppression to the party Mollova has mentioned that; the Party would not be aiming at ethnicity but aiming to integrate all minorities, but the authorities was afraid of „Pomak ethnicity‟ becoming wide-spreading; therefore State‟s official view

172

Council of Europe Committee of Ministers Resolution CM/ResDH (2009) 120, https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1554569&Site=#P589_31925 (e.t. 25.9.2015). 173 Case of The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden – Pirin and Others v. Bulgaria (No.2) (Application no.41561/07and20972/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 18 October 2011, FINAL 8/3/2012.

73


were trying to prevent the formation of a Pomak minority; Despite considering days for official registration the party no action took place.174 b. Right and Freedom to Establish/Be a member of Trade unions Right and Freedom to Establish/Be a member of Trade unions both for employees and employers is guaranteed by the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No. 87) adopted by the ILO in 1948 even before the EHRC. Yet another aspect of this right was regulated by the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).Convention No. 87 was a convention for the right to form the unions which may come from the state and public authority to prevent, to ban, to intervene. In Article 2 of the Convention explained the scope of the right of a person to establish the unions and the principles were identified: “Workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and, subject only to the rules of the organization concerned, to join organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization.”The supervisory bodies of the Convention, were interpreting “employers” broadly including the unemployed and self-employed workers and as required by the policy “without distinction whatsoever”, were adopted in the opinion no limitations could be done for the nature of the work or services, form of employment, officer, employee or contracted staff, migrant workers, hierarchical position and so on. However, Article 9 of the Convention allows limiting in terms of the armed forces and law enforcement agencies. However, these limits are in narrow sense, and did not cover civilian employees of the armed forces and the law enforcement agencies. In addition, contracted workers were ensured to be able to establish organizations without prior permission and without interference.175 As previously mentioned, this right was regulated similar elements in United Nations - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, European Convention on Human Rights, European Social Charter (revised) and EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Bulgaria is party to all of the aforementioned conventions and therefore is obliged to fulfill the order and set up the application of domestic law in accordance with them. In Bulgarian Constitution, the trade unions were expressed as one of the organizations in the association status. First paragraph of Article 12 of the Constitution stated that; Associations of citizens should serve to meet and safeguard their interests. Second paragraph underlined that; Associations, including trade unions, should not pursue any political objectives, nor should they engage in any political activity which was in the domain of the political parties. Article 44 of the Constitution has bordered the lines of association freedom. Accordingly; the organization/s activity should not be contrary to the country's sovereignty and national integrity, or the unity of the nation, nor should it incite racial, national, ethnic or religious enmity or an encroachment on the rights and freedoms 174

http://www.aljazeera.com.tr/al-jazeera-ozel/bulgaristanda-pomaklar-parti-kuruyor (e.t. 2.10.2015). Aziz Çelik (2010), “Sendikal Haklar: Uluslararası ÇalıĢma Hukuku ve Türkiye‟nin Uyumsuzluğu”, Disiplinler Arası Yaklaşımla İnsan Hakları içinde, Editör: Selda Çağlar, Beta, Ġstanbul, s. 269-271. 175

74


of citizens; no organization should establish clandestine or paramilitary structures or shall seek to attain its aims through violence. (A. 44/2) the law shall establish which organizations shall be subject to registration, the procedure for their termination, and their relationships with the State. Due to the absence of specific provisions in the Constitution and specific trade union organizations being adopted in the association status there was no specific law on trade unions and trade union activities in Bulgaria. The establishment of the unions was regulated by No. 81 Law on Non-profit Legal Entities adopted in 2000. Whereas, the factory and office workers and employers‟ organization rights were subjected to the Labour Code (respectively A. 4 and A. 5).According to these provisions employees and employers may form unions without prior permission, may freely join and separated to/from trade unions of their choice. Unions by representing the interests of employees in regulating the relationship between tripartite partnerships (state-employee associations-employer associations) and in participating in other activities in the legal framework against government agencies and employers with strikes and collective agreements in legal framework, to increase their standard of living, protects their social security and interests. Employers also have the same rights and freedoms. The Labour Code also stated that the trade unions and employers‟ organizations can freely choose their own bodies and their representatives and activities (A. 33-34), to form superior associations confederations (A. 35-37) provided that to follow the related laws and regulations. Employees are protected against discrimination in all stages of their personal business dealings by the Protection against Discrimination Act, employers in all types of anti-discrimination in the workplace, in cooperation with the trade unions were subjected to take effective measures obligation. Protection against Discrimination Commission established under this law, was getting applications from employers on the discriminatory treatment exposed from their employees because they were members of the unions every year since its establishment and resolving them. European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR) has criticized the lack of law on union rights and freedoms in Bulgaria but found appropriate the legislation in general the relevant provision (A. 5) European Social Charter. But the Committee, in the Final report of 2014, has stated that; unfairly dismissed employees were not adequately protected by the Labour Law; especially the amount of compensation paid to employees which were suffered due to the discrimination by their employers due to they were members of the union, should be proportional to the damage incurred as the response to the delivered report by Bulgaria. According to the Committee, maximum of 6 months of wages paid to workers in such cases were not enough. As indicated in the previous report (2010); the proposed changes by Bulgarian Ministry of Labour on this issue, has not been amended to the Law because of opposition from other Ministers. But the long period of inactivity forced Committee to remind the Government on taking emergency measures in this regard for

75


determining the amount of the compensation in this regard compatible with the Convention.176 The Committee's Final Report has indicated other problematic areas also by referring to the Audit decision on Bulgaria in 2011, being the supervisory body of No. 98 Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention. One of them was not taken of necessary precautions including the way dissuasive sanctions to ensure the adequate protection against interference by employers‟ organizations. Therefore the Committee has emphasized the need to adopt regulations expressly prohibiting such interventions and actions and protecting by dissuasive sanctions and appealing procedures. The Committee has assessed the circular of the government of Bulgaria adopted in 2002, subjecting conditions of the membership of a union by foreign workers to form unions as discrimination and therefore a violation of the Convention. c. Right and Freedom to Establish/Be a member of a Non-governmental organization (Society-Foundation) As the formation of the civil society, the organization also depends on democratization ground the history of organization of civil society in Bulgaria is relatively short. Bulgaria has experienced a revival of civil society in the political system with the changes made in 1989 and almost 96% of the current registered associations and foundations were established after 1990.The vast majority of non-governmental organizations, associations and foundations consisting “nonprofit legal entities” of the Bulgarian legislation were met by the formation shaped under the association statement. According to the data of 2005 the numbers of registered associations were 4.5 times as much as the number of registered foundations. Three-quarters of non-profit legal entities were established for the public interest (74%) and the rest were established to serve specific purposes. About 2/3 of these formations were active mainly in five areas: According to the order of magnitude the fields were; “social services - 20%”, “education and research 13%”, “social developments – 12%”, “commercial-business-professional - 11%”, “environmental - 9%”. And was followed by the others as; “human rights - 5%”, “public policy - 5%” “culture - 4%”, “philanthropy/volunteerism 3%”, “interest-hobby clubs 3%”, “health 3%”, “ethnic issues - 3%”, “legal and defense – 2%”, “international affairs - 1%” and “religion – 1%”.177 According to Bulgarian law the “non-profit legal entities” status was only for the associations and foundations (A. 2), in terms of establishment, registration, organization system, activities and dissolution were subjected to the Law on Non-Profit Legal Entities 178 (A. 1).As per this Law; The non-profit legal entities shall freely determine their objectives and may determine their status as organizations pursuing activities for public or private benefit (A. 2/1). The legal entities, which will operate for the public interest, after 176

European Committee of Social Rights Conclusions 2014 (BULGARIA), EuropeanSocial Charter (revised), January 2015, pp. 18-19. 177 Survey of Non-Profit Governance Practices in Bulgaria, pp. 5-10, http://www.bcnl.org /uploadfiles /documents/analyses/ngo_governance_survey_report_final_eng_417.pdf (e.t. 28.9.2015). 178 NON-PROFIT LEGAL ENTITIES ACT Promulgated SG No. 81/06. 10. 2000.

76


signing of the court in the place where their residence were obliged to enroll in a special registry at the Ministry of Justice also.37-50 Articles of the Law on Non-Profit Legal Entities only contain regulations specific to the legal entities for this purpose.1-36 Articles of the Law are for the common provisions shall apply also to legal entities established to serve for the public interest as well as for special benefits. In the previous text of the law before the amendments in 2005; were mentioning that the foreign legal entities were would be subjected to the laws of their Countries. This provision has been annulled in 2005.With the removal of the privilege for foreign legal entities began to be subjected to the same legal provisions with the other non-profit organizations. Moreover, such institutions could open branches in Bulgaria provided that not being contrary to Law and public order (A.52). Other organizations remaining outside of these institutions formed on the basis of membership such as unions and the union associations are subjected to the Business Law; the other organizations based on the contractual relationship between two or more people, are subject to the Obligations and Contracts Act provisions. But in the registration regime are subjected to the Law on Non-Profit Legal Entities. As previously mentioned, first paragraph of Article 12 of the Constitution in general where the Associations should serve were explained and in the second paragraph of the Article, including trade unions, should not pursue any political objectives, nor should engage in any political activity which was in the domain of the political parties. The “political activity ban” located in this provision of the Constitution have been criticized by the practitioners because of the possibility of recognition rather broad interpretation by the state authorities. The broad interpretation of this provision, many activities of the organizations established for protecting the interests of research institutions and members shall be considered in this context, and to express their opinions about government policy will be strictly limited. However, performance of state and local policy, including the process of taking decisions concerning the society of citizens and their organizations, is one of the basic principles of both the EU and the Council of Europe. This ban should be lifted which was allowing the possibility of preventing the statement of visions on government policies by civil activities necessary parameters of the participation into personal and political decision-making process.179 Also the European Court of Human Rights were in the opinion of qualifying the ban by the “political” concept which was placed in Article 12/2 provision of the Constitution, could prevent the organization of the association when the national authorities, were subjected arbitrarily or disproportionately. The ECHR has made the following assessment on the circumstances of the case of rejection of the application made by an association due to acting contrary to the Article 12/2

179

http://www.bcnl.org/en/news/1365-will-the-constitutional-court-allow-the-limitation-of-the-right-ofassociation.html (e.t. 2.10.2015).

77


provision of the Constitution on the grounds of targeting 1879 Constitution and the monarchy's restoration:180  When evaluating an association‟s registrations, Local court and the Supreme Court of Appeals should interpret 12/2 provision of the Constitution in favor of the rights and freedoms. Any restriction to the freedom of association, should be originated only from the mandatory conditions, must be proportionate to the aim of the law, and must not be contrary to democratic Society. The decisions of national authorities limiting the freedom must be justified by the reasonable and justified reasons.  The request to organize of an organization should not be automatically rejected on the grounds of proposing changes in the legal and constitutional structure of State. An organization, as long as acting within the framework of respect for the law and democracy and compatible with fundamental democratic principles an organization, there should be no obstacle to pursue this objective.  In the present case; rejection of an association‟s registration request, due to foreseeing opening of the border between the former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia with Bulgaria, is not a threat for the territorial integrity and national security of Bulgaria held on 2/2 of the Constitutional provision, besides it is not clear that whether the association wants regional changes or not. In addition, there was no evidence to use violence or anti-democratic ways to achieve the objective of the association as suggested by the domestic courts and the government.  Therefore, there was no sufficient ground to reject the registration of an association based on the association‟s goal of so-called “political” character. State‟s reasons put forward for the rejection of the association's registration request of the chairman of association was not relevant and sufficient. Also this intervention made to the freedom of association of the applicant was not a requirement for a democratic society. 

Bulgarian state has violated Article 11 by this intervention.

While evaluating the periodic reports of Bulgaria; the UN Human Rights Council has called Bulgaria for the fulfillment of ECHR Court's decision on freedom of association in Bulgaria, and registration of minority organizations as an association which their official registration applications were rejected in the past.181

180

Case of Zhechev v. Bulgaria (Application no. 57045/00) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG, 21 June 2007, Final 21.9.2007, Para. 33-59. 181 Human Rights Council Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development Report of the independent expert on minority issues Mission to Bulgaria (4 to 11 July 2011), A/HRC/19/56/Add.2.

78


4-CULTURAL RIGHTS and FREEDOMS a. An overview of Cultural Rights in Bulgaria After the collapse of the communist system the administrative bans on the Turkish language, their traditions and customs are lifted. Constitution for the Republic of Bulgaria has set the following items in Constitution to grant the rights and freedoms of minorities. Article 54 paragraph 1 of the Constitution include the following statement; “Everyone shall have the right to avail himself of the national and universal human cultural values and to develop his own culture in accordance with his ethnic self-identification, which shall be recognized and guaranteed by the law”.182 Even after 25 years of managed democracy, it cannot be said that the necessary conditions for the development of local Turkish culture have been provided. Governmental agencies, Academic and Research Institutes which were the special expertise area of the State; did not pay enough attention to Turkish writers and poets‟ works, to the Turkish music, and to the historical-cultural heritage of Turks and Muslims.183In this context; the research and exhibition policy of Kircaali (Kardzhali) Regional History Museum is an example. The census in 2011was indicating that; 70.1% of the region as Muslims184, while 66.2% were from the same ethnic origin185. Despite this high rate of population, the Museum has been exhibited a reluctant attitude towards the cultural heritage of the Muslim/Turkish society living in Kircaali (Kardzhali) during its; research, collections, monetary funds, exhibitions and promotional activities and has been in efforts to prove its Christian/ Bulgarian character since opening in 1965 until today. Kircaali (Kardzhali) example is not an exception; Turkish society did not take almost in any place within the process of cultural development of the community.186 Even such a dramatic event like “Revival Process” has attracted very little public attention. An open public debate in Bulgaria has not been made since 25 years. The publication showing the violence of Bulgarian authorities during the periods in which assimilation policy has been implemented in 1960-70-80 against Turks and Pomaks were often not belonging to the State, but has been revealed by marginalized groups and civil society organizations. The subject was sometimes used in the rhetoric of politicians as a cyclical political material rather than for the moral and human values.187 The majority culture was presented as the culture of the whole society because of the dominant ethnic concept of “Bulgarian Nation” understanding rather than “the

Official Gazette, 13.07.1991, sayı 56. Ġbrahim Yalımov, Etno-kulturno i religiozna identiçnost na turskata obştnost v Bılgariya, Sofia, Yüksek Ġslam Enstitüsü, 2014, s. 256. 184 2011 yılı nüfus ve konut sayımı. Kircaali bölgesi kayıtları. Sofia, 2012, s. 46. 185 2011 yılı nüfus ve konut sayımı. Kircaali bölgesi kayıtları. Sofia, 2012, s. 37. 186 Yalımov, a.g.e., s. 256. 187 Antonina Jelyazkova, Tryabva da zapılnim razloma s naĢite maltsinstva. http://www.marginalia.bg/ analizi/antonina-zhelyazkova-tryabva-da-zapalnim-razloma-s-nashite-maltsinstva/) (e.t. 4.09.2015). 182 183

79


citizenship”.188 Optimizing of various mechanisms to make effective the relationship between Bulgarians and the other ethnic groups were encouraging the development of minority cultures. 189 Influential academics were negative to publish the books on subjects relating to the identity of the Turks in Bulgaria in public. The negative reaction to the book “Turks in Bulgaria” published in 2012was reflecting this phenomenon. Furthermore this book and similar books have been declared as “a threat to national security”.190The scientific concept was an urgent need for the development of minorities‟ culture and establishment of organizations to support and co-ordinate these cultures would be required. On the other hand during the transition to democracy period, for various reasons such 1989 migration, as a result of the reduction of elite Turkish portion dealing with Turkish Culture, Turkish cultural activities have not been developed sufficiently.191After the Communist regime, 15 newspapers and magazines were available which were published in Turkish in the country. Only two newspapers and 2-3 magazines have continued to be published. One of the newspapers was named as “Filiz” a magazine for the children, and the other one was named as “Muslims” started in 1990 as a newspaper by the Mufti and turned into a monthly Journal later on. In 1992, in Sofia weekly “Zaman” newspaper, in 1995 “Ümit” magazine have begun to be published. In 1990s, the “Kaynak” magazine, “Işık” and its sequel “Güven”, “Hak ve Özgürlükler” named newspapers and “Balon” and “Gönül” named children's magazines have begun to be published. Although there was no explicit prohibition on the publication of Turkish newspapers and magazines, the Turkish press did not take an active role in Turkish culture and life effectively. There was not even a single daily newspaper when it came to 2015.The circulation rate of the printed journal was very low. Many of them could not be printed regularly due to the financial insufficiencies. 192 Closed Turkish theaters in Kircaali (Kardzhali) and Razgrad due to the “Assimilation Policy” has been reopened in 2003.However, they were merged with the Municipality Theaters in 2010 before gaining their identity.193 After 1989, there have been some communities interested in local Turkish culture. In Sofia “Kültürel Etkileşim Derneği”, in Razgrad “Deliorman”, in ġumnu (Shumen) “Kültür Evi”, in Kircaali (Kardzhali) “İstikbal”, in Rusçuk (Rousse)“Güneş” named literary associations and in Kircaali (Kardzhali) “Ömer Lütfü” and in ġumnu (Shumen) “Nazım Hikmet” named have been emerged. They were working quite hard, of course some other communities also have been created in addition to them. In Sofia “21. Yüzyıl Türk Kültür Derneği”, Cultural and Educational Association of Rusçuk (Rousse) Turks, “Tuna”, in Kardzhali in Kircaali (Kardzhali) “Türk Kültür ve Sanat Derneği”, in Mestanlı “Zeybekler” Ġsov Myumyun, Nay razliçniyat sısed. Obrazıt na osmatsite ( Turtsite) i osmanskata imperiya ( Turtsiya) v bılgarskite uçebnitsi po istoriya prez vtorata polovina na XX. vek, Sofia, Uluslararası Azınlık AraĢtırmaları ve Kültürler Arası ĠliĢkiler Merkezi, 2005, s. 25. 189 Yalımov, a.g.e., s. 256. 190 http://news.ibox.bg/news/id_1059017674. (e.t. 4.09.2015). 191 Yalımov, a.g.e.,s. 256. 192 Yalımova.g.e.,s. 256. 193 Yalımov, a.g.e., s. 232-233. 188

80


named Turkish Cultural Society, in Varna “Türk Kültür Derneği”, in ġumnu (Shumen) “Türk Dili ve Kültürü Derneği” and several other associations were following these establishments. We do not have enough information about their activities and their property values; therefore it was difficult to comment on them. According to Assoc. Dr. Ibrahim Yalımov the cultural capacities of these communities were not sufficient to meet the real requirements of the Turkish/Muslim community.194 Is Bulgarian state accomplishing its responsibility for the preservation and development of cultural identity of minority communities in the country? Regarding the Ethnic and Integration Issues the National Cooperation Council (NSSEIV)195 in 2004 has allocated 177956. Leva to the Council of Ministers for this purpose.196 State has allocated 19,824 leva only for the cultural activities of the Turkish community in 2006.197 NSSEIV announced that it has made the following support to the cultural life of minorities in the country: 27,742 Leva: to develop projects and media support for the Roma minority culture and identity 14,883 Leva: to develop projects and media support for the Turkish minority culture and identity 4,720 Leva: to develop projects and media support for the Vlach minority culture and identity 1,350 Leva: to develop projects and media support for the Vlach minority culture and identity 3,770 Leva: to develop projects and media support for the Armenian minority culture and identity 2,500 Leva: to develop projects and media support for the Karakachani minority culture and identity 2,000 Leva: to develop projects and media support for the Jewish minority culture and identity 19,315 Leva: Ethnic cooperation initiatives 34,994 Leva: Support for research on ethnic relations, cultural and religious tolerance. 198

Yalımov, a.g.e., s. 256-257. The institution of the Board of Ministers for ethnical problems and the problems related with integration. http://www.nccedi.government.bg/upload/docs/BUDJET_04.htm (e.t. 4.09.2015). 197 http://www.nccedi.government.bg/page.php?category=101&id=142 (e.t. 4.09.2015). 194 195 196

81


NSSEIV‟s report for the year 2008 was stated that 111,696.74 leva was allocated from the total budget for the cultural development of minorities in general.199 NSSEIV has supported 54 projects listed below for the preservation and development of the cultural identities of the ethnic communities in 2009. 31 Projects: to protect and to improve the cultural identity of the Roma ethnic group a total 34,063 Leva 7 Projects: to protect and to improve the cultural identity of the Turkish ethnic group a total 29,296 Leva 16 Projects: to protect and to improve the cultural identity of the other ethnic groups a total 38,311 Leva200 NSSEIV‟s report of 2010 shows a sequence of general supports for the minorities. It is noteworthy that the priority of supporting the culture of work was given to The Roma community (10 thousand Leva financing). In the same report the information regarding the budget prepared for the projects supporting the Turkish community were not placed.201 NSSEIV‟s 2011 report has continued to focus on the Roma minority. The report was not containing only supporting the preservation of cultural and ethnic groups, but also containing the decision to support improving intercultural cooperation, and supporting the environment against racism and xenophobia. In this report there was no statement on supporting the cultural activities of Turkish community.202 The year 2011 was the last year NSSEIV was written a report on the subject. Considering the middle of 2015 of the electronic data on the website it seems that the institute only was focused on the integration of Roma. On the other hand, there were no places for the clarification about the Turks and other ethnic groups of active policies for the development of their cultural identity.203 b. Public Use of Turkish Use of one or more minority languages in the public sphere indicates the rate of realization of the cultural rights and freedoms in the Country. Bulgarian National Radio broadcasts in Turkish have begun in 1945. Broadcasting was suspended during the assimilation policy of the communist regime in December.204 And has been restarted in 10 October 1993.205 Since 1994 the Bulgarian National Radio 198

http://www.nccedi.government.bg/page.php?category=87&id=783 (e.t. 4.09.2015). http://www.nccedi.government.bg/page.php?category=87&id=1102 (e.t. 4.09.2015). 200 http://www.nccedi.government.bg/page.php?category=87&id=1331 (e.t. 4.09.2015). 201 http://www.nccedi.government.bg/page.php?category=87&id=1582 (e.t. 4.09.2015). 202 http://www.nccedi.government.bg/page.php?category=73&id=1706 (e.t. 4.09.2015). 203 http://www.nccedi.government.bg/page.php?category=73&id=2411 (e.t. 4.09.2015). 204 http://www.predavatel.com/bg/radio/bnr_turski-ezik(e.t. 7.09.2015). 205 Ġbrahim Yalımov, Bulgaristan’da Azınlık Hak ve Özgürlükleri Sorunu, Sofia Müslümanları BaĢmüftülüğü, Sofia, 2015, s. 113. 199

82


was making local broadcasting in Turkish from 8:00 to 08:30 every day (weekends 08:00 to 09:00), from 15:00 to 16:00 hours and 20:30 to 21:30 hours.206 In November 1998, the Radio and Television Act was adopted. According to this law, the Bulgarian National Radio and Bulgarian National Television are obliged to program in their native language of different ethnic groups in the Country.207 Bulgarian National Television management has not considered this national regulation. Therefore, at the beginning of 2000, the Radio and Television Supreme Council were asked Bulgarian National Channel Television management for the fulfillment of this social function and to make programs broadcasting for ethnic groups in their mother tongues. Bulgarian National Television and the Movement for Rights and Freedoms lawmakers had long talks and negotiations on this issue with Bulgarian National Television Channel management. Movement for Rights and Freedoms MP‟s insisted on their views for Turkish broadcasting daily one hour and two hours during the weekends. Bulgarian National Television Channel management was focused on a 10-minute presentation of news in Turkish during the weekdays at 17.00 hours with Bulgarian subtitles option. Turkish News broadcasting has begun in the October 2, 2000 in weekdays from Monday through Friday.208 Bulgarian National Television Channel is planning broadcasting twice a month magazine and current events programs in the languages of different ethnic groups in the future.209 Of course the realization and the acceptance and to get accustomed of this situation by the majority in this Country will not be easy. Only human rights organizations have stand by this situation in the Country and have reflected this as one of the few “positive developments”.210 The place of Bulgarian in Bulgarian society and its role in Turkish-Romanian and between the smaller ethnic groups are causing persistent ethnic tensions in Bulgaria. While the supporters of Turkish news were believing towards the respect point of view for democracy and the rights of minority groups by the government; those having opposing views believed that this was a humiliation and a tool for carrying an attack via the media to the majority of the Bulgarian national unity.211 In this language discussion opponents of Turkish broadcasting were in the majority. A survey conducted in 2009 shows that demanding the removal of Turkish news broadcasting were the majority of people. Again in a survey conducted in 2009 for the question of “Should Turkish news take place in Bulgarian National Television Channel?” question 79% of the population said No and only 12% replied yes. The interesting point was that; the participants were not against only using of the Turkish language in public areas, but also the other minority languages. The proportion of those who want to broadcast news in all minority languages was only 4%.212

206

http://www.predavatel.com/bg/radio/bnr_turski-ezik (e.t. 7.09.2015). http://lex.bg/laws/ldoc/2134447616 (e.t. 7.09.2015). 208 http://www.capital.bg/biznes/media_i_reklama/2009/11/27/822044_da_mluknat_shtoto_me_drazniat/; http://www.segabg.com/article.php?id=229639 (e.t. 7. 09. 2015). 209 http://www.segabg.com/article.php?id=229639(e.t. 7. 09. 2015). 210 http://www.bghelsinki.org/media/uploads/annual_reports/2000.pdf.(e.t. 7.09.2015). 211 http://www.novovreme.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5043&Itemid=66 (e.t. 7. 09. 2015). 212 http://www.legalworld.bg/show_poll.php?pollid=28332&show_mode=1 (e.t. 7.09.2015). 207

83


From the beginning of December to the end of November 2009, there has been renewed debate about the broadcasting of this brief Turkish news on the Bulgarian National Television Channel. By the request of the ruling party Gerb leader Boyko Borisov and the ultra-nationalist Ataka party holding a referendum on the continuation of Turkish broadcasting in the news of the Bulgarian National Channel has been decided.213 As a result of possible responses from the European Union and Turkey the referendum decision was rejected by Prime Minister Borisov in19 December 2009.214 Emotional speeches on this subject, of course, did not end immediately. In 8 January 2010 the voice of the majority of the Bulgarian community and in the popular State Minister Bojidar Dimitrov who were in duty of Boyko Borisov government has called the Bulgarian National Television Channel management for the removal of the Turkish news broadcasts.215 Discussions gradually disappeared till November 2014. Broadcasting Turkish news in National Television Channel subject began to be raised by the Patriotic Front this time. Previous “Ataka” request for stopping the Turkish news was also important for the Borisov government in the second period.216 After gathering of the new National Assembly on November 8, Deputy Prime Minister Rumiana Bıçvarova made the following statement: “There is already an ongoing thought about these broadcasting. This is related transforming these broadcasting to Turkish society through local television stations and into a cultural style”.217 Reformists Bloc coalition partner representative has underlined transferring Turkish news from of the Bulgarian National Television Channel (BNT1) to BNT2 were not violating the rights of Bulgarian citizens.218 Culture Minister Vejdi Rashidov originally from Turkish minority has made the following statement: “Already I am of the opinion that it is unnecessary to provide the same information in Bulgarian and Turkish, instead making cultural program is much more useful, should be an hour cultural program in place of News.”219 National Media Council in 11 November 2014 made a declaration in favor of staying Turkish broadcasting in National Television Channel responding to the attempts made by “Ataka” to amend the law for removing the Turkish broadcasting. 220 President Rosen Plevneliev also reported opposing views on the abolition of the newscast and has 213

http://archive.bnt.bg/bg/news/view/19756/za_i_protiv_novinite_na_turski_ezik_v_efira_na_bnt_i_ provejdaneto_na_referendum; http://dariknews.bg/view_article.php?article_id=451254; http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2009/12/15/830810_gerb_i_ataka_praviat_referendum_za_novinite_na_turski/; http://www.capital.bg/blogove/zornitsa_stoilova/2009/12/15/830984_glupaviiat_tanc_na_populizma/; http://www.capital.bg/politika_i_ikonomika/sedmicata/mediina_sergiia/2009/12/18/832419_dumdum_referendum /http://www.capital.bg/biznes/media_i_reklama/2009/11/27/822044_da_mluknat_shtoto_me_drazniat/(e.t. 7.09.2015). 214 http://www.mediapool.bg/okolo-referenduma-za-turskite-novini-se-zaformi-spor-s-es-i-sas-saseditenews159919.html;http://www.mediapool.bg/premierat-se-otkaza-ot-referenduma-za-novinite-na-turski-eziknews160016.html. (e.t. 7.09.2015). 215 http://www.trud.bg/Article.asp?ArticleId=337349 (e.t. 7.09.2015). 216 http://www.vesti.bg/bulgaria/politika/rumiana-bychvarova-ima-ideia-za-novinite-na-turski-ezik-6026961 (e.t. 7.09.2015). 217 http://dariknews.bg/view_article.php?article_id=1354320; http://www.frognews.bg/news_79800/ Bachvarovaprizna-za-ideia-novinite-na-turski-da-padnat-ot-BNT (e.t. 7. 09. 2015) 218 http://dariknews.bg/view_article.php?article_id=1368498 (e.t. 7. 09. 2015). 219 http://www.webcafe.bg/newscafe/id_703090275 (e.t. 7.09.2015). 220 http://www.trud.bg/Article.asp?ArticleId=4421787(e.t. 7.09.2015).

84


stated that “In 21st century in the era of the internet and communication I do not understand why we are proposing prohibitions?”221 As seen, the current government and the parliamentary majority consider Turkish news to be broadcasting only for the areas having dense Turkish population and in a cultural style. Under this approach National Radio Management will start regional broadcasting in Turkish in Kircaali (Kardzhali) region with the direction of Bulgarian National Radio from January 1, 2016.According to the planned program flow there will be three-hours in Bulgarian and three-hours in Turkish broadcasting in weekdays and fourhours broadcasting at weekends. There will be also Turkish folk songs at the intervals. The program includes the reading of religious-content letters. In the remaining hours central broadcasting from Sofia Radio will be continued.222 The voting for license approval required for the activation of the radio was postponed. (18 August 2015) In the official session the required numbers of SEM members were not present.223 VMRO representatives especially the European Parliament deputies applied pressure on the members of Media Council in the lounge and showed violent response to the broadcasting of equal Turkish and Bulgarian in the regional radio. Also some members of the Media Council (regulators) were also not satisfied with the duration of Turkish broadcasting.224 In the following days to discuss the scandal has grown even more with the participation of Boyko Borisov to the VMRO supporting the coalition government. Bulgarian media in a big speculation move at higher publications demonstrated this broadcasting as the establishment of a Turkish radio station in Kircaali (Kardzhali) as “a provocation”, “a separatist environment”, “Turkish propaganda “and these ideas have dominated the Bulgarian Press.225 In this scandal as on many issues in the others the Bulgarian authorities showed a passive attitude and has not demonstrated a solid and clear defense for the use Turkish language in the public domain. Considering forbidding of other languages than Bulgarian in the Bulgarian election legislation and violation of this law by the majority position in the media, disapproval of the Turkish by authorities creates the perception that the state of ethnic Bulgarians (though not evidently) does not want to approve Turkish language. 226, despite this widespread attitude SEM President Georgi Lozanov‟s views is an exception. For the question of a journalist which was “What was the necessity for the establishment of 221

http://www.webcafe.bg/newscafe/id_836092768 (e.t. 7.09.2015). http://novinite.bg/articles/98284/Novini-na-turski-po-BNR-provokaciya-ili-normalna-praktika; http://www.marginalia.bg/novini/sem-otlaga-glasuvaneto-na-litsenz/ (e.t. 7.09.2015). 223 http://www.marginalia.bg/novini/sem-otlaga-glasuvaneto-na-litsenz/ (e.t. 7.09.2015). 224 http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2015/08/18/2593020_sem_otloji_reshenieto_za_licenz_na_ radiostanciia_s/ (e.t. 11. 09. 2015). 225 http://www.duma.bg/node/106978;http://news.ibox.bg/news/id_227156077; http://www.segabg.com/ article.php?id=765562; http://svishtovtoday.com/read/news/698/SEM-turskata-radioprograma-na-BNR-eprovokazia;http://www.cross.bg/radio-kurdzhali-ezik-1477580.html#axzz3lsSpMdj0; http://www.kardjali.bgvesti.net/news/197862/Turskata-programa-na-BNR-v-Kardzhali-%E2%80%93predpostavka-za-separatizam--obyavi-VMRO http://offnews.bg/news;http://www.moreto.net/novini.php?n=299460;http://www.dnesplus.bg/News.aspx?n=7290 50 (e.t. 11. 09. 2015). 222

85


Kircaali (Kardzhali) radio broadcasts in Turkish? What was the requirement to make Turkish Broadcasting?” Lozanov gave the following answer; “This is not only a necessity, we are committed to providing it. The Framework Convention for the Protection of Minorities subject has been approved by our parliament. As per the Radio and Television Act, except TV programs should be in the Bulgarian in electronic media which were evidently stated those for non-native speakers of Bulgarian citizens in particular broadcasting in other languages. The most logical thing is taking place of such broadcasting in the public media. The most logical thing is to take place in the public media such publications. Because their task is to prepare broadcastings to various social groups. We are frequently meeting for the questions as why such broadcastings were not in Armenian. In response, I would say that it is related to the size of the minority. Native Turkish language Bulgarian citizens are an important part of the total population and live in the community. Therefore regional broadcasting would be quite appropriate for them.” The official attitude towards the Kardzhal Radio has appeared on September 8, 2015. On that date SEM has delayed the licensing of Kardzhali radio and was given 10-day period to the Bulgarian National Radio establishing for a regional concept. VMRO has demonstrated the opposite response again. The subject of Kardzhali radio having Turkish broadcasting for three hours has also split the Media Council members.227 c. Past Fifteen Years After Signing of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities Does the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities really protecting minority in Bulgaria? What kind of atmosphere is available to perform cultural rights and freedoms? Does Bulgaria Government support the cultures of the minorities? First of all, hearing the representatives of the minorities are necessary.228 “Bney Brit” President of the World Organization of Jews in Bulgaria branch Solomon Bali mentioned that there was a very strong tension in the society against the different/others, which was creating a pressure on the gregarious minorities living separate from the majority. According to human rights activists Orhan Tahir lawyer and President of the Civil Society movement; while there were so many professors, politicians, bureaucrats, denying the national minorities it is possible for anyone who is a member of the minority to feel themselves valued. People‟s Dignity Party President Korman Ġsmailov also mentioned that: “The presence of Turkish minority in the media is quite insufficient except political parties. There is no use of or very limited usage of Turkish in administrative authorities, police and 227

http://www.segabg.com/article.php?id=768752; http://bnt.bg/news/institutsii/sem-otlozhi-davaneto-na-litsenzza-regionalna-radio-programa-ka-rdzhali; http://www.24chasa.bg/Article.asp?ArticleId=4970046(e.t. 11. 09. 2015). 228 http://www.bghelsinki.org/bg/publikacii/obektiv/dimitrina-cherneva/2014-02/malcinstva-i-mnozinstva -15godinî-sled-ratifikaciyata-na-konvenciyata-za-zashita-na-malcinstvata/. The interview was made at the end of February 2014 (e.t. 06. 10. 2015).

86


judicial authorities. Although it was the requirement Turkish education is not possible in the secondary education system. State does not support the publication of native language textbooks. State does not provide direct funding to religious schools and institutions of secondary and higher education in the Country”. Journalists and founder of “Drom Dromendar” named Roma newspaper and “O Rome” named magazine, Vasile Çaprazov has replied to those questions; “No, not at all. The deficiency of Roma publications in recent years; newspapers, magazines, books is very interesting. Roma language is not taught in Bulgarian schools, the Basic pedagogy and Roma language Department at the university was closed. There are no centers to protect the Roma culture. Roman poetry competition was eliminated. All of this has been achieved by a systematic policy.” Bulgarian government how to fulfill their responsibilities towards minorities within the scope of “Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities”? Two undisputed experts hold light on the issue of rights and freedoms of minorities. The first of these the historian, anthropologists and the founder of “International Center for Minority Studies and Intercultural Relations”, Prof. Dr. Antonina Jelyazkova has warned in an interview at the beginning of 2015:“the hostility trend to foreigners and Islam in Bulgaria has grown up to a level that the speeches towards minorities from the senior high level political environment about; the different communities could live in peace in the same place, always there is a possibility of wrapping together the wounds of the past, reminding the joint historical memory of the society, is a requirement anymore.”229 The second expert on this subject is the New Bulgarian University lecturer Prof. Dr. Evgenia Ivanova having study field of Balkan studies, anthropology, and the ethnicity policy, verifying the words of Jelyazkova during the interview given to the most popular Bulgarian newspapers in17.05.2015 has said that “Roma phobia will find a wider place in Bulgarian society”230. Does not need to be an expert to see increasing negative perception on the axis of the rise of Ethnicity and religion issues. To highlight the systemic discrimination against minorities in the social and public spheres a Declaration by the media and 13 civil society organizations on May 2015 has been published concerning on the stigmatization of minorities in Bulgaria was strongly increasing.231 The “hate speech “is the indication of the growing tension between the majority and minorities. According to Bulgarian Helsinki Committee Chairman Krassimir Kınev; hate, discrimination and violence were having a massive drive from both parliamentary tribunes and both from social media232 to the people living in Bulgaria233. Kınev‟s discourse has 229

http://www.marginalia.bg/analizi/antonina-zhelyazkova-tryabva-da-zapalnim-razloma-s-nashite-maltsinstva/ (e.t. 06. 10. 2015). 230 http://www.trud.bg/Article.asp?ArticleId=4824130 (e.t. 06. 10. 2015). 231 http://sib.bg/?p=91(e.t. 06. 10. 2015). 232 Bulgaria Helsinki Committee (BHC) is an independent NGO dealing with the protection of political, citizenship, cultural and social rights. The groups for whom it has intensified its activities are the minorities, the disabled, the

87


been approved in the “Open Society” 234 Institute of Sofia by the Law program director Ivanka Ivanova who has mentioned;“The hate speech in Bulgarian society is very common, and the most worrying point is that it creates a sense of fear and incitement to violence among minorities”235 The negative developments regarding the spread of hate speech in Bulgarian society was accepted by Chairman of the “Ethnic Cooperation and Integration Problems of the National Cooperation Council” Zineida Zlatanoava, Deputy Prime Minister and Ministry of Justice at the end of 2013.On the other hand Zlatanov‟s comments as Bulgarian society was vaccinated against hatred (There is a discourse that was tolerant of Bulgarian society over the years)including having excuse of “hate speech is not the patent of the Bulgarian” statement showed how Bulgarian state was determined to fight! Against the majority and minority at the end of 2013.236 In accordance with a report prepared on the consequences of a study on hate speech in Bulgaria of “Open Society”“Roma, Turks and homosexuals” comes as first three.91% of participants use hate speech hearing something in the Roma language, 58% against Turks and 38% against homosexuals.237 Television is the most important factor compared as 78% in the dissemination of hate speech.238 Hate speech are mostly used by politicians and publicists with 68% and 32.4%.239 In 16.09.2014,The “European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) the European Parliament's independent body working on racism and intolerance states that: “Expressions involving racist and hate in political discourse continues to be a serious problem in Bulgaria and the situation is gradually getting worse. Roma, Muslims, Jews, Turks and Macedonians were the target of racist hate speech. Last election campaign passed with strong anti-Roma rhetoric. Islamophobia has increased dramatically”.240 ECRI report, according to the Advisory Board report published on 07.30.2014, monitoring the implementation of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, reveals that there was a significant increase in hate crimes.241

convits, women and children. The target of the CHC is changing the laws of Bulgaria and organizing lobbies to adopt them to international laws, making the necessary arrangements to discuss human rights in public opinion and spread these ideas. 233 http://osi.bg/?cy=10&lang=1&program=1&action=2&news_id=611 (e.t. 06. 10. 2015). 234 The “Open Society Institute” in Sofia works for the expansion and guaranteeing of human rights and freedoms. It ensures that the issues that are improtant for Bulgaria are brought into the agenda and discusseed. 235 http://osi.bg/?cy=10&lang=1&program=1&action=2&news_id=611 (e.t. 06. 10. 2015). 236 http://osi.bg/?cy=10&lang=1&program=1&action=2&news_id=611(e.t. 06. 10. 2015). 237 “Bulgaristan‟da Nefret Söylemlerine ĠliĢkin Kamu Tutumları” Açık Toplum Enstitüsü Report, 5-13 Temmuz 2013‟de yapılan araĢtırmanın Report, Sofia, 2013, s. 10. 238 Aynı Rapor, s. 14. 239 Aynı Rapor, s. 15. 240 http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/Country-by-country/Bulgaria/BGR-CbC-V-2014-036-BGR .pdf, s. 17 (e.t. 06. 10. 2015). 241 http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2014/11/05/2413207_fasadnata_pravozashtitnost_na_bulgarskite_ institu cii/(e.t. 06. 10. 2015).

88


How the Bulgarian judicial authorities react to this tendency? The Commission for Protection against Discrimination of Bulgaria (CPD) was an independent body responsible for ensuring equality and justice for every person living in the territory of Bulgaria regardless of gender, ethnic origin, political opinion or any other different features protected by law against discrimination in Bulgarian Constitution and in international law.242 The last report of the Commission for Protection against Discrimination of Bulgaria was published in 2013.According to the report; the number of discrimination complaints and petitions from real and legal persons was 454 243. And 37 of them were based on ethnic discrimination complaints 2 of them were based on the basis of racism.244 The numbers of complaints made since the commission was established in 2005 are illustrated in the following graph.245

Ayrımcılığa KarĢı Koruma Komisyonu, Yıllık Rapor, 2013, s. 1. http://www.kzdnondiscrimination.com/layout/index.php/layout-over-40-positions/godishen-otchet/--2013. (e.t. 06. 10. 2015). 243 Ayrımcılığa KarĢı Koruma Komisyonu, Yıllık Rapor, 2013, s.6. http://www.kzdnondiscrimination.com/layout/index.php/layout-over-40-positions/godishen-otchet/--2013 (e.t. 06. 10. 2015). 244 Ayrımcılığa KarĢı Koruma Komisyonu, Yıllık Rapor, 2013, s.7. http://www.kzdnondiscrimination.com/layout/index.php/layout-over-40-positions/godishen-otchet/--2013 (e.t. 06. 10. 2015). 245 Ayrımcılığa KarĢı Koruma Komisyonu, Yıllık Rapor, 2013, s.7. http://www.kzdnondiscrimination.com/layout/index.php/layout-over-40-positions/godishen-otchet/--2013 (e.t. 06. 10. 2015). 242

89


500 450 400 350 300 250

454

200

362

150

278

100

183

299

336

268

215

50 37 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 According to data of Bulgarian Helsinki Committee in the middle of 2013, seems to be only six people sentenced from hatred, discrimination, incitement to violence and crime of a ten-year period.246 In the implementation of Anti-discrimination Act (ZzDiskr) negative attitude of the Council of State (COS) can be observed. Some decisions of Council of State (COS) are completely opposite to the Anti-discrimination Act (ZzDiskr), which limits the powers of the Commission for Protection against Discrimination of Bulgaria (CPD) in the fight against discrimination, it also hinders the development dilemma in terms of human rights in Bulgaria.247 As we have seen the authorized bodies are quite passive to the hate speech, discrimination and violence against minorities. The reason for this is not only the criminal law. Because in 2011, arrangements were made in the provisions relating to hate speech and hate crimes in the so-called standards of the European Union member countries. The small percentage of the investigation of a substantial proportion of the Bulgarian citizens as 246

http://osi.bg/?cy=10&lang=1&program=1&action=2&news_id=611 (e.t. 06. 10. 2015). http://www.bghelsinki.org/media/uploads/annual_reports/annual_bhc_report_2014_issn-2367-6930 _bg.pdf, с. 63-66 (e.t. 06. 10. 2015). 247

90


24-30%, not being aware that there was a crime of hatred.248 Exposed to Violence were not complaining as they don‟t know it was a crime. This shows that there was a necessity to announce that the hate speech is a crime.249 The Commission for Protection against Discrimination of Bulgaria (CPD) which is an independent institution must perform more independent researches to show the level of discrimination in the Society. Its passive role was understood by not preparing any public report since 2013 and from the absence of any information provided in the antidiscrimination issues. As it was mentioned before the National Cooperation Council (NSSEIV) since 2011 were not publishing reports supposed to be submitting to the Council of Ministers about their activities every year until March. Since there were not any Reports referring to the material published on the website, we could not get any information about whether their cooperation in this collaborative task required with the Anti-discrimination Council, the Republic of Bulgaria Ombudsman, Electronic Media Council, the National Assembly Council, the Presidential Administration, the Judiciary and other State organs or not. This was one of its basic attributes required. NSSEIV issued a declaration in connection with the clashes and tensions between Bulgarians and Roma on the increased hatred in respect of the Plovdiv (Filibe) province Katunitsa village in 28/09/2011 did not make any other attempts at all.250 Was NSSEIV effective? The best were known by the representatives of some minority groups knowing the operations of the institution. In order to evaluate this; the following statement mentioned in 2014 by the representative of the Jewish minority which was the best integrated minority of the Bulgarian Society will be sufficient;“NSSIEV should be converted to a functional institution, should not only be a sign”.251 Deputy Prime Minister and NSSEIV President Ivaylo Kalfin‟s words gives an idea about not working good of the organization; “Many things are made for the integration of ethnic groups that were different from us. In spite of this, negative tendencies have been remained in Society. There is no need for reading our strategies or plans on paper for this. I think as the head of the organization I should make effective action plans to change the negative trends “The Deputy Prime Minister and Interior Minister Rumyana Bıçvarova also participated in the meeting. She had also stressed the need for an effective and enforceable action plan for the integration; “we need to apply standard applications and equal rights and values for all Bulgarian citizens. We will work with all political powers and institutions to ensure long life and sustainability. The government should mobilize all resources and

Açık Toplum Enstitüsü Report, s. 20. Açık Toplum Enstitüsü Report, s. 20. 250 http://www.nccedi.government.bg/page.php?category=103&id=1588(e.t. 08. 10. 2015). 251 http://www.bghelsinki.org/bg/publikacii/obektiv/dimitrina-cherneva/2014-02/malcinstva-i-mnozinstva-15godinî-sled-ratifikaciyata-na-konvenciyata-za-zashita-na-malcinstvata (e.t. 08. 10. 2015). 248 249

91


institutional capacities of the State to ensure the integration of people remaining missing for years”.252 The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance has often made suggestions and criticism in Bulgaria. But instead of discussions of implementation of these, mostly they were used as tools for speculation by the management.253

252

http://www.nccedi.government.bg/page.php?category=73&id=2426. (e.t. 08. 10. 2015). http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2014/11/05/2413207_fasadnata_pravozashtitnost_na_bulgarskite_ http://www.ombudsman.bg/public-positions/2845(e.t. 08. 10. 2015). 253

92

institucii/.


5- RIGHTS and FREEDOMS to EDUCATION a. Education of Minority Children-Legal Framework a. 1. Constitutional Regulation Bulgarian shall be the official language of the Republic as per the Bulgarian Constitution.254 At the same time; Constitution guarantees the right to study and use their own language alongside the compulsory study of the Bulgarian language for the Citizens whose mother tongue is not Bulgarian.255 Right to education shall be guaranteed in the Constitutional level. Primary and secondary education in state and municipal schools shall be provided free and compulsory up to the age of 16. Provides opportunities to found private primary schools in accordance with conditions and procedures. It ensures the right to education in mother tongue in these schools in case the conditions provided.256 It is not superfluous to remind that every Bulgarian citizen has a constitutional right for the development of the culture of the ethnic community to which he/she belongs to.257 a. 2. International guarantees Bulgaria is a country that was the party of the agreements guaranteeing the fundamental human rights including the right to education in native language. The country has signed the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. Also guaranteeing the right to education, including the first protocol European Convention on Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and The Convention against Discrimination in Education.258 Bulgaria being a member of the European Union has signed the Charter of Fundamental Rights. As per the Constitution; International treaties which have been ratified in accordance with the constitutional procedure, promulgated and having come into force with respect to the Republic of Bulgaria, shall be part of the legislation of the State. They shall have primacy over any conflicting provision of the domestic legislation.259 If there is a situation incompatible with the Constitution to solve the problem the Constitutional Court will be applied. If the Constitutional Court determines a mismatch to the Constitution may not recognize the International Agreement nor has a right to change the Constitution to make it suitable to the International Convention or to have an abstaining attitude.

Bulgaristan Cumhuriyeti Anayasası- Official Gazette, 13 Temmuz 1991, S. 56, m. 3. Bulgaristan Cumhuriyeti Anayasası- Official Gazette, 13 Temmuz 1991, S. 56, m. 36. 256 Bulgaristan Cumhuriyeti Anayasası- Official Gazette, 13 Temmuz 1991, S. 56, m. 53. 257 Bulgaristan Cumhuriyeti Anayasası- Official Gazette, 13 Temmuz 1991, S. 56, m. 54, bent I. 258 Antonina Jelyazkova ve Drugi, Obrazovatelni problemi na turskite detsa v bılgarskoto uçilişte (terenno prouçvane, Analiz i preporıki kım proekta za zakon za pred uçiliştnoto i uçiliştnoto obrazovanie). Mejdunaroden tsentır za izsledvane na maltsinstvata i kulturnite vzaimodeystviya, Sofia, 2012, s. 12. 259 Bulgaristan Cumhuriyeti Anayasası-Official Gazette, 13 Temmuz 1991, S. 56, m. 5, bent IV. 254 255

93


In this regard a decision taken by the Constitutional Court is available. According to the decision taken by the Constitutional Court in 1998, including the education rights in the mother tongue the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities is constitutionally compatible.260 Bulgaria adopts including the 1.st protocol 2.nd article of the European Convention on Human Rights guaranteeing the right to education with a Declaration. According to the Declaration relating to educational institutions existing in the country State was not obliged to finance private education institutions in the religious and philosophical fields beyond the Constitution and the laws.261 State has signed The Convention against Discrimination in Education in 1962. However, this could not be used primarily before the domestic laws as the Convention has not been published in the official gazette yet.262 a.3. Legal Regulations Considering the situation of minority children in school, the learning and educational opportunities in the mother tongue currently in force are based on two main documents. The first one is the National Education Law in force since 1991, which had many changes, and finally as amended in 2014.263 The second one is the law regulating the curriculum and education plan in force since 1999 and last amended in 2009.264 1. National Education Act is a tool regulating pre-university education in Bulgaria. As per the Articles of the Law; restrictions or privileges based on race, nationality, sex, ethnic and social origin, religion and social status shall not be tolerated. National Education Act supports secular, free of charge and compulsory basic Education related provisions of the Constitution. It emphasizes the mastery of the official Bulgarian language especially in kindergarten and primary education. However, State must provide the appropriate conditions for learning the official language. For pupils whose mother tongue is not Bulgarian, the right to study their own mother tongue at municipal schools* under the protection and control of the State. By this article while the State guarantees the right to mother tongue, on the other hand recognizes the right to study in their own mother tongue. Besides the implementation of the right to education in their mother tongue were given only to the municipal schools. The effect of this restriction is not very much because most of the schools are already municipal schools. The aim of the National Education Act; the formation of a free, moral and enterprising personality, respecting the laws and rights of others, their culture, language and religion; including having mother tongue education. As per the Law State educational requirements shall apply to the textbooks‟ contents also (See. 260

Bulgarian Court of Constitution, Decision no: 2, February 18, 1998; the Constitutional Case with the number 15 for the year 1997. Official Gazette, February 24, 1998, p. 22. * There are two types of schools in Bulgaria, which are the State Schools and the Municipal Schools. The primary schools and high schools are called as the Municipality Schools; and the vocational highschools are called as the State Schools. 261 Jelyazkova i drugi, a.g.e., s. 13. 262 Anayasa Mahkemesi. Karar No: 7, 2 Temmuz 1992. Dava No: 6, 1992, Official Gazette, 10 Temmuz 1992, S. 56. 263 National Education Law, , Official Gazette, 18 Ekim 1991, S. 86. 264 Eğitim Müfredatını Düzenleyen Kanun, Official Gazette, 27 Temmuz 1999, S. 67.

94


Article 16 of National Education Act).For the use of new prepared course textbooks in education, the approval of the Minister of Education and state education standards is sought. Outside the State and Municipal education system, with the permission of the Minister of National Education, religious institutions in the country shall be able to open theological schools for their ritual needs for children having completed their basic education. The education received in theological schools shall be given the same status as secular education by the Ministry of National Education, provided the State educational requirements for the given level of education have been observed. National Education Act allows for the opening of private schools in an appropriate manner to the Constitution. In these schools, education in mother tongue can be given on the condition of state education standards maintained. There is no legal obstacle to taught Turkish as a foreign language after the primary school education.265 2. Another law related to mother tongue education in schools regulating the curriculum and education plan is the Curriculum Act. Accordingly, in Bulgaria the Curriculum is applied in three types. The courses are given in three ways; compulsory, compulsory-elective and free-elective. The compulsory courses are the required courses to be taken. Compulsory-elective courses are compulsory courses in the specified weekly periods. Mother tongue and religious education are taken in this category. There is no legal requirement with respect to the elective courses. Students are receiving these courses in voluntary basis. The limiting situation is the limiting the courses duration not to exceed four hours per week. Compulsory-elective and free-elective courses as per the Law are determined considering the school facilities and parents‟ declarations by the school management. This curriculum is approved by the provincial inspectorate. Courses are approved by the relevant ministries, in some state vocational schools. 266 There is a double feature in the current legislation. On one hand, the legislation gives the opportunity to learn their mother tongue to Turkish and other minority children (Not provided education in their native language). On the other hand it does not give the opportunity to learn fully their mother tongue. The implementation of the right to mother tongue education is left to the local authorities. The implementation of the Constitution and the laws in force in the field of education is left to the discretion of local authorities.267 a.4. The Statute for the Implementation of the legislation in force The Statute for the implementation of the National Education law and legislation in force since 1999is approved by the Minister of Education. According to the Statute, nonnative speakers of Bulgarian students can learn their mother tongue in the Municipal Schools subject to compliance with State educational standards.268 At the same time the

265

Law of National Education, October 18, 1991, p. 86, Item: 4, Clause: 1. Jelyazkova i drugi, a.g.e., s. 14-15. Jelyazkova i drugi, a.g.e., s. 16-17. 268 Regulation on applying the Education Law, Decision 8, Clause 4. Official Gazette, July 30, 1999, p. 68. 266 267

95


Statute also clarified the term of “mother tongue” as “the native language spoken in the family”.269 It should be underlined here that till to the end of 2014, 14 years after the government‟s implementation of educational standards, the Ministry of Education has not published standards for native speakers of Turkish lessons. The pointed out inertia creates a dual legal status. On one hand of mother tongue education should be in accordance with State‟s educational standards, on the other hand these standards have not been determined yet. It is unacceptable for a democratic State of law concerning the education in mother tongue being not clear in terms of the legal status.270 There are some problems in the curriculum also. According to the Annexation of No.6 Circular in 2004 the native language and religious education is carried out under compulsory-elective and implemented in accordance with the curriculum approved by the Ministry of Education.271 Until to the end of 2014, only the secondary education curriculum was approved. The native language curriculum is provided within the scope free-electives approved by the school principal. That is left entirely to the discretion of the local authorities.272 Another uncertainty is related to textbooks. There is no law or a government regulation on mother tongue textbooks despite mother tongue education was being a legally recognized right.273 This also creates legal uncertainty. For example, the Ministry of Education approves the State‟s educational standard textbooks after confirming the compliance of the Education Law.274 Of course the absence of a State‟s educational standards on the mother tongue lessons, reveal the problem of how Minister had to confirm it. There were no regulations governing this type of textbooks placed on the Decree provided for conducting assessment and improvement by the Minister of Education 275 and adopted by 15.05.2003 dated 5 Numbered Decree of the Council of Ministers related the main and supplementary textbooks.276 There is more likely a Mother tongue education related problem. This is due to the presentation of National Education Law predicting the mother tongue in the framework of compulsory-elective and free-elective education, implementing Statute of the National 269

Regulation on applying the Education Law, Decision 8, Clause 4. Official Gazette, July 30, 1999, p. 68. Jelyazkova i drugi, a.g.e., s. 18. 271 Decision No 6; May 28, 2001, regulation on the distribution of the school time for reaching minimum general education classes, its stages and education levels, Official Gazette, July 15, 2001, p. 54. Addition, Official Gazette, September 14, 2004, p. 80, Decision 7, Clause 2. 272 Addition to the regulation on distribution of the school time for reaching minimum general education classes, its stages and education levels, Official Gazette, September 14, 2004, Decision 21. 273 Jelyazkova i drugi, a.g.e., s. 19. 274 Law of National Education, Official Gazette, October 18, 1991, p. 86, Paragraph, T.1. Please refer to May 15, 2003; decision with the number 5 on increasing and improving the quality of the course books and helping books, Official Gazette, May 27, 2003, p. 49, Item 30, Clause 1. 275 Acceptance of the regulation of the Ministerial Board on the course books and workbooks with the number 104, dated May 10, 2003, Official Gazette, May 20, 2003, p. 46. 276 Decision with the number 5 on increasing and improving the quality of the course books and helping books dated May 15, 2003 Official Gazette, May 27, 2003, p. 49, Decision 30, Clause 1. 270

96


Education Law277 and No. 7 Circular indicating the number of students in the related classes (from 29 December 2000 year) 278 bringing the requirement to have the number of students to be in the compulsory-electives as 11, in the free-electives as 13 students. However the number of student‟s condition arose the possibility of the problem of missing mother-tongue education of some students if their numbers are less than the specified figures.279 a.5. Education Integration Strategy of Ethnic Minority Children and Students Bulgaria is a state where Bulgarian and the people of various ethnicity as, Roma, Turkish, Armenian, Jewish, Vlahe and Gagauz living in its borders. In the same way, the Bulgarian schools are in multi-ethnic and multicultural but their education tools were not flexible enough and in tolerant nature. Assoc. Prof. Dr. Yanka Totsev stated in her analysis in 2010 that the education curriculum has included mutual understanding and acceptance of ideas yet unconvincing statements appear from time to time in the text-books. 280 Therefore Bulgaria political elite must take some steps to realize the desire to integrate with the European Union and the democratization process of the Country. The Bulgarian political elite must take some steps for the realization of the democratization process of the country and the desire to integrate with the European Union. In Education respect, acceptance, and reverence policies must be carried out to the ethnical and cultural “differences” by the majority of the Country. This new education policy has started in 2004along with the “Educational Integration Strategy of Children and Students who are Members of Ethnic Minorities”281 which was approved in 11 June 2004282 by the Education Ministry and updated in 04.03.2010.283 If “Educational Integration Strategy of Children and Students who are

277

Regulation on applying the educational law, Official Gazette, July 30, 1999, p. 68, Decision 90, Clause 1. Decision on determining the number of the classes and groups, students, children in classes at schools, the number of the Kindergarten groups and service units, dated 29.12.2000, Decision with the number 7, Official Gazette, January 12, 2001, p. 4, Item 26 (Added to 2nd Item, 1st Clause) 279 Jelyazkova i drugi, a.g.e., s. 20. 280 Yanka Totseva, “Uçenitsite s nebılgarska etniçeska identiçnost i naçalnoto uçiliĢte” http://ytotseva.blogspot.bg/2009/11/blog-post_24.html Statiyata e publikuvana i v sbornika: ezik, kultura, identiçnost, Tom II, ġumen, 2010, s. 239-246 (e.t. 16. 10. 2015). 281 Yanka Totseva, a.g.m.,http://ytotseva.blogspot.bg/2009/11/blog-post_24.html Statiyata e publikuvana i v sbornika: ezik, kultura, identiçnost, Tom II, ġumen, 2010, s. 239-246. 282 Strategiya za obrazovatelna integratsiya na detsata i uçenitsite ot etniçeskite maltsinstva. Odobrena ot ministıra na obrazovanieto i naukata, 11, Haziran, 2004. http://www.minedu.government.bg/?go=page&pageId=74&subpageId=143 (e.t. 16. 10. 2015). 283 Aktualizirana strategiya za obrazovatelna integratsiya na detsata i uçenitsite ot etniçeskite maltsinstva, utvırdena ot ministıra na obrazovanieto, mladejta i naukata na 04.03.2010.http://coiduem.mon.bg/page.php?c=4&d=16(e.t. 16. 10. 2015). 278

97


Members of Ethnic Minorities” covering the period between 2015-2020284 would be accepted to be implemented it will be effective till 2015 within this format.285 At the end of January 2011 Education Minister Sergey Ignatov gave the following statement to the press: “I will tell you the truth. Currently 48% of first-year students’ mother tongue is not Bulgarian”.286 There is no doubt that a significant proportion of them were from the Roma community. In the opinion of experts, the number of children of the Roma minority in Bulgarian schools has a significant upward trend. The first-class rate of Roma children was 20% in the compulsory education of the country by the middle of 2009.In some areas such as Montana, Sliven and Haskovo this proportion has risen to over 40%; In Vidin, Vratsa, Pazardzhik and Yambol this proportion was over 30%. Average Roma children between classes of 5-8 was 9.7%, the same for the classes of 9-13 was 1.9%. According to Regional Education Inspectors‟ data of 2005-2009, 1-12. The total number of Roma children between classes 1-12 was approximately 90 000-95 000.This corresponds to 10-11% of total secondary school students.27 140 of them were educating in 62 separated schools in Roma neighborhoods in different levels.16 557 students were studying in 262 schools outside Roma neighborhoods, the rest were educating in smaller cities and in the residential neighborhoods having single-schools.287 In 2011, the number of Roma aged between 7-19 years according to National Statistical Institute data was 78 499. According to the last census (2011), education level of the Roma population could be defined worse than the rest of society. Mostly high school graduates were existing in Bulgarian community (47.52%) and this rate (35.24%) goes down to elementary school as per the Roma community. When the higher education level of assessment was made educational status of the Roma population was (0.34%) while Bulgarians was (22.76%).The proportion of the Roma not-completing elementary education is (27.51%), whereas this rate for Bulgarian is standing (3.79%).288 Roma youth and adult vocational school, high school and college graduates and diploma-qualified people are few in number.289

Strategiya za obrazovatelna integratsiya na detsata i uçenitsite ot etniçeskite maltsinstva (2015-2020). http://www.minedu.government.bg/?go=page&pageId=74&subpageId=143(e.t. 16. 10. 2015). 285 Aktualizirana strategiya za obrazovatelna integratsiya na detsata i uçenitsite ot etniçeskite maltsinstva, utvırdena ot ministıra na obrazovanieto, mladejta i naukata na 04.03.2010.http://coiduem.mon.bg/page.php?c=4&d=16(e.t. 16. 10. 2015). 286 Ġrena Koleva, “%48 ot detsata govoryat turski ili romski”http://www.trud.bg/ Article. asp?ArticleId=761920 287 Yosif Nunev, Menidjmınt na etnokulturnoto raznoobrazie v obrazovanieto s fokus kım integratsiyata na uyazvimite maltsinstva (Normativni aktove i politiçeski dokumenti). Start za efektivni grajdanski alternativi, Sofia, 2009, s. 61-62. 288 2011 Census, V. I, Population, Book 2, Demografski i sotsialni harakteristiki, Sofia, 2002, p. 194. 289 Nadejda Kaloyanova, Diana Tsirkova, İntegratsiya na detsa ot etniçeski maltsinstva v obrazovatelnata sistema (za pedagozi, raboteşti v detski gradinî i uçilişta v koito se obuçavat detsa ot etniçeski maltsinstva). Tsentır za obrazovatelni programi i sotsialni initsiativi, Sofia, 2014, s. 27-28. 284

98


Table – Yearly Education Levels of the three main ethnic groups Education levels University High School Middle School Primary Schools have not completed / never go to school

2001 16.3 41.4 25.3 10.7 5.43

Bulgarian (%) 2011 22.76 47.52 20.19 5.59 3.79

Turkish (%)

Roma (%)

2001 1.83 8.21 42.12 21.72

2011 4.09 25.89 43 15.62

2001 0.16 4.61 32.21 29.51

2011 0.34 6.85 35.24 29.19

15.68

11.13

32.19

27.51

One of the most serious problems of the Bulgarian education system is the problem of the status of Roma children and students. Roma children in the school environment have to be encouraged and need to be supported against to the unpleasant and discriminatory treatment shown to them. Special attention and efforts must be applied to keep them in schools consistent with contemporary educational policy.290 This view is supported, at least theoretically by the Ministry of Education. In other words, both strategy documents were based on the following main elements: “fully integration of Roma minority children and students by the elimination of racial discrimination and equal access to quality education in Roma neighborhood kindergartens and primary schools is a must”.291 In the 2010 strategy report issued the basic problems of children and students of Roma minority and the challenges they faced are listed as follows: 1. The isolation of Roma children and students in Roma neighborhood schools and kindergartens; in co-educational schools and kindergartens separating them in different groups or classes. 2. The presence of normal students in Private Education schools 3. In kindergarten and elementary schools, the adaptation of the children who are from Roma ethnicity 4. The main language spoken groups failure of Roma children and insufficiency of their level of education 5. Lack of teachers knowing the Roma culture 7. Lack of text-books and supplementary books in Roma language

290

Yanka Totseva, a.g.m.,http://ytotseva.blogspot.bg/2009/11/blog-post_24.html (e.t. 18. 10. 2015). Strategiya za obrazovatelna integratsiya na detsata i uçenitsite ot etniçeskite maltsinstva. Odobrena ot ministıra na obrazovanieto i naukata, 11, Haziran, 2004, s. 1, http://www.minedu.government.bg/ ?go=page&pageId=74&subpageId=143; Aktualizirana Strategiya za obrazovatelna integratsiya na detsata i uçenitsite ot etniçeskite maltsinstva utvırdena ot ministıra na obrazovanieto, mladejta i naukata na 04.03.2010, s. 2, http://coiduem.mon.bg/page.php?c=4&d=16 (e.t. 18. 10. 2015). 291

99


8. Lack of necessary mechanisms for Roma students to continue school 292 As per Roma expert Yosif Nunev; the measures to be taken for the integration of Roma children in the education are listed as follows: 1. The creation of the conditions provided to other children for Compulsory education also for Roma children 2. education

To ensure appropriate conditions for Roma children to access quality

3. Transferring Roma children from different schools to mainstream schools their integration into the main education system 4.

Trying to discourage their tendency to quit school education.

5. To take measures to protect children's ethnic and cultural identity and against discrimination and assimilation trends in education 293 The second largest minority group confronting with various problems in Bulgarian Schools is Turkish children and students. According to the official statistics of 2011, the number of Turks aged between 7-19 years is 89 421. According to the last census figures when compared with the Bulgarian group, the Turkish ethnic group has low education levels although not in the levels of the Roma population. As mentioned above the Bulgarian group has more high school graduates (47.52%). The Turks with (43%) are having the most secondary school graduates. As for the proportion of university graduates Bulgarian group appears to have more than four times compared to other dominant ethnic groups. Bulgarian group has 22.76%, while the ratio was 4.09% for the Turks. The number of people of primary school graduates and who have never been to school for Turks is not a small figure with 60 796 people. This is about three times of the Bulgarians (3.79%) 294 The problems of the Turkish minority children and students by the Ministry of Education are as follows: 1.

Lack of competence Turkish-speaking teachers

2. education

Lack of modern Turkish Language textbooks in mother-tongue Turkish

3. education

Problems of Turkish children not knowing sufficient Bulgarian for the

4. Not participating of the Turkish children to Mother-tongue education and the low level quality of the education Aktualizirana Strategiyaza obrazovatelna integratsiya na detsata i uçenitsite ot etniçeskite maltsinstva utvırdena ot ministıra na obrazovanieto, mladejta i naukata na 04.03.2010, s. 3, http://coiduem.mon.bg/page.php?c=4&d=16 (e.t. 18. 10. 2015). 293 Yosif Nunev, a.g.e., s. 63. 294 2011 Census, V. I, Population, Book 2, Demografski i sotsialni harakteristiki, Sofia, 2002, p. 194. 292

100


5. The ethnic centralization approach creating a negative attitude towards the Turkish minority in the education system 6. schools295

Having adaptation problems of Turkish children in kindergartens and primary

In the field of education, the Armenian and Jewish children and students‟ problems are not so much as the Turks and the Roma. These are: 1.

Could not receiving Hebrew education in settlements outside Sofia

2. Not participating of the Armenian children to Mother-tongue education and the low level quality of the education 3. books 296

Lack of Armenian and Hebrew education textbooks and supplementary

The adaptation problems to the educational environment and the mother-tongue education problems appear to be common for the Turkish and Roma children. Another notable point is the insufficiency of Turkish children with Bulgarian language and the negative treatments towards them. b. Minority Children's Problems with Bulgarian Language Every citizen to achieve success should have a good command of official language in the Country. Proficiency in the language will give to people the opportunity to take part in public. Non-Native children having well Bulgarian language play a key role in their personal development and to be integrated in society and to take part in the professional field.297 b.1. Legal Arrangement Republic of Bulgaria considers the study and use of the Bulgarian language “shall be a right and an obligation of every Bulgarian citizen” (A. 36. /1).298 According to Education Act; (A. 20/5) Turkish children who do not have good Bulgarian language will be given the opportunity to teach Bulgarian with special methods.299 After 5 years identifying that, the Bulgarian Turks‟ children could not get a quality education, Circulation No. 2 relating teaching literary Bulgarian language guidelines have been published.300 This directive, identify Bulgarian language as a most important tool for children and students to

Aktualizirana Strategiya za obrazovatelna integratsiya na detsata i uçenitsite ot etniçeskite maltsinstva utvırdena ot ministıra na obrazovanieto, mladejta i naukata na 04.03.2010, s. 3, http://coiduem.mon.bg/page.php?c=4&d=16 (e.t. 18. 10. 2015). 296 Aktualizirana Strategiya za obrazovatelna integratsiya na detsata i uçenitsite ot etniçeskite maltsinstva utvırdena ot ministıra na obrazovanieto, mladejta i naukata na 04.03.2010, s. 4, http://coiduem.mon.bg/page.php?c=4&d=16 (e.t. 18. 10. 2015). 297 Jelyazkova i drugi, a.g.e., s. 26. 298 Constitution of Bulgarian Republic, Official Gazette, July 13, 1991, p. 56, (m. 36./1). 299 National Education Law, Official Gazette, October 18, 1991, p. 86. 300 Decision 2 on Written Bulgarian Language, Official Gazette, June 2, 2009, p. 41. 295

101


ensure compliance with the Bulgarian Society, communicate in the social media, and to be located in the professional field. The functioning of the legislation appears not to be adapted to today's reality. In this sense, physical access to school was perceived as its weaknesses. In terms of its usage ignores the given information and the language and intellectual capabilities of children.301 Hence there was not any completed systematic practice in respect to Turkish children learning Bulgarian language. Bulgarian language educating for bilingual children still is in an experimental stage. 302 The results of the field study of the Research Center for Minority rights and Cultural rights made in 2012 were not surprising. The research showed that minority children were facing serious difficulties in learning the Bulgarian language. Schools in the small towns and suburban areas of major cities were in much lower levels than it should be in terms of Bulgarian language. 303

Total

Czech

French

Hungarian

Turkish

Russian

Romanian

Roma

German

Hebrew

Greek

Armenian

Arabic

English

Year of Education

b.2. Mother-tongue Turkish Education The number of children in their mother-tongue education in the last decade according to the Ministry of Education Data 304

2014/2015 2013/2014 2012/2013 2011/2012 2010/2011 2009/2010 2008/2009 2007/2008 2006/2007

27 27 3 3 3 1 6

21 29 39 32 27 31 28 -

81 96 101 138 151 133 136 31 51

35 26 16 14 47 -

197 308 309 173 -

1 -

52 127

13 26 26 28 -

12 -

6381 6690 6349 7117 8633 8633 10323 12344 13805

-

17 -

1 -

6742 7176 6817 7491 6906 8823 10603 12427 13989

2005/2006

-

-

67

-

-

-

48

-

-

13800

-

-

-

13915

The number of students taking Turkish mother-tongue education in the 1992/1993 academic year was around 114 thousand.305 According to the information provided by mother-tongue education expert Harun Bekir, after 20 years in the 2012/2013 academic year, 9282 students in 130 schools enrolled to the compulsory-elective status course in

301

A. Totomanova, Pravoto na obrazovanie i ofitsialen ezik. www.paideiafoundation.org /.../Analizi_Gr_cennosti_i_obrazowanie.pdf (e.t. 18. 10. 2015). 302 Rumyana Tankova, İzgrajdane na gramatiçeski pravilna bılgarska reç pri bilingvi s mayçin turski ezik. Plamen Makariev i drugi. (red.kolegiya), Mnogoobrazie bez granitsi. Veliko Tırnovo, 2008, s. 243-252. 303 Jelyazkova i drugi, a.g.e., s. 29-40. 304 Strategiya za obrazovatelna integratsiya na detsata i uçenitsite ot etniçeskite maltsinstva (2015-2020), Prilojenie 5, http://www.mon.bg/?go=page&pageId=74&subpageId=143(e.t. 18. 10. 2015). 305 Jelyazkova i drugi, a.g.e., s. 41.

102


Turkish mother-tongue at schools. According to Ministry of Education data, the number of students whose mother-tongue was Turkish in the same period was 6349. In 2014/1015 academic year this figure was 6381. According to the claims of a non-governmental organization representative; official statistics of Bulgarian Ministry of Education indicates that there were no Roma children and students studying Roma language at the beginning of 2014, However, according to the National Statistics Agency there are children included in this group. According to NGO sources there were Roma language teachers, but none of them were teaching.306 As can be seen the data about the number of children‟s‟ learning their mothertongue education varies. Ministry of Education does not providing information on the exact numbers of children having mother-tongue education. It is problematic to access statistical information on the education systems.307 To resolve the problems identified on the Turkish mother-tongue education in 2004 (revised in 2010) some strategic goals has been set. These were: 1. Improvement of the legal basis for granting the quality education and requirements 2. Graduation of native Turkish teachers from the Universities and improving the quality of current Turkish teachers 3. Prepare and publish textbooks and supplementary books for Turkish courses Despite the right to education in mother-tongue has been given, there were not any law available having a clear rule about publishing textbooks in native language. 308 By the year 2014 native Turkish education with the books printed in 1992 still are on-going. But these books to be remained in circulation for three years at most. Up to the year 2014 the Ministry of Education has not provided any procedure on the books to be written in Turkish. The conditions of the books currently circulating or being used are very bad and have been destroyed almost. In 2004 for grades 1-4 it was as compulsory-elective, in 2009 the Curriculum for grades 5-8 has been prepared. The mother-tongue education area has been closed for the regional education inspectors in 2010. Thus directing and control mechanisms for the mother-tongue education have been disappeared.309 b.3. History Education It is very important to feel comfortable of Turkish minority children in terms of psychological and spiritual for fully attendance to the school system. In this regard, the history education takes very important place.310

Dırjavata nyama politika za obuçenieto po mayçin ezik, http://www.cross.bg/ezik-maiichin-detza1398078.html#axzz3oxAqdxKb(e.t. 19. 10. 2015). 307 Harun Bekir, turskiyat ezik i kultur v bılgariya v svetlinata na bılgarskoto zakonadatelstvo-tarditsii i sıvremenno sıstoyanie. Avtoreferat na disertatsionen trud, Plovdiv, 2015, s. 41-42. 308 Bekir, a.g.e., s. 41. 309 Jelyazkova i drugi, a.g.e., s. 41-53. 310 Olya Deykova, Syuzan Çakır, Bılgarskoto uçilişte i detsata ot turskata etniçeska grupa, Sofia, 2000, s. 93. 306

103


In 2000, the results of a survey conducted on Turkish children have been published of the teachings of the neighboring countries and nations in the history of Bulgaria Question: “What type of feelings you have, relating the Countries mentioned in the History textbooks?” Near “Other”

Far “Other”

Forever Foreigner

No Comment

Serbian

98.1 %

1.9%

-

-

Greece (Byzantium)

91%

3.1%

2.5%

3.4%

Romania

10.2%

85%

2.1%

2.7%

Turkey

-

-

98%

2%

Most of the children participating to the survey, reported that the opinion inculcated in the History text-books, were creating serious psychological disorders on themselves. Participants have mentioned that they had feelings of guilt and the feeling of inadequacy for the ethnic groups they were belonging. The rate of students mentioning the reduction of their interest for this reason tithe history lessons were 75%.311 The Bulgarian sociological research data made in 2000 and 2003 in Bulgaria in this respect reflect the attitude of Bulgarians towards Bulgarian Turks.312 Argument

Adults 2003

Students 2000

Bulgarian Turks are religious fanatics

71.5 %

37 %

Bulgarian Turks are unreliable

39 %

33 %

Bulgarian Turks are feeling hostility to Bulgarian Christians

30 %

36 %

All opportunities should be used for more Bulgarian Turks to migrate to Turkey

53 %

53%

These data bring a question mark regarding the Turkish image drawn for the Turks in Bulgarian history education. Bulgarian educational model were greatly affected by the problematic situation of the Turkish-Bulgarian relations during the Cold War. History education was an instrument in domestic politics which was an integral element of propaganda for the Communist regime. For the situation of deliberate denigration of the Ottoman period the Turkish government and Turks living in Bulgaria were found

Deykova i Çakır, a.g.e., s. 94. Yantsislav Yanakiev (Sıstavitel i redaktor), İntegratsiya na etniçeskite i kulturalni maltsinstva vıv Bıorıjenite sili. Analiz na bılgarskiya opit i perspektivi za prilojenie na evropeyskite praktiki, Sofia, 2003, s. 36. 311 312

104


responsible.313In the period 1990-2000, a softening in the feelings to Turks has been perceived. In general the positive myths about Turks were not sufficient and systematic. This is a very bold steps will the government was due to the efforts of those who read textbooks. These bold steps have been realized by the efforts of textbooks writers rather than State will.314 The Ministry of Education experts have got acquainted with the above-mentioned psychological situation also existing in different parts of the Bulgarian society. At the same time the majority of the Bulgarian, are aware of the negativity about looking at the ethnic minority students, quality education, and equal integration and identity development.315 As they know that in both strategy document (2004)316 (2010)317; they sought the overall strategic objectives of creating the prerequisite for a successful socialization of children from ethnic minorities, and appropriate public media. “In particular the Government sees the goal to create the legal basis for integrating of the children of Turkish minority and of overcoming the negative views and hate speech”.318 b.4. Methodological Solutions Regarding Integration of children and students belonging to Ethnic Minorities Methodological solutions to problems encountered in the education integration of Children and students belonging to ethnic minority are associated with supporting of intercultural education and its promotion. Therefore, the following statement has been placed in the updated strategy of the Ministry of Education: “the process of modernization of the Bulgarian education system should urgently be in place as an integral chain to stabilize the minority education”.319 This educational model, attribute a window with an objective clear and accurate looking at the culture of minority children and children in majority by educators. At the Ġsov, a.g.e., s. 327-329. Ġsov, a.g.e., s. 331. 315 Strategiya za obrazovatelna integratsiya na detsata i uçenitsite ot etniçeskite maltsinstva. Odobrena ot ministıra na obrazovanieto i naukata, 11, Haziran, 2004, s. 2, http://www.minedu.government.bg /?go=page&pageId=74&subpageId=143; Aktualizirana Strategiya za obrazovatelna integratsiya na detsata i uçenitsite ot etniçeskite maltsinstva utvırdena ot ministıra na obrazovanieto, mladejta i naukata na 04.03.2010, s. 2, http://coiduem.mon.bg/page.php?c=4&d=16 (e.t. 22. 10. 2015). 316 Strategiya za obrazovatelna integratsiya na detsata i uçenitsite ot etniçeskite maltsinstva. Odobrena ot ministıra na obrazovanieto i naukata, 11, Haziran, 2004, s. 5, http://www.minedu.government.bg /?go=page&pageId=74&subpageId=143(e.t. 22. 10. 2015). 317 Aktualizirana Strategiya za obrazovatelna integratsiya na detsata i uçenitsite ot etniçeskite maltsinstva utvırdena ot ministıra na obrazovanieto, mladejta i naukata na 04.03.2010, s. 5, http://coiduem.mon.bg/ page.php?c=4&d=16 (e.t. 22. 10. 2015). 318 Strategiya za obrazovatelna integratsiya na detsata i uçenitsite ot etniçeskite maltsinstva. Odobrena ot ministıra na obrazovanieto i naukata, 11, Haziran, 2004, s. 7, http://www.minedu.government.bg /?go=page&pageId=74&subpageId=143; Aktualizirana Strategiya za obrazovatelna integratsiya na detsata i uçenitsite ot etniçeskite maltsinstva utvırdena ot ministıra na obrazovanieto, mladejta i naukata na 04.03.2010, s. 7, http://coiduem.mon.bg/page.php?c=4&d=16 (e.t. 22. 10. 2015). 319 Aktualizirana Strategiya za obrazovatelna integratsiya na detsata i uçenitsite ot etniçeskite maltsinstva utvırdena ot ministıra na obrazovanieto, mladejta i naukata na 04.03.2010, s. 7, http://coiduem.mon.bg/page.php?c=4&d=16 (e.t. 22. 10. 2015). 313 314

105


same time, this model is a mirror for minority children to look to their own culture. Thus while creating of the children belonging majority the positive attitude, tolerance and respect for others, of the children belonging minority strengthening the self-esteem and identity.320 The value of intercultural education was compatible with the National Minorities Protection Framework came into effect in 1 September 1999 in Bulgaria. Treaty will oblige the Bulgarian government to encourage intercultural tolerance. And in the same time, emphasizes that the State should take serious steps to improve peace, tolerance and cooperation among Bulgarian citizens having different ethnic cultures, religion, and language especially in Educational, Cultural and in the Media environment.321 b.5. Authority executing the Strategy Education Integration of Children and students from ethnic minorities Execution Center In January 11, 2004 the Council of Ministers has decided to set up the Center to support the integration policy of the Ministry of Education in the education of children of ethnic minorities.322 The Center was obliged to finance and support the projects related to the improvement of the education with equal access to quality education. Equal access to quality education will be made by providing children and students with different ethnic groups in a combined education and additional courses in weak points.323 The center has three main Objectives: 1. Strengthening the law and education on equal access to quality education 2. Maintaining and developing the cultural identity of the children from ethnic minorities. To convert the ethno-cultural differences in the common education field to a tool to create respect for each other, to get to know each other and to cooperate. 3. Creating the prerequisite for a successful socialization of children from ethnic minorities, and appropriate public media as the overall strategic objective. In addition, this center is responsible for 10 years of work on the participation of Roma in 2005-2015 years. Education integration plays a key role in the integration of the Roma into participation in Bulgarian society.324

Plamen Makariev, İnter kulturnoto obrazovanie-ot ideala kım realnostta. İnter kulturnoto obrazovanie v Bılgariya. İdeal i realnost. Pod redaksiyata Plamen Makariev, AKSES-IPIS, Sofia, s. 12; Totseva, a.g.m.,http://ytotseva.blogspot.bg/2009/11/blog-post_24.html (e.t. 22. 10. 2015). 321 Framework Agreement on Protecting the Minorities, Item 6, Ratifitsirana ot 38-moto narodno sıbranie sıs zakon, priet na 18.02.1999, Official Gazette, S. 18, 1999. Ġzdadena ot Ministerstvoto vınĢnite raboti, obn., Dırjaven vestnik, S. 78, 03.09.1999, v sila za Republika Bılgariya, 01.09.1999. Konventsiya e dostıp na adres: http://www.nccedi.government.bg/page.php?category=36&id=1866 (e.t. 22. 10. 2015). 322 Postavlenie No 4 na MS ot 11.01.2005 za sızdavane na Tsentır za obrazovatelna integratsiya na detsata i uçenitsite ot etniçeskite maltsinstvahttp://coiduem.mon.bg/page.php?c=4&d=36(e.t. 22. 10. 2015). 323 Pravilnik za ustroystvoto, deynostta i organizatsiyata na rabota na tsentıra za obrazovatelna integratsiya na detsata i uçenitsite ot etniçeskite maltsinstva-http://coiduem.mon.bg/page.php?c =4&d=57(e.t. 22. 10. 2015). 324 Deynosti na Tsentıra za obrazovatelna integratsiya na detsata i uçenitsite ot etniçeskite maltsinstvahttp://coiduem.mon.bg/page.php?c=25(e.t. 22. 10. 2015). 320

106


The Center has launched tolerance education projects by using outsourcing of year 2013 for the integration of education of ethnic minority children targeting school principals, teachers and guidance counselors and education inspectors. The Center is responsible to prepare, to publish and to distribute the “guidelines” to show the way to Roma families sharing experience gained in education of Roma children and students. The Center with the allocated money from the State budget is financing kindergartens, schools, regional education inspectorates, universities and municipalities‟ priority projects as shown below; 1. To ensure equal access to quality education of children from ethnic minorities -21 projects; 386,739.16 Leva budget 2. To preserve the cultural identity of the children of ethnic minorities and apply different methods for improving and developing-24 projects; 281,882.38 Leva budget 3. To cooperate with the parents of the children of ethnic minorities for reducing the sobering children absent from school -16 projects; 279,367.80 Leva budget325 A Report has been presented at the end of the 2014 on the impact of the projects budgeted in 2013.326 Which of the following activities were included in your project? Extra-curricular activities at school

88%

Extra-curricular activities outside school

71%

Training of Teachers

65%

Family, Employee and Adult Training Books, textbooks and supplementary books purchase Full-day activity in education program

59% 21% 12%

Free transportation

12%

Classroom activities

9%

Food aid

6%

Center has continued Tolerance Education themed outsourced Project in 2014.Since March Center has organized education workshops to children and young people in the risk group and working class. The afore-mentioned projects were funded from the State budget in 2014. 1. 20 projects, 80% of the total budget of the projects were donated – 348,047.13 Leva

325

TSOIDUEM, 2013 Activity Report- http://coiduem.mon.bg/page.php?c=32&d=219(e.t. 22. 10. 2015) Doklad ot monitoring za efekta i stepenta, v koyato sa postignali strategiçeskite tseli na TSOIDUEM v odobreni i finansirani proekti po konkursna protsedura 33.12.2013-http://coiduem.mon.bg/ upload/docs/doklad_ocenka_na_efekta_33.12_2013.pdf, s. 31.(e.t. 22. 10. 2015). 326

107


2. 21 projects, 80% of the total budget of the projects were donated -262,466.02 Leva 3. 15 projects, 80% of the total budget of the projects were donated -277,370.60 Leva In 2014, the Center has transferred 20% of the 61 projects launched in the previous years. Total budget was 226,376.77 Leva. In 2014, the Center has continued to the projects aimed for the State schools, Municipal Schools, Primary schools and Education Inspectors, Universities and Municipalities.327 b.6. The Results of Implemented Policies Despite Bulgarian authorities has declared that the education integration policies would be implemented to be primarily directed to children from minorities, in particular to the Roma children, in reality their implementation was very weak. In recent years, the high school and college completion rates of Roma and Turkish children has been increased to some extent. Nevertheless, enrollment rates at all levels of education among Roma is much lower compared to all other ethnic groups. According to data of the year 2011, when the whole picture was viewed, of compulsory school age children between the ages of 7-15, 23.2% of children are from Roma, 11.9% are from Turks and 5.6% comes from the Bulgarian ethnicity.328 European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance 2014 Progress Report Corruption Commission monitoring report, in particular states that, the leaving school rate of Roma children, are disproportionately higher than other ethnic minorities.329When it is viewed more generically, despite the government's specific policies and commitments the Decade of Roma Inclusion (2005-2015) and the Roma National Strategy on Integration (2012-2020) for the integration of Roma 330 in Bulgarian society “lack of significant progress” was seen331. Judging the process of integration of Roma children in education over the last decade, concludes lack of a clear noticeable progress.332

327

TSOIDUEM, 2014 Activity Report-http://coiduem.mon.bg/page.php?c=32&d=234(e.t. 22.10.2015) Strategiya za obrazovatelna integratsiya na detsata i uçenitsite ot etniçeskite maltsinstva (2015-2020)http://www.mon.bg/?go=page&pageId=74&subpageId=143(e.t. 22. 10. 2015). 329 Doklad na Evropeyskata komisiya sreĢtu rasizma i netolerantnostta za Bılgariya (peti monitoringov tsikl)www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/.../BGR-CbC-V-2014-036-BGR.pdf, s. 31-32 (e.t. 22.10.2015). 330 Grajdanski doklad za izpılnenieto na Natsionalnata strategiya za integratsiya na romite i Plana za izpılnenie na Desetiletie na romskoto vklyuçvane prez 2012. Ġzgotven ot koalitsiya, sıstavena ot: Ġnstitut otvoreno obĢestvoSofia, Sotsialna fondatsiya “Indi-Roma 97”, fondatsiya “zdraveto na romite”, fondatsiya “Romska akademiya za kultura i obrazovanie”, fondatsiya “Romska solidarnost”, Asotsiatsiya “Ġntergo”, Sdrujenie “Nov pıt”, Tsentır za mejduetniçeski dialog i tolerantnost “Amalipe” i Sdrujenie “Svyat bez granitsi”. Napisan ot Dimitır Dimitrov, Vanya Grigorova i Yoana Deçeva.- http://ethnos.bg/data/BG_civil%20society%20monitoring%20reportBG(4).pdf , s. 1 (e.t. 22.10.2015). 331 Doklad na Evropeyskata komisiya sreĢtu rasizma i netolerantnostta za Bılgariya (peti monitoringov tsikl)www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/.../BGR-CbC-V-2014-036-BGR.pdf, s. 24 (e.t. 22. 10. 2015). 332 V klasnite stai se preutvırjdavat diskriminatsionni naglasi. Ġntervyu na Yuliana Metodieva s Prof. Maya Grekova.- http://www.marginalia.bg/analizi/v-klasnite-stai-se-preutvarzhdavat-diskriminatsionni-naglasi/; Petır 328

108


Independent experts on the Roma issue indicate that; not fully acceptance of the existence of the Roma population was the basis of the failure of integration policies applied. For Roma integration policies, the management of various sectors, the majority of Bulgarian citizens from different political views believe that; Bulgarian policy aimed at changing the existing structure of the Roma was not a requirement and was an external imposition (EU) of integration of ethnic identities to the for the Bulgarian Society. This is the reason for holding at the low level of state responsibility. Therefore several “programs” “plans” and “strategies” discourse` policy applied by State to Roma is not surprising and for the experts working on Roma issues “Roma integration is a paper tower”. The Data on integration does not contain existing ethnic divisions and an objective analysis of inequalities, the isolation of the Roma community, living conditions within the Bulgarian community and simply, there were no reasoning for these cases as well. If this missing part could be discussed and the necessary contribution could be provided; for the integration of Roma and in general the integration of all minorities one of the widely shared main ingredient “If you would like to see adopted in the Bulgarian society you have to be like us” idea would be more clear.333 c. Problems in Teaching Turkish as Mother Tongue c.1. Legal deficiencies State does not having political and administrative will to carry out fully the Education Act regarding the right to mother tongue education. Two fundamental bases for the government policy draw attention. First Bulgarian law - the constitution which exists in the field of education through the ratification of international treaties declares and guarantees as a democratic right of mother tongue education in general framework. Second, the practical arrangements and regulations, related to education in the mother tongue are not clear in practice issues. In 2014 this education still was remaining to the directors, teachers, regional specialists and parents‟ personal beliefs and efforts within the framework of existing legislation.334 The issue of textbooks is another thing which has not cleared yet. Although the right to mother tongue education was guaranteed in the legal ground, in particular, there is no legislation or regulations regarding textbooks in their mother tongue. This creates legal uncertainty on course.335 One of the problems in the mother tongue education was the essentiality of having the specified number of requests from students for opening the classes. In schools where there is less number of minority students, they can be deprived

Çolakov, Hartienata kula na romskata integratsiya.-http://www.dnevnik.bg /analizi/2015/07/01/2560353_hartienata_kula_na_romskata_integraciia/(e.t. 22.10.2015). 333 V klasnite stai se preutvırjdavat diskriminatsionni naglasi. Ġntervyu na Yuliana Metodieva s Prof. Maya Grekova.- http://www.marginalia.bg/analizi/v-klasnite-stai-se-preutvarzhdavat-diskriminatsionni-naglasi/; Petır Çolakov, Hartienata kula na romskata integratsiya.-http://www.dnevnik.bg /analizi/2015/07/01/2560353_hartienata_kula_na_romskata_integraciia/(e.t. 22.10. 2015). 334 Jelyazkova i drugi, a.g.e., s. 66. 335 Jelyazkova i drugi, a.g.e., s. 67.

109


natural rights of learning their mother tongue by the closure of classes due to that obligation.336 Based on a field research conducted by MTSIKB; a quality of a mother tongue education clearly depends on State‟s policy and the determined attitude to the settlement of this. The participants also saw that actually state was not having intention to establish regulations in reality.337 c.2. Mother Tongue Turkish Text Books Deficiency Mother Tongue Turkish Textbooks status is closely related to the legal misconceptions. If State wanted to improve the quality of mother tongue education it could have happened through legislation and special provisions. But this has not happened since 20 years. There were no other course textbooks that have not been renewed in 20 years.338 There was a prevalence thought in the society among a part of the group of teachers, parents and legislators, that mother tongue education could prevent intimidation of Bulgarian education. In fact, many of these children have neither full command of Turkish nor Bulgarian.339 Turkish society does not feel any danger of losing the language as a carrier of identity the structure of the children's native language Turkish 300-800 word written language to speak although they know nothing about its systematic. This pushes them to illiteracy or semi-illiteracy, because the lack of native language is an important step to know the official language in Bulgarian and other foreign languages.340 There are other reasons as well for the State and Municipal agencies staying away from students „native language of education as well as not making regulatory arrangements. These are the indifferent attitude of parents and having migration trends. The last 15 years, has turned its direction of the waves of immigration from Turkey towards the European Union. According to the 2012 analysis team of International Cultural Cooperation Center working on Minority works, to become proficient in the official language and having a popular foreign language of their children has become priority status for the Turkish minority parents. Living in a Turkish-dominated environment makes it difficult to dominate the Bulgarian language of the children, but also does not guarantee for them the use literal Turkish language; The Turkish language they use remains limited in their own dialect. They are forced to fight in Bulgarian with most when they were starting primary school and causes continuous effort into looking them the closure of the gap; this was a condition that makes it difficult to reach success in their future. Therefore, parents were focusing for children having Bulgarian plus learning a popular foreign language. It should not be disregarded that the primary school education in Bulgaria is much more 336

Jelyazkova i drugi, a.g.e., s. 67. Jelyazkova i drugi, a.g.e., s. 67. 338 Jelyazkova i drugi, a.g.e., s. 68. 339 Jelyazkova i drugi, a.g.e., s. 68. 340 Jelyazkova i drugi, a.g.e., s. 68-69. 337

110


intense starting with the primary school, having highly complex textbooks in all fields. Therefore, families are forced to neglect their children's mother tongue education to reduce their burden.341 c.3. History Education Bulgarian history books, has been re-designed several times over 20 years. Minority Studies and Intercultural Relations International Center studies have shown that; to overcome the negative perception is related to the historical image of Turks was not a trend in this process. This is clearly evident with the experience of parents compared particularly between the perceptions of students in the socialism period and today‟s‟ students perceptions. The majority of students interviewed have refrained from declaring to the team making the interviews whether they feel a sense of anger or discomfort in one or more aspects of the history of the Ottoman periods.342 Another result was somehow psychological. The research has shown that to introduce Turks in the historical background has been “a major problem” in the teaching of history in schools. According to psychologists, teaching modern history, history of Turks (историческа вина) continues to create a psychology of guilt (or causing discomfort) and Turkish students were obliged to test their Turkish identity.343 If in history teaching the contribution and role of Turkish society in Bulgarian history with a subsidiary role in the cultural-historical heritage were not considered this statement gain more clarity. For example a study showed that; the concept of near history in today's high school textbooks was existing quantitatively at a rate of between 1.56% and 0.12% 344 and were symbolically present in fifth and sixth grade elementary school current textbooks.345 This situation was not showing many differences for the other minority groups. The analysis performed in 2011 has shown that; in the fifth and sixth grades of textbooks, only the presence of ethnic minorities was mentioned in the contents of different textbooks. However the special contribution to the ethno-cultural diversity in the country by different ethnic communities was not present. Describing the cultural traditions and folkloric features of different ethnic communities, were not in proportion to perform the introduction of ethnic minority communities which were an integral part of the communities in Bulgaria. 341

Jelyazkova i drugi, a.g.e., s. 69-70. Jelyazkova i drugi, a.g.e., s. 56-58, 63. 343 Natsionalno predstavitelno izsledvane: “Stereotipi i predrazsıdıtsi v uçebnitsi, uçebni pomagala i obrazovatelni programi i planove v podgotvitelnoto i osnovnoto obrazzovanie”. Rezultati ot anketnoto prouçvane na uçiteli ot podgotvitelno i osnovno obrazovanie i ot provejdane na fokus grupi s uçenitsi ot podgotvitelno i osnovno obrazovanie..Sofia, 2011, s. 41.-Ġzsledvaneto e dostıpno na adres: http://www.dnevnik.bg/detski_dnevnik/2012/08/08/1883217_uchilishteto_nasajda_traini_etnicheski_stereotipi 344 Rayna Gavrilova, Mariya Radeva i Evgeniya Kalinova, İstoriya i tsivilizatsiya za 6. Klas, Sofia, Prosveta, 2007, tiraj 2014, odobren 2011; Rumyana KuĢeva, Veselin Yançev, Georgi Yakimov, Mihail Gruev, İstoriya i tsivilizatsiya za 6.klas, Sofia, Azbuka-Prosveta, 2007, tiraj 2011, odobren 2011. 345 Rayna Gavrilova, Mariya Radeva i Evgeniya Kalinova, İstoriya i tsivilizatsiya za 6. Klas, Sofia, Prosveta, 2007, tiraj 2014, odobren 2011; Rumyana KuĢeva, Veselin Yançev, Georgi Yakimov, Mihail Gruev, İstoriya i tsivilizatsiya za 6.klas, Sofia, Azbuka-Prosveta, 2007, tiraj 2011, odobren 2011. 342

111


There was even write-up of final reports mentioning some textbooks ignoring the different ethnic communities‟ existences in the modern society of Bulgaria. When looked at to the Roma Community, as per the analyses of the writers of the report; the examples of this type do not exceed one or two for the Roma community.346 The national survey which was conducted in 2011 by the order of the Protection Against Discrimination Commission; on the Preparation and Primary education textbooks and education programs and curricula stereotypes and prejudices in the Bulgarian modern school system, has concluded that “It was very passive in terms of the differences”.347 In addition, this research has shown that there was a large group among the teachers showing discrimination especially against Roma children in a disturbing rate. According 47% of the participating teachers to the survey to include/integrate and ensure the participation of Roma children in education was very difficult. While 25.4% believe that Roma children should be educated in separate schools. About one-fifth (19.5%) believe that children of different ethnic origin have various characteristics.348 Although there were no signs of intentionally created prejudices and discrimination; after all the school environment in a passive way supports the formation of a negative image in the family and in society Turkish and Roma minorities are example of this. One of the most negative aspects of this situation was the incapability of self-formation of the minority children as a result of this situation. The image which they were belonging to coming in front of the memory of the community was problematic. They generally do not know exactly their origin, religion, history, traditions and festivals nor did other ethnic groups live together.349 Of course, the Bulgarian education system enables the development and preservation of children and students‟ cultural identity belonging to ethnic minorities. In this regard, education was carried through compulsory elective (ZIP) and free electives Analiz na sıdırjanieto na uçebnitsi za 5-ti i 6-ti klas za naliçie na stereotipi i predrazsıdıtsi po etniçeski priznak. Okonçatelen doklad. Dostıpen na adres: http://www.dnevnik.bg/detski _dnevnik/2012/08/08/1883217_uchilishteto_nasajda_traini_etnicheski_stereotipi/(e.t. 23.10.2015). 347 Natsionalno predstavitelno izsledvane: “Stereotipi i predrazsıdıtsi v uçebnitsi, uçebni pomagala i obrazovatelni programi i planove v podgotvitelnoto i osnovnoto obrazzovanie”. Rezultati ot anketnoto prouçvane na uçiteli ot podgotvitelno i osnovno obrazovanie i ot provejdane na fokus grupi s uçenitsi ot podgotvitelno i osnovno obrazovanie..Sofia, 2011, -Ġzsledvaneto e dostıpno na adres: http://www.dnevnik.bg/detski_dnevnik/2012/08/08/1883217_uchilishteto_nasajda_traini_etnicheski_stereotipi(e.t. 23.10.2015). 348 Natsionalno predstavitelno izsledvane: “Stereotipi i predrazsıdıtsi v uçebnitsi, uçebni pomagala i obrazovatelni programi i planove v podgotvitelnoto i osnovnoto obrazzovanie”. Rezultati ot anketnoto prouçvane na uçiteli ot podgotvitelno i osnovno obrazovanie i ot provejdane na fokus grupi s uçenitsi ot podgotvitelno i osnovno obrazovanie..Sofia, 2011, s.25. -Ġzsledvaneto e dostıpno na adres: http://www.dnevnik.bg/detski_dnevnik/2012/08/08/1883217_uchilishteto_nasajda_traini_etnicheski_stereotipi(e.t. 23.10.2015). 349 Natsionalno predstavitelno izsledvane: “Stereotipi i predrazsıdıtsi v uçebnitsi, uçebni pomagala i obrazovatelni programi i planove v podgotvitelnoto i osnovnoto obrazzovanie”. Rezultati ot anketnoto prouçvane na uçiteli ot podgotvitelno i osnovno obrazovanie i ot provejdane na fokus grupi s uçenitsi ot podgotvitelno i osnovno obrazovanie..Sofia, 2011, s. 49-50. -Ġzsledvaneto e dostıpno na adres: http://www.dnevnik.bg/detski_dnevnik/2012/08/08/1883217_uchilishteto_nasajda_traini_etnicheski_stereotipi(e.t. 23.10.2015). 346

112


(SIP).Whereas an ethnic group's culture, folklore took place in very symbolic in the legislation drawn up by the Ministry of Education.350 However, as a result of the efforts of civil society organizations some positive examples have been formed. Thus “SIP - Ethnic Folklore - Roma Folklore in Bulgaria” must be specified. At the beginning of the 2002/2003 year the program was conducted by the “Center for Interethnic Dialog and Tolerance - Amalipe” with the financial support of by the Ministry of Education, “Open Society Institute of Science” and other institutions and foundations. “SIP - Ethnic Folklore - Roma Folklore in Bulgaria” was originally composed of 30 groups including 13 schools from Veliko Tarnovo and one school from Sofia.20032003 academic year, the number has come out to 32 (raised by 32%) (Veliko Tarnovo, Targovishte (Eski Cuma), Razgrad and Shumen regions) was formed 55 groups with more than 1,000 students. After the“Amelipe” campaign of the inspectors, school principals and municipal authorities by the 2004-2005 academic years “SIP” has worked with nearly 4,000 students in 112 schools in 52 municipalities. In the 2005-2006 academic year, 63 school more were involved in the program. And their students were included in the “SIP” group. There were over 5,000 students from 170 schools in the group. Currently “SIP Ethnic Folklore - Roma Folklore in Bulgaria” was functioning over 200 schools in Bulgaria.351 d. Educational Integration Strategy of Children and Students who are Members of Ethnic Minorities Strategy report is a quality guarantee certificate presented to the ethnic minority children and students to be educationally integrated and receiving a quality education on equal terms for the development of their cultural identity in the school environment. The legislation in 2004 has led some positive changes in the educational practices.352 In recent years, the curriculum and the content of the general education program within the framework has changed in terms of intercultural understanding and interaction of children from different ethno-cultural groups. Supplementary educational books were published; pedagogical specialists have been trained to implement the intercultural approaches and programs. An “Assistant teachers” concept has been developed and has been appointed to facilitate the work and to improve quality of teachers in a multi-cultural learning environment. The educational participation process of Non-Bulgarian ethnic communities‟ children and students was accelerated by a number of initiatives of intercultural various factors at school level; In this context the most expensive projects implemented with the

Strategiya za obrazovatelna integratsiya na detsata i uçenitsite ot etniçeskite maltsinstva (2015-2020)http://www.mon.bg/?go=page&pageId=74&subpageId=143(e.t. 23.10.2015). 351 Tsentır za mejduetniçeski dialog i tolerantnost “Amalipe”.-http://amalipe.com/index.php?nav= program&id=15(e.t. 23.10.2015). 352 Strategiya za obrazovatelna integratsiya na detsata i uçenitsite ot etniçeskite maltsinstva (2015-2020)http://www.mon.bg/?go=page&pageId=74&subpageId=143(e.t. 23.10.2015). 350

113


active participation of European and other international sources and supported by civil society organizations were in this category.353 The Educational Integration Center was the main instrument for solving urgent problems related to school adaptation of children and students who are members of ethnic minorities.354 Since its establishment the Center was working on financing of the projects aimed at the protection and development of vulnerable group children‟s cultural identity and providing a quality education. The Center has funded 117 projects involving; to prevent the closure of the school, to educate teachers on the culture and traditions of ethnic minorities and to provide for the integration of Roma parents with the kindergarten teachers matters in 2013-14 years. If a more general assessment of “Educational Integration Strategy of Children and Students who are Members of Ethnic Minorities” going to be made; it appears that the educational-integration adopted by the Education Ministry has not been realized at a significant proportion of the social potential.355 Experts were in the opinion of one of the reasons that caused not realization of the strategy has been related with the legal status of the regulation and were advising connecting to the provisions of specific laws in the field of education in the Country to increase the impact of the application.356 The analysis conducted by experts from the Ministry of Education the pedagogical technological deficiencies in the Bulgarian education system; appear in the development of children having non-Bulgarian ethnic background. On the other hand this can be concluded to teachers‟ lack of knowledge on the national and international agreements related to the framework and contents of cultural formal education.357 Also the lack of pedagogical specialists having competence communication knowledge and skills for the perception of children's ethnic and cultural differences, that could help to overcome the negative stereotypes and cultural distances was a reality.358

Strategiya za obrazovatelna integratsiya na detsata i uçenitsite ot etniçeskite maltsinstva (2015-2020), s. 9. http://www.mon.bg/?go=page&pageId=74&subpageId=143(e.t. 23.10.2015). 354 Yosif Nunev, Tsentırıt za obrazovatelna integratsiya na detsata i uçenitsite ot etniçeskite maltsinstva-minalo. Nastoyaşte i bıdeşte. Strategii za obrazovatelnata i nauçnata politika, 2010, No 4, s.339-340. 355 Strategiya za obrazovatelna integratsiya na detsata i uçenitsite ot etniçeskite maltsinstva (2015-2020), s. 4. http://www.mon.bg/?go=page&pageId=74&subpageId=143(e.t. 23.10.2015) 356 Plan on Applying the Ten-Year Roman Integration National Strategy and Application Plan, Roman Participation in 2012 Report, Prepared by: Ġnstitut otvoreno obĢtesto-Sofia, sotsialna fondatsiya “Ġnda Roma 97”, fondatsiya “Zdraveto na romite”, fondatsiya “Romska akademiya za kultura i obrazovanie”, fondatsiya “Romska solidarnost”, Asotsiyatsiya “Ġntegro” Sdrujenie “Nov pıt”, Tsentır za mejduetniçeski dialog i tolerantnost “Amalipe” i Sdrujenie “Svyat bez granitsi”. Napisan ot Dimitır Dimitrov, Vanya Grigorova i Yoana Deçeva.http://ethnos.bg/data/BG_civil%20society%20monitoring%20report_ BG(4).pdf, s. 35 (e.t. 23.10.2015) 357 Ġrina Koleva, Natsionalni prioriteti i politiki v interkulturnoto obrazovanie (refleksivni aspekti).-Strategii na obrazovatelnata i nauçnata politika, knijka 1, 2013, s. 14. 358 Strategiya za obrazovatelna integratsiya na detsata i uçenitsite ot etniçeskite maltsinstva (2015-2020), s. 9. http://www.mon.bg/?go=page&pageId=74&subpageId=143(e.t. 23.10.2015) 353

114


6. RELIGIOUS RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS After 1989, the changing political order gave birth to new possibilities as; getting back their own names, believe in religion they want to, having religious education for the implementation the rights and freedoms of Muslims in Bulgaria. The new political order has begun to allow opening the mosques closed in time of communist system, the construction of new mosques, the returning of a portion of worship places belonging to the Muslim community to the foundation. Grand Mufti has begun to fulfill their natural functions on issues such as step by step giving religious education, publishing literary books having religious content, serving on special occasions such as religious holidays for Muslims, administration of foundations.359 According to the last census of 2011. The number of Muslims in Bulgaria is 577,139 people.360 This figure corresponds to 10% of the total population. This number was 966,978 (12.2%) in the year 2001, whereas was 1,110,295 (13.1%) in 1992. 361 Since 12.02.2011 the National Muslim Conference undertook the task of representing the Muslims. High Muslim Council was the central executive body and the Grand Mufti was the spiritual leader of Muslims in Bulgaria. The muftis are available in 21 provinces of the country. These are Sofia, Plovdiv (Filibe), Kardzhali (Kircaali), Smolyan (PaĢmaklı), Aytos, Shumen (ġumnu), Dobrich, Razgrad, KoĢukavak, Haskovo (Hasköy), Pleven (Plevne), Blagoevgrad, Pazardzhik (Pazarcık), Targovishte (TırgoviĢte), Silistra (Silistre), Ruse (Rusçuk), Sliven, Veliko Tarnovo, Varna, the Stara Zagora (Eski Zağra) and Montana Muftis.362 According to information provided by the Grand Mufti authorities; as of September 2013 there were 1550 mosques and masjids, there were 50 lodges and shrines in the Country. Nearly 200 worship places were not functioning due to lack of Imams of Muslim community, property issues or modification requirements. The number of mosques in operation was 1300; this figure is equal to the number of imams in the Country. Of these, 600 were working on the voluntary basis. The salaries of the Imams were met by donations of the Muslim community. 363 Grand Mufti administered educational institutions were also available.

Vedat S. Ahmed, “Bulgaristan Müslüman-Türk Azınlığının Dinî Hakları ve Bulgaristan Müslümanları BaĢ Müftülüğü”, V 100 Godinî Glavno Myuftiystvo (1910-2010). Yubileen sbornik, Sofia, Glavno Myuftiystvo na Myusulmanite v Republika Bılgariya, 2011, s. 94. 360 Since the number of the religious data is based mainly on being a volunteer, this number is determined according to the Muslims who answer this (Census on housing and population in 2011. V. I, Population, Book IIDemographic and social character, Sofia, National Statitical Institution, 2012, p. 12) At any case, the real number is always more. 361 Census on housing and population in 2011. V. I, Population, Book II-Demographic and social character, Sofia, National Statistics Institution, 2012, p. 131. 362 http://www.grandmufti.bg/images/phocadownload/NORMATIVNI_DOKUMENTI/USTAVI/USTAV%202011 .pdf(e.t. 26.10.2015). 363 http://www.dnes.bg/obshtestvo/2013/09/10/za-2-g-glavnoto-miuftiistvo-zavelo-52-dela-za-vakyfski-imoti. 198817; Ġsmail Djambazov, “Myuftiyska sistema”, V 100 godinî Glavna Myuftiystvo (1910-2010). Yubileen Sbornik, Sofia, Glavno Myuftiystvo na Myusulmanite v Republika Bılgariya, 2011, s. 21. 359

115


“Nüvvab”, a Muslim school in Shumen (ġumnu) closed by the communist government in 1950, was reopened in 1990. Initially 75 students were enrolled in school. A year later in Mestanlı and Ruse (Rusçuk) branch schools were opened. In 1995, The School has acquired the status of a Private Religious Secondary Education. Religious school education curriculum is done by the MON (Ministry of Education and Science) adhering to the agreement to the negotiations with the Grand Mufti's. 2/3 of the Curriculum is composed of general information, 1/3 of the Curriculum constitute the religious issues. In 2011, the number of male and female students graduated from these schools is over 1000. Students who graduated from these schools can be able to continue their education life in Bulgarian and foreign universities. In 1990 High Islamic Institute at the high school qualification started to be operational in Sofia. The Institute had an important mission to educate religious functionary in the early years of the democratization process. The most important contribution of the Institute to prepare today's modern education plan and the curriculum and to educate the nucleus teaching staff. Later on, by the Cabinet decision it has transformed into an Institution providing education at the undergraduate level with the decision of the Board on March 9, 1999, and renamed as the High Islamic Institute. The Curriculum consists of 2040 hours compulsory, 1900 hours of compulsory-elective courses faculty elective courses. Many of the compulsory-elective courses for the students were pedagogic courses that would enable them to be teachers in the Muslim Schools in the future. Training is provided by full-time and part-time working 20 lecturers. These lecturers are composed of 10 doctors, 5 associate professors and 5 professors. There are also guest lecturers coming from abroad to the High Islamic Institute. Between the years 1999-2010 the school has graduated 200 people. 2009-2010 academic years in the number of students enrolled at the school is 50. 10 students of the doctor argued in these institutions. Between the years 1999-2010 the school has graduated 200 people. In 2009-2010 academic years the number of students enrolled at the school was 50. 10 students have prepared their doctorate thesis in this institute. After Fifty years, in the 1997-1998 academic years “Religion” courses have begun in State schools. In 1999-2000 academic year 295 students in 16 schools at 1-4 Grade in the district municipalities practical “Religion-Islam “courses has been started. The course in the curriculum was selecting by parents and was opening provided that enough students and financing were available. Until 2002, financing was provided by the State and Grand Mufti. From 1999 to 2001, from 78 villages 3215 students have passed the practical religious education courses. The books were chosen and education programs were created by the Ministry of Education after having proposals and participation of Grand Mufti. Beginning of October 2002, “Religion courses” were included to the compulsory-electives in the curriculum for 1-12 grade students funded by the district municipalities. In 2002, (ZİP) Compulsory-Elective Program Islam Course has been taken in 7 schools by 634 students; (SIP) Free-Elective Program Islam Course has been taken in 2 schools by 39 students. As

116


per the Bulgarian National Education Law the Islamic Religious Courses were taught in Bulgarian.364 The Religion Courses could not get enough popularity for a period of 15 years. According to data from Grand Mufti the number of students choosing Religion-Islam courses was just over 3 thousand in 28 schools in 2014/2015 academic year. (The total number of students in this age group was around 80 thousand) 365 Assistant Grand Mufti Vedat Ahmed has expressed the cause of the Muslim students‟ unwillingness as the school administrators‟ efforts to break the religious education thoughts with various excuses. Grand Mufti to escape from this unpleasant situation has launched an information campaign in the schools with the slogan “let’s support the religion education by attending to the Religion-Islam Courses”.366 A new form of religious education in Bulgaria is the Koran courses. Most of these are short-term training courses are based on the Koran teaching 5-6 days a week for two months. In one-year program the courses are conducted with the lessons given on weekends. Until 2012 academic year; 500-600 courses were organized, reaching the number of students to 10 thousand. Koran courses were organized by the district Mufti, training provided by SODU (Religious High Schools) and VII (High Islamic Institute) students and Imams in some places. Training was provided under a program prepared in advance. Other courses are also organized with the Grand Mufti‟s support. For the preparation and self-development of Imams; one-year or two-year duration courses were opened in Aytos, Sliven, Plovdiv (Filibe), Razgrad and Pazardzhik (Pazarcık).367 a. Legal Regulations From 1989 until 2002, there was no law which regulates the State‟s relations with religious communities. Although 13 years have been past after starting of the democratization process in the country, the situation concerning religious works were resolved with ramshackle Denominations Act issued in the early years of Communist rule in 1949. 368 This law has a structure that makes the religious rights totally dependent on the

Ġbrahim Yalımov, “Ġslyamskoto Kulturno Nasledstvo na Bılgarskite Zemi”, Godişnik na Visşiya İslyamski İnstitut Sofia, 2010, S. II, s. 56-58; Ġbrahim Yalımov, Etnokulturna i religiozna identiçnost na turskata obştnost v Bılgariya, Sofia, VisĢ islyamski institut, 2014, s. 295-300; Jorjeta Nazırska, Sverla ġapkalova,İstoriya na Religioznite Denominatsiya v Bılgariya, , Za Bukvite-o pismeneh, Sofia, 2009, s. 96-97. 365 http://www.grandmufti.bg/bg/home/news-room/novini/1135-glavno-myuftiistvo-obyavyava-natzionalnakampaniya-za-populyariziraneto-na-predmeta-religiya-islyam-v-uchilishtata-1-31-mai.html(e.t. 26.10.2015). 366 http://www.grandmufti.bg/bg/home/news-room/novini/1135-glavno-myuftiistvo-obyavyava-natzionalnakampaniya-za-populyariziraneto-na-predmeta-religiya-islyam-v-uchilishtata-1-31-mai.html(e.t. 26.10.2015). 367 Yalımov, a.g.m., s.59-60; Yalımov,Etnokulturna i religiozna identiçnost na turskata obştnost v Bılgariya, Sofia, VisĢ Ġslyamski institut, 2014, s. 301. 368 Ġvan Jelev, Promeni vıv vzaimnootnoşeniyata mejdu religiya i dırjava v Bılgariya v demokratiçniya period, V. Ednan Aslan, Radka Vasileva, Bılgariya-Avstriya, Obrazovanieto i religiyata vıv vreme na promyana, Veliko Tırnovo, Ġzdatelstvo “Abarag”, 2010, s. 53. 364

117


State administration. As per the law the State even has the right to dismiss the head of the religious institutions.369 11 June 1992, the Constitutional Court has announced a series of decisions dissident to 1949 Law concerning the rights of religious. However, the relationship between the State and religious authority has been developed in a legal vacuum in reality, and the law was not applied for a decade. The ruling by the Constitutional Court, the old practice “the political arm of the Cabinet of Ministers fulfills the registration of religious affairs duties” had remained in force which was one of the most important points. Registration System was carried out under the supervision of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee like human rights organization‟s mission to prevent undue interference in the internal affairs of the State in religious communities. 370 According to the Religious Directorate‟s former Chairman Prof. Dr. Ivan Zhelev Bulgarian politicians are afraid of a “strong and well organized” religious structure. 371 Therefore, immediately after 1989 they have tried to take major religious groups under their influence. Zhelev: “the politicians played an important role to separate religious groups. The purpose of political parties in doing this is to weaken them and create divisions to make them dependents”. a.1. December 2002 Accepted Religious Denominations Act Finally the Parliament has adopted Religious Denominations Act governing religious rights in the month of December 2002. The law has entered into force on 2 January 2003. The new Act defines the right to religious freedom as “fundamental, absolute, subjective, personal, and inviolable” human right. (A. 2) How Experts were evaluating this? At that time due to constraints of the communist system of the religious life the head of the Religious Directorate Ivan Zhelev could not make an objective comment and after adoption of this law he has described as “a very good law”.372 Human rights experts have reported different views on this issue. After a few months of the Act coming into force Krasimir Kınev (Bulgarian Helsinki Committee Chairman) has said that the law was discriminatory and restrictive in nature. The Religion Law carries limiting features on the implementation to be in world class. On the other hand, the state has implemented the regime to control religious organizations, thus making difficult their activities. The registration system created bears a discriminatory feature. The Law has implemented different procedures for different religious groups. The registering system has not applied

Emil Koen, Krasimir Kınev, Doreteya Mladenova, Religioznata svoboda v Bılgariya prez 2004 g. Spetsialen doklad na fondatsiya “Tolerantnost” i Bılgarski helsinski komitet, Sofia, Haziran 2005, s. 2-3. 370 Koen, Kınev, a.g.e., s. 4. 371 Jelev, a.g.e., s. 56. 372 http://www.capital.bg/politika_i_ikonomika/obshtestvo/2003/10/18/223484_sporniiat_zakon_za_veroizpovedan iiata/(e.t. 26.10.2015). 369

118


for Bulgarian Church, while for Islam and other religious groups the system brought a mandatory registration.373 President of the Helsinki Committee of the US Christopher Smith also has participated to debate on the nature of the new law. Smith has done a detailed analysis, and urged the Bulgarian government to carry out the proposals he has presented. 374 Smith also has criticized the registration system as Kınav that it could cause to be open to manipulation and to malpractices. Another weak point of the law is the right given to the Religious Department criticizing religious doctrines. This could cause subjective comments of the government on the belief of the religious groups and would give rise to the restrictions.375 In 2005 “Tolerance Foundation” and “Bulgarian Helsinki Committee” in their published reports have made emphasis on “seriously damaging of citizens‟ religious rights by the implementation of the law”. On the other hand, also it was commented that this registration system of the current law, would further strengthen the control over religious organizations in Bulgaria.376 Muslim is always having a special place in Bulgarian government‟s relations with the religious organizations. Between the years 1990-2010, expert on the State‟s relations between Muslims and the Country‟s majority issues, Prof. Dr. Antonina Jelyazkova‟s views were as follows: “Bulgarian State’s dominant philosophy is to see the Muslim minority more or less as an element outside of national unity. State in its policy against Muslims; see them as enemy and a group creating problems. Therefore State has been in an effort to keep them under pressure and control them as a threat. Although it is placed in the Constitution, the politicians and state institutions not seeing Muslim as an integral part of State is creating negative situations. This does not provide a benefit to society at all. On the contrary, Muslims are being isolated from the rest of the population. The poor and noninertial political doctrine of Bulgarian State on minorities is leading continuous interference to the internal affairs of Muslim religious institutions for different reasons. These applications give negative messages to the Christian majority. Therefore, the vast majority of people are seeing the Muslims not being an equal part of society and from time to time this situation exhibit extreme skepticism against Muslims. Therefore Society in general is not showing sensitivity to the problems and challenges of Muslim minority”.377

373

http://www.capital.bg/politika_i_ikonomika/obshtestvo/2003/10/18/223484_sporniiat_zakon_za_veroizpovedan iiata/(e.t. 26.10.2015). 374 Helsinki Commission, Report on Religious Law. For detailed information, please refer to www.csce.gov(e.t. 26.10.2015). 375 Religious freedoms - New Bulgarian law on religious rights http://www.capital.bg/politika_i_ikonomika/redakcionni_komentari/2003/10/11/223356_religioznite_svobodi__misli_za_noviia_bulgarski_zakon/(e.t. 26.10.2015). 376 Koen i drugi, a.g.e., s. 13. 377 Antonina Jelyazkova, “Dırjavata, Myuftiyskata institutsiya i obĢtestvo v Bılgariya”, V 100 godinî Glavna Myuftiystvo (1910-2010). Yubileen Sbornik, Sofia, Glavno Myuftiystvo na Myusulmanite v Republika Bılgariya, 2011, s. 40-41.

119


b. Problems with Foundation Properties Religious Denominations Act adopted in 2002, states; “nationalized, taken, confiscated, or illegally transferred ....on grounds of property rights of religious denominations shall be restated to the extent that the actual property currently exists and is owned by the State, counties, state organizations, or their companies or sole proprietorships”378 The immovable requested must be returned within 10 years. Grand Mufti of the Republic of Bulgaria could have only opened 54 cases for returning of the properties located in 13 worships having land/commercial land, 83 foundations in 2012. The reason for the delay was contributed to the internal religious conflicts and controversies on the selection of the Grand Mufti. In addition, Grand Mufti was seen as heir by the Court for the properties of a number of Muslim organizations and charities which were operational until 1949. The majority of the foundations of Muslim property were expropriated during the communist system. At that time, ownership rights of the disputed property were belonging to the state or municipality.379 Demanding by Grand Mufti of the ownership of foundations and the goods, especially requesting the return of the Mosques, has led violent reactions in some places of the Country. The first protest in this regard was held in Kyustendil on March 18, 2013. This was a reaction against that of the return of foundation‟s real estate in the City.380 In 27 March 2013 a protest was held in front of Kyustendil (Köstendil) Court again. This time the target of the events was a Mosque in Dupnitsa.381 This was followed by Karlovo382, Stara

Official Gazette, 29.12.2002, sayı 120, 5. Stela Stoyanova, Office of the Chief Mufti set 52 law suits on the Properties of the Foundations. 13 of them are related with mosques - http://www.dnes.bg/obshtestvo/2013/09/10/za-2-g-glavnoto-miuftiistvo-zavelo-52-dela-zavakyfski-imoti.198817; Bilyana Rilska, Office of the Chief Mufti set a law suit for 13 mosques that are monumentshttp://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2013/08/14/2121549_glavnoto_mjuftiistvo_vodi_dela_za_13_djamii_-/; (e.t. 26.10.2015) 380 Reaction to the law suit on the properties of the Muslims in front of the Ilyo Voyvoda statue http://www.24chasa.bg /Article.asp?ArticleId=1849127&utm_source=flip.bg; Köstendil is preparing to protest against the demand for a mosque- http://www.vesti.bg/bulgaria/obshtestvo/kiustendil-gotvi-protest-sreshtu-isk-zadzhamiia-5602491(e.t. 26.10.2015). 381 Protest for the mosques in Dupnitsa and Köstendil-http://archive.bnt.bg/bg/news/view/97901 /protest_za_djamija_v_dupnica_i_kustendil; Protest because of Dupnitsa Mosque in front of Köstendil Mosque;http://www.struma.com/obshtestvo/nov-protest-pred-suda-v-kyustendil-aradi-djamiyata-v-dupnica_ 39384/; (e.t. 26.10.2015)Protest because of the mosques in Dupnitsa and Köstendil-http://novinite.bg/articles/72095/Protestizaradi-djamiite-v-Dupnica-i-Kyustendil; Protest against Dupnitsa Mosque http://www.blitz.bg/news/article/190430#commentslist; Siderov: Сидеров: The Turkish Strategy is building a minaret to each Bulgarian city- http://society.actualno.com/Siderov-Turskata-strategija-e-vyv-vseki-bylgarskigrad-da-cyfne-minare-news_ 419676.html#ixzz3n7DxN4So(e.t. 26.10.2015). 382 Karlovo demonstration of the group who react against the return of KurĢum Mosque to the Office of the Muft http://www.mediapool.bg/masov-protest-v-karlovo-sreshtu-vrashtaneto-na-kurshum-dzhamiya-na-myuftiystvotonews213347.html; Elena Staridolska, BSP condemned DPS because of the mosques. http://www.capital.bg/politika_i_ikonomika/bulgaria/2013/12/09/2199445_bsp_blamira_dps_za_djamiite/; Our purpose is protecting the Bulgarian History. Veliana Hristova‟s interview with the President of the City Council of Karlovo, Stoyço Karagenski. - http://duma.bg/node/104655 (e.t. 26.10.2015). 378 379

120


Zagora (Eski Zağra)383, Yambol384, Kardzhali (Kircaali)385, Samokov386, Gotse Delchev 387 and other cities. The tension on the foundation's property has reached a peak in February 14, 2014. During the hearing in the Court of the lawsuit for the return of „KurĢun Mosque‟ in Karlovo by Grand Mufti; about three thousand people including the soccer fans gathered outside the courthouse in Plovdiv (Filibe)and attacked to the „Cuma Mosque‟, broke the windows and set fire the cafeteria on the ground floor. 388 According to some journalists investigating the events, this was the secret political game to get votes of the people having aggressive ideologies.389 Activists were carrying placards, Bulgarian flags, icons of portraits of prominent revolutionaries of Bulgarian nationalists, and having drums and bagpipes also were saying the national anthem. The message was clear: Islam was not an element of Bulgaria. Protesters were relating the request of Grand Mufti‟s lawsuit for the return of goods returning of foundation in fact the subject of an “Islamization” project in the territory of Bulgaria, and were relating with their memories of “Turkish captivity” era. Among the protesters, there were one side the municipal administrators, councilors, mayors and several council representatives, on the other side there were Christian religious leaders, actively involved local activists of the nationalist parties and football fans. To ensure the preventing the return of the property of the Mosques to Grand Mufti the signature campaigns were organized in the municipalities. Over 8,000 signatures were collected just in Karlovo. The signature campaign in Samokov was carried out by the members of municipality at the community centers, museums, party headquarters and the municipal buildings. Here, the number of signatures reached 8000 also. Leading activist regulating the protests and organizing signature campaigns were members of the municipal council in Samokov. Thus, Hundreds of people demonstrated against the plan of the Office of Mufti in Old Zağra on opening the Old Mosque. http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2013/10/04/2154179_stotici_protestiraha_v_stara_zagora_sreshtu_plana_na/; Demonstration against the openingof the Old Mosque in Eski Zağra-http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2013/11 /29/2193240_poreden_protest_v_stara_zagora_sreshtu_otvarianeto_na (e.t. 26.10.2015). 384 Protests are transferred to the Bedesten in Yanbol http://www.trud.bg/Article.asp?ArticleId=2056351(e.t. 26.10.2015). 385 The Police took the football fan organizators under custody in Kircaali-http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria /2014/02/25/2249500_policiiata_v_kurdjali_zadurjala_za_obiasneniia/; The case of the Office of the Chief Mufti on the Museum incident in Kircaali started- http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2014/02/25/2249068_zapochva _deloto _na_glavnoto_mjuftiistvo_za/ (e.t. 26.10.2015). 386 Demonstration in Samokov against the changes in the Religious Lawhttp://www.peticiq.com/samokov_protestira 387 A cross was placed in the Mosque in Gotse Delçev. http://www.blitz.bg/news/article/274725; Gotse Delçev in a new conflict with the Office of the Mufti http://www.vmro.bg/гоце- делчев-в-нова-битка-с-мюфтийството. (e.t. 26.10.2015). 388 Paving stones and bombs were thrown at the Cuma Mosque demonstrations in Filibehttp://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2014/02/14/2241464_paveta_i_bombichki_hvurliat_sreshtu_djumaia_djamiia/; Football fans attacked Cuma Mosque- http://www.segabg.com/article.php?id=686171(e.t. 26.10.2015). 389 Paving stones and bombs were thrown at the Cuma Mosque demonstrations in Filibehttp://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2014/02/14/2241464_paveta_i_bombichki_hvurliat_sreshtu_djumaia_djamiia/; Football fans attacked Cuma Mosque - http://www.segabg.com/article.php?id=686171(e.t. 26.10.2015). 383

121


the actions of activists were legitimizing the movement of the local government in the public debates and in the Courts were providing a weight to the position of the municipalities. It is significant that in the events in Samokov, the activities of local authorities were conducted in coordination with a MP of the ruling Party GERB. (This relationship was revealed by the BSP in power at that time).There was a similar case in the Kyustendil (Köstendil). All of the municipal councilors elected from different political parties described the Grand Mufti‟s initiatives “unlawful” and condemned the action and have signed a joint declaration stating that the land where Mehmet Fatih Mosque has been constructed were belonging to the Kyustendil (Köstendil) Municipality. Mayor Petar Paunov mentioned that he would perform a safety check on the dangers of minarets of Mosques. He has been mentioned in his statement that; “It is obvious that the minaret pose a danger to passersby on the road. If it is concluded that it is dangerous and no cure for this condition found, we will action as required. We cannot put the lives of our citizens living in Kyustendil and our guests visiting our the city in danger”390 The arguments supporting the protest everywhere was different. Some of these allegations were “Muslims do not live in some of the places mentioned” (accept Gotse Delchev) and “Grand Mufti could not manage them”. Other allegations include “they never be used as a Mosque”, or “no Turks have been lived in this city at all”. (Muslims perceived as the Turks in public, so the public does not accept other ethnic groups of Muslim religious identity). There are other impressive claims. The thesis of the activists living in Gotse Delchev and Dupnitsa was that: “There was a Church in the land before today’s Mosque which was destroyed by the Ottomans.”“During the mosque construction in Shumen (Şumnu), Karlovo, Dupnitsa the materials of the historical buildings which were symbolically important in Bulgaria were used.”For the „Bayraklı Mosque‟ in Samokov the claim was “it was the product of Bulgarian art and never has functioned as a Mosque”.391 b.1. Legal Aspects of The Foundation Problems In 16 July 2013 amendment and completion of the Religious Denominations Act has been proposed to the Assembly. 392 The cases in the Courts chronologically have taken place with wide coverage in the press and had the role of an unexpected catalyst in the protest. After 2002 the process of missing documents has begun in cases for the return of the property of religious communities. Because the many religious structures were built in the time of no sectarian divisions in the country, it is difficult to solve the situation associating with the present legal order. This problem is mentioned in all religious institutions‟ goods mainly the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. 393 In order to solve the problems accumulated on Ġvo Strahilov, Slavka KarakuĢeva, Ottoman History, Between the Heritage and the Inheritorhttp://www.seminar-bg.eu/spisanie-seminar-bg/broy12/item/444-osmanskoto_minalo.html(e.t. 26.10.2015). 391 Strahilov, a.g.m.,http://www.seminar-bg.eu/spisanie-seminar-bg/broy12/item/444-osmanskoto_minalo.html (e.t. 26.10.2015). 392 Change and addition in religious rights law on July 16, 2013.-http://www.parliament.bg /bg/bills/ID/14489(e.t. 27.10.2015). 393 http://parliament.bg/bills/42/354-01-40.pdf, s. 9, 12 (e.t. 27.10.2015). 390

122


this issue A working group consisting of representatives of various political parties in Parliament was created in 2013 for the implementation of religious law and amendments to the law to remedy the deficiencies in the law. MP‟s has indicated they were intending to help the religious communities and a special status would be created for the return of goods to the religious communities “to achieve a significant portion for the cases of the creation of favorable conditions for the supply of the old property ownership documents “has been reported as their opinions.394 The purpose of the Proposal was “to support the special status of the right to property and to clarify the legal situation and provide confidence”. This was intended for the registration of places of worship and prayer houses designed and used for worship. In the proposal “the rights of real legal entities are inalienable and cannot be taken by other parties” phrase has taken place.395 These provisions have been accepted by the religious representatives, including Sv. Sinod and Grand Mufti. 396 What makes the Proposal important; the returning of religious properties and immovable cultural assets perceived as a threat by some people and allowing the reconsidering the issue of “cultural monuments” which was perceived in the wrong way in the current Bulgarian Acts. What is the status of the mosques where the Grand Mufti has been initiated for their return? The structures of buildings in question here were operating as museums, galleries and not operating as places of worship at idle, who have lost property of places of worship which were transferred to individuals or municipalities. The reason for the fear was the consideration of the possibility of returning to the worship of the Mosques. As of the date of Religious Denominations Act entry into effect, force of the law relating to places of worship, the structures made for religious activities, with the land ownership they were built on, would belong only to one of the religious community to be registered to the Religious Affairs. 397 According to the proponents of cultural heritage “have been used for religious activities” criterion refers to a very broad sense. It would lead to the change of the ownership of cultural values having national and global significance have been tried to be explained by giving the following examples. Having significant and symbolic importance in terms of Bulgaria and Bulgarian history Boyana Church in Pliska, Dvortsov Church and the Great Basilica, the monastery belongs to the early Christian era in Preslav, medieval Churches in Nesebır, Ivanova rock monasteries, and others. Another structure which was subjected to frequent discussions is the current National Archaeological Museum which was served as a Mosque before and remained from the XV. Century. The most typical example in mind is the possibility of getting back by the Moslems of this mosque by the anticipated changes in the draft law. In addition there are other controversial issues. “Religions Museum” in Stara Zagora (Eski Zağra), is a structure that contains the

394

http://parliament.bg/bills/42/354-01-40.pdf, s. 8 (e.t. 27.10.2015). http://parliament.bg/bills/42/354-01-40.pdf, s. 9 (e.t. 27.10.2015). 396 Session of the Commission of Religious Rights in the Assembly on July 18, 2013-http://www.parliament.bg/bg/ parliamentarycommittees/members/2118/steno/ID/2893 (e.t. 27.10.2015) 397 Proposal for change in Item 21, Clause 3. http://parliament.bg/bills/42/354-01-40.pdf (e.t. 27.10.2015). 395

123


accumulation of religion by having several cultural-religious layers; it was built as a Thracian sanctuary, than were used as a church and a mosque and has been restored.398 The increased tension in the Country about the Grand Mufti cases has hampered the work of the Assembly. 399 This situation has been observed very clearly during the debate on the regulation proposals of the law on the religious rights in the parliament on July 16, 2013. Although not specifically outlined in the proposal, the Law Commission wanted to keep ownership of the cultural property belonging to the state and municipality outside the scope of this proposal.400 This approach has not been accepted by religious community representatives; they have requested the return of the buildings belonging to all sects and declared that they rejected the proposal.401 A new draft law was submitted to parliament on 9 December 2013. The purpose of the draft law was the protection and the development of the cultural heritage for the benefit of society and the creation of favorable conditions for the citizens to benefit from it equally. At the same time apply the law more effectively and to guarantee the public interest. 402 The main aim was to restrict articles for the return of the religious structure, to eliminate the possibility of returning the museum, the museum offices, art galleries, archaeological immovable cultural properties and other cultural assets which was owned by the State and Municipalities to the religious communities.403 During the debate in Parliament‟s Culture Committee the resolution after violent discussions has been approved. But in the Religious Affairs Committee, the proposal was rejected.404 In February 19, 2014 third draft law has become on the agenda. Compared with the first two, it is seen that its frame was very narrow. 405 The new draft law was proposing removal of the right to return the religious structures to institution, from the applicable law and closure of the lawsuits and non-enforcement of the court order. The Justification of those who offer draft law were stated as;“the tension and discontent in public occurred in recent days, resulting, on the other hand the ideas it is also cultural and ideas that have gained importance for the protection of historical heritage”.406

398

Strahilov, a.g.m.,http://www.seminar-bg.eu/spisanie-seminar-bg/broy12/item/444-osmanskoto minalo.html(e.t. 27.10.2015). 399 The Municipal Assembly who convened in front of the Parliament “We are not giving back the Old Mosque as a mosque”-http://www.starozagorci.com/news-9354.html (e.t. 27.10.2015). 400 Meeting of the Legal Affairs Committee on July 17, 2013 -http://www.parliament.bg /bg/parliamentarycommittees/members/2067/reports/ID/4261. (e.t. 27.10.2015). 401 Strahilov, a.g.m.http://www.seminar-bg.eu/spisanie-seminar-bg/broy12/item/444-osmanskoto_ minalo.html(e.t. 27.10.2015). 402 http://parliament.bg/bills/42/354-01-91.pdf, s. 2 (e.t. 27.10.2015). 403 http://parliament.bg/bills/42/354-01-91.pdf, s. 1 (e.t. 27.10.2015). 404 Elena Staridolska, the change in the Religious Rights Law blazed the MPshttp://www.capital.bg/politika_i_ikonomika/bulgaria/2013/12/18/2206343_promenite_v_zakona_za_veroizpoveda niiata_razpaliha/(e.t. 27.10.2015). 405 Proposal for a change and addition in the Religious Rights Law, Item 3, Clause 15http://parliament.bg/bills/42/454-01-22.pdf(e.t. 27.10.2015). 406 Justification of making changes and additions in the Religious Rights-http://parliament.bg/bills/42/454-0122.pdf, s.3 (e.t. 27.10.2015).

124


Grand Mufti, in the beginning of February 2015 has reported a detailed opinion on the draft law proposed. Grand Mufti representatives were opposed in principle to the proposal. Because according to them the vision to bring restrictions on the ownership status of religious goods, was raised in order to satisfy the extreme nationalist groups. Grand Mufti has made some suggestions containing some changes and additions for the establishment of a more balanced relationship between public and religious institutions.407 If the dynamics of the legislative process in the religious field for the period from 2013 till 2015 were summarized; the legal process were influenced very strongly from unsettled environment in the Society and incidents occurred on the Grand Mufti‟s cases that occurred. Protesters have become almost the participants actively involved in the work of deputies in the parliament. MPs on behalf of keeping hearts of majority pleasant in society have sought to restrict religious rights of Muslims relating with cultural immovable which were under the property of the State or Municipalities. This has a limiting feature, in which it was observed that individuals subjected to unequal treatment. The events described above with respect to Grand Mufti‟s litigation, has affected the Bulgarian community‟s feeling and attitude towards Turkey. Therefore, the rooted memories had been revived in the most diverse of a speculative manner in the community. Islamic faith and Muslims were “foreigners in the national territories”, their attempts were not natural reflex and the regulations on religious rights in the Constitution were dictated by lawyers in Turkey. Grand Mufti also was seen in the position of a Trojan horse of neoOttomans of Turkish foreign policy. (Mainly it is perceived as a threat to the sovereignty and integrity of Bulgaria)408 The extent of the mental impact of such manipulations on Muslims in the Country was described by Hayri Emin from the Grand Mufti International Relations Department in September 2014 by the following words: “We are an institution of Bulgaria. We are Muslims of Bulgaria; we are not representative of foreigners. People see us not from themselves, they see us as foreigners. If society accepts us from them, the situation would be otherwise. The situation is getting worse with the idea that we leave

407

The viewpoint of the Chief Mufti, who is the Muslim Religious Leader in Bulgarian Republic, on the change in the law dated 06.02.2015-http://www.grandmufti.bg/bg/home/news-room/pres-saobshteniya/829-stanovishte-naglavno-myuftiistvo-na-myusyulmansko-izpovedanie-v-republika-balgariya-otnosno-zakonoproekt-za-dopalneniena-zakona-za-veroizpovedaniyata-ot-06-02-2015-g.html (e.t. 27.10.2015). 408 Evgeni Kirilov, the MP of the European Parliament: “Neo-Ottomanizm is not a rightful viewpoint” http://focus-news.net/opinion/2013/12/12/26634/evrodeputatat-evgeni-kirilov-lansiraneto-na-neoosmanizma-nenosi-dobri-perspektivi.html; The groups in the Parliament came together for the topic in the speech of Erdoğanhttp://archive.bnt.bg/bg/news/view/113690/parlamentarnite_grupi_edinni_za_ izkazvaneto_na_erdogan; The New Turkish Foreign Policy is Neo-Ottomanizm-http://btvnovinite.bg/ article/bulgaria/neoosmanizam-novata-vanshnapolitika-na-turtsiya.html.Bojidar Dimitrov: Neo-Ottomanizm is the new discourse of the Turkish Statehttp://www.trud.bg/Article.asp?ArticleId=2621704; Karlova KurĢum Camii protest in Filibehttp://bnr.bg/post/100309088/nov-protest-svarzan-s-karlovskata-kurshum-djamia-shte-se-provede-v-plovdiv; (e.t. 27.10.2015). Paving stones and bombs were thrown at Cuma Mosque in the demonstrations in Filibe http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2014/02/14/2241464_paveta_i_bombichki_hvurliat_sreshtu_djumaia_djamiia/(e.t . 27.10.2015).

125


Bulgaria. We will take this and treat in a place. First, the community must decide on; Are we from them, or are we strangers? What they will accept us as?”409 This public funding was carried out in conjunction with the visit of Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Bekir Bozdağ for Feast of Ramadan (6-8 August 2013).410 The President Rosen Plevneliev also attended the iftar dinner which was participated by the Turkish guests held on the occasion of Muslim feast in Plovdiv (Filibe) in 8th August.411 Immediately after the visit from 10th August, a fierce debate in the public and the media has begun. The reason of this the dissemination of information by the Bulgarian authorities (mainly Bulgarian National Radio) under the following headings:“Turkey will regain the right to property of the Ottoman architectural structure in Bulgaria”, “Turkey will request from Bulgaria to return the Ottoman architecture” or “Turkey wants back the Ottoman property in Bulgaria”. According to the news, Bekir Bondage has made this statement to Anatoly Agency.412 This has been considered by sensitive public community as interference to the internal affairs of Bulgaria.413 Ministers, media and nationalist formations, immediately have begun to criticize vigorously the President for attended the iftar meal with Turkish Deputy Prime Minister. 414 Therefore, on August 12, the presidential press center have been forced to post a message stating that the President Rosen Plevneliev did not held bilateral talks with Turkish representatives and not addressed the property issues. 415 After Two days in 14 August, 409

Strahilov, a.g.m.,- http://www.seminar-bg.eu/spisanie-seminar-bg/broy12/item/444-osmanskoto_ minalo.html (e.t. 27.10.2015). 410 Turkish Vice Prime Minister will visit Bulgaria because of the Ramadan Feasthttp://www.mediapool.bg/turski-vitsepremier-shte-poseti-bulgaria-po-sluchai-ramazan-bairamanews209714.html(e.t. 27.10.2015). 411 The President did not meet the Turkish Representative and did not exchange ideas about the possession problems. http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2013/08/12/2121151_prezidentut_ne_e_imal_sreshta_s_predstavitel_na/ (e.t. 27.10.2015). 412 Ankara demands the Ottoman properties in Bulgaria- http://bnr.bg/sofia/post/100257083/ankara-si-iskaotomanskite-imoti-v-bylgariya; Turkey will demand the architectural works of Ottoman State in Bulgaria http://www.radioplovdiv.bg/index2.php?content=emission&id=14718; Turkish Vice Prime Minister: We want the Ottoman Munoments which are in terrible condition -http://glasove.com/categories/politika/news/turskiyatvitsepremier-iskame-si-osmanskite-pametnitsi-v-uzhasno-sustoyanie-sa; Turkey wants the Ottoman possessions in Bulgaria-http://www.24chasa.bg/Article.asp?ArticleId=2221667; Turkey wants the Ottoman possessions we restored-http://www.vesti.bg/bulgaria/obshtestvo/turciia-iska-da-restavrira-osmanski-imoti-u-nas-5982411; Turkey wants the Ottoman architectural works. http://www.standartnews.com /balgariyapolitika/turtsiya_si_iska_otomanskite_arhitekturni_pametnitsi-200038.html?page=3& commen ts=1%25253Funmobile%253Funmobile=1%3Funmobile=1 (e.t. 27.10.2015). 413 Turkish Ambassador: “No demands have been made for possessions in Bulgaria”-http://zaman.bg/bg/turskiyatposlanik-ne-predyavyavame-pretentsii-za-sobstvenost-v-balgariya/(e.t. 27.10.2015). 414 The President did not hold a meeting with the Turkish representative and did not exchange ideas about possession problems. http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2013/08/12/2121151 _prezidentut_ne_e_imal _sreshta_s _predstavitel_na/ (e.t. 27.10.2015). 415 The President did not hold a meeting with the Turkish representative and did not exchange ideas about possession problems. http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2013/08/12/2121151_prezidentut_ne_e_imal_sreshta_s_predstavitel_na/(e.t. 27.10.2015).

126


Grand Mufti Secretary General Ahmed Amado, said in a statement to the press in any way the demands of the Muslims is not a case designed by the Turkish Government and has no connection with the recent visit of Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Bekir Bozdağ and stated that it was related with the relevant principles previously placed in that Bulgarian law.416 Foundations Incumbent ministers of the present government also participated in the discussion on the property of foundations. Minister of Culture and Education historian Petar Stojanovic said the subject was an “unnecessary speculation.” 417 Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Minister Zinaida Zlatanova said in the Bulgarian National Television “the meeting with Mr. Bekir Bozdag was a protocol”. According to Zlatanova associated the Turkish Minister did not raise any issue on the right to ownership. 418 Ministers were not required to specialize to express themselves on matters relating foundation properties in a manipulative way here, because this issue was resolved very early in 1909. Because of the scandal dated 13th August which was extremely important Ismail Aramaz Turkish Ambassador to Sofia, has been called for an explanation to the Bulgarian Foreign Ministry. After the interview, the Ambassador of Turkey reported that Turkey had no request in any way for the returning of property ownership claims and this process were only belonging to the Bulgarian authorities. 419 Meanwhile, the Embassy of the Republic of Turkey also drew attention to a legal principle that was ignoring by the Bulgarian politicians and journalists. Grand Mufti‟s request for returning of the properties nationalized between the years 1944 - 1989was a natural right within the framework of the laws of the State.420 The so-called Turkish allegations event was carried to the Assembly. In November 15, 2013 political party “Ataka” has asked questions to Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Oresharski government, the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP) and the Movement for Rights and Freedoms about Bekir Bozdağ‟s visit and the foundations‟ properties. The answer of the Minister briefly was as follows: “the properties subjected to the cases on the right to ownership of properties were under the registry of the organizations in Bulgaria. Bulgaria's legal system is based on a normative base has the competence to decide on these

Bilyana Rilska, “Office of the Chief Mufti is running the 13 mosque cases about cultural monuments”http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2013/08/14/2121549_glavnoto_mjuftiistvo_vodi_dela_za_13_djamii_-/ (e.t. 28.10.2015). 417 Lili Granitska lied the speculations, and stated that the foundation possession problem was concluded at the beginning of the last century- http://www.mediapool.bg/vaprosat-za-vakafskite-imoti-e-reshen-oshte-v-nachalotona-minaliya-vek-news209977.html(e.t. 28.10.2015). 418 Plevneliev did not talk about the foundation possession with the Vice-Prime Minister. http://www.segabg.com/article.php?id=661050(e.t. 28.10.2015). 419 Turkey does not make any claims about any properties in Bulgaria. http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2013/08/15/2123402_turciia_niama_nikakvi_pretencii_kum_bulgariia_za/;Turkis h Ambassador: No demands have been made for possessions in Bulgaria. http://zaman.bg/bg/turskiyat-poslanik-ne-predyavyavame-pretentsii-za-sobstvenost-v-balgariya/ (e.t. 28.10.2015). 420 Turkish Ambassador: No demands have been made for possessions in Bulgaria. http://zaman.bg/bg/turskiyatposlanik-ne-predyavyavame-pretentsii-za-sobstvenost-v-balgariya/(e.t. 28.10.2015). 416

127


issues that concern our internal business. Property issues are not on our agenda in the first”.421 If the courtrooms were attended to follow the general course of the claims until the end of 2014 a couple of important things were emphasized: first, Litigation/Claims were on-going and not concluded in the courts and the locations of courtrooms are very far from each other at various distances across the country; Second, the courts were not recognizing the real presence of Muslim sects and community in the country, so they were not accepting their dominance on the properties of subjected immovable which was nationalized and confiscated. The discussions on their quantities and sizes were on the alienated properties of the religious community. The property was confiscated by State because it was left neglected by the religious community. Any unlawful ownership has not been observed 422 Inevitably, the protests were increased in courts having cases against Grand Mufti‟s legal demand. This was particularly evident in the Plovdiv (Filibe) Court. Therefore, the Union of Judges in Bulgaria presented a statement in February 17, 2014, condemning the repression carried out the work of the Plovdiv district judges. 423 At the same time Grand Mufti has requested a meeting with Prime Minister Plamen Oresharski to find a way out of the tense situation in the country. 424 Meanwhile, a judicial decision has entered the judicial process as a new element and has given Muslims new expansion opportunities in the leadership of the community. The decision of the Sofia City Court dated June 4, 2013 has mentioned; "The recognition of Grand Mufti which was existing during the Kingdom period (until 1949), and Muslim religious communities in the country until the communist law considered to be of general and recognizes the Turkish schools”. According to the Grand Mufti; by this decision the Mufti was accepted as the legal successor the Muslim property prior to 1949.425 Ali Bayraktar representing the Hanafi sect has appealed to Sofia Appeal Court (Nedim Gençev‟s group).This has given the right to subject Grand Mufti‟s opinion on the

421

General Session of the National Assembly, Sixteenth Session, Sofia, Friday, November 15, 2013http://www.parliament.bg/bg/plenaryst/ns/50/ID/3946 (e.t. 28.10.2015). 422 Vratsa Area Court‟s decision for the year 2012 with the number 900 on 27.06.2013http://osvratsa.eu/acts/2013/GD/07/0063d812_90062713.htm; the decision of the Court of Old Zağra in 2012 with the number 1193 dated 18.12.2013-http://www.osstz.com/reshenia/GD/2013/122013/ 0163d812 /193b2913.htm; 2013, 1; Berkovitsa Area Court decision given on 5.12.2013-http://rsberk.com/2013/dek/grd/00634513/001b0613.htm; The Office of the Mufti lost the case for the possession of the foundation properties in Ruscukhttp://frognews.bg/news_66611/Miuftiistvoto_izgubi_delo_za_vakafski_imot_v_Ruse/ (e.t. 28.10.2015) 423 Union of the Judges condemned the peer pressure to the Judges of Plovdiv- http://www.mediapool.bg/ sadiyskiyat-sayuz-osadi-ulichniya-natisk-varhu-plovdivskite-magistrati-news216907.html (e.t. 28.10.2015). 424 The Chief Mufti demands to meet OreĢarski- http://dariknews.bg/view_article.php?article_ id=1219136 (e.t. 28.10.2015). 425 Bilyana Rilska, Office of the Chief Mufti demands the 13 mosques, culture monumentshttp://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2013/08/14/2121549_glavnoto_mjuftiistvo_vodi_dela_za_13_djamii_-/

128


foundation properties in the known legal appeal norms. 426 In fact after the Mufti's attorney Krasimir Rusev's insistence, the Court has waited the result of the case to be held on April 11, 2014.Plovdiv (Filibe) District Court has suspended the four foundations „property cases in Plovdiv (Filibe).After a similar petition the case of the Old Mosque in Stara Zagora (Eski Zağra) resulted with suspension. According to Lawyer Rusev, the returns of the foundation properties found in all municipalities have been stopped one by one by Nedim Gençev‟s people.427 In any case there has been no improvement until the end of 2014. In May 14, 2015 the Sofia Court of Appeal has declared that the Court did not recognize the Grand Mufti as the successor of the Muslim community. By this movement of the Court the opportunity of Grand Mufti to pursue on its claims of foundation properties in general has been taken away.428 The decision was not final and the Constitutional Court could be approached.429 Immediately after disclosing of the decision of Sofia Court of Appeal by the media the Grand Mufti was announced that after they will be notified by the decision they will apply to the High Court of Appeal.430 c. Accreditation Problems of the High Islamic Institute The High Islamic Institute is required to obtain accreditation as per the Higher Education Act (1995) and regulations for granting accreditation to institutions of higher education (1999).For accreditation; training center, dormitories, basic infrastructure which will allow students and teachers to do research, and any other equipment required for training should be provided in accordance with the Higher Education Act. Grand Mufti has purchased a land in Sofia in 2002 not only limited to the education, but also building a center that will host The Culture and Congress center within its boundaries.431

426

The posession of the foundations case is being ceased- http://www.cross.bg/delo-apelativen-imoti-1403049 .html #axzz3nKzcmh1d; Old Mosque case is being ceased- http://www.starozagorci.com/news-11504.html; The mosque case in Stara Zagora is being suspended- http://trud.bg/Article.asp?ArticleId=3941157 427 Filibe Court ceased four possessions of the foundation cases-http://www.mediapool.bg/sadat-v-plovdiv-spryadeloto-za-sobstvenost-na-chetiri-vakafski-imota-news219092.html (e.t. 28.10.2015). 428 The Office of the Mufti lost the return of the posessions of the foundations casehttp://www.trud.bg/Article.asp?ArticleId =4765298;The possession of the foundations do not belong to the Office of the Mufti -http://sofia.topnovini.bg/node/606773; Иванка ПетроваCourt of Appeals resulted the cases of the Office of the Chief Mufti about KurĢum Mosque, Eski Hamam and other foundation properties http://bnr.bg/plovdiv/post/100557046/apelativniat-sad-poraza-glavnoto-muftiistvo-za-kurshum-djamia-banastarinna-i-drugi-vakafski-imoti; The Court gave “negative” reply to the Office of the Chief Mufti about the possession of KurĢum Mosque and other properties of the foundation- http://novinite.bg/articles/93222/Sadatkaza-ne-na-Glavnoto-myuftijstvo-za-Kurshum-djamiya-i-drugi-vakafski-imoti(e.t. 28.10.2015). 429 Filibe Court stopped the cases for four foundation possession- http://www.mediapool.bg/sadat-v-plovdiv-spryadeloto-za-sobstvenost-na-chetiri-vakafski-imota-news219092.html(e.t. 28.10.2015). 430 Office of the Chief Mufti declared that they set a suit of objection for commercial objection case to SAS with the number 964 for 2014 due to the speculative and inaccurate declarations of the local administrationshttp://www.grandmufti.bg/bg/home/news-room/novini/1164-izyavlenie-na-glavno-myuftiistvo-po-povodvazzivno-targovsko-delo-964-2014-g-na-sas-i-spekulativnata-i-nekorektna-informatziya-iznesena-ot-predstavitelina-mestnata-vlast.html(e.t. 28.10.2015). 431 The interview of Marina Çertova with Office of the Chief Mufti Spokesman Hüseyin Hafızov http://www.vsekiden.com/41598/(e.t. 28.10.2015).

129


In 2 October 2008 Mufti has applied to the Municipality of Sofia to get a building permit. In 17 November 2008 Grand Mufti had a meeting with Sofia Mayor to introduce the land and structures that were aiming.432 Chief Mufti's desire to construct a modern Cultural-Education and Congress Center in Sofia news has created a very severe reaction from the people.433 A signature campaign has been organized against the Construction of Cultural-Education and Congress Center and the number of signatures in a few weeks has reached around 20 thousand.434 Chief Mufti, on 15 May 2009 issued a declaration against President Georgi Parvanov, Parliament Speaker Georgi Pirinski and Prime Minister Sergey Stanishev. In the declaration it was stated; “The Islamic-Culture Education and Management Center belonging to the Muslim religion was not allowed. Opening of the Center is very important in terms of allowing Accreditation to the Islamic Institute. It has not yet given a response to the request for the building permit which was submitted 5 months ago”.435 At the end of September 2012, after less than three years, the press has started to spread news that at the end or beginning of the year 2013 the center would be allowed by the Sofia Municipality for the construction.436 Chief Architect of Sofia has predicted there will be no mosque in the center. Deputy Mufti Murat Pingov has underlined that they have agreed this under pressure. Mufti to examine the documents, Sofia Municipality has revealed a new requirement for building to be reduced from five floors to three floors after examining Mufti‟s documents for the construction. 437 In November 2012 while Dans (National Intelligence Agency)‟s representative were providing information about the status of the radical Muslim suspects in a closed session in the Assembly, he has also touched on the issues related to the establishment of the Islamic Center. Then DANS Manager, has supported the Center's implementation and stated his views as; “If it would be exhibited in a correct approach would prevent the spread of radical Islam, and would be useful to keep radical Islam under control.” 438 However in early 2009, DANS has launched an investigation into the land of the Center to be constructed. There was no good or bad explanation of the results of the investigation.439 A month later, President Rosen Plevneliev made a statement in support of the Grand Mufti‟

The interview of Marina Çertova with Office of the Chief Mufti Spokesman Hüseyin Hafızov http://www.vsekiden.com/41598/ 433 Islamic Center will Islamize Sofia- http://www.skat.bg/news.php?action=7&newsID=2399; (e.t. 28.10.2015). Hüseyin Hafızov declared the main basics of the HOH program before the elections- http://www.focusnews.net/opinion/0000/00/00/24352/(e.t. 28.10.2015). 434 Mihail Krıstev, “10 thouasand people signed against the building of the Islamic Center in Sofia”http://www.vestnikataka.com/?module=displaystory&story_id=57028&format=html (e.t. 28.10.2015). 435 The declaration with the date 15.05.2009 coming from the Management of the Muslims of Bulgaria 15.05.2009. V. 100 godinî Glavno Myuftiystvo (1910-2010). Yubileen Sbornik, Sofia, Glavno Myuftiystvo na myusulmanite v Republika Bılgariya, 2011, s.125. 436 http://tv7.bg/;http://www.webcafe.bg/id_939761039(e.t. 28.10.2015). 437 http://www.webcafe.bg/id_939761039(e.t. 28.10.2015). 438 http://ureport.bg/45358/2014/11/27/politika/bulgaria/shefat-na-dans-balgariya-e-mezhdu-dve-krizi (e.t. 28.10.2015). 439 Zornitsa Stoilova, Lyuba Yordanova, Bitmeyen proje (e.t.28.10.2015). 432

130


project.440 Two years after this statement, Grand Mufti's efforts to start the construction did not give results. Thus, in January 27, 2015 Grand Mufti Mustafa Hacı, in his meeting with Prime Minister Boyko Borisov brought back on the agenda the need for higher education school.441 In April 2015 the Grand Mufti spokesman Ahmed Ahmedov was announced the vicious cycle of the cultural center event with the following words; “We have applied many times to the Municipality for approval of the project. The duration of the validation procedure is normally two weeks. Municipality should not only issue the building permit, but also it was necessary to allow for the project preparation. Our goal is to prepare the project ourselves. We have submitted them the petition for project permission several times during the thirteen year period. The project draft was ready; all of the technical inspection reports required for the construction were available. Municipality first, it finished first used the excuse of there were no city district plan for the area where the construction to be done. Later, they said the plan was ready, and construction could be made, but did not provide a permit to us. Our Projects Documents are available in Architect Petar Dikov’s office. We were anticipating the permit since thirteen years.” According to the Grand Mufti spokesman‟s statement, positive or negative no response has been given to the petition, the reason for this was that if there was a formal rejection, Mufti would have make a complaint about the municipality to Strasbourg Court of Human Rights on the grounds it was a deliberate rejection. The journalists have conducted a study in April, 2015 in order to understand the reason not given permission to the project for a long time by the Municipality. To understand the situation they had tried to reach the Chief Architect of Sofia Municipality, but no response came from him. In the framework of this Research; VMRO Party President Karakaçanov has explained his opinions as; “The municipality does not allow it, because about six years ago, people went on the streets to protest the incident. You realize what happens when a mosque was built and when the call to prayer five times a day? Precisely for this reason the residents of this district do not want to have here an Islamic Institute construction. I believe in making such an institute, but this should not be special as they want, need to be in State administration.” What was the opinion of the Movement for Rights and Freedoms in this topic? MRF has supported the Chief Mufti‟s idea because it was a very important Center in need. But a deeper explanation has not been made on this subject by the MRF till now. As a result of the postponement of the establishment of cultural and educational center project in Bulgaria hampers the academic accreditation of the only educational institution providing education on Islam. If it cannot get the authorization, the number of students trained in this institute would be limited. And the diplomas from this institution were also not considered legitimate. Therefore students who have graduated from this

440

http://www.vesti.bg/bulgaria/obshtestvo/plevneliev-podkrepia-isliamski-institut-v-sofiia-5376371(e.t. 28.10.2015). 441 http://www.nccedi.government.bg/page.php?category=73&id=2368(e.t. 28.10.2015).

131


institute cannot continue their education at other universities in Bulgaria. They also cannot apply for work positions requiring higher education during their applications.442 d. Problems with the Building of the New House of Worship As we have mentioned earlier, After 1989the democratization environment in Bulgaria, have led to the formation of favorable conditions for the restoration of normal life for a religious life of Muslims. A process that took the form of opening closed Mosques for worship, the restoration of the old religious structures to build new places for worship, erecting minarets to the existing structures, the purchase of houses for masjid.443The image that we portrayed was more likely for the small settlements, and the majority of the population or all were Muslims. However, knowing the fact that there were exceptions, in places where Muslims are in minority, response to the religious structures in society and administrative environment was an important indicator of the society if they really had digested or not. Hüseyin Hafızov who knows intimately the problems faced by Muslims mentioned the events that took place in Sofia, Burgas, and Gotse Delchev and partly in Velingrad.444 d.1. Sofia Chief Secretary of Grand Mufti has said that the lack of a second mosque in Sofia was one of the most important problems of the Muslims in 2007. Hafizov said that; “We want to meet the needs of Muslims by having the second worship. Banyabaşı Mosque is an old mosque. We need a new place where we can perform our funeral processes. We need a place to teach religion to our young people”. According to him, BanyabaĢı Mosque does not meet these requirements, because it was a historic building and was not allowed to have internal and external renovation to it. Also it was not possible to build annexes next to the Mosque.445 In another interview four years later, Chief Secretary of Grand Mufti Hafızov has said that “the number of the Muslim population increases parallel to the number of people coming to work and live in Sofia. The Mosque needs is not a new problem. We feel this need mostly in Fridays and religious holidays.” According to the figures given by the Chief Mufti, in the middle of 2011 there were about 30 thousand Muslims in Sofia and 1500 of them were going to Friday prayer on a regular basis. 446

Denitsa Yankova, “Islamic Institute building remained in the vicious cycle of the bureaucracy” http://sofia.topnovini.bg/node/596580 ( 28.10.2015). 443 For detailed information, please refer to. Bulgaristan BaĢ Müftülüğü 2010 Bulletin, Sofia, 2011, s. 20; Bulgaristan BaĢ Müftülüğü 2011 Bulletin, Sofia., 2012, s. 23-24; Bulgaristan BaĢ Müftülüğü 2012 Bulletin. Sofia, 2013, s. 30-32. 444 Hüseyin Hafızov, the party program of the DPS for the approaching elections- http://www.focusnews.net/opinion/0000/00/00/24352/(e.t. 30.10.2015). 445 Olya Jeleva, “The Muslims want a new mosque, the municipality does not give a field for this”http://evestnik.bg /?p=1955&cp=1(e.t. 30.10.2015). 446 Lyuba Yordanka, Zornitsa Stoilova, “The second mosque in Sofia will not be in the near future”http://www.capital.bg/politika_i_ikonomika/bulgaria/2011/06/03/1100249_skoro_v_sofiia_niama_da_ima_ vtora_djamiia/(e.t. 30.10.2015) 442

132


The new mosque construction was raised again during the last period of the Mayor of Sofia Stefan Sofiyanski‟s Presidency (2003-2005). As per the MRF deputy and the Assembly of Religious Studies Commission Vice-President Ahmed Hussein “Unfortunately, Stefan Sofiyanski and City Council President Vladimir Kisyov did nothing”. Chief Mufti has sent petitions to Mayor Boyko Borisov requesting land for the construction of a new Mosque starting from 2006 until August 2007. The answers given by the council, were mentioning that due to the implementation of the restrictions on lands by the municipality they could not allocate a land for this purpose.447Boyko Borisov has said in an interview to the press; “I'm not against the Islamic faith, but I cannot find a place”448. According to a statement from the MRF deputy and the Grand Mufti, “A land was found near the Lyulin municipality But it was not allowed to be sold although it was accepted by the Grand Mufti”.449 The reason for the rejection was the severe repression by the ultranationalist party Ataka to the local government. 450 City Council has announced that in case of finding appropriate land for the construction of the mosque they would provide the necessary support for the realization of the Project.451 The subjected land was located in “Malinova Dolina” county.452 As it was mentioned before; the announcement of the construction of the Islamic Center in the fall of 2008 caused a negative reaction to the public. Especially having a Mosque453 to be built in the Center has led to strong reactions of some political circles. 454 In

Olya Jeleva, “The muslims want a new mosque, the municipality does not give a field for this”http://evestnik.bg /?p=1955&cp=1. 448 The Office of the Mufti wants to build a mosque in Sofia, the municipality rejects it.http://www.dnevnik.bg/print/arhiv _za_grada/2007/08/16/368515_mjuftiistvoto_iska_da_stroi_djamiia_v_sofiia/(e.t. 30.10.2015) 449 The Office of the Mufti wants to build a mosque in Sofia, the municipality rejects it.http://www.dnevnik.bg/print/arhiv_za_grada/2007/08/16/368515_mjuftiistvoto_iska_da_stroi_djamiia_v_sofiia/ (e.t. 30.10.2015). 450 “Ataka” did not want Borisov to build a second mosque http://www.vestnikataka.com/ ?module=displaystory&story_id=29140&format=html(e.t. 30.10.2015). In june and July 2006, Ataka Party organized a campaign against azan being called loud from the minaret of the BanyabaĢı Mosque; collected signatures in front of the mosque, published tens of flyers, and broadcast programs on Skat TV, which is the media organ of the party. A meeting was organized by the supporters of this group, and agressive calls were made to ban the azan being called from the minarets of the mosque. Some politicians participated in this xenophobic and anti-religious campaign. Mayor Boyko Borisov demanded with a private letter that the sound of the speakers be turned down. In the same period, in some other cities, nationalistic groups organized signature campaigns against local mosques. http://www.bghelsinki.org /media/uploads/annual_reports/2006.pdf (e.t. 30.10.2015). 451 Olya Jeleva, “The muslims want a new mosque, the municipality does not give a field for this”http://evestnik.bg/?p=1955&cp=1. (e.t. 30.10.2015). 452 Zornitsa Stoilova, Lyuba Yordanova, Indefinite Projecthttp://www.capital.bg/politika _i_ikonomika/bulgaria/2011/06/03/1100284_proekt_bez_kraen_srok/(e.t. 30.10.2015). 453 A second mosque will not be built in the capital.-http://www.trud.bg/Article.asp?ArticleId=182906; Hüseyin Hafızov declared the party program of the DPS for the approaching elections http://www.focusnews.net/opinion/0000/00/00/24352/ (e.t. 30.10.2015). 447

133


any case it reflects the operational capabilities of local government. Grand Mufti had the following statements on the 15 May 2009 Declaration to the government: “Sofia Municipality has left unanswered our petition regarding the construction of a second mosque in Sofia.”455 It is seen that; there has not been any positive development and an improvement in the construction of the subjected Mosque construction and constructing of Islamic Center procedures. In 19 July 2009 456 Grand Mufti has explained that the second mosque project was frozen by the management.457 The situation was completely changing when a Church construction was concerned. Mayor Boyko Borisov said in an interview in the opening ceremony of a church in the Capital in early 2009: “I've allocated 10 lands for the construction of Church in Sofia, therefore no one can blame me by making me mosques, and I did this for to construct Church by Bulgarians”. Roughly after two years, Chief Architect of Sofia has said that by expressing this issue: “as an Orthodox in order to strengthen the spirituality I am in favor of the construction of new churches.” In addition, he has mentioned that; “there is no obstacle in religious life to which they belong to in the Constitution outside the State and Municipalities”.458 What is the status as per the law? According to the Religious Denominations Act, religious denominations may establish places for public religious worship and service in buildings or spaces (A. 12/1).Another Article in the Law (on the contrary to the chief architect‟ words) states that;“The State and the counties may gratuitously grant to religious institutions and their local branches the right to use state or county real estate as well as to support them with subsidies provided for in the state or county budget” (A. 21/3)459.The laws should be applied equally to all religions. As it was evident in the event of allocating the land for the construction of Church by the Mayor brought an advantageous situation to the members of a religious group superior to the members of other religious group. After the protests held by “Ataka” supporters in 20 May 2011 in front of the BanyabaĢı Mosque, the forgotten question “Is there a need for a second worship for the Muslims in Sofia?” has come up to agenda again. 460

454

Ataka: In Sofia without a second mosque -http://www.vestnikataka.com/?module=displaysection&edition _id=961&format=html; Ataka wants to take the second mosque building in Sofia to referendumhttp://news.ibox.bg/news/id_2031246580 (e.t. 30.10.2015). 455 Liliya Çaleva, “The Office of the Mufti brought the building of a second mosque to the agenda” http://sofia.dir.bg/news.php?id=4505067 456 Please refer to http://www.webcafe.bg/id_939761039(e.t. 30.10.2015). 457 There will be no second mosque in the capital.http://www.trud.bg/Article.asp?ArticleId=182906 (e.t. 30.10.2015). 458 Lyuba Yordanka, Zornitsa Stoilova, “The second mosque in Sofia will not be in the near future”http://www.capital.bg/politika_i_ikonomika/bulgaria/2011/06/03/1100249_skoro_v_sofiia_niama_da_ima_vtora_ djamiia/ (e.t. 30.10.2015). 459 Official Gazette, Number 120, 29.12.2002. 460 Is there a need for a second mosque in Sofia?http://www.capital.bg/politika_i_ikonomika/sedmicata /vupros_na_sedmicata/2011/06/02/1099579_ima_li_nujda_ot_vtora_djamiia_v_sofiia/ (e.t. 30.10.2015)

134


Grand Mufti Hacı Mustafa has mentioned in the conference on May 27 that; Many petitions were given to the Municipality for the allocation of a land for the construction of a second Mosque in Sofia. So far no response has been received from the Municipality. He has also pointed out that Muslims are in need of a new cemetery. Mufti has said that they have received the land for this purpose, but there was a social discontent against this allocation.461 Sofia Metropolitan Mayor Yordanka Fındıkova has mentioned on the debate for Muslims in Sofia need a second Mosque or not “At the moment, the second Mosque construction in Sofia is not in our agenda”.462 Likewise, Capital Chief Architect Petar Dikov highlighted that “so far the issue of construction of a second Mosque in the municipality has not been addressed”.463 From their words it is understood that; there has been no preparation for the construction of a second Mosque in Sofia‟s City Plans. Dikov has continued to his words in June 2011 reflecting the latest developments in the situation of the construction of the Islamic Center;“Malina Dolina district plan has been processed. I do not see any building of the Center to be constructed in near future, so some procedures cannot be fast. This is not a current issue”.464 From what we have seen; it can be said that, the Local government of Sofia has not shown sufficient awareness about the problems of Muslims. This was clearly seen from the interview after nine days of the BanyabaĢı Mosque incident. One of the “leading” municipal managers‟ had an argument about restricting the high sound coming from the Mosque was mentioned in the interview. 465 In any case, the reason for “call to prayer in the Mosque” to be in “the agenda “of the Municipality under the Gerb management was the upcoming local elections and the precaution against the political criticism. “Ataka” and “VMRO” parties were doing Muslim opposition politics for years. Both parties were applying pressures in certain aspects of the religious rights of Muslims to the local governments. As per the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee Chairman Krassimir Kınev

Ġna Drumeva, Office of the Chief Mufti, the second mosque in Sofia; and there is a demand for a Muslim cemetery-http://news.ibox.bg/news/id_1325983775 (e.t. 30.10.2015). 462 Fandıkova: “The discussion for the building of a second mosque is not in our agenda”-http://www.trud.bg/ Article.asp? ArticleId=915743 (e.t. 30.10.2015). 463 Zornitsa Stoilova, Lyuba Yordanova, Indefinite Project http://www.capital.bg/politika_i_ikonomika/bulgaria/2011/06/03/1100284_proekt_bez_kraen_srok/; Ġvo Ġvanov, Yova Apostolova, “Mufti limited the sound in Sofia Mosque”-http://www.trud.bg/Article.asp?ArticleId=913250 (e.t. 30.10.2015). 464 Ġvo Ġvanov, Yova Apostolova, “Mufti limited the sound in Sofia Mosque” http://www.trud.bg/Article.asp?ArticleId=913250; Citizens who are in a full discrimination between the religion and the state-http://zaman.bg/bg/grazhdani-s-predlozhenie-za-palno-razdelenie-mezhdu-darzhavata-i-religiyata/ (e.t. 30.10.2015). 465 The building of the second mosque in Sofia is still being prevented. http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2011/05/29 /1097064_izgrajdaneto_na_vtora_djamiia_v_sofiia_produljava_da/; Ġvo Ġvanov, Yova Apostolova “Mufti limited the sound in Sofia Mosque” http://www.trud.bg/Article.asp?ArticleId=913250(e.t. 30.10.2015). 461

135


the reason of the failure to open a new Muslim worship place in Sofia for many years are the suppression applied to the local government.466 In Bulgarian political life to have speeches to the voters, in negative rhetoric about Muslims is a common behavior. If the political circles want to be “successful “they must ensure to market the rhetoric on this axis. A very good example of this was that eight days after the BanyabaĢı Mosque incident Sofia Mayor candidates of two political parties having democratic principles and European orientation on the second mosque construction having almost the same rhetoric as;“Today this is not a problem of Sofia and “the second mosque is not necessary for Sofia”.467 What has become to the “second Mosque” issue later on? About a year after the events of the BanyabaĢı Mosque, in Sofia Regional Mufti Murat Pingov has said the followings in an interview to Deutschland Radio; “We urgently need a second Mosque in Sofia”.468 An answer to this urgent need of Muslims has come from the Chief Architect representing the State on November 21, 2012. “There are no plans for a land or for a Mosque for the time being” 469 There were no developments in this regard in the next year and a half. In early July 2014, the Grand Mufti has submitted this issue once again to the attention of the authorities.470 In Sofia the second Mosque request of the Muslims in Bulgaria has continued for over a decade. However, there is not a construction yet. In 2011, according to a Bulgarian independent weekly publication “even there will not be soon”.471 There are a variety of reasons: administrative confusion, wrong planning, many years of internal strife in Grand Mufti and of course the existence of on-going stereotypes and prejudices. 472 Therefore, for the new Mosque construction in the Capital to make the point always is the case the

Krasimir Kınev, “Bulgaria will be sued in Strasbourg because of Ataka”.http://www.bghelsinki.org/bg/publikacii/obektiv/krasimir-knev/2014-01/zaradi-ataka-blgariya-otnovo-shebde-osdena-v-strasburg/(e.t. 30.10.2015). 467 Pr. ProĢkov: “A second mosque is not in the agenda of Sofia”-http://frognews.bg/news_35919/Pr-ProshkovVtora-djamiia-ne-e-temata-na-Sofiia/(e.t. 30.10.2015). 468 The difficult lives of the Bulgarian Muslims -http://www.dw.com/bg/% D0%BC%D1%8A%D1%87%D0 %BD %D0%B8%D1%8F%D1%82-%D0%B6%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%82-%D0%BD%D0%B0% D0%B1%D1%8A%D0%BB%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8E%D1%81%D1%8E%D0%BB%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8/a-15953750 (e.t. 30.10.2015). 469 Petır Dikov, Sofia Chief Architect: “The Subway will pass below Tsarigradsko Şose”. Interview with Darinka Ġlieva http://www.24chasa.bg/Article.asp?ArticleId=1642135(e.t. 30.10.2015). 470 Dilyana Panayotova, “Plevneliyev praised the underlying reasons of Ramadan, and heard the demand for a second mosque in Sofia”. http://news.ibox.bg/news/id_1044708759(e.t. 30.10.2015). 471 Zornitsa Stoilova, Lyuba Yordanova, Indefinite Project-http://www.capital.bg/politika_i_ikonomika /bulgaria/2011/06/03/1100284_proekt_bez_kraen_srok/ (e.t. 30.10.2015). 472 Zornitsa Stoilova, Lyuba Yordanova, Indefinite Projecthttp://www.capital.bg/politika _i_ikonomika/bulgaria/2011/06/03/1100284_proekt_bez_kraen_srok/(e.t. 30.10.2015). 466

136


tendency of “no” for the majority and postponement of this effort by the Institutions engaging in populist approach which need to be prudent.473 d.2. Burgas Burgas City Council in 2000 has taken a decision regarding the construction of a Muslim place of worship in “Pobeda” neighborhood. The construction permit was taken in 2007. As a result of the protests coming from “Ataka “representatives on the grounds of “the construction was not according to the Project”; the Municipality has taken a decision to stop the Mosque construction after April 1, 2009 audit.474 There was only one Muslim place of worship in Burgas in early 2008. The structure was not in the official status of a Mosque. The Burgas City Council has decided to search for a land for the Mosque construction in February 2, 2008. 475 In the same year on December 20, the Municipality councilors have voted granting a municipal land for making worship for Muslims after having stiff debates.476 As happened in Sofia, the idea of building Mosques in Burgas has created a severe social discontent. They have organized a signature campaign against the construction of the Mosque and collected over 30 thousand signatures in Burgas. 477 The “Ataka” party and that its publication “Skat” television has taken a very aggressive stance in this regard. As a result of this pressure the City Council of Burgas has taken back its three months earlier decision regarding the construction of Mosque has forced changed on March 19, 2009.478 Burgas Mufti Selahattin Muharrem, on 5 November 2014, in his statement to the Burgas press said that; “There were problems of Muslims in Burgas last 4-5 years. Where the Muslims want a place of worship can fulfill their religious obligations in peace, but unfortunately in this beautiful city this is forbidden. The subject matter is the construction of Mosque in the Pobeda District.” The words of the regional Mufti Regions were indicating; the disputed procedures having experienced with the Municipality were still pending and having the hope that “the issues will be resolved soon”.479

Lyuba Yordanka, Zornitsa Stoilova, “The second mosque in Sofia will not be in the near future http://www.capital.bg/politika_i_ikonomika/bulgaria/2011/06/03/1100249_skoro_v_sofiia_niama_da_ima_vtora_ djamiia/(e.t. 30.10.2015). 474 The building of the mosque in “Pobeda” district was stopped- http://www.burgasnews.com /burgas/obshtestvo/15922-spirat-stroitelstvoto-na-dzhamiya-v-kvartal-pobeda; Burgaz‟s building of the minaret in Pobeda district is illegalhttp://news.ibox.bg/news/id_1600719323(e.t. 2.11.2015). 475 Ġrina Genova, “A place is being searched in Burgaz for a mosque”http://gradat.bg/news /2008/02/02/454571_tursiat _miasto_za_djamiia_v_burgas/ (e.t. 2.11.2015). 476 Vasil Kostov: “Wegave a field for the mosque in Burgaz”http://news.ibox.bg/material/id_786925858 /fpage_2(e.t. 2.11.2015). 477 There will be no mosques built in Burgaz -http://novinar.bg/news/niama-da-stroiat-nova-dzhamiia-v-burgas _MjkwMjs4Mw==.html (e.t. 2.11.2015). 478 Vasil Kostov: “Burgaz withoıt mosque is honey mine”- http://news.ibox.bg/material/id_696809101/fpage_5 479 Mufti of the Region: “There is a need for a mosque inBurgaz”- http://www.burgasnews.com/noviniburgas/79549-raionniyat-myuftiya-burgas-ima-nuzhda-ot-dzhamiya; Aytos Mufti:“Procedures are continuing in Pobeda to build a mosque” -http://faragency.bg/bg/myuftiyata-na-aytostekat-protseduri-za-gradezh-na-dzhamiyavpobeda/#.VhPD3vntmkp (e.t. 2.11.2015). 473

137


d.3. Gotse Delchev Another city that Muslims were in need a new mosque is Gotse Delchev. There is a mosque available in the city which is operational, but it is too small not in capacity to meet the needs of Muslims in the City and near villages. 480 In October 2, 2012, the Blagoevgrad Mufti Aydın Muhammad has presented the “Mosque, Cultural and Commercial Center” project to the Gotse Delçe Municipality. The Council has rejected the draft project on 9 October 2012, on the grounds that there were some gaps. 481 According to the Mayor, the Mufti‟s requests were handled sensitively by taking into consideration of the public interest. Regarding with the construction of a mosque in Gotse Delchev “all facts were explained to the councilors, civil society organizations, to all citizens seeking information on the subject.”482 As with all other problematic issues the picture is quite clear here - the words of the mayor on the circulation were lies and manipulating the facts and creating tension in the community between different religious communities for the sake of political interests.483 Beginning of 2013 a referendum request on the construction of new Mosque in the town has reached to the City Council (Previously was rejected by the local government) 484. In the next phase; the people who do not want the project of construction of a second Mosque in Gotse Delchev having the numbers from 500 to 1,000 people formed a committee to organize a strike on this subject.485 Gotse Delchev had a new protest on 5 March 2014. This time the VMRO and citizens opposed the repair of the Karaca PaĢa Mosque in the City. “We will protests. We will not allow this. Mosque repair just was an excuse to hide the real objectives behind it. We will explain civil disobedience to prevent that, and we will resist with all legal mechanisms”486 sentences were representing the size of the discontent reflected in this issue.

We are expecting big surprises in elections especially for DPS. Tanya Petkova‟s interview with Antonina Jelyazkova. http://argumenti-bg.com/22601/antonina-zhelyazkova-ochakvam-golemi-iznenadi-na-izboriteosobeno-za-dps/ (e.t. 2.11.2015). 481 The Office of the Mufti does not have a justified demand for the mosque project.-http://infomreja.bg/nqmamotivirano-iskane-ot-miuftijstvoto-za-izgotvqne-na-proekt-za-djamiq-10513.html?commented(e.t. 2.11.2015). 482 Moskov Gotse explained his attitude about the protests against the building of a second mosque in Delçev http://infomreja.bg/moskov-izleze-s-poziciq-za-protestite-sreshtu-vtora-djamiq-v-goce-delch (e.t. 2.11.2015). 483 Moskov Gotse explained his attitude about the protests against the building of a second mosque in Delçev. http://infomreja.bg/moskov-izleze-s-poziciq-za-protestite-sreshtu-vtora-djamiq-v-goce-delch(e.t. 2.11.2015). 484 The people of Gotse Delçev expressed their demands on the referendum for the second mosque. http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2013/01/18/1986690_obshtinarite_v_goce_delchev_othvurliha_iskaneto_za/ (e.t. 2.11.2015). 485 Over 1000 people said “No” to the building of the second mosque in Gotse Delçev.- http://infomreja.bg/nad1000-kazaha-ne-na-vtora-djamiq-v-goce-delchev-9963.html; Gotse Delçev is protesting the second mosque http://www.24chasa.bg/Article.asp?ArticleId=1739054; Protests against the second mosque in Gotse Delçev http://www.trud.bg/Article.asp?ArticleId=1737596 (e.t. 2.11.2015). 486 Vladimir Simeonov, VMRO and Gotse Delçev residents opposed against the restoration of the old mosque. http://www.standartnews.com/regionalni/vmro_i_zhiteli_na_gotse_delchev_skochiha_sreshtu_remont_na_stara_d zhamiya-228471.html?unmobile=1(e.t. 2.11.2015). 480

138


d.4. Velingrad Permission for the construction of a minaret used as a mosque in the town of Velingrad caused protests on this issue.487 e. Religious Rights Violations Religious rights violations in Bulgaria, especially against Muslim identity were very common. Actions against Moslems and anti-Islamic hate speech Islamophobia were seen increasing every passing day. A Bulgarian newspaper wrote in June 2011: “The attacks on mosques and Islamic institutions or ordinary Muslim citizens have become regular events frequently encountered in the community.”488 The number of attacks over the last 25 years, according to Chief Mufti data was over 250.489 However, two of these were the most remarkable. The first one was the case known as “13 Imams” trialin Pazarcık and the other one was “BanyabaĢı Mosque” attacks in Sofia. In 6-7 October 2010; the National Security Agency (DANS) has held several major operations in the western Rhodopes, Gotse Delchev, Smolyan and Pazarcık. Dans has raided homes and offices of the suspects believed to be associated with the “Al Waqf al Islam” organization. 30 bags of religious book, tapes, disc materials and computers were seized during the operation. The Raids have created discontent among Muslims in the region. According to the press reports which were based on the police sources, the secret cells of the radical Islamic al Qaeda, in Bulgaria has been suffered heavy defeats with the raids made.490 End of the year 2011, an Indictment about 13 Imams was prepared on the grounds of engaging in religious hate speeches and making fascist, anti-democratic propaganda.491 The second incident was related to the attacks in front of the BanyabaĢı Mosque in Sofia on 20 May 2011. Ataka sympathizers around 150 people were gathered in front of the BanyabaĢı Mosque to protest the loud call to prayer with the permission Sofia Municipality before the Friday prayer. They used offensive words against those who worship and called them as; “Janissaries”, “dirty dogs”, “the circumcised”, “the fez” and “Islamists” and asked the following slogans;“get out from Bulgaria!”, “Stop this terrible war in Sofia's heart!”, “We will clean up these lands which was heritage from our ancestors!”. Shortly after they had begun to throw eggs, stone and other heavy materials to the praying 487

A demand for a minaret in Velingrad. - http://gradvelin.com/display.php?m=news&n=novo-minare-velingrad2012; The protesting delegation who are collecting signatures against the minaret buildinghttp://www.velingrad.com/ modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=7639; Velingrad is standing: We do not want minarets- http://m.actualno.com/society/-400938.html(e.t. 2.11.2015). 488 Lyuben Obretenov, “There have been 100 and over attacks against Muslims and mosques in democratisation process”. 489 Byuletin na glavno myuftiystvo za 2014 godina, Sofia, 2015, s. 229. 490 The Security and Intelligence Agencies organized operations against radical Islamists in Rodop villages. http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2010/10/06/972584_mvr_i_dans_pretursiha_rodopski_sela_v_akciia_sreshtu/; Bulgaria Helsinki Committee, 2010 Human Rights in Bulgaria. Annual Bulgaria Helsinki Committee Report March 2011, p. 16-17. http://www.bghelsinki.org/media/uploads/annual_reports/2010.pdf(e.t. 2.11.2015). 491 Bulgaria Helsinki Committee 2011 Human Rights in Bulgaria. Annual Bulgaria Helsinki Committee Report March 2012, p. 15. http://www.bghelsinki.org/media/uploads/annual_reports/2011.pdf. (e.t. 2.11.2015).

139


Muslims. Some of Ataka sympathizers have also jumped over the Mosque's courtyard and attempted to set their own speakers. This situation has led to a fight between those who worship and the protesters. A total of five people were injured one seriously as a result of traumatic liver injury.492 While some politicians were condemning the attack in front of the mosque on that day493, Assembly has officially condemned the incident on May 27, after nearly a week of the event.494 The European Commission against Racism and Discrimination, who know that Bulgarian government does not take any measures to prevent the attacks to the Muslims, has accepted the declaration adopted by the Bulgarian Parliament as an “extraordinary exceptional case”.495 According to the information given by the Chief Mufti almost all government agencies and non-governmental organizations and religious organizations have condemned the Mosque attack.496 Immediately after the attack the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee has asked the Chief Prosecutor General Boris Velchev to investigate the incident in depth.The opinions of “others” and “religious hatred “has reached to alarming levels due to triggering by political provocations. These thoughts were placed in the call from the Human Rights Organization to Velchev. Human rights organization has suggested also the closure of the Party in case of Atoka‟s key role in the events were evidenced.497 On the same day of the incident, the Sofia Prosecutor's Office has launched three separate investigations. Two of them were within the framework of common crime, while the other was related to the injury of an Ataka MP.498 A few days later, May 25, the Prosecutor's Office has opened a new case about creating ethnic hatred. Although a few of them who carried out the attacks were reflected with their thorough records on the national media channels and the evidences clearly indicating of the perpetrators; the lawsuit has been filed just as a public prosecution. 499 The Ataka leader Volen Siderov who has participated in this event and played an active role has not being subjected to any crime

492

Office of the Chief Mufti, 2011 Bulletin, Sofia, 2012, s. 28-29; Bulgaria Helsinki Committee 2011 Human Rights in Bulgaria. Annual Bulgaria Helsinki Committee Report. March 2012, 15-16.http://www.bghelsinki.org /media/uploads/annual_reports/2011.pdf(e.t. 2.11.2015). 493 Pırvanov: “Ataka attacks etnical peace”-http://www.vesti.bg/bulgaria/obshtestvo/pyrvanov-mogat-da-vzriviatetnicheskiia-mir-3830711 (e.t. 2.11.2015). 494 Declaration on the movements against ethnical and religious peace in the country. 43. Assembly Minutes. 235. Session, 27.05.2011. - http://www.parliament.bg/bg/plenaryst/ns/7/ID/2608(e.t. 2.11.2015) 495 European Commission against Racism and Discrimination (5. Report). Date accepted, 27.06.2014, Date of release, 16.09.2014, p. 24.- http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/country-by-country/bulgaria/BGR-CbC-V2014-036-BGR.pdf(e.t. 2.11.2015). 496 Office of the Chief Mufti,2011 Bulletin, Sofia, 2012, s. 29. 497 Volen Siderov and Ataka‟s extremist separatist attitudes-http://legalworld.bg/23415.skandalno-ksenofobskopovedenie-na-volen-siderov-i-ataka.html(e.t. 2.11.2015). 498 Veli Raif Karaahmed‟s complaint petition to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, p.12http://www.bghelsinki.org/media/uploads/documents/applications/echr/2013_application_before_echr_veli_karaah med.pdf(e.t. 2.11.2015) 499 The investigations started about the Mosque incidence for the unidentified incidencelegalworld.bg/23426.razsledvat-neizvesten-izvyrshitel-za-provokaciiata-pred-djamiiata.html (e.t. 2.11.2015).

140


allegations. 500 Also none of the Ataka members who had participated in this attack were interrogated.501 The prosecution also has hesitated opening an investigation to the Siderov's Party. Current Sofia Prosecutor Nikolay Kokinov has mentioned the possibility of banning the Ataka Party, if the prosecution to obtain enough evidence to spread ethnic and religious hatred. But a few days later, he has changed his attitude towards the subject and mentioned that this was not included in the prosecution authority and the relevant decision should be given by the Constitutional Court.502 After two years of BanyabaĢı Mosque attack, two cases have been opened under the ordinary criminal court in June 2013. Two other investigations carried out on the subject were evaluated in this context and finally in the last days of 2011 files has been closed files. The investigation related to spreading ethnic and religious hatred has made no progress. The case for finding the perpetrators continued to be carried out under the public prosecution.503 One of the BanyabaĢı Mosque incident victim Raif Karaahmet after finding the investigation inadequate and very slow and not taken any serious steps to find the perpetrators, has filed a lawsuit against Bulgaria to the Human Rights Court in Strasbourg in 8 July 2014. 504 At the beginning of 2014, the Court explained that the case would be seen as a priority. Strasbourg Court has provided information in December 2013 to Bulgarian Helsinki Committee which was providing legal support to Karaahmet. This information was about the requesting the clear position of the Bulgarian government whether to compromise on the case for the clarification about its position and attitude until the end of March. 505 The attitude of the answer in April, prepared by the Ministry of Justice were as follows: “... participants ... attitudes ... although were not correct in terms 500

Office of the Chief Mufti, 2011 Bulletin, Sofia, 2012, p. 29; Bulgaria Helsinki Committee 2011 Human Rights in Bulgaria. Annual Bulgaria Helsinki Committee Report, March 2012, p. 16. http://www.bghelsinki.org/media/uploads/annual_reports/2011.pdf (e.t. 2.11.2015). 501 A Muslim from Bulgaria made a complaint about the attack of Ataka to the Mosque in Sofia to the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2013/07/08/2099291_bulgarski _mjusjulmanin _sezira_strasburg_za_napadenieto/(e.t. 2.11.2015). 502 Galina Girginova, “The Prosecutor‟s Office could not determine the people who spread hatred two years after the BanyabaĢı incident”http://judicialreports.bg/2013/06/%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%83% D1%80% D0%B0%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0-%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BE%D1 %82%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B8-%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0% B8%D0%BA-%D0%B7%D0 %B0-%D0%BD%D0%B0/(e.t. 2.11.2015). 503 Galina Girginova, “The Prosecutor‟s Office could not determine the people who spread hatred two years after the BanyabaĢı incident”http://judicialreports.bg/2013/06/%D%BF%D1 %80%D0%BE%D0% BA%D1%83%D1 %80%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0-%D0%BD%D0%B5-%D0%BE% D1% 82%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B8-%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B8 %D0% BA-%D0% B7%D0%B0-%D0%BD%D0%B0/. (e.t. 2.11.2015). 504 Veli Raif Karaahmed‟s complaint petition to European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, p. 26http://www.bghelsinki.org/media/uploads/documents/applications/echr/2013_application_before_echr_veli_karaah med.pdf; A Muslim from Bulgaria made a complaint about the attack of Ataka to the Mosque in Sofia to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2013/07/08/2099291_bulgarski_mjusjulmanin_sezira_strasburg_za_napadenieto( e.t. 2.11.2015). 505 The Court in Strasbourg will see the case of the attack to the Mosque in Sofiahttp://www.capital.bg/blogove/pravo/2014/01/06/2214034_sudut_v_strasburg_shte_gleda_prioritetno_deloto_za/ (e.t. 2.11.2015).

141


of moral and ethical values, has not crossed the border to violate the rights of the complainant.506 Thus, there was not a sufficient basis toward the complainant…” therefore had requested the rejection of the complaint. 507 This response has created confusion of the experts knowing the bad experience of Bulgaria in the legal field in the country. Because the Bulgarian administration has refused to take a position acceptance of religious hatred and any offense and responsibility for the incident although it has reached alarming levels of xenophobia in the Country.508 An authorized newspaper - not in a coincidence - has put to the following questioning heading in its headline: “The government, in the ongoing case of Banyabaşı Mosque attack in Strasbourg has supported Ataka”.509 In February 24, 2015, Bulgarian Helsinki Committee has announced that the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg on the grounds that it had violated religious freedom in Bulgaria for the BanyabaĢı Mosque incident and has condemned the Mosque attack. The Court has announced in the grounds of that “Ataka” protesters that usurped the rights of those who worship, while Karaahmet and others fulfilling their worship freely and government forces have not made enough and effective interventions. The remarkable points of the decision were as follows: “Video footage was clearly showing that, the police had failed to provide the rights of people to worship even had not been thinking seriously. Except when the rugs were burned made nothing more than calling the fire brigade.” Indifference of state authorities has been continued thereafter. Inquiries have been opened just for those applying physical violence. Since 25 May 2011, more than four years the religious hatred investigation has not been completed. No attempt has been made even against the most provocative demonstrators. Despite the apparent faces of the demonstrators were in the video recording, no progress towards the identification of burning carpets and finding criminals has been achieved. Despite Ataka MPs have taken place in the front rows of the demonstrations except Çukalov have been questioned. Parliamentary immunity was not an obstacle for their testimony. The investigation had remained quite inadequate and ineffective in the face of events that have occurred. The Court of Human Rights has sentenced Bulgaria to pay a total of 7668 Euros, the 3000 Euro as compensation, 4668 Euro as Court expenses.510

506

Reply of Bulgaria about the complaint with the number 30587/13 to European Court of Human Rights. Karaahmet vs Bulgaria, paragraph 23. For the text of the reply, please refer tohttp://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2014/05/07/2288946_pravitelstvoto_podkrepi_ataka_po_deloto_v_strasburg_za/ (e.t. 2.11.2015). 507 Reply of Bulgaria about the complaint with the number 30587/13 to European Court of Human Rights. Karaahmet vs. Bulgarisa, paragraph 23. 508 Mirela Zariçinova, “For the tolerance of a nation and a state”-http://www.dnevnik.bg/analizi /2014/06/23/2329780_za_tolerantnostta_na_edna_naciia_i_neinata_durjava/(e.t. 2.11.2015). 509 Lora Fileva, “The Government supported Ataka in the ongoing case in Strasbourg about the attack to the BanyabaĢı Mosque” http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2014/05/07/2288946_pravitelstvoto_podkrepi_ataka_po _deloto_v_strasburg_za/ (e.t. 2.11.2015). 510 European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) Comdemned Bulgaria for not applying penalties against racism and religious violation in two serious cases- http://www.bghelsinki.org/bg/novini/press/single/press-karaahmed-

142


In 2014 the Muslim community was encountered in many and various occasions about the religious rights violations. On March 19, 2014 Pazarcık District Court gave a quite controversial judgment in the 13 Imams case. All of 13 Imams were found guilty with the allegations on destroying or damaging of the State charges. 10 of those who were sentenced have been found guilty of being a member of an organization preaching to spread the anti-democratic Salafi ideology rejecting basic human rights as women's rights and religious rights; and not accepting democracy, separation of powers, liberalism, the rule of law and the will of the state. Their Penalties were converted to 2000 leva administrative fines. Two of those prosecuted were convicted of both managing criminal organizations and making propaganda to spread their ideologies. Two people were sentenced to pay fines to the state to defer their 10 months and 1 year sentences. Pazarcık Imam Ahmet Musa had the highest penalty in the proceedings, found guilty of being member of the organization and having religious hatred were sentenced to one year prison and payment of 5000 leva to State. This was the decision of the Pazarcık Court in summary.511 According to Prof. Dr. Antonina Jelyazkovo following the Case since the beginning; none of the charges could be proved. As per Jelyazkova; “Pazarcık trial process has been organized by Dans for the confiscation of the computers and books in the Mosque and to show Europe that Bulgaria has fighting with the fundamentalists”. 512For the objectiveness of the Case process; Assistant Mufti Birali Mümin had the opinion that this was realized in a different manner on the course of the process, he has stated that; “society could not understand what was happening”.513 How judicial proceedings had an impact on the society? According to Prof. Dr. Evgenia Ivanova the noisy media campaigns of the politicians for speculative purposes and “Islam experts” by the content of discourse voiced fears were arousing fear in people practicing their religious worships.514 Birali Mümin has interpreted social stability in a wider context. According to him, in this process, messages mihaylova-malinova/; Strasbourg condemned Bulgaria about the attack of Ataka to the Mosque in Sofia http://legalworld.bg/42658.bylgariia-e-osydena-v-strasburg-za-napadenieto-na-ataka-nad-djamiiata-v-sofiia.html (e.t. 2.11.2015). 511 Bulgaria Helsinki Committee. 2014 Human Rights in Bulgaria. Annual Bulgaria Helsinki Committee Report, p. 29-30. http://www.bghelsinki.org/media/uploads/annual_reports/annual_bhc_report_2014_ issn-2367-6930 _bg.pdf(e.t. 2.11.2015). 512 Nikolay Tsekov, Why were Pazarcık Imams condemned? http://www.dw.com/bg/%D0%B7 %D0%B0%D1%89%D0%BE-%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%8A%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0-%D0 % B8%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5-%D0%BE%D1%82-%D0%BF%D0%B0% D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B4% D0% B6%D0 %B 8% D0%BA/a-17538304 (e.t. 2.11.2015). 513 Ġvan Bedrov, “Does anybody know what happened in Pazarcık?” http://www.dw.com/bg/%D1%80%D0% B0%D0%B7%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0-%D0%BB%D0%B8-%D0%BD%D1%8F%D0%BA%D0%BE% D0%B9-%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B2%D0%BE-%D1%81%D0%B5-%D1%81%D0%BB%D1 %83%D1%87%D0%B8-%D0%B2-%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B4%D0%B6% D0%B8%D0%BA/a17527109 (e.t. 2.11.2015). 514 Evgeniya Ġvanova, Invisible Fears -http://www.bghelsinki.org/bg/publikacii/obektiv/evgeniia-ivanova/201402/nevidimite-plashila/ (e.t. 2.11.2015)

143


containing threats has led to increased insecurity in the Muslim community as well as other communities. The majority of the community had bad memories suggesting that anyone having a link with Islam could be alike. As a result, the question of how the people that came up with the result she gave the following answer: “We need to protect from the Muslims, because they carry a bad feature.”515 In November 25, 2014, Police and Prosecution have organized operations in 4 provinces and 24 people have been arrested on charges of illegally opening Islamic courses, were preaching anti-democratic ideology using the symbols and words of the Islamic State. In fact, the symbol used, was not specific to this terrorist organization and is common in many Islamic societies. A woman has been accused of religious books translation. Six of the arrested seven people were hold in custody, and the Plovdiv (Filibe) Court of Appeal on February 12, 2015 has decided the continuation of the detention of these individuals. According to information provided by the Chief Mufti authorities, a Muslim on August 15, 2015 has been questioned in Sofia Police station by the accusations of to organize iftar meals about his religious beliefs and actions, to attend Koran courses abroad and to go the Friday prayer.516 e.1. Attacks on Muslim property and worships in the Year 2014 Attacks on Muslim property and places of worship in 2014 were not reduced. According to the Chief Mufti and Bulgarian Helsinki Committee and the authorities the following attacks have been registered. 517 In January 13, 2014 the Central Mosque in Pazarcık was awakened to the day with the written black spray-painted swastikas and antiIslamic writings. According to news the information has been provided Police. In the second trial of returning of the KurĢun Mosque in Karlovo sued by Chief Mufti of the Mosque Case in the Court of Appeal on February 14, 2014 more than 1,000 people have protested in Plovdiv. A large group of protesters while passing through Friday Mosque have thrown paving stones, bombs, smoke bombs and stones and Flaming torches to the Mosque. Its gate and many glasses were broken. Various slogans having anti-Muslim violence were called. Violence calls such as “Gypsies to be made soaps, the Turks to be cut” slogans were raised. The protests were organized by Bulgaria Fans Association President Elena VataĢka and were supported by the Mayor of Karlovo and several football fans. Karlovo Municipality has thanked everyone involved in the protests in Plovdiv (Filibe) in the announcement on its official website. 518 Elena VataĢka was placed in the Ġvan Bedrov, “Does anybody know what happened in Pazarcık?” (e.t. 2.11.2015). Bulgaria Helsinki Committee. 2014 Human Rights in Bulgaria. Annual Bulgaria Helsinki Committee Report, p. 29-30. http://www.bghelsinki.org/media/uploads/annual_reports/annual_bhc_report _2014_issn-2367-6930 _bg.pdf(e.t. 2.11.2015). 517 Office of Chief Mufti 2014 Bulletin, Sofia, 2015, p. 231-239; Bulgaria Helsinki Committee, 2014 Human Rights in Bulgaria, Annual Bulgaria Helsinki Committee Report, p. 30-32. http://www.bghelsinki.org/media/uploads/annual_reports/annual_bhc_report_2014_issn-2367-6930_bg.pdf(e.t. 5.11.2015). 518 Thanks BULGARIANS! Karlovo Municipality, Official Internet Sitehttp://www.karlovo.bg %D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B8/%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BE %D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B1%D1%8A%D0%BB%D0%B3% D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8 (e.t. 5.11.2015). 515 516

144


press with the following words: “It is unacceptable to return to the land or property in a country like Bulgaria which is a member of the European Union to Chief Mufti. The Court must take into account the opinion of the society not political parties.” The last objective of the attack was the High Islamic Institute building. In February 14, 2014 the following slogans were painted on building's facade as “Turks out!”, “Nazi Boys”. According to the camera records two people had performed this action, but their identity could not be cleared because they were masked. Shumen (ġumnu) Killak Mosque on the day of March 16, 2014 woke up with the posts “Death to you!” slogans. Police being informed but performers could not be identified. The Old Mosque in Asenovgrad in15 May 2014 has been the target of anti-Muslim aggressive actions. Again on the Mosque walls with swastikas was drawn and “mangals”, “the circumcised” the phrases were written. In 2014 the defilement of the walls of Karaca PaĢa Mosque in Gotse Delchev has been occurred a few times in a similar manner. On June 19, 2014 crosses were drawn to the Mosque's minaret, a few days before the “don’t serve to Erdoğan” written national flag and cross were placed. Regional Mufti gave a report concerning two cases to the Prosecutor's Office but the identity of the person who put the flag was not determined. Also Gotse Delchev District Attorney's Office declined to prosecute on the grounds that the mosque has not being actively-opened. The prosecution thinking in the same direction of the perpetrators of the incident and decided this action was being performed due to the “national reasons”. The decision was upheld by the Court of Blagoevgrad. Another event was the defilement of the walls of Karaca PaĢa Mosque with the “Christ is born” “1488” and “swastika” and “cross” red spray paints on August 11 - 12. Gotse Delchev Prosecutor with the same reason that the Mosque was closed rejected the lawsuit and on the grounds of it was carrying only cultural nature. In June 20, 2014 in Targovishte region; “Death to the Turks and Gypsies!”, “Soap from Gypsies, Turks should be killed by the sword!”phrases were written on the walls of another Mosque. No complaints had been made about the incident. A recurring event has happened on September 16th, 2014. This was the defilement of the mosque in Blagoevgrad. “Death” and “We will not forget Bunovo!” phrases were written on the walls. A complaint has been filed to Police and Prosecution. Also, Yambol Mosque woke up with the “swastika” posts and various dirty slogans on the day of December 18, 2014. e.2. Anti-Muslim Discourses Islamophobic discourses were taken place during the Parliamentary election campaigns in October 5, 2014. Two ultra-nationalist parties (VMRO-BND) were united under the name of Patriotic Front. They have announced their requests of; urgently and effectively restricting Muslim community‟s religious freedom; observing the great reaction

145


to the Mosque and Minaret construction in the other citizens by the State; and urgently prohibition of daily call to prayer; not providing any places for worship except traditional Christian places; in fulfilling their religious obligations using only Bulgarian by all religious communities.519 e.2.(1). Attitudes of the Bulgarian Judicial System for Anti-Muslim Actions According to the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, none of those who carry out attacks on Muslim community were placed before the Court till 21 March 2014 in Bulgaria.520 There were no charges of religious hatred till end of February 2014.521 Attitudes of the Bulgarian Judicial System for Anti-Muslim Actions from a broader framework between the years 1990-2013 were overly passive. If, despite everything, a response were showing, this has been evaluated in “an ordinary crime” status.522 Probably due to the indifferent attitude exhibited Grand Mufti Mustafa Hacı has asked an appointment from Attorney General Sotir Tsatsarov. The meeting took place in January 20 2014, the Grand Mufti has submitted a file to Tsatsarov related with the antiMuslim actions in recent years. Chief Prosecutor has stated that he would do an investigation about the status of the cases dealing with the incidents.523 Does this meeting change the Chief Prosecutor‟s feeling on the status of the cases against anti-Muslim communities and cause to become more sensitive on the events in a more positive development of the works of the State institutes? As per the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee observations; the police and the criminal prosecution did not show the necessary attention for the punishment and did not display an active attitude against the Muslim assaults in 2014. As per the Human Rights Organizations; administration officials were investigating the incidents without a separate classification whether religious persons or religious buildings or communities were attacked and were not accepted as hate crimes. 524 For example, for the attack on the mosque in Plovdiv (Filibe) in February 14 only 8 people were undergone under the judicial

519

Bulgaria Helsinki Committee, 2014 Human Rights in Bulgaria, Annual Bulgaria Helsinki Committee Report, p. 32- http://www.bghelsinki.org/media/uploads/annual_reports/annual_bhc_report _2014_issn-2367-6930_bg.pdf; For detailed information, please refer to NFSB and VMRO 2014 party programs, p. 14. 2014. http://www.nfsb.bg/public/izbori_2014_HC/PF_PROGRAMA_2014_crivi.pdf(e.t. 5.11.2015). 520 European Union, Commission against Racism and Intolerance, Bulgaria Report (Fifth Follow-up Report) was accepted on June 19, 2014, published on September 16, 2014, p. 23-http://www.coe.int/t/dghl /monitoring/ecri/country-by-country/bulgaria/BGR-CbC-V-2014-036-BGR.pdf. 521 Evgeniya Ivanova, “Invisible Fears”-http://www.bghelsinki.org/bg/publikacii /obektiv/evgeniia-ivanova/201402/nevidimite-plashila/ (e.t. 5.11.2015). 522 Office of the Chief Mufti, 2014 Bulletin, Sofia, 2015, p. 229. 523 Chief Prosecutor Sotir Tsatsarov met Chief Mufti Mustafa Hacı http://www.prb.bg/bg/news/aktualno/glavniiatprokuror-sotir-tsatsarov-se-sreshch-4309/ (e.t. 5.11.2015). 524 Bulgaria Helsinki Committee, 2014 Human Rights in Bulgaria, Annual Bulgaria Helsinki Committee Report, p. 30- http://www.bghelsinki.org/media/uploads/annual_reports/annual_bhc_report_ 2014_issn-2367-6930_bg.pdf (e.t. 5.11.2015).

146


investigation. Again, as usual these were evaluated under “ordinary crime” category and were having symbolically penalties.525 e.3. Positive Examples Congratulation by the high institutions as the Presidency, the Council of Ministers and the Parliament of the feast of religious denominations in the country was taken as an indication of the respect shown to them. It can be said that significant progress has been made for these types of applications which has begun on 22 January 2012 during the presidency of Rosen Plevneliyev. On 17 December 2012 the President has paid a visit to Grand Mufti. This respect visit had a historic importance, because it was the first State visit to a Muslim religious leadership in Bulgarian history. The meeting held in Grand Mufti Office was part of the dialogue meetings with the representatives of various religions with the head of State. Before this meeting the President has conducted meetings with Jews, Orthodox and Catholic religious leaders. Rosen Plevneliev through the media, gave the message that they should respect the different religious communities and he wanted to make regular dialogues with them.526 The realizations were carried out in the period from 2012 until 2014 within the direction of this statement. In the said period, President Plevneliev has continued to congratulate the feast of Muslims527 and Jews528. He has continued to call on remembrance of their humanity and tolerance and virtues at every opportunity to the Bulgarian citizens, against hate speech, intolerance and discrimination 529 and has participates in the different

525

8 People were wounded in the attack in front of the Cuma Mosque on February 14 http://f2ftv.net/2014/02/18/8-%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%8A%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8-%D0%B7% D0%B0-%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B0-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5% D0%B4-%D0%B4%D0%B6%D1%83%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%8F-%D0%B4%D0%B6%D0%B0%D0%BC% D0%B8%D1%8F/; Cuma Camii saldırısında 4 kiĢi daha cezalandırıldı-http://www.cross.bg/osudeni-bezreditziteprokyratyrata-1396634.html#axzz3olb0lghR;-http://bnt.bg/news/institutsii/sa-yuza-t-na-sa-diite-smyata-zanedopustimo-povedenieto-na-demonstrantite-v-plovdiv (e.t. 5.11.2015). 526 Iva Ivanova, “Plevneliev approved the Building of Sofia Islamic Center with pleasure”. http://news.ibox.bg/news/id_1177146054; Plevneliev supports the Islamic Center in Sofia http://www.vesti.bg/bulgaria/obshtestvo/plevneliev-podkrepia-isliamski-institut-v-sofiia-5376371 (e.t. 7.11.2015). 527 President Plevneliev celebrated the Muslim Feast of Sacrifices of the Muslim Community in Bulgaria. (October 25, 2012). http://www.president.bg/news797/Prezidentar-Rosen-Plevneliev-pozdravi-mosyulmanskata-obshtnostv-Balgaria-za-Kurban-Bayram.html&lang=bg; President Plevneliev will celebrate the Holy Muslim Feast of Sacrifices of the Muslim Community. (August 6, 2013 ) (e.t. 7.11.2015). http://www.president.bg/news1365/prezidentat-plevneliev-shte-pochete-sveshteniya-za-myusyulmanite-praznikramazan-bayram.html; President Plevneliev celebrated the Muslims in Bulgaria for the approaching Muslim Feast of Sacrifices. (October 4, 2014) https://www.president.bg/news 2187/prezidentat-pozdravi-myusyulmanskataobshtnost-v-balgariya-s-nastapvaneto-na-praznika-kurban-bayram.html(e.t. 7.11.2015). 528 The Jews celebrate the Hanuka Feasthttp://www.vesti.bg/bulgaria/obshtestvo/evreite-praznuvat-hanuka5352811; Plevneliev lit the first candle of Hanukahttp://www.vsekiden.com/163557; Dimitır Panev, the President celebrated the Hanuka Feast of the Jews and made a notification reminding the virtue of it to the Bulgarshttp://dariknews.bg/view_article.php?article_id=1183550(e.t. 7.11.2015). 529 Dimitır Panev “The President celebrated the Hanuka Feast of the Jews and made a declaration that resembled the virtue of remembering it”http://dariknews.bg/view_article.php?article_id =1183550(e.t. 7.11.2015).

147


communities‟ feast celebrations530 and has attended the iftar dinner given on the occasion of Ramadan feast by the invitation of Grand Mufti in Plovdiv on August 8, 2013.531 Although one leading newspaper has called this participation in this iftar dinner as “scandalous” the President in a statement has mentioned that until the end of his tenure he would continue to honor the traditions of the religious communities. 532 Next year in the month of Ramadan, by the Iftar dinner in his residence “Boyana” he has confirmed his words.533

The Vice-President is in Krıstava Village https://www.president.bg/photo-gallery680 /Viceprezident-seloKrastava.html; Notification of the Secretariat of the Predident‟s Office http://www.president.bg /news1372/saobshtenie-na-pressekretariata-na-prezidenta.html (e.t. 7.11.2015). 531 The President joined the Iftar given by the Muslims due to the Ramadan Feasthttp://www.president.bg/news1369/prezidentat-pochete-na-vecherya-iftar-myusyulmanskiya-praznikramazan-bayram.html(e.t. 7.11.2015). 532 Notification of the Secretariat of the Predident‟s Office http://www.president.bg/news1372/saobshtenie-napressekretariata -na-prezidenta.html(e.t. 7.11.2015). 533 President Plevneliev celebrated Ramadan, the holy month of the Muslim people, before the guests in the Iftar meal he gave. (July 2, 2014 ).http://www.president.bg/speeches-and-statements2046/; Plevneliev gave Iftar meal due to the Feast- http://www.trud.bg/Article.asp?ArticleId=4166074(e.t. 7.11.2015). 530

148


C-MEDIA OUTLOOK In the 25 year transition period to democracy in the Republic of Bulgaria, there have been some positive developments with regards to matters directly affecting minorities living in the country. However, in general, several root problems still exist in the areas of ethnicity, religion, education, culture, art, and media. As a result of the constitution accepted in July 1991 after the totalitarian communist regime, Bulgaria is a unitary state and there does not exist any definition of minorities. Ethnic and religious identities have been clearly ignored in the constitution. Collective and individual rights have been addressed instead. However, many applications have been left to the good-will of the government and the organizations attached to it. There is no Turkish language broadcast in any state or private channel besides a 10 minute Turkish news bulletin broadcast every week day on Channel 1 of the Bulgarian National Television (BNT). There are three Turkish workers in the channel. In this respect, the Turkish minority is at a much better position than other minorities in the country since they don‟t even have this right. Even though this situation seems like a plus for Turks, when looking at the general picture of the population and the framework of EU criteria it is very clear that this is not sufficient. Radio broadcast is much better compared to TV broadcast. Bulgarian National Radio continues today their Turkish broadcast program which was started in 1947. No special Turkish radio exists despite the fact that there is a morning, afternoon, and evening Turkish broadcast which totals three hours every day. No other minority has this situation either. In considering written media there are no Turkish newspapers besides Kircaali Haber (2.000 printed copies) and the children‟s newspaper Filiz (1.200 copies). There is no magazine besides a bilingual Alevi magazine published every 3 months by the Grand Mufti and funded by Muslims living there. Both newspapers and the magazine are sent to readers through subscription. Armenians while representing 0,013 percent of country and was integrated with Bulgarian, have 3 weekly newspapers of their own and are much more effective and successful than Turks, Pomaks and Turkish-speaking Muslim Roma in many different areas as socio-cultural, scientific, artistic, and producing. All of the Armenians are integrated into Bulgarian society and began to have problems with their self-identity. The language and traditional differences are experiencing between Western and Eastern Armenians. This reality is mentioned by the “Yerevan” newspaper responsible chief editor VartanuĢ TopakbaĢyan himself in in the roundtable held on the occasion of “February 21 International Mother-Tongue Day” with the participation of various associations belonging to minorities in Sofia in February 21, 2014. Armenians in the country although having a population of only 6,360 people, have three newspapers. The first weekly published in Sofia in 1000 with the number of print, serving 70 years, “Yerevan “newspaper, having 70 percent of Bulgarian news, the rest is Armenian. Second one is the “Vahan” (shield) newspaper printed weekly in Plovdiv (Filibe) having 1100 printed edition. Both newspapers

149


also are printed on the printing press owned by Armenians. The country's largest newspaper in this language, published in 3500, bi-weekly “armentsi” (Armenians) newspaper printed in Burgas. Most Armenians are living in Plovdiv (Filibe). Almost every Armenian as seen from the number of population-print relationship is connected to one periodicals. Any Hebrew published newspaper in the country has not been observed. In electronic environment the situation is different, but it is difficult to determine who was standing behind the websites. Bulgaria-based Turkish language broadcasting internet news websites are: www.Kircaalihaber.com, www.bizimgazete.bg, www.thaber.bg, www.haber.bg, and besides the Armenian language broadcasting http://gantegh.agbubulgaria.org/ website, any other web site broadcasting in minority languages could not be identified. It can be understood from the above data that the Turks living in today‟s Republic of Bulgaria member of the European Union, is the worst case in terms of publication in Turkish language compared to other Balkan countries. If we deal with the properties of Bulgarian media, because of the offshore banking, it is not possible to determine who are behind which newspaper and media group what are the sources supporting their financial status. Most organizations are managed by companies have been registered in the Cayman or Virgin Islands, the heaven of offshore banking. Major newspapers are “Independents”– 24çasa, Trud, (Pro nyuz Bılgaria AĢ.); Presa and Tema (Obedineni svobod nimedii AĢ.)- In August1, 2015 its printing has been stopped; Standart Press, ġov, Blitz, Maritsa, Struma (GM Press AĢ.); Kapital, Novinar, Monitor, Klasa, Sega, Politika etc.Internet journalism are getting more popular, and in addition to the above-mentioned newspapers there are many news sites, news agency sites are also available. Socialists are having Duma newspaper, the extreme rightists are having both Ataka newspaper and television. Fascist tendency the Patriotic Party for the Liberation of Bulgaria has both TV and newspaper. 1. Chronological Order of Highlights and Positive and Negative Events in the country within a Year within the scope of Human Rights Violations. January 2014 1. In attribution to Trud newspaper reported on www.novini.bg news site reported under Bulgaria section, dated 3 January 2014 under the heading “Tombul mosque” woke up “Death to you!” where mentioning the second largest mosque in 270 years of the Balkans were not the first one. Also noticed in the news that the Grand Mufti issued a statement about the incident, described it as vandalism.534

“Tombul camiya osımna s nadpis: “Smırdzavas!”, http://www.novini.bg/news/172943%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B1%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%B4%D0%B6%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B8% D1%8F-%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%8A%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D1%81-%D0%BD% D0 %B0 %D0 %B4%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81-%D1%81%D0%BC%D1%8A%D1%80%D1%82-%D0%B7%D0%B0-%D0% B2%D0%B0%D1%81-(%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BA%D0%B8).html(e.t. 16.09.2015). 534

150


2. In January 10, 2014 in the news heading “MRF does not pull out of Varna” in 240.th issue of the www.desant.net (weekly national newspaper) the official internet newspaper of National Front for Bulgaria Liberation (NFSB) member of the extreme rightwing Patriotic Front formation member official web newspaper of the party www.desant.net; were announcing the decision taken by the governor of Varna resulted from “MRF and Ankara pressure”. The decision of Council of Varna for changing the names of the places of more than 200 Turkish (forest and land), was suspended by the governor of Varna. Also MRF was accusing of protecting Varna as a “pro-Turkish province “and Ankara was accusing of “pulling the „yatağan‟ sword”.535 3. Again in the same number of the news dated 11 January 2014 “Monster destroying Bulgaria” heading the news, a quarter century ago established MRF were under the fire. The founding chairman Ahmet Doğan was renamed as “Dr. Frankenstein” while Turkey was considered as sworn enemy. Also 5 centuries duration Ottoman captivity was being emphasized and MRF were specified as the fifth column of Turkey. Besides Ahmet Doğan was renamed as “Fuhrer of the Turkish nationalist organization” and his strategic objective was describing as to pull back Bulgaria tithe age-old enemy Turkey's political and economic axis”.536 4. The same newspaper since its establishment in 2009, was broadcasting continuously news against Turks, Muslims, Roma and Turkey, in its 241 numbered 17 January 2015 dated press “Should the Bulgarian army have the Turks?” 537 entitled, Velizar Ençev signed the news, writing that Ankara was provoking Bulgarian Muslims. And making emphasis the prevention of minorities entering to the armed forces, and the state security units was dangerous and unsafety. In the same news it was describing the opening of the case against the return of foundation assets by the Grand Mufti in the city of Vasil Levski, Karlova central Mosque located in the heart; was “an arrogant provocation to exhibit ethnic and religious superiority”. In addition the Roma citizens were describing “as the thieves robbing the villages”. 5. One of the highest circulated daily newspaper in the Country “Trud (labor)” dated 2 January 2014 placed under the Interview section “Kasım Dal: Bulgaria needs crazy people” heading were mentioning “sickening” of current Prime Minister Sergey Stanishev's apology from Turks regarding (Bulgarization/Vızroditelen Protses). Dal was mentioning that even though changing the names of Pomaks a couple of times no one had been punished. And also was describing the MRF Party as “leave being an ethnic Party it is not even a Party”.538

535

In the report dated 16.09.2014 released by the ECRI of the European Commission against racism and intolerance on Bulgaria the political parties that are members of the Patriotic Frontier were defined as “Extremist rightist/fascist parties that work skillfully and are represented in the assembly”. http://www.coe.int /t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/Library/PressReleases/167-2014_09_16_Bulgaria_en.asp (e.t. 16.09.2015). 536 “ÇudoviĢteto, koeto pogubi Bılgariya” http://www.desant.net/show-news/29208/(e.t. 16.09.2015) 537 “Tryabva li da ima turtsi v Bılgarskata armiya?” http://www.desant.net/show-news/29253/ (e.t. 16.09.2015). 538 Kasım Dal: Ludi hora tryabvat na Bılgariya. Ġdealisti http://www.trud.bg/Article.asp?ArticleId =2829860

151


6. Deutsche Welle's Bulgarian language broadcasting under Bulgaria section dated January 16, 2014 announced the news signed by Tatyana Vaksberg's “Are we going to bury the truth about the names?” are taking place was pointing in Bulgaria the destruction of the archive request of the forced re-naming 1984/85 of 30 NGOs belonging to Muslims relating Police and “Public Citizen Registration and Administrative Services Unified System” (ESGRAON). It is emphasized that the request was highly unusual. 539 7. www.blitz.bgnews site had a report dated January 19, 2014, published under the Community section “Pomaks to find work in west are reclaiming their original names which were changed during “Bulgarization” process”540 titled news referring “Rodopi Voice” newspaper. In this news; the examples of the works of the lawyers in this regard in the Kardzhali (Kircaali) and Smolyan (PaĢmaklı) provinces were given. “In the report, changing of the name of Ġbrâm (Ġbrahim) born in 1982, 4 times by state, by the families, by himself were noted and also in the news summary were emphasizing that; many people from Rodop have changed their Turkish names with the Bulgarian names to work in Western Europe, while those who return from abroad have returned back to their birth names referring the weird rules in Belgium, the Netherlands and in other countries of the European Union. 8. In Deutsche Welle‟s Bulgarian language broadcasting Nikolay Tsekov signed announcement of January 20, 2014, the “Bill of Bulgarization Process” news takes place. During the „forced name changing/Bulgarization‟process hundreds of thousands Bulgarian citizens were exiled from the Country giving great damage to the Bulgarian economy, and then formed very large areas that were not being farmed and broken financial system were mentioning in the news draws attention that; at the end of 1960 and in 1970 prepared report to be used by the Bulgarian Communist Party (CPB) Central Committee members was indicating the ethnic composition of the population “scientific “analysis and hypothesis for the People's Republic of Bulgaria (NRB), between the years 2010-2014 predicted Turkish population would be the equal of the Bulgarian population.541 9. www.glasove.comInternet newspaper in the news dated January 30, 2014 mentioned that “State suppression for Pomaks has begun in 50s, even Zhivkov has described the events as „extreme perversity‟”, 542 was pointing that „forced name “ġte po grebem li istinata za imenata” http://www.dw.com/bg/%D1%89%D0%B5-%D0 %BF%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%BC-%D0% BB %D0 %B8%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0-%D0 %B7 %D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0/a-17362061?maca =bul-rss-bul-pol-1477rdf(e.t. 16.09.2015). 540 Pomatsite vrıĢtat “vızroditelnite” si imena, za da nameryat rabota na zapad” http://www.blitz.bg/news/article/245300(e.t. 16.09.2015). 541 Tsenata na “Vızroditelniya protses” http://www.dw.com/bg/%D1%86%D0%B5 %D0%BD %D0%B0 %D1%82%D0%B0-%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%8A%D0%B7%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4% D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1 %86%D0 %B5%D1%81/a-17373207?maca=bul-rss-bul-pol-1477-rdf(e.t. 16.09.2015). 542 OĢte prez 50-te godinî zapoçvat represii sreĢtu pomatsite, dori Jivkov gi nariça “ultra izvraĢteniya” http://glasove.com/categories/komentari/news/oshte-prez-50-te-godinî-zapochvat-represii-sreshtu-pomacite-dorijivkov-gi-naricha-ultraizvrashteniq (e.t. 16.09.2015). 539

152


changing/Bulgarization process‟ goes back to ancient times, referring to some reports between the State Security Service and the General Staff. Mentioning that the „Ethnic Sweeping (Forced Migration)‟ process was planned in the year 1946 than in the 50s there were very little known perversions belonging to 50s. Besides as well as using Pomak word “bılagaro-mohamed's” (Bulgarian Muslims) word also was used in the article. In addition, draws attention that in 1943 census Pomaks and the Turkish-speaking Muslim Roma might have shown themselves as Turks. February 2014 1. In Trud newspaper dated February 3, 2014, under Analysis section, written by Prof. Vasile Prodanov in the “Real forced name changing process has begun after 1989” headed article was mentioning that; Bulgarian citizens in abroad or going to study in the West were taking back Bulgarian names not showing their Muslim identity. Western countries imposed for political reasons, rather than a kind of illusion of „forced name changes‟ was created due to economic reasons, mentioning that the process occurred without suppression also mentioning that this has been made not to evoke anti-Jewish or anti-Islamic responses. At the same time was pointing out that to the children of ethnic Bulgarians were given foreign names instead of traditional Bulgarian names. 543 2. Patriotic weekly national newspaper www.desant.net in the news dated February 5th 2014 under the heading “Wrong perceptions about Great Migration “by Hristo Krasin, were claiming that the Turkish-speaking Bulgarians were not expelled from the country. Also was using the following terminologies; for Turks and Pomaks “bılgaromohamedan new” (the Bulgarian Muslims), “bılgarihristi” (the Bulgarian Christians), “bılgar s turskimayç the meek” (mother-tongue Turkish Bulgarians), “proturski nasionalis Valerian bılgarski proizhod” (noble Bulgarian pro-Turkish nationalists). In addition was taking pictures for the processes of filling the documents to have passport, of withdrawing money from the banks, of shopping to get supplies and of travelling to the border at that time. Claiming that the freedom and democracy aspirations of those “migrated “were not realized and Turkish propaganda radio broadcasts as “Aspirations of Turkey” was a big myth. The continuation of the writing was in the number of February 12th issue.544 3. The same www.desant.net Internet newspaper in an article titled “Ethnic card reengaged” by Hristo Hristov dated February 14, 2014, accusing Efraim Mollof the head of the organization named “Pomak” as a pseudo- and denying the descendants of Bulgarian. He was also mentioning that there were no ethnic Pomak community, by referring Mithad PaĢa also arguing his thesis referring to many local and foreign historians, “there were no Turks in Bulgaria”, instead there were Islamized Bulgarians in the Country. And was praising the novel titled Weathering time (Vreme Razdelno) showing Turks as wild irregularities. Also he was arguing that Pomaks were Bulgarian descendants carrying many Ġstinskiyat vızroditelen protses zapoçna sled 1989 g.” http://www.trud.bg/Article.asp?ArticleId =3142693(e.t. 16.09.2015). 544 Zabludite okolo “golyamata ekskurziya” http://www.desant.net/show-news/29393/(e.t. 16.09.2015).; Zabludite okolo “golyamata ekskurziya”prodıljenie ot pred. broy , http://www.desant.net/show-news/29445/(e.t. 16.09.2015). 543

153


Bulgarian traditions. Emphasizing that in the history of Bulgarian lands there were forced Turkification process.545 4. In Trud newspaper in an article titled “Negotiated differences coalition” signed by Veselin Stoynev published in February 14th, 2014 under the Analysis section had the analysis; he was writing that “the ruling partners will confess mother breast milk after confessing the mother-tongue”. And was questioning taking of a constitutional status into the electoral law, reminding of minorities‟ political life to be included equally by the recommendations of the OSCE and the Venice Commission. And was explaining, the use of the mother-tongue in the election campaign as a tool that makes slave of a certain part of the community of a party. Mentioning that the Turks of Bulgaria were in this status during 25 years. Turkish voters and thus indirectly criticized MRF and Turks almost were defined as slave of MRF. Also was emphasizing that the ban would not prevent MRF to make Turkish campaign. 546 5. www.legalworld.bgsite in an article titled “Football fans broke the windows of Cuma Mosque to defend the property of the KurĢunlu Mosque” 547 dated February 14, 2014, were mentioning the incident took place in Plovdiv (Filibe). It was mentioning in the news that; 2000 demonstrators protesting the Court of Appeal‟s decision opposing the returning of properties of KurĢunlu Mosque in Karlovo to Grand Mufti were attacked to Cuma Mosque (Hüdavendigâr Mosque) by the pavement stones, stones, smoke grenades and homemade grenades and explosive fireworks and they have made damages to the Mosque. And it was mentioning that the demonstrators were stopped by force before reaching to the Turkish Consulate building. 6. February 14, 2014 dated www.mediapool.bginternet news sites published under the Bulgaria section in the news titled “„All against MRF‟a magnificent theater “did not allow native language campaign”548 places Movement for Rights and Freedoms party of Turkish origin MP Hussein Hafizov‟s words during the debate of election law and attitudes of all other parties on the subject debate. It was announcing that; “We all are against MRF” attitude exhibited by all parties did not differentiated deputies on the party basis but lived by ethnic elements. And was mentioning the deputy Hafizov‟s declaration that he was ready to go to prison by making the information campaign in the mother tongue, and he would be following the path of Osman Kılıç, Ahmet Davutoğlu, Nuri Adalı and Ahmed Doğan.

Pak se razigrava etniçeskata karta”, http://www.desant.net/show-news/29474/(e.t. 16.09.2015) “Koalitsiya na dogovorenite razliçiya”, http://www.trud.bg/Article.asp?ArticleId=3265402(e.t. 16.09.2015). 547 “Futbolni fenove potroĢiha Cumaya camiya, za da branyat sobstvenostta na KurĢun camiya”, http://www.legalworld.bg/34531.futbolni-fenove-potroshiha-djumaia-djamiia-za-da-braniat-sobstvenostta -nakurshum-djamiia.html(e.t. 16.09.2015). 548 “Efektno teatro “Vsiçki sreĢto DPS” ne dopusna agitatsiya na mayçin ezik”, http://www.mediapool.bg /efektnoteatro-vsichki-sreshtu-dps-ne-dopusna-agitatsiya-na-maichin-ezik-news216822.html (e.t. 16.09.2015). 545 546

154


This news was placed in all Bulgarian media organizations and was announced that the speech was negative and going to discrimination. No single positive article has been revealed in the search. 7. February 17, 2014 datedwww.vsekiden.com internet news site published under the Bulgarian section in the news titled “Drawing swastika to the Islamic Institute is disrespect to religious values” 549 the declaration of Grand Mufti was taking place. In the declaration, the attack on the most sacred values of Islam was strongly condemned. In writings of Nazi Boys and as well as swastika drawings, including “Turts vin” (the hell out of the Turks), “e svinâ Allah” (God is pork) writings were exhibiting xenophobia. 8. Deutsche Welle broadcasting in Bulgarian language announced under the Bulgarian section dated February 17, 2014 and Tatyana Vaksberg signed “In what extent the Turkish language was foreign?” titled news was taking the subject of the prohibition adopted by the National Assembly of the campaign in a foreign language in the electoral legislation. When a foreign language was considering in the Country, generally Turkish Language was coming in front. Vaksberg was questioning whether 10 percent of total population mother-tongue being a foreign language, make them foreigner in their country also, was pointing out that there were no foreignness while paying duty and having international success. The author also was addressing to the Cuma Mosque attack and was underlining the main danger as the buying of votes not the language.550 9. In Trud newspaper in an article titled “Prof. Andrey Pantev: use your mothertongue in your campaigning but use interpreters” 551 titled article signed by Kraina Krasteva published in February 19th, 2014 under the Conversation section; Prof. Andrey Pantev‟s thoughts on famous Bulgarian historian Pantev into Turkish, Hussein Hafizov‟s the National Assembly in his speech, the Cuma Mosque attack and established POMAK Party were given. Pantev has explained in the interview that; Hafizov's speech and the mosque attack, was extremist movement which will bring suffering to the community, Turkish might be used in the election campaign, if accompanied by translators. 10. February 25, 2014 dated www.news.bg internet news site published under the Court and Prosecutor section in the news titled “Police has besieged Kardzhali (Kircaali)”552, the people who came to protest of opening a case for the returning of old Madrasa building on the grounds to be the property of foundation by Grand Mufti (current History Museum) was announced have undergoing through strict security checks. These measures were taken not to have similar incident experienced in Plovdiv (Filibe).

“Porugaha Ġslâmskiya institut sıs svastika”, http://www.vsekiden.com/147444(e.t. 16.09.2015). “Kolko çujd e turskiyat ezik”, http://www.dw.com/bg/%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0% BA%D0%BE%D1%87%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B4-%D0%B5-%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8% D1%8F%D1%82-%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B8%D0%BA/a-17437426 (e.t. 16.09.2015). 551 “Prof. Andrey Pantev: Agitirayte na mayçin ezik, no s prevodaç”, http://www.trud.bg/ Article.asp?ArticleId =3307645 (e.t. 16.09.2015). 552 “Politsiya obsadi Kırcali”, http://news.ibox.bg/news/id_1412322828(e.t. 16.09.2015). 549 550

155


11. February 27, 2014 dated http://www.legalworld.bg/website in the “the scope of right to translation in criminal proceedings are expanding” 553 titled news; announcing that the translation right and additional safeguards related to the quality of the translation were given to the defendants by amendments to the penal code. March 2014 1. The Helsinki Committee website referring to the broadcasting in the language of the Bulgarian of Deutsche Welle dated March 4, 2014 and Sonya Kanikov signed “Bulgaria in disgrace violated the human rights” titled news announces that in the 38.th Report of US State Department on 2013 human rights in Bulgaria was describing Bulgaria as a country having serious problems in this area. As well as of applied exclusion attitude towards Roma people discriminatory attitudes of the security forces towards ethnic and religious minorities, homosexuals, disabled people, the AIDS carriers, were criticized.554 2. March 5, 2014 dated www.desant.netInternet newspaper in the “Turkish presence also is moving toward Gorna Oryahovitsa” 555 titled news; taking the issue of constructing a Mosque in the city, writes that no Mosque had been built since a century in Veliko Tırnovo region. 5400 Gorna citizens were opposing the construction of the Mosque, and 4100 people were signed against the construction. 3. Trud newspaper dated 7 March 2014 in the “People's notorious entitled deputy visited the imams‟ case”556 titled news about Hussein Hafizov‟s visit to the hearing of socalled Islamic fundamentalist (prosecuted on the grounds contrary to democratic values) 13 Imam case in Pazardzhik Pazarcık city; who have mentioned in the National Assembly “I will make the campaign in a language other than Bulgarian”. 4. www.desant.netnews site dated 8 March 2014 in the news titled “Bunovo station to be known and to be remembered” 557 remembers the biggest bomb attack in terms of the number of victims in the history of Bulgarian railways on March 9, 1985 which was carried out by the people belonging to the illegal Turkish National Liberation Movement. 2 of the 3 were belonging to Burgas State Security Department agents and all were killed by burning in April 25, 1988. Also for the same crime four more people have been reported imprisonment. 5. www.novini.bgnews site March 18, 2014 dated “Gypsies within seconds stealing tons of iron from trains” 558 titled news, was announcing the news by using Gypsies word “RazĢiryavat pravoto na prevod v nakazatelniya protses”, http://www.legalworld.bg/34731 .razshiriavatpravoto-na-prevod-v-nakazatelniia-proces.html(e.t. 16.09.2015). 554 “Bılgariya sramno naruĢava çoveĢkite prava”, http://www.bghelsinki.org/bg/novini/bg/ single/blgariya-sramnonarushava-choveshkite-prava/(e.t. 17.09.2015). 555 “Tursko prisıstvie nastıpva i kım Gorna Oryahovitsa”, http://www.desant.net/show-news/29621/(e.t. 17.09.2015). 556 “Skandalen deputat v protsesa za imamite”, http://www.trud.bg/Article.asp?ArticleId=3558901(e.t. 17.09.2015). 557 “Da se znae i da se pomni za gara Bunovo”, http://www.desant.net/show-news/29658/(e.t. 17.09.2015). 558 “Tsigani grabyat ot novejelyazo ot vlakovete za sekundi”, http://www.novini.bg/news/184455%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8-%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B1% D1%8F% D1%82-%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5-%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8F% 553

156


instead of using the word thieves. In addition the report says, “Raiders groups were generally consisting of underage girls and children from Roma”. 6. Bulgarian Helsinki Committee site referring to the news site of www.dnevnik.bg, in its report of March 19, 2014 dated and Lora Fileva signed “The Court found imams guilty spreading ideology against the democracy” 559 titled article give information on the details of the case. (It is not placed in the article but of the defendants 12 were Pomak one Muslim Roma also Smolyan (Paşmaklı) Mufti was among those sentenced). All of the defendants were convicted on charges of establishing Sharia state by spreading Salafi believes. 7. news.ibox.bg website referring NOVA TV, in its; March 22, 2014 dated and “50th anniversary in Bulgarization Process of Ribnovo” entitled news was stating in a report that; in 1964 there was a forced name changing process has been encountered, and the people coming to change their names were met with sticks, stones and axes, and two soldiers were seized, and Turkish flag was places on the Mosque Minaret. “Non-news information: Ribnovo was a hundred percent Pomak village.”560 April 2014 1. The ultra-right Ataka party press www.vestnikataka.bg in its April 4, 2014 dated Stela Kirilova signed “The Gerb, Turks and reds mocked with Turkish slavery victims” entitled news; informs the rejection of the relevant parliamentary commission for the Bulgarian genocide conducted by the Ottoman Empire (1396-1913) . Ataka had proposed declaration of May 17 a day of remembrance of the victims and had requested annulment of the Assembly Declaration condemning the shameful Bulgarization process. In this article MRF representatives were labeled as Turks. 2. www.mediapool.comnews site April 7, 2014 dated “Boyko Borisov: Roma integration will be completed when a Roman will be prime minister” 561 titled news, was reporting the Prime Minister‟s remarks made at the Roma Integration Conference. Prime Minister Borisov was mentioning that when a Roman citizen become a Prime Minister, the President, Ministers, and deputies it would complete the integration if it would not be considered as an event. Also PM has indicated the using of the word of integration of Roma it was a sign of a problem also was paying attention to Roma children leaving the schools and was requesting their participation into the country's employment.

D0%B7%D0%BE-%D0%BE%D1%82-%D0%B2%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5 %D1%82%D0%B5-%D0%B7%D0%B0-%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B 8.html&no_mobile (e.t. 17.09.2015). 559 “Sıdıt prizna imamite za vinovni, çe sa propovyadvali anti demokratiçna ideologiya”, http://www.bghelsinki.org/bg/novini/bg/single/sdt-prizna-imamite-za-vinovni-che-sa-propovyadvali-anti demokratichna-ideologiya/ (e.t. 17.09.2015). 560 V Ribnovo otbelyazaha 50 g. vızroditelen protses”, http://news.ibox.bg/news/id_1469750937(e.t. 17.09.2015). 561 “Boyko Borisov: Ġntegratsiyata na romiteĢte priklyuçi, kogato rom stanepremier”, http://www.mediapool.bg/boiko-borisov-integratsiyata-na-romite-shte-priklyuchi-kogato-rom-stane-premiernews218880.html(e.t. 17.09.2015).

157


3. www.mediapool.com news site April 10, 2014 dated “Mehmet Dikmen Peevski‟s nomination was downloaded from the headquarters but Turks will provide support nomination” 562 titled news reporting that; referring to the interview given by the former Agriculture Minister Mehmet Dikmen to Bulgarian National Radio meant for the EU deputies election, “even though Peevski would be the list head, the Turks will vote for the MRF for some reason, because none of the other parties had chosen a Turkish name as a candidate in an electable place of nominations”. 4. www.desant.net website in its April 11, 2014 dated “Turkish Folk Culture Plovdiv (Filibe) Center wants free property”563entitled news was mentioning the allocation of a building by Local Council for five-year period for Mustafa Kemal Atatürk Folk Culture Center in the heart of the city and mentioning that Folk Culture Center Chairman was Ahmed Pehlivan which was the same person of President of Filibe Islamic Society. 5. infobalkani.wordpress.com web site in its April 11, 2014 dated “The Truth of Bulgarization Process” 564 entitled article written by Kostadin Çakırıv for http://bgeurasia.org web site were classifying the Turks in the Country as; “tyurkoeziçno naselenie” Turkish language spoken citizens; and “naselenie, izpovyadvaĢti islâma” Muslim citizens. And informing that, in 1926 there were 600,000 “Turkish language spoken citizens” only 70,000 were literate in the article, beginning with the 70s, the Turkification process were started in Bulgarians in Mohammed religion (Mohamedanska vyara), (Bulgarian Pomaks were describing in this way). In addition, in the article it was mentioning that, in the 70s approximately 250 thousand Pomaks have been suffered with the forced name changing process (Bulgarization). 6. In the April 26, 2014 dated Irina Simeonova signed “Bulgarian perception for Roma, Greeks and Jews” entitled article which was transmitted by the Bulgarian Telegraph Agency (BTA); Bulgarian sayings for the other ethnic communities were looking at and Bulgarian perceptions on them were stated. The changing of stereotypes against the Turks in the country was mentioning, emphasizing that there was not any negative prejudices against Armenians. Most negative bias that was against Jews and Roma as written by Simeonova and Turks currently was considered not as Muslim but Turks and in the most severe judgment was the “ruthless” for them.565

“Mehmed Dikme: Kandidaturata na Peevski e spusnata ot tsentralata i turtsiteĢte ya podktepyat”, http://www.mediapool.bg/mehmed-dikme-kandidaturata-na-peevski-e-spusnata-ot-tsentralata-i-turtsite-shte-yapodkrepyat-news219040.html(e.t. 17.09.2015). 563 “Tursko çitaliĢte iskam ot v tsentıra na Plovdiv za bez pari”, http://www.desant.net/show-news/29932/(e.t. 17.09.2015). 564 “Ġstinata za vızroditelniya protses”, https://infobalkani.wordpress.com /2014/04/11/%D0%B8%D1%81%D1 %82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B0-%D0%B2%D1%8A%D0%B7%D1 % 80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F-%D0%BF%D1% 80%D0%BE%D1%86%D0%B5%D1%81/ (e.t. 17.09.2015). 565 “Stereotipite na bılgarina za romi, gırtsi i evrei”, http://www.vesti.bg/bulgaria/obshtestvo/stereotipite-nabylgarina-za-romi-gyrci-i-evrei-6010722(e.t. 17.09.2015). 562

158


May 2014 1. www.fakti.bgweb site published May 6, 2014 dated “Aya Yorgi Day” 566 entitled news was giving information relating to this day, given a short description of the day which was celebrating by Muslims and Pomaks as Hıdrellez and Adrellez as celebrated by Muslims, Pomaks. 2. Posted on the www.dnevnik.bgweb site May 7 2014 dated the Bulgarian published under the Language /Hate crimes title published in the Helsinki Committee‟s web site “Government supported Ataka in the Strasbourg for BanyabaĢı attack” 567 titled news drawn attention to the warm relations between the extreme right-wing Ataka party and the government on human rights. In May 2011 the attack was directed personally by the Chairman of the Party Volen Siderov, some of the believers who were paying Friday prayer outside the mosque were injured, prayer rugs and carpets were burned. In the article, the case opened by Veli Karaahmed named person in Strasburg was placed and opinion of the officials placed on behalf of government were placed. 3. Posted on www.dnevnik.bgweb site and published in the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, site May 16, 2014 dated, under the Religion heading “Grand Mufti: We are condemning the similar conflict creation initiatives between the Holy Church Council (Sinod) and us”568 titled news was placing the Grand Mufti General Secretary Ahmed Ahmedov‟s words. “We are condemning the similar conflict creation initiatives between the Holy Church Council (Sinod) and us. Moreover, the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and the Muslim Religious Grand Mufti is in traditionally good relations.” “National Forces Crew” named hacker group described the Cuma Mosque attack as attacks against the Turkish Muslim minority in Bulgaria, and hacked the Church Council page, and placed crescent and star flag. 4.In the www.glasove.comweb site; May 13, 2014 dated and Dimitrine Çerneva signed “Mikhail Ivanov: May events is the contribution to the fall of the Berlin Wall of Bulgaria”569 titled conversation was taking place. It was containing some information on the uprising against Zhivkov regime organized by the Turks in May 1989 in Bulgaria and the Turkish National Liberation Movement's role, MRF Founder and President Ahmet Doğan‟s role and Pomaks Protection of Human Rights Association‟ roles. 5. The desebg.co web site which was issuing top secret documents from the State archives in its May 16, 2014 dated and Hristo Hristov signed “After 25 years from the May 1989 events: The uprising against the forced name changes (Bulgarization Process)” “Gergövden e”, http://fakti.bg/bulgaria/94692-gergyovden-e(e.t. 17.09.2015). “Pravitelstvoto podkrepi “Ataka” po deloto v Strasburg za napadenieto pri “BanyabaĢı”, http://www.bghelsinki.org/bg/novini/bg/single/pravitelstvoto-podkrepi-ataka-po-deloto-v-strasburg-zanapadenieto-pri-banya-bash/(e.t. 17.09.2015). 568 “Glavno myuftiystvo: Osıjdame podoben opit za konfrontatsiya mejdu nas i Svetiyasinod”, http://www.bghelsinki.org/bg/novini/bg/single/glavnoto-myuftijstvo-oszhdame-podoben-opit-za-konfrontaciyamezhdu-nas-i-svetiya-sinod/(e.t. 17.09.2015). 569 “Mihail Ġvanov: Mayskite sıbitiya sa prinosıt na Bılgariya za padaneto na Berlinskata stena”, http://glasove.com/categories/kultura-i-obshtestvo/news/mihail-ivanov-mayskite-subitiya-sa-prinosut-nabulgariya-za-padaneto-na-berlinskata-stena%0D%0A(e.t. 17.09.2015). 566 567

159


entitled article takes place. It sheds light by the reports on the situation and security forces behavior and attitudes in those days in the provinces having heavily Turkish population in the Country (in the documents referred to as the people have taken back Bulgarian names).570 6. In the www.dnes.bgweb site May 18, 2014 dated and Aleksandır Popov signed “MRF commemorated those who lost their lives in the events of May 1989” 571 titled news was taking place. In the news; MRF leader Lütfü Mestan‟s speech was placed as “Brothers, starting from Pristoe passing through Tudor Ġkonomovo, extending from Kush going to Kliment our peaceful walk was soaked with blood by the totalitarian regime - in fact this is the actual path of Bulgaria into the European Union”. 7. Broadcasting by IT and published in www.vesti.bg web site May 202014 dated “Plevneliev: We need to read objectively Communist crimes” entitled the article gives room for the speech of the President's in Pristoe village in 25 of the May event. President describes the events as heinous attacks against human rights. In addition, the President used the terminology of “The Turkish people”, “Bulgarian Turks” in his speech, also remembered the incidents against Pomaks and has defined them as the “Bulgarian Muslims”. Non-news information: the President held commemorations for the first time since a quarter century. He has attended the ceremony which was separate from the day of the ceremony held by MRF.572 8. Referring to B TV channel www.mediapool.bg web site of May 28, 2014 dated and “Tsvetelin Kanchev: Acquired most votes are for the Bulgarian not for the Gypsies” entitled news, sharing thoughts concerning the buying of votes for the European elections. “Evroroma” Party leader Kınçev was mentioning that; during the election not only votes of Roma citizens were purchased, stating that even though there were no Gypsies and Turks living in the village of OboriĢte but MRF had 45 states votes. And also he was claiming that 70 municipalities having mayors from GERB party was applying suppression towards Roma citizens.573 June 2014 1. National daily Standard newspaper cited www.fakti.bg web site of June 8, 2014 “Red inconsistency for the Name Massacre (Bulgarization process)” entitled news was giving place for the statement of “BSP deputy Krasimir Yankov given to NOVA TV”. Yankov was claiming that during the Zhivkov regime of the period of Name Massacre (Bulgarization process) ethnic Turks were exposed to the ethnic Sweeping (cleaning) “25 godinî sled mayskite sı bitiya prez 1989 g.:Buntovete sreĢtu “Vızroditelniya protses”, http://desebg.com/2011-01-13-09-25-08/1833-25-1989- (e.t. 17.09.2015). 571 “DPS poçete zaginalite v mayskite sıbitiya prez 1989 g.”, http://www.dnes.bg/evroizbori-2014/2014/05/18/dpspochete-zaginalite-v-maiskite-sybitiia-prez-1989-g.225849 (e.t. 17.09.2015). 572 “Plevneliev: Nujen ni e obektiven proçitna prestıpleniyata na komunizma”, http://www.vesti.bg/bulgaria/ obshtestvo/plevneliev-nuzhen-ni-e-obektiven-prochit-na-prestypleniiata-na-komunizma-6012606(e.t. 17.09.2015). 573 “Tsvetelin Kınçev: BolĢinstvoto küpeni glasove sa bılgarskı, a ne tsiganski”, http://www.mediapool.bg /tsvetelin-kanchev-bolshinstvoto-kupeni-glasove-sa-balgarski-a-ne-tsiganski-news 220798.html (e.t. 17.09.2015). 570

160


process. Yankov was stating that there were no restriction of religious freedom but only was re-naming system.574 2. www.desant.bgsite dated 20/06/2014 and Gergana Kostova signed “Museum in Kardzhali has not been given to Mufti” 575 entitled news was giving place to the refusal of Kardzhali District Court. Grand Mufti‟s claims about the ownership were rejected on the grounds flimsy by judges. The Madrasah building was confiscated by the decision of the Communist Party and was converted into a museum. At present time still is a Museum. 3. www.blitz.bg web site in reference to www.infomreja.bgsite June 20, 2014 dated “The cross put on the minaret of Gotse Delchev Mosque” 576 entitled news, was informing Karaca Mosque in not use of historical status a huge cross was put on its minaret. It was also informing that Grand Mufti has also claimed the property of this mosque, and the trial was on-going. 4. www.blitz.bgnews site, June 25, 2014 dated “Councilman exploded to the Roma living in Asparuhovo: parasites, inhuman filths!” 577 titled news places Varna Councilman Kostadin Kostadinov's words after the flooding which caused the death of 13 people in the city. News stated referring to that Kostadinov's own personal blog, “I'm sorry, but I cannot be tolerant. I will not use the politically correct expressions. There is no place in our country for these inhuman filths! Even they have no place in our civilization. Once they have proved that they have similarities with the rest of the human race only in the outward appearances. Non-news information, usually Turkish-speaking Muslim Roma were living in the “Asparuhovo “neighborhood. 5. www.blitz.bgnews website referring to 24 çasa newspaper, June 25, 2014, dated “MRF wants 300.000 Bulgarian Turks expedited citizenship” 578 entitled news, was providing information of the proposal submitted by People's Assembly of the Legal Affairs Committee Chairman Cetin Kazak to parliament secretariat to amend the citizenship law. Cetin Kazak was mentioning that existing law was having the discrimination for the people who have lost their Bulgarian citizenship due to certain reasons (“migrates”) and was requesting by the help of the accelerated naturalization procedure allowing citizenship to 300,000 to 400,000 people living in Turkey. In the same news it was announced that; MRF MPs Tunçer Kırcaliev Mustafa Karadayı texts law indicating the payment of compensation and to their pensions for those injured by the security forces during the demonstrations carried out in 1970 and 1980 (against name massacre) were submitted to the parliamentary secretary.

“Çerven razboy za vızroditelniya protses”, 3. haber, http://fakti.bg/bulgaria/97482-bsp-po-konstitucia-imash-li18-otivash-da-glasuvash(e.t. 17.09.2015). 575 “Ne dadoha muzeya v Kırcalina myuvtiystvoto”, http://www.desant.net/show-news/30491/(e.t. 17.09.2015). 576 “Pobiha krıst na Camiyat v Gotse Delçev”, http://www.blitz.bg/news/article/274725(e.t. 17.09.2015) 577 “ObĢtina Rizrigna kım Romite v “Asparuhovo”: Paraziti, ne” OveĢkasgan!”, http://www.blitz.bg/news/article/275530(e.t. 17.09.2015). 578 “DPS iska bırzo grajdanstvo za 300 hil. Bılgarski turtsi”, http://www.blitz.bg/news/article/275700 (e.t. 17.09.2015). 574

161


6. In the fakti.bgnews site, June 27, 2014 dated “Bojidar Dimitrov: MRF applies discrimination against Bulgarian origin people” 579 entitled news, MRF request was considering a discrimination action of granting Bulgarian citizenship to the descendants of Turkish citizen between 1950-1951 and 1968-1979. Professor Dimitrov said that this situation is the concern of about 1 million Turkish citizens and need to be resolved as a whole instead of solving the problem piece by piece. July 2014 1. www.desant.netweb site July 3, 2014 dated “Bulgarians had run out of patience”580 entitled report gives place to a letter of a citizen named Violeta Ormancieva from Botevgratl (Orhaniye). The letter was written against MRF proposal submitted to the People's Assembly on canceling the out-timing of the crimes of Name Massacre (Bulgarization). No lines were using Turkish word but, Pomaks were described as “Bulgarian Mohamedan” and Roma as “gypsies” in the letter. In addition to the MRF‟ request was considered as “arrogant and shameless”. 2. In the www.legalworld.bgweb site, 4 July 4, 2014 dated “Citizens have demanded justice for hate crimes”581 entitled news; “The implementation of laws against hate epidemic “words of Initiative Committee member words of Orhan Tahir take place. Lawyer Orhan Tahir was stating that; "We are protesting not initiation of proceedings related to the prosecution of hate crimes, because they have a domino effect. Now everyone is using hate speech, because no legal action will be based on actual provisions and they feel to be left unpunished.”Non-news information: Orhan Tahir is a Turkish-speaking Muslim Roma is very active in the civil rights across the country. 3. www.blitz.bg news web site referring to the NOVA TV channel “Niçiya zemya” (Unclaimed territory) program broadcasting, July 6, 2014 dated “Doğan‟s bodyguard Erol Celebi: If I were at the National Congress Palace, I would place Oktay on his knee and shot” titled news, was giving a place of an interview held with former bodyguard of MRF Founder President Ahmet Doğan. Erol Çelebi; “In the National Congress Palace (NDK) the assassination attempt to Ahmed Doğan was a complete disgrace of the security units. How does a political leader in the European capital will be faced against a weapon? What type of action is this? I was at work at that time, when I learned that from the press. If I had been there, I would destroy the person immediately which had threatened my party leader. It would be his last moments. I would shoot him..” he said.582

“Bojidar Dimitrov: DPS diskriminira horata ot bılgarski proizhod”, http://fakti.bg/mnenia/99111-bojidardimitrov-dps-diskriminira-horata-ot-balgarski-proizhod(e.t. 17.09.2015). 580 “Tırpenieto na bılgarite svırĢi”, http://www.desant.net/show-news/30606/(e.t. 17.09.2015). 581 “Grajdani poiskaha spravedlivost za prestıpleniyata ot omraza”, http://www.legalworld.bg /37470.grajdanipoiskaha-spravedlivost-za-prestypleniiata-ot-omraza.html(e.t. 17.09.2015). 582 “Ohranitelyat na Dogan Erol Çelebi: Ako byah v NDK, Ģtyah da razstrelyam Oktay”, http://www.blitz.bg/news/article/27761 (e.t. 19.09.2015). 579

162


4.www.faktor.bgnews site July 11, 2014 dated, “Avni Veli has lost his life who had established the first illegal organization against the Zhivkov regime”583 entitled news, announces the death of Avni Veli, who was the real opponents of Zhivkov and Name Massacre process. In the news also it was mentioning that he was an opposition to MRF Party and placing a previous interview with him. 5. www.blitz.bgnews site giving a place to a press release referring to the SKAT TV broadcasting on July 13, 2014 dated “TV SKAT: Grand Mufti body guards again attacked our team” 584 entitled press release. In the press release, Grand Mufti body guards were preventing to record Deputy Prime Minister of the Republic of Turkey Emrullah ĠĢler's “secret visit”. In addition, they have removed the SKAT television crew by threating, while the Turkish TV crew has worked easily. Thus, it draws attention to the preventing information to the Bulgarian public. 6. www.blitz.bg news site referring to NOVA TV channels‟ news on Jul 15, 2014dated “Roma rebelled in Varna, scaring to burn their children” titled report;54 home planned to be demolished in Mladost district by the municipal decision had the reaction of living Roma citizens there. An unnamed citizen in front of Camera was saying that; “I will fire the children and everything ends. I have no place to go. They were giving us 20 – 30 leva before the elections and their words then they forget. 70 families are using one fountain here”.585 7. www.blitz.bgnews site of July 20, 2014 dated “'Boyko Borisov made Turks analogy to the rulers; they were destroying Bulgarian places of worships” 586 entitled news, was announcing GERB leader Boyko Borisov words in Sliven (Ġslimiye) province Çintolovo village on the feast of St. Ilia Church; Borisov, “We Bulgarian are like this. They're coming 4-5 years, and stealing and going. Here, the Turks, the Ottomans came to this monastery steal and burned and we Bulgarians were re-constructed again. State also come steal and then it was re-established” he said. 8. The official organ of the Socialist Duma newspaper in its July 23 2014 dated “Uncensored Bulgaria has offered a deal to Borisov to have MRF in the government” entitled report wants to block the way of MRF by the ruling party587 August 2014 1. In the National Standard newspaper, August 1, 2014 dated “The Roma-born medical students scholarship program in progress” entitled article was in place, providing “Poçina Avni Veli sızdatelna pırvata nelegalna organizatsiya sreĢtu rejima na Jivkov”, http://www.faktor.bg/novini/balgariya/24120-pochina-avni-veli-sazdatel-na-parvata-nelegalna-organizatziyasrestu-rezhima-na-zhivkov.html(e.t. 19.09.2015). 584 “TV SKAT: Ohranata na myuvtiystvoto pak na panda naĢ ekip”, http://www.blitz.bg /news/article/278922(e.t. 19.09.2015). 585 “Romi na bunt vıv Varna, plaĢat, çe Ģte si zapalyat detsata”, http://www.blitz.bg/news/article/279252(e.t. 19.09.2015). 586 “Boyko Borisov sravni upravlyavaĢite s turtsi, sısipvali bılgarski manastiri”, http://www.blitz.bg /news/article/280294(e.t. 19.09.2015). 587 “BBT predloji na Borisov sporuzumenie za nedopuskane na DPS vıv vlastta”, http://duma.bg/node/82085 583

163


information that the ongoing for 5 years scholarship program has been extended for 3 years more. In the News of the scholarship program which was approved by the Ministry of Health and during the last 5 years, around 1,000 Roma origin medical students and the expertise in medicine have benefited from the program.588 2. Duma newspaper dated August 1, 2014 “Protests against the autopsy in Pazardzhik (Pazarcık) hospital” entitled report, Iztok residents inhabited by Roma citizens on the grounds of religious reasons were opposing the autopsy in the hospital of a 19-yearold girl found in the lake of Voda Dobra. Non-news information: In this district more than 5,000 Turkish-speaking Muslim Roma were living.589 3. www.news.bg site August 7, 2014 dated “Pomaks were between Cross and Hunger (1912-1913)”590 titled news, gives place the first part of the 10-part investigative series of Sociologist Dr. Teodora Deçev on Bulgarian Muslims during the Balkan wars. The second part of the research was published in August 16, 2014. 4. National Standard newspaper in its news of August 17, 2014 dated “GERB is looking for highly educated Muslims” titled article; was referring the party leader Borisov‟s statement in his speech in the “Cebel” village Pripek. In the inauguration speech of Football field by the former Prime Minister Boyko Borisov, giving the promises of when they have returned to power at least 10 Muslim deputy ministers will take place in the government. Bulgaria Borisov argued that Bulgarian Muslims should be a unifying element not a separating element and has mentioned that they were looking for highly educated Muslims. Non-news information: Pripek is the largest village composed of Bulgarized/ Christianized Pomaks.591 5.www.blitz.bgnews site, 18 August 18, 2014 dated “At the Yakoruda beach unexpected sign of humiliating statement only for “Pomaks” 592 entitled news mentioning that the sign placed next to the shower in Ilıca public beach who have 95 percent "without bılgaromoh" (Bulgarian Muslims) of the district is announcing the report, said in the direct warning signs “O Pomaks! All showers arm opening downwards and closing upwards!”. 6. Trud newspaper of August 19, 2014 dated “There is no ethnic background of the violence” entitled Emil Spahiyski signed commentary was mentioning the terrorism exerted by a Roma tribe in Cerkva town. The villagers Turkish, Bulgarian and other Roma families

“Prodıljava stipendinatskata programa za studenti-meditsi ot romski proizhod”, http://www.standartnews.com/balgariyaobrazovanie/prodalzhvat_stipendiantska_programa_za_studentimeditsiot_r omski_proizhod248454.html?comments=1%25252525252525253Funmobile=1%252525252525253Funmobile=1 %2525252525253Funmobile=1%25252525253Funmobile=1%252525253Funmobile=1%2525253Funmobile=1% 25253Funmobile=1%253Funmobile=1%3Funmobile=1 (e.t. 19.09.2015). 589 “ Protest sreĢtu autopsiya v pazarjiĢkata bolnitsa”, http://duma.bg/node/82627(e.t. 19.09.2015). 590 “Pomatsite mejdu glada i krısta (1912-1913 g.)”, http://news.ibox.bg/columnist/id_1468946941(e.t. 19.09.2015). 591 “GERB “izdirva” visoko obrazovani myusyulmani”, http://www.standartnews.com/balgariya-politika /gerb_izdirva_visoko_obrazovani_myusyulmani-250250.html(e.t. 19.09.2015). 592 “Obid na obyasnitelna tabela samo za “pomatsi” lısna na plaj v ykoruda”, http://www.blitz.bg/news/article/285572 (e.t. 19.09.2015). 588

164


living in the village were requesting removal of this “rapist” and “violent” tribe from the town and was emphasizing the problem does not have an ethnic nature.593 7.www.desant.net site August 26, 2014 dated “30th commemoration of the Plovdiv Station bombing”594 entitled and Kamen Kolev signed article was commemorating the incident which was carried out by pro-Turkish organizations in eighties of 20th century, resulting dozens of Bulgarians to be killed or injured and was mentioning that the executed defendants were Turks. 8. Standard newspaper dated August 28, 2014 dated “Mestan: we have no right for the elections till end thesis” entitled news gives place the words of MRF Chairman of Lütvi Mestan on 5 October General election and also to the Boyko Borisov‟s statement of there will be 10 Deputy Ministers from Muslims in the future government. And his comments were taking place as; “Integration mimic and even disintegration”, “Why 10 and why at this level?” 595 9.In the www.news.bgnews web site dated August 28, 2014 dated “'MRF has colored its lists with the Bulgarians, the Turks, Gypsies, with PaĢa and Peevski” 596 entitled and Vanina Nedkova signed news; was introducing head of the lists in the general election of the party. It was also giving Lütvi Mestan‟s thoughts. 10. In the www.blitz.bg news site, August 31, 2014 dated “Gypsy kids are learning Greek to win bags of money from begging” 597 titled and Vasil Nedev signed news; Kardzhali (Kircaali) Gypsies with their broken Greek languages learned from Greek tourists, were earning more money than university graduated employees. Non-news information: Roma are Roma living in Kardzhali (Kircaali) are Turkish-speaking Muslims who identify themselves as Master-Nation recognition. During the last census, all were registered as Turks by themselves. September 2014 1. Published in thewww.legalworld.bg web site September 2, 2014 dated and it was placed on the website of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee under the title of Discrimination “The prosecutor's office refused to investigate the Patriotic Front for hate speech” 598 entitled news was taking place. The news was given information that; National Front for Liberation of Bulgaria (NFSB) with the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization-Bulgarian National Movement (VMRO-BND) will not be investigated by the “Nasilieto nyama etniçeski proizhod”, http://www.trud.bg/Article.asp?ArticleId=4253799(e.t. 19.09.2015). “30 godinî ot atentata na gara Plovdiv”, http://www.desant.net/show-news/31065/(e.t. 21.09.2015). “Mestan: Nyamame pravo na teza “izbori do dupka”, http://www.standartnews.com/balgariyapolitika/mestan_nyamame_pravo_na_teza_izbori_do_dupka-251646.html (e.t. 21.09.2015). 596 “DPS naĢarilistite si bılgari, turtsi, tsigani, general i Peevski”, http://news.ibox.bg/news/id_168218464 (e.t. 21.09.2015). 597 “Nevrıstni tsiganeta uçat grıtski, za da trupat paçki ot prosiya”, http://www.blitz.bg/news/article /287533 (e.t. 21.09.2015). 598 ““Prokuraturata e otkazala da razsledva Patrıotiçniya front za propovyadvane na omraza”, http://www.bghelsinki.org/bg/novini/bg/single/prokuraturata-e-otkazala-da-razsledva-patriotichniya-front -zapropovyadvane-na-omraza/(e.t. 21.09.2015). 593 594 595

165


Prosecutor's Office. While in the NFSB election campaign it was mentioning ethnic cleansing will be made by Bulgarian hands and Roma will be put imprisonment in the camps, there was a promise to turn the camps into “tourist attractions”. Main measures for the solution of the Gypsy problem by VMRO-BND providing programs for the introduction of labor services for the public interest to Roma. 2. The 5 September 2014 article on www.desant.net written by Gergana Kostova with the headline “Mestan‟s PMs have already started readying buses from Turkey” 599 discusses how long before the start of official campaigning for the Bulgarian elections, HÖH ambassadors travelled to towns inhabited by Bulgarian Turk immigrants. 3. The same website www.desant.net on 5 September 2014 runs another article with the headline “A party in the Reform Bloc clearly supports Erdogan, the others are silent” written by Hristo Manolov. NPSD, a member of the Bloc, has good relations with Turkey and the Assistant Deputy of the Party Kasim Dal travels often between Sofia and Ankara. 600 4. The news article on www.blitz.bg written on 6 September 2014 with the headline “Roma brothers save 85 year old woman” 601explains how the Roma brothers Demir and MiĢo saved 85 year old Stefka Ruseva from death at midnight in the town of Dobri dol. 5. The 10 September 2014 article released on the website of the independent human rights organization Bulgarian Helsinki Committee with the headline “AGĠT recommends agitation in the native language” explains that the recommended of AGĠT on this subject was not implemented.602 6. The 11 September 2014 article on www.blitz.bg with the headline “Job application from 25 year old Kircali man rejected, does not know Turkish” 603 gives voice to a mother who claims her son‟s application to the company Teklas Bilgaria was rejected because he did not speak Turkish. 7. The 12 September 2014 article on www.blitz.bg with the headline “222 Roma are registered in one address for the elections” 604 alludes to the 24 çasa newspaper. Even the Roma living in the Ustovo district of Smolyân don‟t know how many people are registered on the same address. In addition, all houses are illegal and close to 50 students have to go one way for 3km to attend school.

“Deputati na Mestan veçe styagat avtobusite ot Turtsiya”, http://www.desant.net/show-news/31138/ “Partiya ot Reformatorskiya blok otkrito podkrepya Erdogan, ostana li te mılçat”, http://www.desant.net/shownews/31145/(e.t. 21.09.2015). 601 “Bratya Romi spasiha 85-godiĢna staritsa”, http://www.blitz.bg/news/article/288889(e.t. 21.09.2015). 602 “OSSE preporıça agitatsiya na mayçin ezik”, http://www.bghelsinki.org/bg/novini/bg/single/osse-preporchaagitaciyata-na-majchin-ezik/(e.t. 21.09.2015). 603 “Otkazaha rabota na 25-godiĢen mıj ot Kırcali, ne znael turtski”, http://www.blitz.bg/news/article/289816(e.t. 21.09.2015). 604 “222 romı s registratsiya na edin adres za izborite”, http://www.blitz.bg/news/article/290147(e.t. 21.09.2015). 599 600

166


8. The 13 September 2014 article on www.news.bg with the headline “Osman Oktay‟s worry, Erdogan and Mestan‟s meeting is an extremely bad sign” 605 alludes to the “Subudi se” (Wake Up) program broadcast on NOVA TV. It voices Osman Oktay‟s opinion of HÖH leader Lütvi Mestan‟s meeting with the President of the Republic of Turkey, Recep Erdogan. 9. The 17 September 2014 article on Standart newspaper with the headline “Ethnic Turk NGOs against Censor-free Bulgaria” explains the concern of 7 NGOs across the country regarding Censor-free Bulgaria (BBT) Party leader Nikolay Barekov‟s call to block the passage of buses from the Turkish border.606 10. The same newspaper in its September 23, 2014 dated “Sabri Hoca saves graveyard and stroke1” entitled, Irina Angelova signed news was published, Kardjali (Kircaali) Ranilist village imam, 81-year-old Sabri Mustafa was writing 120 types amulet without any charge.607 11. www.dariknews.bg news web site with reference to BGNES news 26 September 26, 2014 dated “Vandals defiled the Blagoevgrad mosque” entitled news, was mentioning the swastika drawn and the following words were written on the mosque walls “death to Doğan” (MRF Honorary President), “death to MRF” and “We will not forget Bunovo” (referring to the 1986 year attack made in Bunovo).608 12. The 26 September 2014 article with the headline “HÖH‟s other kind of religious and election campaign” released on the voice of the patriotic media, www.desant.net, explains that election campaigning will be carried on the opening of the 7 Girls‟ Mosque in the village of Podkova. HÖH is described as an anti-Bulgarian party, and HÖH Party Leader Lütvi Mestan is accused of promoting stronger pro-Turkish and Islamic politics.609 October 2014 1. Dnevnik newspaper reported referring to www.bghelsinki.org site which was released under the section to freedom of expression October 2, 2014 dated “CEC gave punishment to MRF for Turkish language agitation” entitled article, announced that MRF representatives were punished for violating the ban on making campaign languages other than Bulgarian. Fines could be in the payment order of from 200 to 2000 leva.610

“SreĢtata na Erdogan i Mestan e izklyuçitelno loĢ znak, opasyava se Osman Oktay”, http://news.ibox.bg/news/id_1322522004(e.t. 21.09.2015). 606 “Nepravitelstveni organizatsii na etniçeskite turtsi sreĢtu BBTs”, http://www.standartnews.com /izbori_2.0novini/nepravitelstveni_organizatsii_na_etnicheskite_turtsi_sreshtu_bbts-254255.html(e.t. 21.09.2015). 607 “Sabri hoca spasyava ot uroki i insult”, http://www.standartnews.com/balgariyaobshtestvo/sabri_hodzha_spasyava_ot_uroki_i_insult-254857.html(e.t. 21.09.2015). 608 “Vandali oskverniha camiyata v Blagoevgrad”, http://dariknews.bg/viewarticle .php?article_id=1331354 (e.t. 21.09.2015). 609 “Religiya i izborna agitatsiya v poredniyat yurlyu gyuveçna DPS”, http://www.desant.net/show-news/31321/ (e.t. 21.09.2015). 610 “TsĠK na kaza DPS za agitatsiya na turski”, http://www.bghelsinki.org/bg/novini/bg/single/cik-nakaza-dps-zaagitaciya-na-turski-ezik/ (e.t. 21.09.2015). 605

167


2. The 3 October 2014 article on www.desant.net with the headline “Patriotic Front opposes MSK‟s arbitrariness” 611 discusses how patriots opposes the number of voting booths that will be opened in Turkey as envisioned by MSK. HÖH is also described as an unconstitutional party. 3. In the same website, the 3 October 2014 dated articles with the headline “For some Bulgarian politicians, Ankara is a great need” writes that Korman Ġsmailov of the Reform Bloc and Lütvi Mestan of HÖH act as if they are entering elections in Turkey. 612 4. The 5 October 2014 article on Standart newspaper by Daniela Nikolova with the headline “Record number of voters in Turkey” explains how HÖH received the most votes in Turkey. Once all overseas votes are counted, HÖH could pass BSP to become the second party. The article in the same newspaper the next day with the headline “HÖH skims expat votes” discusses overseas votes in more detail and points out the HÖH received the most overseas votes with 43.92%.613 5. 7 October 2014 article on www.blitz.bg with the headline “Roma fight during shift change in the factory in Ġhtiman, they will be fired” 614 explains that 2 people are killed, and a total of 16 are injured. 6. As per the Trud newspaper, October 7, 2014 dated “MRF beat Ataka and patriots in the Ġliytsa village” entitled Deyan Nikolov signed article, assesses the election results in the village of writer Ivan Vazov's “A Bulgarian woman” novel. And also was mentioning that there were no Turks or Roma living in the village. The information out of the news: Nene Ġliytsa was the famous Bulgarian hero who fought against the Ottoman Empire and to recover a fighter from the writer Hristo Botev's group in 1876. 615 7. www.desant.net web site dated October 10, 2014 “In Kardjali (Kircaali) again they had Turkish agitation”616 entitled, Zlatina Hristova signed news, mentioning that MRF Chairman Mestan made election campaign to the believers in Turkish after the “Bayram” Feast prayer, which Ambassador Süleyman Gökçe of the Republic of Turkey was also attended. 8. www.blitz.bg news site referring to the TV 7 channel 12 October 12, 2014 dated “Kostadin Çakırov: Koritarov when I came across with Koritarov, I'm going to kick his ass because of the “the great migration” 617 entitled news, giving place to the statement of

“Patriotiçniya front se obyavi protiv proizvola na TsĠK”, http://www.desant.net/show-news/31368/ (e.t. 21.09.2015). 612 “Zaedni bılgarski polititsi Ankara e golyama nujda”, http://www.desant.net/show-news/31377/(e.t. 21.09.2015). 613 “DPS obra vota na gurbetçiite (Obzor na vota v çujbina)”, http://www.standartnews.com/izbori_2.0novini/dps_obra_vota_na_gurbetchiite_obzor_na_vota_v_chuzhbina-257041.html (e.t. 21.09.2015). 614 “Romite v Ġhtiman se sbili mejdu smenite v tseha, uvolnyavat gi”, http://www.blitz.bg/news/article/295046 615 “DPS bi “Ataka” i patriotite v seloto na baba Ġliytsa”, http://www.trud.bg/Article .asp?ArticleId=4355452(e.t. 21.09.2015). 616 “V Kırcali pak agitiraha na turski ezik”, http://www.desant.net/show-news/31433/(e.t. 21.09.2015) 617 “Kostadin Çakırov: Koritarov kato go sreĢtna, Ģte mu naritam zadnika zaradi “golyamata ekskurziya”, http://www.blitz.bg/news/article/296082 (e.t. 21.09.2015). 611

168


Zhivkov‟s former adviser. Earlier the journalists Koritarov had described 89 Migration as; “the brutal deportation of Bulgarian Turks”. 9. Trud newspaper, referring to the BGNES news agency dated October 16, 2014 “CEC cuts penalty due to Mestan due to the Turkish agitation” entitled news was announcing; CEC has sent documents to Veliko Tarnovo, Plovdiv and Kardzhali Governors against MRF Chairman Lütvi Mestan for his administrative violations. For the same reason Hussein Hafizov also was sentenced to pay the penalty. 618 10. Trud newspaper referring to the BTV channel dated October 28, 2014 “Petır Paunov: If necessary, we will use force to get out Bat Sali from parliament” entitled news it was announced, Kyustendil (Köstendil) Mayor‟s words on Aleksandır Metodiev (Bat Sali/ Sali Abi) elected deputy on behalf of the MRF Paunov was claiming that Bat Sali were not accepted by Bulgarians, Turks, and by Roma. Non-news information: Bat Sali has been assimilated during Name massacre he was speaking Bulgarian and was Christian. His wife has not forgotten Turkish 619 11.Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, referring to the news of the web site of www.mediapool.bg; released under judicial section on 29 October 2014 “MRF again submitted a bill requesting lifting the timeout restrictions from Communist crimes” 620 entitled news has given place to the MRF‟s grounds. “The investigation file is still before the hearing almost 30 years since the case “words of Çetin Kazak was included in the news. November 2014 1. Referring to BTA news, the www.news.bg news site November 3, 2014 dated “Historians warn, impelling people to Turkification” entitled Diana Zaykova signed news was taking place. In the letter sent to the President, Parliament, the Attorney General, the National Security State Agency and the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, local “Drujba Rodina” association was questioning the accuracy of many historical books about Pomaks in Bulgaria.621 2. Standard Newspaper Society announced under Community section, November 2, 2014 dated “A poor man received 28,000 leva from the sky” entitled and Ivan Ivanov signed news was mentioning due to Social welfare institutions errors a Roma citizen named Nuri Eminov resident in Great Tarnovo province, town of Elena, Konstantin village, to the

“TsĠK sıstavya akt sreĢtu Mestan zaradi agitatsiya na turski”, http://www.trud.bg/Article .asp?ArticleId=4370815(e.t. 21.09.2015). 619 “Petır Paunov: Ako tryabva Ģte izvadim sıs sila Bat Sali ot parlamenta”, http://www.trud.bg/ Article.asp?ArticleId=4392139(e.t. 21.09.2015). 620 “DPS pak vnese zakon, premahvaĢt davnostta za prestıpleniyata na komunizma”, http://www.bghelsinki.org/bg/novini/bg/single/dps-pak-vnese-zakon-premahvash-davnostta-za- prestpleniyata-nakomunizma/(e.t. 21.09.2015). 621 “Tlaskat naselenieto kım turçene, almirat istoritsi”, http://news.ibox.bg/news/id_1260292117(e.t. 21.09.2015). 618

169


account for the disability pension of 28 thousand leva was transferred. And his wife Hatice Aptulova's word was referring.622 3. Referring to Nova television news, the www.blitz.bg news site November 5, 2014 dated “Korman Ismailov: If enough support cannot be provided to GERB need to return the mandate to form the government” entitled report, assesses condition that occurs after the declaration that Patriotic Front would not support the new government to be established. Ismailov has emphasized that nobody wants to have support from the MRF. 623 4. www.blitz.bgnews site dated under the section dealing with the crimes has placed a news on November 9, 2014 dated “Pub fight killed the man, the event was followed by a mass fight between Gypsies and Muslims” 624. The incident took place in Lovça, Golâma Brestnitsa village and 49-year-old Andrey Zolev stabbed to death. Deceased was a “bılgaromohamedan” (Bulgarian Muslim). 5. In Duma newspaper published under the comments section November 11, 2015 dated “Turkish news is more peaceful” entitled Aleksandır Simov signed commentary, make comments on Bulgarian National Television Channel 10 minutes Turkish news broadcasting which flared up again in recent days. He has commented that the News has always been in a high scholastic of propaganda. 625 6. Referring to BTV channel news; www.dariknews.bg news site published under the political section November 11, 2014 dated “Dikmen: If GERB and Reformist Block do not appoint POMAKs has to deal with MRF” entitled news was having former Agriculture Minister Mehmet Dikmen‟s statements. “Dikmen: MRF had a role in the realization of Turkish Pomak ethnic entities. Unfortunately, no other political entity could be able to manage this within the period of 25 years” said. 626 7. Trud newspaper referring to Nova TV news under the Bulgaria section announced November 10, 2014 dated “Radan Kınev, for Orhan Osmailov: The only sin is the name” entitled news, give a place for Kınev‟s opinions of Turkish origin Orhan Ismailov on the appointment as Deputy Minister of Defense for the reformist block, 'the description gives the place. Ultimatum of the Patriotic Front and the defense of the reformers among were placed in the information.627

“Bednyak poluçi 28 hilyadi leva ot nebeto”, http://www.standartnews.com/balgariyaobshtestvo/bednyak_poluchi_28_hilyadi_lv_ot_nebeto-261271.html(e.t. 21.09.2015). 623 “Korman Ġsmailov: Ako ot GERB ne osiguryat dostatıçno podkrepa, tryabva da vırnat mandata”, http://www.blitz.bg/news/article/300790(e.t. 21.09.2015). 624 “Ubiha mıj v krıçmarska svada, posledva masov boy mejdu myusyulmani i tsigani”, http://www.blitz.bg/news/article/301701(e.t. 21.09.2015). 625 “Po-krotko s novinite na turski”, http://duma.bg/node/89305(e.t. 21.09.2015). 626 “Dikme: Ako GERB i RB ne naznaçat pomatsi, ima sdelka s DPS”, http://dariknews.bg/ view_article.php?article_id=1355408(e.t. 21.09.2015). 627 “Radan Kınevza Orhan Ġsmailov: Edinstveniyat mu gryah e imeto”, http://www.trud.bg/ Article.asp?ArticleId=4436581(e.t. 21.09.2015). 622

170


8. www.dariknews.bgnews site under Bulgaria section made an announcement in November 24, 2014 “Barekov: before the law Bulgarians and Turks are equal” 628 entitled news, published Uncensored Bulgaria Leader Nikolay Barekov‟s announcement that was included an explanation of the racist scandal caused by the Patriotic Front. Barekov, Borisov criticized the attitude of the Patriotic Front in the second week of the Government, a person simply cannot be dismissed on the grounds that not carrying a Bulgarian name, he says that he felt embarrassed and humiliated himself for this case. 9. www.bghelsinki.org web site referring to the Dnevnik newspaper published under the discrimination section November 24, 2014 dated “How a Turkish song made parents and teachers fight?” titled news was given. A Turkish song placed in the State's publication of “Prosveta” published for 6th grade music class created war of words and intolerance between parents.629 10. www.mediapool.bgnews website under the Bulgarian section of 25 November 25, 2014 dated “Several „Hoca‟ and Imams were arrested in the anti-terrorist operations made in 4 cities” 630 entitled news, was informing 40 arrests were made in the simultaneous operations carried out in Pazardzhik, Plovdiv, Smolyan and Haskovo provinces. Also inform many evidences were obtained in the searches in Roma neighborhood. 11. In Deutsche Welle Bulgaria under the Bulgarian section of the publications of 25 November 25, 2014 dated “Bulgaria and Turkish hatred” entitled Georgi Papakoçev signed article was handling the grudge against anything connected to Turks. While Pianist twins Hassan and Ibrahim was drawing applause, Deputy Secretary of Defense Orhan Ismailov was called as “Turkish agent”, Turkish news was stated as a problem but there was appreciation to the Turkish series.631 12. www.blitz.bgnews website under the section of Social News, November 26, 2014 dated “Grand Mufti: Our imams were not arrested during DANS operation” 632 entitled news was taking place. In the news Grand Mufti‟s declaration sent to media organizations was taking place. In the declaration it was stating that Muslims in Bulgaria should not support the “Islamic State”. 13. In reference to BTA news, in the www.mediapool.bg news web site issued under the section of Bulgaria, October 26, 2014 dated “Hüseyin Hafızov: The operation of DANS and prosecution is a political order” entitled news was taking place. MRF deputy Hüseyin “Barekov: Pred zakona bılgari i turtsi sme ravni”, http://dariknews.bg/view_article.php?article _id=1361876 “Ela pri men”, ili kak edna turska pesen skara roditeli i uçiteli”, http://www.bghelsinki.org/ bg/novini/bg/single/ela-pri-men-ili-kak-edna-turska-pesen-skara-roditeli-i-uchiteli/ 630 “Hoci i imami arestuvani pri antiteroristiçna asktsiya v 4 grada”, http://www.mediapool.bg/hodzhi-i-imamiarestuvani-pri-antiteroristichna-aktsiya-v-4-grada-news227583.html(e.t. 21.09.2015). 631 “Bılgariya i nepriyazınta kım turskoto”, http://www.dw.com/bg /%D0 %B1%D1 %8A%D0% BB%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F-%D0%B8-%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BF%D1% 80%D0% B8%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8A%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B0-%D0%BA%D1%8A%D0%BC-%D1%82%D1 %83%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE/a-18084878 (e.t. 21.09.2015). 632 “Glavno myuftiystvo: NaĢi imami ne sa bili arestuvani v aktsiyata na DANS”, http://www.blitz.bg/news/article/304800 (e.t. 21.09.2015). 628 629

171


Hafızov‟s opinions on the operations conducted on Muslim religious representatives by the State Agency for National Security, Interior Ministry and the Prosecution were stating. 633 December 2014 1. Trud newspaper in reference to the BGNES news under Bulgarian section December 4, 2014 dated “Gendarmes attacked Dupnitsa Roma neighborhood due to illegal electricity usage at the request of CEZ” entitled news; gave information of the details of the operations. In the report, it was mentioning that Roma cut electrical cables, and shouted “Where is Mayor Çimev, What we will do without electricity, why you are differentiating us as Bulgarian, Gypsy and Turks”. 634 2. www.desant.netnews web site in the December 5, 2014 dated and “Against the participation in the administration of the pro-Turkish parties” 635 titled news, the Movement for Rights and Freedoms (MRF) party was considering the Freedom and Honor People's Party (NPSD) as pro-Islamic and non-Constitutional. 3. www.blitz.bg news web site, in the news placed under the Community heading December 8, 2014 dated announced “Helsinki Committee: Petr Muscovite‟s thoughts should be buried with the bodies of Hitler” 636 entitled news; places the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee's letter of protest against Health Minister‟s, “The emergency vehicles are not allowed in the Roma neighborhoods” announcement. Committee was describing the Minister's words, “Brute manifestation aimed not understanding the rule of law and also incitement to racial hatred” 4. Standard newspaper referring to NOVA TV channel program presented by Sasho Dikov; published under Politics section of December 14, 2014 dated “Ismailova: I am ready even for the lie detector” titled news, was expressing the commentary of Deputy Defense Minister Orhan Ismailov against Valeri Simeonov‟s accusation to him as “The supporter of people of Turkish interests”.637 5. Duma newspaper in front page published news of December 16, 2014 dated “Roma attacked female doctor in Rakovsky” titled news was publishing that; “not satisfied with the decision of the emergency physician 65-year-old Dr. Bojidara Peevska which was on duty by Roma”. 638

“Hüseyin Hafızov: Aktsiyata na DANS i prokuraturata e politiçeska porıçka”, http://www.mediapool.bg/hyusein-hafazov-aktsiyata-na-dans-i-prokuraturata-e-politicheska-porachka-news 227666.html(e.t. 21.09.2015). 634 “Jandarmeriyata atakuvala romskiya kvartal v Dupnitsa po molba na ÇEZ zaradı nelegalno polzvane na tok”, http://www.trud.bg/Article.asp?ArticleId=4460802(e.t. 21.09.2015). 635 “Rodolyubtsi sa protivuçastieto na proturski partii v upravlenietu”, http://www.desant.net/show-news/31894/ 636 “Helsinkskiyat komitet: Mislite na Petır Moskov da bıdat po grebani s trupa na Hitler!”, http://www.blitz.bg/news/article/307124(e.t. 21.09.2015). 637 “Ġsmailov: Gotov sım i na detektor na lıjata”, http://www.standartnews.com/balgariyapolitika/ismailov_gotov_sam_i_na_detektor_na_lazhata-266467.html(e.t. 21.09.2015). 638 “Romi napadnaha lekarka v Rakovski”, http://duma.bg/node/91645(e.t. 23.09.2015). 633

172


6. In reference to BGNES news agency, the www.vesti.bg news web site under the Community section of December 17, 2015 dated “From Grand Mufti to Pisançev: Bulgaria needs High Islamic School” titled news announcing the meeting between Grand Mufti Dr. Mustafa Hacı and DANS President Dimitır Pisançev. 639 7. www.bghelsinki.org web site referring to broadcasting of Deutsche Welle's in the Bulgarian language under the section of Language / hate crime December 18, 2014 dated “The door opened by Moscow” entitled Tatyana Vaksberg signed article stated that; previous day Parliament was taken by the racist rhetoric by National Front for Bulgaria's Liberation Leader Valeri Simeonov‟s words on Roma, “arrogant, confident and violent human-like creatures, demanding salary without working he study hospital disease without getting sick going to hospitals.., requesting benefiting from the child funds for children playing in the street with pork. Requesting maternity help for their women having instincts stray dogs (prostitute)”were among the expressions.640 8. www.actualno.comweb site under Plovdiv section published December 18, 2014 dated “Tolerance capital of Plovdiv (Filibe) has collected ethnic groups and communities under one roof” 641 entitled news announced, Jews celebrate the Light Festival (Hanuka) celebrated by Jews brought together Christians, Jewish and Armenian communities and Muslim representatives. 9. In reference to BGNES news agency www.news.bg news web site December 22, 2014 dated, “Again they are questioning the legality of MRF from the Constitutional Court” entitled news placed under the Education and Science Section; 6.th Bulgarian National Doctrine Draft information was located which was updated by the Bulgarian Science and Arts Academy (BANI). The report also had opinions of BANI about MRF.642 10. www.desebg.com web site December 22, 2014 dated article issued under the “Memories – Intervention “section issued under section “The facts about the Communist regime when combining Bulgarians and Turks” 643 entitled Hristo Hristov signed news were taking place. And the information on “Bulgaria 30 years after the Process of Name Massacre and 25 years after the democratic changes” Forum which was held in Istanbul on December 18 to 19. 11. www.bghelsinki.org web site referring to broadcasting of Deutsche Welle's in the Bulgarian language under the section of Ethnic Minorities December 24, 2014 dated “Bulgaria and its Turkish” entitled Tatyana Vaksberg signed article stated that; in Bulgaria “Glavniyat myuftiya kım Pisançev: Tryabva visĢe islyamsko uçiliĢte v Bılgariya”, http://www.vesti.bg/bulgaria/obshtestvo/glavniiat-miuftiia-kym-pisanchev-da-syhranim-mydrostta-6029132 (e.t. 23.09.2015). 640 “Vratata, koyato Moskov otvori”, http://www.bghelsinki.org/bg/novini/bg/single/vratata-koyato-moskovotvori/(e.t. 23.09.2015). 641 “Stolitsata na tolerantnostta Plovdiv sıbra pod edin pokriv etnosi i obĢtnosti”, http://plovdiv.actualno.com/Stolicata-na-tolerantnostta-Plovdiv-sybra-pod-edin-pokriv-etnosi-i-obshtnosti news_447178.html(e.t. 23.09.2015). 642 “Pitat otnovo Konstitutsionniya sıd zakon nali e DPS”, http://news.ibox.bg/news/id_911400116(e.t. 23.09.2015). 643 “Kogato istinata za komunistiçeskiya rejim obedinî Bılgari i Turtsi”, http://desebg.com/2011-01-06-11-5524/2112-2014-12-22-08-08-38(e.t. 23.09.2015). 639

173


forced assimilation has been launched against Bulgarian Turks 30 years ago, and now Bulgaria is challenging itself in the inheritance left to it in the minefield 644 12. www.dariknews.bgnews website dated issued by December 27, 2014 dated under the section in Bulgaria “Mestan: So far the penalty imposed on the Process of Forced name changing is moral only”645 entitled, Pavel Tençev signed article included the information in Momchilgrad (Mestanlı) Name Massacre Process of the memorial service for the victims and was Providing sections of MRF Chairman Lütvi Mestan‟s speech. 13. Duma newspaper under the Bulgarian section December 30, 2014 dated “One to One” top heading “in 2008 year Boyko Borisov” and “in 2014 year Boyko Borisov” subheading titled, places Boyko Borisov statements on Forced Name changing process with 6 years difference. In related news it was mentioning that; while Borisov was stating on the process in 2008, “the purpose is right, methods are wrong”, while in 2014, was defining the process as “the most serious crimes committed by the Communist Party”.646 The minorities who did not have the media power cannot get involved in the visual, non-visual and effective broadcasting and influential media outlets in the country. Many related news about the Movement for Rights and Freedoms (MRF) which was in the position of the main advocate of rights of minorities belonging to the group, were in political nature, therefore have not been studied in chronological order, but the news directly relating with the minorities in the target group were taken into consideration. The news in Turkish language was not included in the study. 2. Examples of News Related With Armenians In this study a total of 5 articles related to Armenians in 2014 have find a place in the national publication reaching to a wide audience. The media organizations not broadcasting to broad audience, Internet news sites and local newspapers were not included in the study. 1. www.blitz.bgnews website has published under the Crimes section dated February 27, 2014, “In front of the Planet club Armenians poured blood, meat king with a broken nose” 647 entitled news, was informing the fight between opposite groups of Armenians and reporting one of the sons of meat king of Masropyan nose was broken. 2. www.skat.bgTV web site June 21, 2014 dated “The Armenian community have remembered Yavorov‟s works” 648 entitled news announced that; the Armenian community representatives living in the country have been gathered in the museum house of famous

“Bılgariya i neynite turtsi”, http://www.bghelsinki.org/bg/novini/bg/single/blgariya-i-nejnite-turci/(e.t. 23.09.2015). 645 “Mestan: Do dnes edinstvenata pri sıda za Vızroditelniya protses e moralna”, http://dariknews.bg/view_article.php?article_id=1377484(e.t. 23.09.2015). 646 “Edno kım edno”, http://duma.bg/node/92343(e.t. 23.09.2015). 647 Armentsi lyaha krıv pred “Planet klub”, mesarski bos e sıs sçupennos”, http://www.blitz.bg/news/article/252982(e.t. 23.09.2015). 648 “Armenskata obĢtnost po çete deloto na Yavorov”, http://www.skat.bg/news.php?action =7&newsID=26414 644

174


author Peyo Yavorov in Çirpan, who had written famous “Armenian Lament” for the heavy fate of the Armenians 115 years ago. 3. www.blitz.bgnews website has published under the Community News section dated July 15, 2014, “From now Armenian priest from Plovdiv” 649 entitled news, announcing that the Armenian priest Hraç Muradyan was appointed as Bulgaria Plovdiv Diocese of the Armenian. 4. Trud newspaper, in its September 7, 2014 dated under the Faces section of the newspaper “Magi Hakvajiyan: My son will have a child” entitled Sonya Spasova signed article, presented the interview with the leading Armenian film director and television program producer Magırdıç Halvajiyan. 650 5. National BNT channel during its morning program broadcasting dated October 28, 2014, “Day starts with the Culture” entitled program, was mentioning about Agop Garabedyan‟s “Holocaust and the fate of the Armenian people” titled book, and was making the promotion of the documentary written by Author Teodora Toleva “Holocaust and the fate of the Armenian people” by Armenian origin historian Agop Garabedyan 651 3. Examples of the News about the Jews The least news made community in the Country is the Jews community as Armenian community. During the investigation, only two news were found about Jews community written in the national press. Thus some local news was also included. 1. www.sofia.utre.bg website in its March 10, 2014 dated “the Bulgarian Jews are commemorating the 71th year of their rescue” 652 titled news, announcing that a memorial service being held on the occasion of rescued Bulgarian Jews day at the memorial located next to the National Assembly. 2. www.dariknews.bgnews site under the News from Varna section dated March 11, 2014 “Holocaust victims 20 Jews is “Shalom” Varna member” 653 entitled Aleksandır Kolarov signed article informs 20 members of 160 “Shalom” Varna members were Holocaust victims. 3. www.novini-plovdiv.comwebsite under the Culture section 28 April 2014 dated “Award winning essay writers: Bulgaria has the face of courage and humanity”654 titled news was giving information about the awards ceremony in Plovdiv (Filibe) for the of the “Armenskiyat pop veçe e ot Plovdiv”, http://www.blitz.bg/news/article/279396(e.t. 23.09.2015) “Magi Halvajiyan: Sinıt mi Ģte si ima bebe”, http://www.trud.bg/Article.asp?ArticleId=4284763 (e.t. 23.09.2015). 651 “Agop Garabedyan za knigata “Genotsid i sıdba na armenskiya narod”, http://bnt.bg/part-of-show/agopgarabedyan-za-knigata-genotsid-i-sa-dba-na-armenskiya-narod(e.t. 23.09.2015). 652 “Otbelyazvame 71 godinî ot spasyavaneto na bılgarskite evrei”, http://www.sofia.utre.bg /2014/03/10/214270otbelyazvame_71_godinî_ot_spasyavaneto_na_bulgarskite_evrei(e.t. 23.09.2015). 653 “20 evrei, prejiveli Holokosta, çlenuvat v “ġalom” Varna”, http://dariknews.bg/view_article.php ?article_id=1231046(e.t. 23.09.2015). 654 “Avtorite na otliçenite eseta za spasyavaneto na bılgarskite evrei: Kurajıt i humannostta imat i bılgarsko litse”, http://www.novini-plovdiv.com/?p=1622(e.t. 23.09.2015). 649 650

175


trial of the students for “During the Second World War in Bulgaria saved Jews from deportation to the death camps of Nazi Germany” entitled writing contest. 4. www.cross.bgagency website dated September 14, 2014 issued under the Bulgarian section “Women in Judaism” “15th European Day of Jewish Culture” 655 titled news, in the open doors day, announcing the event held at the Jewish Cultural House. 5. Deutsche Welle, BBC and the Bulgarian National Radio (BNR) business partners www.fakti.bg news web sites under Culture and Art section, dated September 24, 2014 titled “the year 5775 begins in the Jewish calendar” news was informing that according to the Jewish calendar, midnight counting since the world's creation ranks began in 5775 information was appeared.656 In this research including perhaps barely fifty percent of the Bulgarian media it seems obvious that, on one hand, covering Turks, Pomaks and Turkish-speaking Muslim Roma, and on the other hand, including Jews and Armenians making the comparison between the two target groups in the Bulgarian media appearance is not very healthy. Reasons: 1. There is a serious population number gap between the first target group minorities and the second target minority This is the most obvious indication that the news in media is proportional to the mass. (see. 2011 census 657) 2. After establishment of the Third Bulgarian State starting as of March 3, 1878, only Armenian minorities has not exposed to any suppression, sanction, forced migration, inhuman practices in the country, the Armenian community is deeply integrated with the Bulgarian. Both peoples‟ common “other” was Turks. To see any negative news about Armenians is almost impossible. Armenians are more effective and successful in sociocultural, science, art, producing and in many different areas than the Turks, Pomaks and Turkish-speaking Muslim Roma. 3. Historical relationship of Bulgarians with the Ottoman Empire and the Bulgarians, having still numerous and effective people grown up with the Marxist-Leninists Doctrine in the country, the lack of a powerful media of any Turk, not knowing very well of the mother tongue due to objective and subjective reasons, the presence of the Movement for Rights and Freedoms Party were the most important factors directly affecting the shape of Turks in media perspective. 4.

Religion differences were another important factor.

“15-i evropeyski den na evreyskata kultura “Jenite v yudeizma”, http://www.cross.bg/izrael-shalom-bulgariya1430254.html#axzz3n202iaKq(e.t. 23.09.2015). 656 “Zapoçva 5775 godina ot evreyskiya kalendar”, http://fakti.bg/kultura-art/114355-zapochva-5775-godina-otevreiskia-kalendar-(e.t. 23.09.2015). 657 “Население по етническа група и майчин език /Etnik gruba ve anadile göre nüfus”, http://censusresults.nsi.bg/Census/Reports/2/2/R9.aspx(e.t. 23.09.2015). 655

176


5. 95 percent of Roma-related news in the survey was negative. This was due to the idea of Bulgarians about Roma, and the Roman way of life, as well as not being able to have the social cohesion and integration of the Roma. 6. Having very less population of Jews in the country, having criminal nature of international law of most action against them, and also having very strong international media and the political lobby, led to avoid in a format away from the Jews of the Bulgarian media. The news about them is very few, if any was a part of culture and arts news. 7. Turks, Pomaks and Roma are represented better than other minorities under the roof of MRF in a single political party, the people coming from themselves are to be effective in politics. 8.

The most powerful area of the Turks is the local government.

177


THE RESULT Bulgarian society and politics, under a communist regime until 1989, was absent established universal values such as the rule of law and democracy. However, with the unraveling of the communist bloc, it assumed European liberal values and through the 1991 constitution it established a democratic, pluralistic, social and constitutional Republican state based on human rights. The country as required by such a radical political transformation, has entered a restructuring process, with all its institutions and rules in the public and private spheres. The political, social, and economic restructuring process with the aim and desire to become a part of liberal Europe seemed to be realized with the acceptance into the EU in 2007. However, due to the inability to overcome structural economic and social problems tied to its past, it has been unable to achieve the desired progress in the foundational values of the EU such as democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. Research results of Bulgaria‟s progress in the areas of economy, quality of life, and governance since its membership in the EU in 2007 to today have shown that Bulgaria has been unable to reach the desired level of success compared to previous EU members. These findings support the evaluations of the EU commission. Bulgaria is the poorest amongst EU members. The notion of discrimination - foremost of minorities - still continues in public and private fields, and several violations occur of international agreements and in the framework of EU norms regarding personal, political, economic, social, and cultural rights. The 2015 report prepared by the EU Commission on progress in Bulgaria in the framework of the Cooperation and Incentive Mechanism concluded that the reforms and struggles to solve fundamental issues in the areas of “judgment mechanisms”, “corruption” and “organized crime” were insufficient. Despite judicial reforms, judicial independence, and the requirements for a constitutional state were not met. Further, it was concluded that the strategy for the fight against corruption was not conducted with determination and that effective legal and political precautions against organized crime were not taken. Due to the fact that issues in these areas feed off of each other, it was recommended to implement cumulative solutions. It can be seen that Muslim Turks, who form the biggest minority group in Bulgaria, experience problems with their cultural, religious, and especially educational rights. The Bulgarian constitution and legal systems are largely suitable to universal norms with regards to fundamental rights and freedoms. However, some problems and obstacles can be encountered in practical applications. The negative and prejudiced attitudes of some Bulgarian officials along with the Muslim Turk minority‟s lack of awareness regarding their legal rights and freedoms and their failure to follow legal procedures have contributed to these issues. The increasing Islamophobia and xenophobia in Europe, especially after 9/11, has been felt more strongly in Bulgaria. The fact that Bulgaria was under Ottoman control or 500 years and that in the ensuing independence process Turks were seen as “others” has led to a historical prejudice against Muslims and Turks that are also supported by official history books. The combination of this present prejudice and rising Islamophobia has led to

178


negative results. In earnest Turkish and Bulgarian conflicts occurred for a short period during the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century, fostered by the interferences of the global powers of the day. Both sides were allies during World War I which started afterwards.. In addition, there exists a culture of co-existence between Turks and Bulgarians which started in the 14th century, and joint interaction between language and culture. When taking into account all these considerations and the fact that both countries are members of the NATO alliance and have adopted EU norms, problems regarding the Muslim Turkish minority can be resolved in the framework of tolerance. In Bulgaria today the group that faces the most discrimination is the Roma people. With one of the highest populations of Roma in Europe, this situation has sometimes led to ethnic tensions in Bulgaria. The Armenian community which has shrunk to a population of five to six thousand according to the 2011 census is today, as in the past, viewed sympathetically by the Bulgarian people and especially officials. Nationalist Bulgarian groups in particular view the Armenians as historical allies against the Turks. The Armenian community considering their size relative the population of the country also has a significant effect on culture and art. No negative attitude is seen towards the Jewish community that numbers roughly one thousand according to the last census.

179


REFERENCES PERIODICALS Official Gazette INSTITUTIONAL REPORTS AND PROVISONS 2011 yılı nüfus ve konut sayımı, Kircaali Bölgesi Kayıtları, Sofya 2012. Advisory Committee on The Framework Convention For The Protection of National Minorıties Third Opinion on Bulgaria adopted on 11 February 2014, ACFC/OP/III (2014) 001, Strasbourg, 30 July 2014. Avrupa Irkçılık ve Ayrımcılık Karşıtı Komisyon Raporu (5. Rapor), Kabul edildiği tarih 27.06.2014, Yayınlanma tarihi 16.09.2014. Ayrımcılığa KarĢı Koruma Komisyonu, Yıllık Rapor, 2013. BaĢ Müftülük 2011 Bülteni, Sofya, 2012. BaĢ Müftülük 2014 Bülteni, Sofya, 2015. Berkovitsa Bölge Mahkemesi, 2013 yılı 1 numaralı dava, 5.12.2013 tarihli karar. “Bulgar Helsinki Komitesi, 2010 Yılı Bulgaristan‟da Ġnsan Hakları”, Yıllık Bulgaristan Helsinki Komitesi Raporu, Mart 2011. “Bulgar Helsinki Komitesi,2011 Yılı Bulgaristan‟da Ġnsan Hakları”, Yıllık Bulgaristan Helsinki Komitesi Raporu, Mart 2012. “Bulgar Helsinki Komitesi,2014 Yılı Bulgaristan‟da Ġnsan Hakları”, Yıllık Bulgaristan Helsinki Komitesi Raporu, 2015. “Bulgaria RAXEN National Focal Point Thematic Study Housing Conditions of Roma and Travellers”, March 2009. Bulgaristan’da nefret söylemlerine ilişkin kamu tutumları, Açık Toplum Enstitüsü Raporu, 5-13 Temmuz 2013‟de yapılan araĢtırma raporu, Sofya 2013. Case of The United Macedoni an Organisation Ilinden – Pirin and Others v. Bulgaria (Application no.59489/00) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 20 October 2005, FINAL 20.01.2006. Case of The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden – Pirin and Others v. Bulgaria (No.2) (Application no.41561/07and20972/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 18 October 2011, FINAL 8.3.2012. Case of Zhechev v. Bulgaria (Application no. 57045/00) STRASBOURG, 21 June 2007, Final 21.9.2007.

180

JUDGMENT


“Collectıve Complaınts Procedure Summarıes Of Decısıons On The Merıts 1998 – 2012”, European Committee of Social Rights, 30 Mai 2013. “Implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Socialand Cultural Rights- Fourth and fifth periodic reports submitted under articles 16 and 17 of the International Covenant on Economic, Socialand Cultural Rights” Committee on Economic, Socialand Cultural Rights, Bulgaria, E/C.12/BGR/4-5, 9 May 2011. “COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION of 8 July2014 on the National Reform Programme 2014 of Bulgaria and delivering a Council opinion on the Convergence Programme of Bulgaria”, 2014 (2014/C 247/02), Official Journal of the European Union, C 247/7, 29.7.2014. Çingene KarĢıtlığı ve Romanlara KarĢı Ayrımcılıkla Mücadelede 13 Sayılı Genel Politika Tavsiye Kararı, CRI - Irkçılığa ve Hoşgörüsüzlüğe Karşı Avrupa Komisyonu, CRI (2011) 37, Strasbourg, Eylül 2011. “European Commission for Democracy Through Law (Venice Commission) and Osce Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (Osce/Odihr) Joint Opinion on The Draft Election Code of Bulgaria, Strasbourg, 24 March 2014 Opinion No. 750 / 2013. European Committee of Social Rights Conclusions 2014 (BULGARIA), European Social Charter (revised), January 2015. “European Court of Human Rights Grand Chamber”, CASE OF TĂNASE v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 7/08), Judgment Strasbourg, 27 April 2010. “European Social Charter 13th National Report on the implementation of the European Social Charter submitted by The Government of Bulgaria Follow up to Collective Complaints No. 31/2005, 41/2007, 46/2007, 48/2008 - Complementary information on Articles 11§3 and 14§1”, 4 December 2014 CYCLE 2015. Eski Zağra Bölge Mahkemesi, 2012 yılı 1193 numaralı dava, 18.12.2013 tarihli karar. General Comment No. 14 (2000) The right to the highest attainable standard of health (article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Socialand Cultural Rights), E/C.12/2000/4, 11 August 2000. “Housing Conditions of Roma and Travellers in the European Union Comparative Report”, European Union Agency For Fundamental Rights (FRA), October 2009. “Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 40 of the Covenant Third periodic report of States parties Bulgaria”, Human Rights Committee CCPR/C/BGR/3, 4 December 2009. “Human Rights Council Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development Report of the independent expert on minority issues Mission to Bulgaria” (4 to 11 July 2011), A/HRC/19/56/Add.2.

181


“Human Rights in Bulgaria in 2014”, Annual report of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, Sofia March 2015. “Law of Health Prom”, SG. 70/10 Aug 2004, amend. SG. 46/3 Jun 2005, amend. SG. 76/20 Sep 2005, In force from 1st of January 2005. MCGANN, James G., 2014 Global go to Think Tank Index Report, Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program, 3. 1. 2015. “National report submitted in accordance with paragraph 15 (a) of the annex to Human Rights Council Resolution 5/1 Bulgaria”, A/HRC/WG.6/9/BGR/1, 12 August 2010. NEYKOV, Ivan, “Annual National Report 2012 Pensions, Health Careand Longterm Care Bulgaria”, Analytical Support on the Socia-Economic Impact of Social Protection Reforms, On behalf of the European Commission DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, March 2012. “Political Parties Act Promulgated State Gazette No. 29/10.04.1990”, Amended SG No. 87/1990 & 59/1996. “Public Attitudes Towards Hate Speech in Bulgarian 2014”, Report Sofia, 9 December 2014, Open Society Institute Sofia. “On Progress in Bulgaria under the Co-operation and Verification Mechanism”, Report From The Commission to The European Parliament and The Council, Brussels, 28.1.2015, COM(2015) 36 final. “REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA National Social Report of the Republic of Bulgaria 2013-2014” (Adopted by the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Bulgaria on 30.04.2014). “Roma Political Participation in Bulgaria, Romania, and Slovakia National Democratic Institute for International Affairs Assessment Mission February”, National Democratic Institute, Funded by the Open Society Institute, March 2003. “Roma survey–Data in focus Poverty and employment: the situation of Roma in 11 EU Member States European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)”, 2014. “Sivil Topluma Aktif Katılım: Uluslararası Standartlar, Ulusal Mevzuattaki Engeller, Öneriler”, Türkiye’de Sivil Toplumun Gelişimi ve Sivil Toplum-Kamu İşbirliğinin Güçlendirilmesi Projesi, Hazırlayanlar: Gökçiçek Ayata/ UlaĢ Karan, Türkiye Üçüncü Sektör Vakfı (TÜSEV), ġubat 2014. Statistical Reference Book Population Census 2011, National Statistical Institute, Sofia 2002. “Paragraph 2 of The Framework Convention For The Protection of National Minorities”, Third Report Submitted by Bulgaria Pursuantto Article 25, ACFC/SR/III (2012) 004, 23 November 2012.

182


“Transparency and Integrity in The Election Process Report on The Monitoring of the 42nd National Assembly Elections Held on 12 May 2013”, Transparency İnternational – Bulgaria, Sofia 2013. Vratsa Bölge Mahkemesi, 2012 yılı 900 numaralı dava, 27.06.2013 tarihli karar. BOOKS 2011 yılı nüfus sayımı, C. I, Nüfus, Kitap 2, Demografski i sotsialni karakteristiki, Sofya 2002. 2011 Yılındaki Nüfus ve Konut Sayımı, C. I, Nüfus, Kitap II-Demografik ve Sosyal Karakter, Milli Ġstatistik Kurumu, Sofya 2012. ADJĠ, Murat, Kaybolan Millet (Deşt-i Kıpçak Medeniyeti), (Çev. Zeynep Bağlan Özer), Atatürk Kültür Merkezi BaĢkanlığı Yay., Ankara 2001. ADJĠ, Murat, Kıpçaklar (Türklerin ve Büyük Bozkırın Kadim Tarihi), (Çev. Zeynep Bağlan Özer), Atatürk Kültür Merkezi BaĢkanlığı Yay., Ankara 2002. AĞANOĞLU, H. Yıldırım, Osmanlı’dan Cumhuriyet’e Balkanların Makus Talihi Göç, Kum Saati Yay., Ġstanbul 2001. AHĠNCANOV, Sercan M.,Türk Halklarının Katalizör Boyu Kıpçaklar, (Çev. KürĢat Yıldırım), Selenge Yay., Ġstanbul 2009. ALP, Ġlker, Pomak Türkleri (Kumanlar-Kıpçaklar), Trakya Üniversitesi Yay., Edirne 2008. ALTINÖZ, Ġsmail, Osmanlı Toplumunda Çingeneler, TTK, Ankara 2013. ARSLAN, Ali, Avrupadan Türkiye’ye İkinci Yahudi Göçü, Truva yay, Ġstanbul 2006. ARSLAN, Ali, Kutsal Ermeni Papalığı Eçmiyazin Kilisesi'nde Stratejik Savaşlar, Truva Yay., Ġstanbul 2005. ATASOY, Emin, Beşeri ve Kültür Coğrafyası Işığında Bulgaristan, MKM yay., Bursa 2010. AYBAR, Celal, Bulgaristan Nüfusu, Devlet Matbaası, Ankara 1935. AYDIN, Mahir, Osmanlı Eyaletinden Üçüncü Bulgar Çarlığı’na, Kitabevi Yay., Ġstanbul 1996. AYDIN, Mahir, Şarkî Rumeli Vilayeti, TTK Yay., Ankara 1992. BEKĠR, Harun, Turskiyat ezik i kultur v bılgariya v svetlinata na bılgarskoto zakonadatelstvo-tarditsii i sıvremenno sıstoyanie, Avtoreferat na disertatsionen trud, Plovdiv 2015.

183


BOHOSYAN, Mihran, Armentsite v Sofiya Istoriçeski Oçerk, Nastoyatelstvo Na Armentskata Tsırkva Surp Asdavadzadzin, Sofiya 1999. CAMBAZOV, Ġsmail, BaĢmüftülük yay., Sofya 2013.

Bulgaristan’da

Başmüftülük

Tarihi

I

(1878-1944),

CELALEDDĠN, Mahmud, Mirat-ı Hakikat,(Haz. Ġsmet Miroğlu) Berekât Yayınevi, Ġstanbul 1983. CRAMPTON, R. J.,Bulgaristan Tarihi, (Çev. Nuray Ekici) Jeopolitika Yay., Ġstanbul 2007. DANAĠLOF, G. Th., Bulgaristan Nüfus İstatistiklerine Ait Tetkikler, (Çeviren Ġbrahim Darcan), BaĢvekâlet Matbaası, Ankara 1937. DAYIOĞLU, Ali, Toplama Kampından Meclis’e Bulgaristan’da Türk ve Müslüman Azınlığı, Ġstanbul 2005. DEYKOVA, Olya, ÇAKIR, Syuzan, Bılgarskoto uçilişte i detsata ot turskata etniçeska grupa, Sofya 2000. FEHÉR, Géza, Bulgar Türkleri Tarihi, (Çev. Bir heyet tarafından Macarca‟dan Türkçe‟ye çevirisi yapılmıĢtır.) TTK. Yay., Ankara 1999. GAVRĠLOVA, Rayna- Radeva, Mariya i Kalinova, Evgeniya, İstoriya i tsivilizatsiya za 6. Klas, Sofya Prosveta 2007, tiraj 2014, odobren 2011. GÖKBEL, Ahmet, Kıpçak Türkleri (Siyasî ve Dinî Tarih), Ötüken Yay., Ġstanbul 2000. GROUSSET, Rene, Başlangıcından 1071’e Ermenilerin Tarihi, (Çev. Sosi Dolanoğlu), Aras Yayınları, 2. Baskı, Ġstanbul 2006. İkonomikana Bılgariya, Cilt 1, Sofya 1969. ĠNALCIK, Halil, Tanzimat ve Bulgar Meselesi, TTK. Yay., Ġstanbul 1992. ĠPEK, Nedim, Rumeli’den Anadolu’ya Türk Göçleri, TTK. Yay., Ankara 1994. ĠSOV, Myumyun, Nay razliçniyat sısed, Obrazıt na osmantsite (turtsite) i Osmanskata imperiya (Turtsiya) v bılgarskite uçebnitsi po istoriya prez polovina na XX vek, Mejdunaroden tsentır za izsledvane na maltsintsva i kulturnite vzaimodeystviya, Sofya 2005. ĠSOV, Myumyun, Nayrazliçniyatsısed. Obrazıtnaosmatsite ( Turtsite) i osmans kataimperiya (Turtsiya) v bılgarskite uçebnitsi po istoriya prez vtorata polovina na XX. vek. Sofya, Uluslararası Azınlık AraĢtırmaları ve Kültürler Arası ĠliĢkiler Merkezi, Sofya 2005. JELEV Ġvan, Promeni vıv vzaimnootnoşeniyata mejdu religiya i dırjava v Bılgariya v demokratiçniya period, V. Ednan Aslan, Radka Vasileva, Bılgariya-Avstriya, Obrazovanieto i religiyata vıv vreme na promyana, Veliko Tırnovo, Ġzdatelstvo “Abarag”, 2010.

184


JELYAZKOVA, Antonina i Drugi, Obrazovatelni problemi na turskite detsa v bılgarskoto uçilişte (terenno prouçvane, analiz i preporıki kım proekta za zakon za preduçiliştnoto i uçiliştnoto obrazovanie), Mejdunaroden tsentır za izsledvane na maltsinstvata i kulturnite vzaimodeystviya, Sofya 2012. KAFESOĞLU, Ġbrahim, Türk Milli Kültürü, Boğaziçi Yay., Üçüncü Baskı, Ġstanbul 1984. KALOYANOVA, Nadejda, Tsirkova, Diana, İntegratsiya na detsa ot etniçeski maltsinstva v obrazovatelnata sistema (za pedagozi, raboteşti v detski gradinî i uçilişta v koito se obuçavat detsa ot etniçeski maltsinstva), Tsentır za obrazovatelni programi i sotsialni initsiativi, Sofya 2014. KIRZIOĞLU, Fahrettin, Yukarı-Kür ve Çoruk Boylarında Kıpçaklar, TTK. Yay., Ankara 1992. KOEN Emil, Kınav Krasimir, Mladenova Doreteya, Religioznata svoboda v Bılgariya prez 2004 g. Spetsialen doklad na fondatsiya “Tolerantnost” i Bılgarski helsinski komitet, Sofya 2005. KOLEVA, Ġrina, Natsionalni prioriteti i politiki v interkulturnoto obrazovanie (refleksivni aspekti), -Strategii na obrazovatelnata i nauçnata politika, knijka 1, 2013. KOMMENA, Anna, Alexiad, Anadolu ve Balkan Yarımadasında İmparator Alexias Kommenos Döneminin Tarihi, (Çeviren, Bilge Umar), Ġnkılâp Kitabevi, Ġstanbul 1996. KURBAN, Ġklil, Yaşlı Tarihin Yankısı Bulgar-Tatar Tarihi ve Medeniyeti, AD Kitapçılık Yay., Ġstanbul 1998. KUġEVA, Rumyana - Yançev, Veselin- Yakimov, Georgi- Gruev, Mihail, İstoriya i tsivilizatsiya za 6. klas, Sofya Azbuka-Prosveta 2007, tiraj 2011, odobren 2011. KÜÇÜK, Abdurrahman, Ermeni Kilisesi ve Türkler, Ocak Yay., Ankara 1997. LAYPONOV, Kazi T., Ġsmail M. Miziyev, Türk Halklarının Kökeni, (Çev. Hatice Bağcı), Selenge Yay., Ġstanbul 2008. MANGO, Cyril, Bizans Yeni Roma İmparatorluğu, (Çeviren, Gül Çağalı Güven), Yapı Kredi Yay., Ġstanbul 2008. Muâhedât Mecmuası, C. IV, Ceride-i Askerîye Matbaası, Dersaadet 1298. Muâhedât Mecmuası, C. V, Ceride-i Askerîye Matbaası, Dersaadet 1298. NAZIRSKA, Jorjeta, ġapkalova Sverla,İstoriya na religioznite denominatsiya v Bılgariya, “Za Bukvite-o pismeneh”, Sofya 2009. NUNEV, Yosif, Menidjmınt na etnokulturnoto raznoobrazie v obrazovanieto s fokus kım integratsiyata na uyazvimite maltsinstva (Normativni aktove i politiçeski dokumenti),Start za efektivni grajdanski alternativi, Sofya 2009.

185


NUNEV, Yosif, Tsentırıt za obrazovatelna integratsiya na detsata i uçenitsite ot etniçeskite maltsinstva-minalo. Nastoyaşte i bıdeşte, Strategii za obrazovatelnata i nauçnata politika, Sofya 2010. Prebroyavane Na Naselenieto 31. 12. 1934, Obşti Rezultati, Kniga I, Glavna Direktsiya Na Statistikata, Dırjavna Peçatnitsa, Sofiya 1938. Prebroyavane na Naselenieto v Naradna Republika Bılgariya na 1. 12. 1956 Godina, Tsentralno Statiçesko Upravlenie Pri Ministerkiya Savet, Kniga II, Sofya 1960. RÁSONYĠ, László, Doğu Avrupa’da Türklük, Yay. Haz. Yusuf Gedikli, Selenge Yay., Ġstanbul 2006. RÁSONYĠ, László, Tarihte Türklük, Türk Kültürünü AraĢtırma Enstitüsü Yay., 3. Baskı, Ankara 1993. Rezultati Ot Prebroyavane Na Naselenieto na 31 12. 1946, Dırjavno Upravlenie za Ġnformatsiya Pri Ministerkiya Savet, Kniga II, Sofya 1970. SOYSAL, Ġsmail, Türkiye’nin Siyasal Andlaşmaları (1920-1945), C. I, Türk Tarih Kurumu, Ankara 1983. Statistiçeski Godişnik Na Bılgarskoto Tsarstvo 1910 (Godina Vtora), (Bulgar Çarlığı‟nın Yıllık Ġstatistiği 1910 Ġkinci Yıl), Glavna Direktsiya Na Statistikata, Dırjavna Peçatnitsa, Sofiya 1911. Statistiçeski Godişnik Na Bılgarskoto Tsarstvo 1913-1922 (Godinî V-XIV),Glavna Direktsiya Na Statistikata, Dırjavna Peçatnitsa, Sofiya 1924. Statistiçeski Godişnik Na Bılgarskoto Tsarstvo -1923-1924 (Godinî XV-XVI), Glavna Direktsiya Na Statistikata, Dırjavna Peçatnitsa, Sofiya 1925. Statistiçeski Godişnik Na Bılgarskoto Tsarstvo -1929-1930 (Godinî XXI-XXII), Glavna Direktsiya Na Statistikata, Dırjavna Peçatnitsa, Sofiya 1930. ġĠMġĠR, Bilal, Bulgaristan Türkleri, Bilgi yay., 3. Baskı, Ankara 2012. TANKOVA, Rumyana, İzgrajdane na gramatiçeski pravilna bılgarska reç pri bilingvi s mayçin turski ezik. Plamen Makariev i drugi, (red.kolegiya), Mnogoobrazie bez granitsi, Veliko Tırnovo 2008. Tatarca-Törekçe Suzlek, Kazan 1997. TEKĠN, Talat, Tuna Bulgarları ve Dilleri, TDK. Yay., Ankara 1987. TOTSEVA, Yanka, Uçenitsite s ne bılgarska etniçeska identiçnost i naçalnoto uçiliĢte http://ytotseva.blogspot.bg/2009/11/blog-post_24.html Statiyata e publikuvana i v sbornika: ezik, kultura, identiçnost, Tom II, ġumen 2010. VÁSÁRY, István, Kumanlar ve Tatarlar, Osmanlı Öncesi Balkanlar’da Doğulu Askerler 1185–1365, (Çev. Ali Cevat Akkoyunlu), Yapı Kredi Yay., Ġstanbul 2008.

186


YALIMOV, Ġbrahim, Bulgaristan’da Azınlık Hak ve Özgürlükleri Sorunu, Müslümanlar Diyaneti BaĢmüftülüğü, Sofya 2015. YALIMOV, Ġbrahim, Etnokulturno i Religiozna İdentiçnost na Turskata Obştnost v Bılgariya, Yüksek Ġslam Enstitüsü, Sofya 2014. YALIMOV, Ġbrahim, İslyamskoto Kulturno Nasledstvo na Bılgarskite ZemiGodişnik na Visşiya İslyamski İnstitut, S. II, Sofya 2010. YANAKĠEV, Yantsislav(Sıstavitel i redaktor), İntegratsiya na etniçeskite i kulturalni maltsinstva vıv Bıorıjenite sili, Analiz na bılgarskiya opit i perspektivi za prilojenie na evropeyskite praktiki, Sofya 2003. YILDIRIM, Bülent, Bulgaristan’daki Ermeni Komitelerinin Osmanlı Devleti Aleyhine Faaliyetleri (1890-1918), Türk Tarih Kurumu yay., Ankara 2014. YÜCEL, Mualla Uydu, İlk Rus Yıllıklarına Göre Türkler, TTK. Yay., Ankara 2007. ARTICLES “Bulgaristan Müslümanları yönetiminden gelen 15.05.2009 tarihli deklarasyon”, V. 100 godinî Glavno Myuftiystvo (1910-2010), Yubileen Sbornik, Glavno Myuftiystvo na myusulmanite v Republika Bılgariya, Sofya 2011. A. MaĢiah, “Sızdavaneto Na Tsentralno Dırjavno Uçrejdenie Za Stastistiçeski Ġzuçavaniya V Bılgariya” (Bulgaristan‟ın Ġstatistik AraĢtırmaları Devlet Merkez Kurumunun KuruluĢunun Tarihçesi), 100, Godinî Bılgarska Dırjavna Statistika (18811981), (Edt., P. ġapkarev, A.N.Ü. Totev), Sofya 1985. AHMED, S. Vedat, “Bulgaristan Müslüman-Türk Azınlığının Dinî Hakları ve Bulgaristan Müslümanları BaĢ Müftülüğü”, V 100 Godinî Glavno Myuftiystvo (1910-2010), Yubileen sbornik, Glavno Myuftiystvo na Myusulmanite v Republika Bılgariya, Sofya 2011. AHMETBEYOĞLU, Ali, “Türkistan‟dan (Orta Asya) Doğu Avrupa‟ya Yapılan Türk Göçleri”, Türkler, (Editörler, Hasan Celal Güzel, Kemal Çiçek, Salim Koca), C. 2, Yeni Türkiye Yay., Ankara 2002. BRÜGGEMANN, Thomas,“Cumans in Southern Dobrudja: Some Remarks on the Second Bulgarian Empire during the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries”, Chronica: Annual of the Institute of History, Cilt: 10, Szeged 2010. CHARANĠS, Peter, “The Transfer of Population as a Policy in the Byzantine Empire”, Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol.3, No.2 January 1961. ÇELĠK, Aziz “Sendikal Haklar: Uluslararası ÇalıĢma Hukuku ve Türkiye‟nin Uyumsuzluğu”, Disiplinler Arası Yaklaşımla İnsan Haklar, Editör: Selda Çağlar, Beta, Ġstanbul 2010.

187


DEMĠR, Ayhan “Bulgaristan‟daki Misyonerlik Tehlikesi”, Rumeli (Haber Sanat AraĢtırma ve Yorum Dergisi), Sayı: 22, Gebze ġubat 2012. DJAMBAZOV, Ġsmail, “Myuftiyska Sistema”, V 100 godinî Glavna Myuftiystvo (1910-2010), Yubileen Sbornik, Glavno Myuftiystvo na Myusulmanite v Republika Bılgariya, Sofya 2011. DOĞRU, Osman, “Ġnsan Hakları Avrupa SözleĢmesi Uygulamasında Toplanma ve Örgütlenme Özgürlüğü”, TBB Dergisi, Sayı 64, 2006. GÖKDAĞ, Bilgehan Atsız, “Balkan Ülkelerinin Anayasalarında Dil Kullanımı Ġle Ġlgili Düzenlemeler”, Turkish Studies – International Periodical For The Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, Volume 7/4, Fall, Ankara-TURKEY 2012. HALAÇOĞLU, Yusuf, “Bulgaristan” Maddesi, DİA., C. 6, Ġstanbul 1992. ĠNALCIK, Halil, “Türkler ve Balkanlar”, Bal-Tam Türklük Bilgisi, S.3, Balkan Türkoloji AraĢtırmaları Merkezi Yay., Prizren Eylül 2005. ĠSOV, Mümin, “Bulgaristan Tarih Ders Kitaplarında Türk Azınlığın Yerine ĠliĢkin Bazı Gözlemler”, Balkan Araştırma Enstitüsü Dergisi, C. 3, S. 1, Temmuz 2014. JELYAZKOVA, Antonina Dırjavata, “Myuftiyskata institutsiya i obĢtestvo v Bılgariya”, V 100 godinî Glavna Myuftiystvo (1910-2010), Yubileen Sbornik, Glavno Myuftiystvo na Myusulmanite v Republika Bılgariya, Sofya2011. KAYAPINAR, AyĢe, “Tuna Bulgar Devleti (679-1018)”, Türkler, C. 2, Yeni Türkiye Yay., Ankara 2002. KOCACIK, Faruk, “Balkanlar‟dan Anadolu‟ya Yönelik Göçler (1878-1890), Osmanlı Araştırmaları, C. I, Ġstanbul 1980, s.137-190. KOYUNCU, AĢkın, “Balkan SavaĢları Sırasında Pomakların Zorla Tanassur Edilmesi (1912-1913)”, OTAM, S.33, Ankara 2014. LESSENSKĠ, Marin, Assessing EU Membership Experience, Benefits and Futher Integration: Public Opinion in Bulgaria 2015, European Policies Ġnitiative Open Society Ġnstitute Sofia, Policy Brief 47, May 2015. NEYKOV, Ivan, “Annual National Report 2012 Pensions, Health Careand Longterm Care Bulgaria”, Analytical Support on the Socia-Economic Impact of Social Protection Reforms, On behalf of the European Commission DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, March 2012. PRĠTSAK, O., “Polovetsler ve Ruslar”, Çev. EĢref Bengi Özbilen, Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları Dergisi, S. 94, Ġstanbul ġubat 1995. STAMATOV, Vırban, “Poznavame li ce Dostatıçno ?” (Birbirimizi Yeterince Tanıyormuyuz?), Bılgari i Armentsi Zaedno Prez Vekovete (Bulgarlar ve Ermeniler Asırlarca Birlikte), Sofya 2001.

188


STOYANOV, Valerie, “Bulgar Tarihinde Kumanlar (XI.-XIV. Yüzyıllar)”, Terc. Zeynep Zafer, Türkler, Cilt 2, Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, Ankara 2002. ġĠMġĠR, Bilal N., “Bulgaristan Türkleri ve Göç Sorunu” Bulgaristan’da Türk Varlığı, TTK. Yay., Ankara 1987. TEMĠZ, Özgür, “Türk Hukukunda Bir Hak Olarak Sağlık Hakkı”, Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, Cilt 69, No. 1, 2014. YILDIRIM, Bülent, "Bulgaristan'daki Müslüman Türk Azınlığa Baskılar ve Göç (1934-1939)" Balkanlar ve Göç, Edt. Ali Fuat Örenç, Ġsmail Mangaltepe, Bursa Kültür A.ġ. yay., Bursa, 2013. YILDIRIM, Bülent, “Bulgaristan Emaretinin Kurulmasından Sonra Bulgaristan‟daki Ermeni Kiliselerinin Statüsü”, Türk Tarihinde Balkanlar (Balkans in The Turkish History), Edt; Zeynep Ġskefiyeli, M. Bilal Çelik, Serkan Yazıcı, Sakarya Üniversitesi Balkan AraĢtırmaları Uygulama ve AraĢtırma Merkezi Yayınları, Sakarya 2013. YILMAZ, Salih, “Kıpçak Türkleri ve YerleĢtikleri Sahalar”, Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları Vakfı Dergisi, Sayı:140, Ġstanbul 2002. YÜCEL, Mualla Uydu, Balkanlarda Peçenekler, Uzlar ve Kumanlar”, Balkanlar El Kitabı, Cilt I: Tarih, Der. Osman Karatay, Bilgehan A. Gökdağ, Karam (Karadeniz AraĢtırmaları Merkezi) & Vadi Yayınları, Çorum / Ankara 2006. YÜCEL, YaĢar, “Balkanlarda Türk YerleĢmesi ve Sonuçları”, Bulgaristan’da Türk Varlığı, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yay., Ankara 1987. ELECTRONIC REFERENCES http://amalipe.com http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu http://archive.bnt.bg http://argumenti-bg.com http://bnr.bg http://btvnovinite.bg http://censusresults.nsi.bg http://coiduem.mon.bg http://conventions.coe.int http://crjm.org http://dariknews.bg http://desebg.com

189


http://duma.bg http://ec.europa.eu http://ethnos.bg http://e-vestnik.bg http://f2ftv.net http://fakti.bg http://faragency.bg http://focus-news.net http://frognews.bg http://glasove.com http://gradat.bg http://gradvelin.com http://infomreja.bg http://judicialreports.bg http://legalworld.bg http://lex.bg http://m.actualno.com http://news.ibox.bg http://novinar.bg http://novinite.bg http://offnews.bg http://osi.bg http://osvratsa.eu http://parliament.bg http://plovdiv.actualno.com http://repository.upenn.edu http://rs-berk.com http://sib.bg http://society.actualno.com

190


http://sofia.dir.bg http://sofia.topnovini.bg http://svishtovtoday.com http://trud.bg http://tv7.bg http://ureport.bg http://www.24chasa.bg http://www.aljazeera.com.tr http://www.bcnl.org http://www.bghelsinki.org http://www.bilgesam.org http://www.blitz.bg http://www.burgasnews.com http://www.capital.bg http://www.coe.int http://www.cross.bg http://www.csgb.gov.tr http://www.desant.net http://www.dnes.bg http://www.dnesplus.bg http://www.dnevnik.bg http://www.duma.bg http://www.dw.com http://www.erionet.eu http://www.europarl.europa.eu http://www.faktor.bg http://www.focus-news.net http://www.frognews.bg http://www.grandmufti.bg

191


http://www.greekhelsinki.gr http://www.ihvanforum.org http://www.karlovo.bg http://www.legalworld.bg http://www.marginalia.bg http://www.mediapool.bg http://www.migrant-participation.eu http://www.minedu.government.bg http://www.moreto.net http://www.nccedi.government.bg http://www.nfsb.bg http://www.novini.bg http://www.novini-plovdiv.com http://www.novovreme.com http://www.nsi.bg http://www.ombudsman.bg http://www.osce.org http://www.osstz.com http://www.parliament.bg http://www.partylaw.leidenuniv.nl http://www.peticiq.com http://www.prb.bg http://www.predavatel.com http://www.president.bg http://www.radioplovdiv.bg http://www.red-network.eu http://www.refworld.org http://www.romadecade.org http://www.segabg.com

192


http://www.seminar-bg.eu http://www.skat.bg http://www.sofia.utre.bg http://www.sosyalhaklar.net http://www.standartnews.com http://www.starozagorci.com http://www.state.gov http://www.struma.com http://www.trud.bg http://www.turksam.org/tr/a238.html. http://www.velingrad.com http://www.vesti.bg http://www.vestnikataka.bg http://www.vestnikataka.com http://www.vmro.bg http://www.vsekiden.com http://www.webcafe.bg http://ytotseva.blogspot.bg http://zaman.bg https://infobalkani.wordpress.com https://wcd.coe.int. https://www.academia.edu https://www.cia.gov https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org https://www.president.bg legalworld.bg www.coe.int www.csce.gov www.paideiafoundation.org

193

HUMAN RIGHTS IN BULGARIA, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES (Minority Rights)

Recommend Documents