ZHABLYANOV v. BULGARIA

Published on 11 October 2021

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 36658/18
Valeri Mirchev ZHABLYANOV
against Bulgaria
lodged on 25 July 2018
communicated on 23 September 2021

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1.  The applicant, Mr Valeri Mirchev Zhablyanov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Sofia. He is represented before the Court by Mr M. Ekimdzhiev and Ms K. Boncheva, lawyers practising in Plovdiv.

2.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant and as emerging from publicly available materials, may be summarised as follows.The applicant’s election as Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly

3.  In March 2017 the applicant was elected as member of Bulgaria’s Parliament, the National Assembly, on the ticket of the Bulgarian Socialist Party (until April 1990, Bulgarian Communist Party).

4.  At its first plenary sitting on 19 April 2017 the newly elected Assembly adopted special rules of procedure for the election of its Speaker and Deputy Speakers. According to those rules, the Deputy Speakers were to be five – one for each of the parties or coalitions whose candidates had been elected as members of the Assembly (see paragraph 42 below) – and were to be voted upon en bloc rather than one by one. The Bulgarian Socialist Party, which had eighty out of the 240 members, nominated the applicant. He, as well as the other four Deputy Speakers (one for each of the other four parliamentary groups), was elected by 235 votes, with no votes against and no abstentions.The applicant’s statements at issue in the caseAbout the treaty with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

5.  At its plenary sitting on 18 January 2018 the National Assembly debated a proposal by the Government to ratify a “Treaty of friendship, good-neighbourliness and cooperation” concluded in August 2017 between Bulgaria and (as it then was) the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. After reports on the treaty were presented by members of the two parliamentary committees tasked with analysing it, nine members of the Assembly, including the applicant, were given the floor to speak about it.

6.  The applicant noted at the outset that he would speak in his personal capacity as member of the Assembly. He went on to criticise the manner in which the treaty had been concluded, as well as some of its clauses and language – which in his view revived the doctrine of “Macedonism”, in particular because the treaty recognised Bulgarians and Macedonians as two separate peoples speaking different languages. The applicant also expressed concern about the effect of a clause whereby the two States undertook to “take effective measures to counter hostile propaganda” against each other.

7.  The applicant continued:

“... such treaties, voted upon in such a light-hearted manner, without grasping their content, without taking into consideration our nation’s historical value, our self‑consciousness and the perspective for Bulgaria’s development, the perspective for us to be a factor in Europe and the Balkans. Precisely such treaties! Because they tear apart our national consciousness, because the nation is a spirit – not cheap labour at Europe’s construction sites. The nation is a spirit, the nation is self-consciousness, the nation is an understanding of our own worth, as a people within this whole union – and we are selling all of that lightly! We are selling it to the South-East, we are selling it to the West, and we are on top of that explaining that this is wise policy. This is cheap wheeling and dealing, dear colleagues – political, geopolitical, and I do not wish to use other qualifications – wheeling and dealing of the lowest order! This is not State policy. ...

Dear colleagues, the treaty is a stillborn, the treaty is a fabrication! The treaty is an apotheosis of the Atlantic ambitions of the Balkans, [advanced] to the detriment of the peoples, just like the series of treaties signed one hundred years ago, when Bulgaria lost territories and walked into several national catastrophes. ...”

8.  Immediately after the debate the Assembly ratified the treaty.About the commemoration of the victims of the communist regime

9.  At the outset of the National Assembly’s plenary sitting on 1 February 2018 a member from GERB (Граждани за европейско развитие на България), the political party which held the biggest number of parliamentary seats and which was the main member of the ruling coalition, proposed a minute of silence to commemorate the victims of the communist regime.[1] In his speech, that member mentioned in particular the thousands of people sentenced to death, life imprisonment and long terms of imprisonment by “the People’s Court”[2].

10.  A member from the political party Movement for Rights and Freedoms (Движение за права и свободи) went on to propose that the minute of silence be dedicated also to the Turks and Muslims in Bulgaria who had suffered repressions under the communist regime.

11.  The applicant spoke immediately after those two members, on behalf of the parliamentary group of the Bulgarian Socialist Party. He drew attention to decisions by the Allied Powers in the Second World War for the criminal prosecution of all “war criminals and fascists”, and stated that “the decision for the Nuremberg trial, as well as all trials carried out in Europe outside the territory of Germany, [had] been taken by the international bodies and conferences of the Allied Powers”.

12.  After the applicant’s speech, the Speaker invited all members to observe a minute of silence to “commemorate the victims of communism and the Revival Process[3]”. The applicant, who was still standing at the parliamentary tribune, interjected that he proposed to also “commemorate the victims of fascism – the tens, the hundreds of shot partisans, soldiers in the Patriotic War[4] ...”. The Speaker admonished the applicant that the minute of silence was already under way, and that “[it was] 1 February”. The applicant carried on “... hanged and killed in the prisons of the State Safety.[5] To commemorate Geo Milev[6], Joseph Herbst[7] ...”, which prompted the Speaker to cut off the applicant’s microphone. The Speaker reiterated “One minute of silence for the victims of the communist regime and the victims of the Revival Process! It is 1 February, colleagues!” The applicant, who had already moved down to the parliamentary floor, shouted at her “... and for the victims of fascism!”, and she continued “Please, bow down your heads, one minute of silence to commemorate the victims”. After that all members of the Assembly, including the applicant, stood silent for one minute.About “the People’s Court”

13.  In a declaration issued on 13 February 2018 in connection with the holding of a torch march commemorating a Bulgarian lieutenant-general assassinated in Sofia by communist partisans on 13 February 1943, the Bulgarian Socialist Party proclaimed, inter alia, that “the People’s Court”[8] had been required by the Allied Powers in the Second World War, and had been “necessary and inevitable war-time justice”. Shortly after the declaration’s publication, the party’s press officer clarified that the party’s bureau had not approved its text but had simply assigned its preparation. According to some media, the declaration had been drawn up by the applicant, who at that time was a member of the party’s bureau.Removal of the applicant from the post of Deputy Speaker

14.  On 15 February 2018 GERB’s parliamentary group called on the applicant to resign from the post of Deputy Speaker, citing his conduct on 1 February 2018 and the statement about “the People’s Court” (see paragraphs 9 to 13 above). They noted that members of Bulgarian Socialist Party’s parliamentary group had acknowledged that the statement – which they qualified as “offensive to the entire Bulgarian people” – had been authored by the applicant, and warned that if he did not accept political responsibility for his actions and resign, they would seek to remove him.Proposal for the applicant’s removal

15.  On 20 February 2018 eighty-one Assembly members, chiefly from GERB (see paragraph 9 above), proposed that the applicant be removed from the post of Deputy Speaker. Citing the three incidents described in paragraphs 5 to 13 above, they asserted that he had systematically abused his powers within the meaning of Rule 5 § 1 (2) of the Assembly’s Rules (see paragraph 44 (b) below). In their view, the applicant’s statement on 18 January 2018 that the treaty with (as it then was) the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia was “wheeling and dealing of the lowest order”, “a stillborn” and “a fabrication” had “disparaged all efforts of the two States for a period of twenty years to achieve good neighbourly relations and mutual understanding”. His actions on 1 February 2018 had infringed Rule 155 § 1 of the Assembly’s Rules (see paragraph 49 below), had violated parliamentary decorum, and had impeded the commemoration of the victims of the communist regime and “the Revival Process”[9]. The “linking” of the applicant’s name with the declaration about “the People’s Court”[10] had “discredited the National Assembly as an institution and [had] directly impinged on its authority”, whereas in his capacity as Deputy Speaker the applicant was under a duty to uphold the Assembly’s institutional and political authority. He deserved to bear political responsibility for that declaration and be stripped of his “representative functions” as Deputy Speaker.Debate and vote on the proposal

16.  The following day, 21 February 2018, the Assembly debated the proposal. The debate started with a presentation of the proposal by a member from GERB.

17.  When he was given the floor for a personal statement, the applicant pointed out, inter alia, that he had merely exercised his constitutional right to express his views, not only in his personal capacity but also in his capacity as representative of the people who had voted for his political party, and that he occupied the post of Deputy Speaker in his capacity as member of that political party. The remainder of his speech was devoted to his views about the role of “the People’s Court” in Bulgaria’s history.

18.  Another member from GERB noted that the applicant’s statements justifying “the People’s Court” had been contrary to section 2(1)(3) of the Act Declaring the Communist Regime in Bulgaria Criminal (see paragraph 52 below).

19.  The leader of the applicant’s political party (the Bulgarian Socialist Party) stated, inter alia, that the removal of the applicant from his post would be in breach of the Assembly’s Rules and his constitutional right to freedom of expression. She also said that her party had no intention of proposing another Deputy Speaker, and that they would await the applicant to be reinstated by the Constitutional Court or by “the European Court”.

20.  Another member from GERB pointed out, inter alia, that in 1998 “the People’s Court” had been “quashed as unlawful” (see footnote 2 above) and that in 2000 the communist regime had been declared criminal (see paragraphs 50 to 53 below). For his part, the chair of GERB’s parliamentary group stated, inter alia, that the Bulgarian Socialist Party was entitled to nominate another Deputy Speaker, and noted that it had waived that right.

21.  The proposal to remove the applicant from the post of Deputy Speaker was adopted by 110 votes to 71. There were no abstentions, but the members from the Movement for Rights and Freedoms had left the sitting before the vote, saying that they did not agree with the proposal.Proceedings before the Constitutional Court

22.  Nine days later, on 2 March 2018, sixty members of the National Assembly asked the Constitutional Court to declare the applicant’s removal from the post of Deputy Speaker contrary to the provisions of the 1991 Constitution guaranteeing the rule of law (Article 4 §§ 1 and 2), political pluralism (Article 11 § 1), freedom of thought (Article 37 § 1), freedom of belief (Article 38), freedom of expression (Article 39), and the freedom of members of the Assembly to be guided solely by the Constitution, the laws, and their personal convictions (Article 67 §§ 1 and 2 – see paragraphs 36 and 37 below). They also argued that the removal had been in breach of the constitutional provision authorising the Assembly to adopt its own rules (Article 73 – see paragraph 38 below). They argued that none of the three acts of which the applicant had been reproached had engaged Rule 5 § 1 (2) of the Assembly’s Rules (see paragraph 44 (b) below). Each of those acts had been done in his capacity as a regular member of the Assembly rather than its Deputy Speaker, and had moreover been a legitimate exercise of, inter alia, his constitutional right to freedom of expression as such member. He could not be sanctioned for having duly availed himself of that right.

23.  On 22 May 2018 the Constitutional Court accepted the request for examination and invited the applicant and the Assembly to intervene in the proceedings and make written submissions. Neither the Assembly nor the applicant did so.

24.  Having examined the case on the papers, on 6 November 2018 the Constitutional Court dismissed the request by seven votes to five (see реш. № 16 от 06.11.2018 г. по к. д. № 4/2018 г., обн. ДВ, бр. 95/2018 г.).

25.  The majority held that it was implicit in Article 76 § 3 of the 1991 Constitution (see paragraph 35 below) that the terms of office of the National Assembly’s Speaker and Deputy Speakers could be terminated prematurely; the grounds on which that could be done had not been set out in the Constitution itself, but in the Assembly’s Rules. Since the Speaker and the Deputy Speakers were internal organs of the Assembly rather than fully-fledged State authorities, they did not have a “mandate” – a term used in the 1991 Constitution solely with respect to State authorities. It was not a coincidence that the Rules did not speak of premature termination of their mandate but of premature removal from their post. The resolution for the applicant’s removal had set out its legal basis, as well as the facts which in the view of the members who had voted for it had justified the application of Rule 5 (see paragraph 44 below).

26.  By Article 67 § 2 of the 1991 Constitution (see paragraph 37 below), members of the Assembly had to comply with the Constitution and the laws. That applied a fortiori for the Speaker and the Deputy Speakers. According to the resolution for his removal, the applicant had infringed Rule 5 § 1 (2) (see paragraph 44 (b) below). In his case, the systematic character of the offending conduct did not have just a quantitative dimension; what rather mattered was the degree to which his actions had gone against the values enshrined by the law. It had to be underlined in that connection that in 2000 the Assembly had passed an Act Declaring the Communist Regime in Bulgaria Criminal (see paragraphs 50 to 53 below). Though purely declaratory, that Act reflected Bulgarian society’s assessment of that period in the country’s history. The statement which the majority in the Assembly has seen as authored by the applicant – that “the People’s Court” had been “necessary and inevitable war-time justice” – had run counter to section 2(1)(3) of that Act (see paragraphs 13 and 15 above and paragraph 52 below). It had therefore infringed Article 67 § 2 of the Constitution as well (see paragraph 37 below).

27.  The Assembly’s resolution and the reasons in the proposal for it moreover showed that on 1 February 2018 the applicant had violated parliamentary decorum, in breach of Rule 155 § 1 of the Assembly’s Rules (see paragraph 49 below). Regular members were amenable to disciplinary sanctions for such breaches; a Deputy Speaker, who had a heightened duty to uphold the Assembly’s authority, had to bear additional liability for them. It did not matter that when engaging in that conduct the applicant had not acted in his capacity as Deputy Speaker, since he had a general duty to behave in a collected and reasonably balanced way conducive to upholding the Assembly’s authority.

28.  In a dissenting opinion, one judge said that since Deputy Speakers remained members of the Assembly, their freedom to express themselves could not be curbed more than that of any other member, so long as their statements did not run counter to the Constitution and the laws. That was demanded by the constitutional principle of pluralism. It followed that a Deputy Speaker would systematically fail to carry out his or her duties within the meaning of Rule 5 § 1 (2) of the Assembly’s Rules only if he or she failed to comply with the duties laid down in Article 77 of the 1991 Constitution (see paragraphs 32, 34 and 44 (b) below). The removal of a Deputy Speaker which did not properly fall under that Rule was contrary to the constitutional principle of rule of law.

29.  It was true that on 1 February 2018 the applicant had deliberately violated parliamentary decorum and had impeded the carrying out of the Speaker’s duties, in breach of his constitutional duty to assist the Speaker. That conduct had fallen squarely within the ambit of Rule 5 § 1 (2). But the other two acts of which he had been reproached had not. They had amounted to an exercise of the right of any Assembly member freely to express his or her views, regardless of whether those were true or acceptable to others. The applicant’s statements about the treaty and “the People’s Court” had had nothing to do with his constitutional functions as Deputy Speaker. Since those two acts could not have fallen foul of Rule 5 § 1 (2), the applicant’s failure to carry out his duties had not been “systematic”. His removal from his post had therefore been unconstitutional.

30.  In a common dissenting opinion, four other judges underlined that the applicant could be removed from his post only under the conditions laid down in Rule 5 § 1 (2) of the Assembly’s Rules (see paragraph 44 (b) below) rather than on the basis of political expediency. If the removal did not meet those conditions, it was contrary to the rule of law. A failure by the applicant to carry out his duties as Deputy Speaker could only relate to his specific duties under Article 77 of the 1991 Constitution (see paragraphs 32 and 34 below). None of the incidents charged against him had concerned those duties, since in each of them he had acted in his capacity as a regular Assembly member, and had simply exercised, on each of those occasions, inter alia, his constitutional right to freedom of expression. It was moreover doubtful whether he was the author of the statement about “the People’s Court”. His actions had not therefore engaged Rule 5 § 1 (2), which in addition required the Deputy Speaker’s failure to carry out his or her duties to be “systematic” – a notion which could not be construed in the way the majority had done (see paragraph 26 above). That meant that the removal did not have a proper factual basis, and was hence contrary to the rule of law and unconstitutional. It had in effect been a political sanction imposed by the parliamentary majority in response to the applicant’s views. The removal was thus in breach of the applicant’s constitutional right to freedom of expression, which was particularly strong for members of the Assembly. Neither the majority’s judgment nor the resolution for the applicant’s removal had elucidated why it had been justified to interfere with that right.Remainder of the applicant’s term in the National Assembly

31.  The applicant remained a member of the National Assembly until the end of its term in March 2021. In September 2020 he left the parliamentary group of the Bulgarian Socialist Party and served the remainder of his term as an independent member of the Assembly.

RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK1991 ConstitutionProvisions relating to the National Assembly’s Deputy Speakers

32.  By Articles 77 § 1 and 78 of the 1991 Constitution, the National Assembly’s Speaker: (a) represents the Assembly; (b) calls it; (c) proposes agendas for its sittings; (d) presides over those sittings and ensures their orderly conduct; (e) certifies the Assembly’s acts; (f) publishes those acts; and (g) organises the Assembly’s international relations. He or she may also give permission to arrest or criminally charge a member when the Assembly is not in session (Article 70 § 1). If the Vice-President of the Republic is unable to replace the President (in case of death, incapacity or resignation), the Speaker may act as President ad interim (Article 97 § 4).

33.  The Constitutional Court has clarified that the Speaker’s powers with respect to the Assembly’s core functions (enacting legislation and controlling the executive) did not exceed those of any other member. Although the Speaker enjoyed special political prestige, he or she had no right to a veto or to a casting vote, or special prerogatives to propose legislation on top of those of any other member. The Speaker was thus not an independent State authority in the traditional sense, even though he or she certified the Assembly’s acts and could exceptionally act as President of the Republic ad interim (see реш. № 16 от 10.11.1992 г. по к. д. № 25/1992 г., КС, обн. ДВ, бр. 94/1992 г.).

34.  The Deputy Speakers assist the Speaker and carry out the functions which he or she has entrusted to them (Article 77 § 2).

35.  The Speaker and the Deputy Speakers must be elected at the first sitting of each new National Assembly (Article 76 § 3). The Constitution does not expressly fix their term of office.Provisions governing the mandate of members of the Assembly

36.  Article 67 § 1 provides that members of the National Assembly represent not only their constituents but the whole nation, and that they cannot be bound by an imperative mandate.

37.  By Article 67 § 2, members of the Assembly must act solely on the basis of the Constitution and the laws, as well as their personal convictions.Rules of the National Assembly

38.  By Article 73 of the 1991 Constitution, the organisation and business of the National Assembly are governed by the Constitution itself and by rules adopted by the Assembly. The forty-fourth National Assembly, whose term began in April 2017 and ended in March 2021, adopted its rules on 27 April 2017, and they came into force on 2 May 2017.Provisions relating to the Assembly’s Deputy Speakers

39.  Rule 8 § 1 of the 2017 Rules enumerates the Speaker’s functions.

40.  Rule 8 § 2 provides that the Deputy Speakers assist the Speaker and carry out the functions which he or she has delegated to them. The Deputy Speakers preside the Assembly alongside the Speaker; he or she fixes which ones among them would do so each week (Rule 8 § 3). One of the Deputy Speakers presides whenever the Speaker steps down to take part in the parliamentary debates (Rule 8 § 6).

41.  If the Speaker decides permanently to delegate one of his or her functions to a Deputy Speaker, he or she must do that in writing (Rule 8 § 4). If the Speaker is absent, he or she must authorise one of the Deputy Speakers to replace him or her; if he or she fails to do so, the replacement is ensured by the Deputy Speaker nominated by the largest parliamentary party or coalition (Rule 8 § 5).

42.  Ever since 1991, the tradition has been for each parliamentary group to have one Deputy Speaker – a position enshrined in special rules adopted by each successive Assembly in 1991, 1995, 1997, 2001, 2005, 2009, 2013, 2014, 2017 and 2021.

43.  The remuneration of Deputy Speakers is 45% higher than that of regular members (Rule 6 § 1 of the Assembly’s 2017 Financial Rules).Provisions relating to the removal of Deputy Speakers

44.  By Rule 5 §§ 1 and 2 of the 2017 Rules, Deputy Speakers may be removed from their post before the end of their term of office if:

(a)  they resign (Rule 5 § 1 (1));

(b)  one-third of the Assembly’s members propose their removal owing to (i) an objective impossibility for them to carry out their duties, (ii) a “systematic abuse of their powers”, or (iii) a “systematic failure to carry out the duties [falling] within the ambit of their competence” (Rule 5 § 1 (2));

(c)  the parliamentary group which has nominated them proposes their removal (Rule 5 § 1 (3)); or

(d)  they quit that parliamentary group or are excluded from it, or that group ceases to exist (Rule 5 § 2).

45.  In situations under (a) and (d) above, the removal is simply announced rather than debated and voted on, whereas in situations under (b) and (c) it is put to a vote, which must be preceded by a hearing of the person concerned. The proposal for the removal is accepted if supported by more than half of all members present (Rule 5 §§ 3 and 4).

46.  All earlier Rules of the National Assembly adopted under the 1991 Constitution (in 1991, 1995, 1997, 2001, 2005, 2009, 2013 and 2014) contained similar provisions.

47.  In 1992 a group of members of the Assembly challenged the provisions then in force before the Constitutional Court with the argument that the premature removal of the Speaker could not be regulated in the Assembly’s Rules. The court dismissed the challenge, holding that Article 73 of the 1991 Constitution (see paragraph 38 above) authorised the Assembly to regulate itself by means of those Rules; this included the premature removal of its Speaker. That solution was fully in line with the Speaker’s constitutional role (see paragraph 32 above) and was similar to the way the matter was regulated in the constitutions of many other European States (see реш. № 16 от 10.11.1992 г. по к. д. № 25/1992 г., КС, обн. ДВ, бр. 94/1992 г.).

48.  A 1998 amendment to Rule 5 introduced the possibility to remove a Deputy Speaker without a vote if the parliamentary group which has nominated him or her ceases to exist (see paragraph 44 (d) in fine above). A group of members of the Assembly challenged the amendment before the Constitutional Court with the argument that it was contrary to the constitutional principle of the rule of law. The court dismissed the challenge, reiterating that under the 1991 Constitution the Assembly could regulate autonomously its internal organisation; this included the grounds on which it could remove its Speaker or Deputy Speakers and the procedure to be followed in such cases (see реш. № 13 от 04.06.1998 г. по к. д. № 11/1998 г., КС, обн. ДВ, бр. 67/1998 г.).Provisions relating to parliamentary behaviour

49.  By Rule 155 § 1 of the 2017 Rules, the behaviour of Assembly members must be based on esteem for the Assembly’s authority and respect towards other members and outsiders; this behaviour must not impede normal parliamentary business or order in the Assembly’s building.Act Declaring the Communist Regime in Bulgaria Criminal

50.  In 2000 the National Assembly passed an Act Declaring the Communist Regime in Bulgaria Criminal.

51.  Section 1(1) of that Act stated that the Bulgarian Communist Party had come to power on 9 September 1944 with the help of a “warrying hostile power”[11] and in breach of the (then in force) 1879 Constitution, and section 1(2) declared that that party had been responsible for governing the country between 9 September 1944 and 10 November 1989.

52.  Section 2(1)(3) stated that the management and chief activists of that party had been responsible for “the unprecedented reprisals against ... all innocent [people] convicted by the so-called ‘People’s Court’”.

53.  Section 3(1) proclaimed the communist regime, deemed to be in power between the two above dates, to be “criminal”, and section 3(2) branded the Bulgarian Communist Party a “criminal organisation ... aimed at supressing human rights and the democratic system”.

COMPLAINT

54.  The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that he was removed from the post of Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Was the applicant’s removal from the post of Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly an “interference” with his right to freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that “interference” “prescribed by law” and “necessary in a democratic society” to attain one or more of the aims set out in Article 10 § 2 (see, mutatis mutandis, Pastörs v. Germany, no. 55225/14, §§ 36-49, 3 October 2019)?

[1]  In January 2011 the Bulgarian Government proclaimed 1 February as “Day of gratitude and respect towards the victims of the communist regime”.

[2]  “The People’s Court” (Народният съд) was an extraordinary tribunal established by government decree in October 1944, following the coup d’état in Bulgaria on 9 September 1944 and the accession to power of the “Fatherland Front” government, in which the Bulgarian Communist Party (at that time calling itself Bulgarian Workers’ Party (communists)) held the Ministries of Internal Affairs and Justice. The first judgments of that tribunal (not amenable to appeal – Article 10 of the decree) were handed down on 1 February 1945: it convicted and sentenced to death the country’s regents, eight royal advisors, twenty-two former government ministers, sixty-seven members of the National Assembly, and forty-seven generals and other army officers (all of them were executed the following night and their bodies dumped in a mass grave). During its operation, which continued until April 1945, that tribunal held more than 130 trials with about 11,000 accused, more than 9,000 of whom were convicted and sentenced – about 2,700 of them to death (some of them had already been executed extrajudicially). In the 1990s many of the convictions pronounced by it were overturned by the Supreme Court (see, for instance, реш. № 243 от 12.04.1996 г. по н. д. № 707/1995 г., ВС, II н. о., and реш. № 172 от 26.08.1996 г., по н. д. № 120/1995 г., ВС, I н. о.). In 1998 the Constitutional Court held that it “[had not been] a court existing and operating as part of the regular judiciary” but “an extraordinary tribunal ... whose members [had been] even people without legal qualifications” and which had acted pursuant to “charges brought against even already dead people”. For the Constitutional Court, that tribunal’s judgments “could not be characterised as judicial decisions”, since they “[had not met] the requirements of due process laid down in the Constitution” (see реш. № 4 от 11.03.1998 г. по к. д. № 16/1997 г., КС, обн., ДВ, бр. 30/1998 г.).

[3]  “The Revival Process” (Възродителният процес) was the name of the policy of the communist regime in Bulgaria to assimilate the country’s Turkish and other Muslim minorities. It consisted of a name-changing campaign in 1984-85, during which Turks living in Bulgaria were forced to change their names to Bulgarian ones, and of the forced emigration in mid-1989 of more than 360,000 Bulgarian Turks to Turkey (see Abiloğlu and 96 Others v. Bulgaria, no. 39553/98, Commission decision of 20 May 1998, unreported).

[4]  “The Great Patriotic War” is a term used chiefly in the Russian Federation and some other former republics of the Soviet Union to describe the conflict fought from 22 June 1941 to 9 May 1945 along the many fronts of the Eastern Front of the Second World War, chiefly between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

[5]  “State Safety” (Обществената безопасност) was a police branch which in 1923-25 was being used to supress pro‑communist activists.

[6]  Geo Milev (1895-1925) was a poet, journalist and translator who was arrested and killed in custody during the wave of repressions following the 1925 terrorist bombing of the St Nedelya Church in Sofia by the military organisation of the Bulgarian Communist Party.

[7]  Joseph Herbst (1875-1925) was a journalist, writer and political activist who was arrested and disappeared in the course of the same wave of repressions.

[8]  See footnote 2 above.

[9]  See footnote 3 above.

[10]  See footnote 2 above.

[11]  On 5 September 1944 the Soviet Union declared war on Bulgaria, and on 8 September 1944 the Soviet Army entered the country without facing resistance and occupied it until December 1947.

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy