Initiation of a landmark litigative effort to enforce antidiscrimination in Bulgaria

Since the beginning of 2004, a new antidiscrimination law has entered into force in Bulgaria, containing all important standards of antidiscrimination protection in Europe today. With the law’s entry into force, human rights defenders have initiated a campaign of public interest litigation aimed at putting into effect the new law’s promise of practical redress for victims of discrimination. The Bulgarian Helsinki Committee and the European Roma Rights Centre have undertaken a concerted effort at bringing antidiscrimination cases to court in order to defend Roma against inequality. Cases have been taken against employers expressly refusing to consider Romani job applicants, and businesses denying Roma access to their services, or discriminating against them in the provision of such services.

Three privately owned food-producing businesses based in Sofia were taken to court for denying Roma access to employment on explicit racist grounds. The companies were tested for their treatment of Roma job applicants responding to vacancy ads put out by the companies. In all cases, application-processing employees expressly stated, without being prompted, in successive telephone talks with testers that Roma would not be accepted. One business declared it was their ‘company policy’ not to hire any Roma, and that they didn’t have one Romani employee with them. Another cited ‘not being Romani’ as a job qualification, along with age and sex requirements. Lawyers taking the cases shall argue before the courts that such statements in themselves amount to a prima facie case of discrimination, resulting in a shift of the burden of proof onto the employers to justify not having hired a Roma candidate with non-discriminatory reasons.

A small shop selling socks in Sofia was sued for denying Romani clients access to its services. On two occasions over several months a salesperson banished Roma, including testers, from the premises, accusing them of planning to steal, and subjecting them to racist slur. She explained in front of witnesses that her boss too wouldn’t allow Roma in the shop because they ‘stank.’

A restaurant in Blagoevgrad was taken to court for denying entry to Roma who had made a telephone reservation for a table. The doorman stated he acted under express management instructions not to admit any Roma. If he would disobey those instructions, he said, he would be liable to a fine of 50 BGN (25 Euro).

The publicly owned monopolistic electricity provider in Sofia was taken to court for discriminating against bill-paying Romani consumers by denying them supply on account of their neighbours’ unpaid debts. After a breakdown in the power grid in the ‘Fakulteta’ segregated Romani neighbourhood, which discontinued supply to more than 100 households, the company refused to do repairs because, it said, many of the affected consumers owed it money. Effectively, it enforced collective liability against the community, causing at least 30 bill-paying households to be deprived of electricity for over two months, as well as their indebted neighbours. Such treatment of bill-paying non-Romani consumers by the company is not on record.

Hoping to transform antidiscrimination law into practical and effective rights, and to render equality attainable, public interest lawyers will address courts with cases to resolve. Struggling with the novelty of the legal issues, judges will do their best to discharge their role of individual rights defenders, and rule fairly. Watching the law, the lawyers and the judges, society will be involved in its own transformation, in a drive for justice to be done.