Local Muslim Mufti discusses the problem for the restitution of the mosques property with the Ambassador of USA
Tolerance Foundation (22.11.2001)/ HRWF International Secretariat (29.11.2001) C Website: www.hrwf.net/ Email: info@hrwf.net - On 20 November, the U.S. Ambassador in Bulgaria Mr. Richard Miles visited Haskovo [1] and had a meeting with the local mufti Mr. Faik Hadjimurad [2], told Radio Free Europe. Considerable part of the population of both Haskovo and the surroundings are Muslims.
The local mufti Hadjimurad told Mr. Miles one of the main problems before the Muslim community in Bulgaria is the issue concerning the restitution of the property of the mosques here in Bulgaria. He especially mentioned the case of the Mosque in Stara Zagora [3] which was confiscated and closed by the Communist regime. Now it is still closed and semi-ruined but because it is state-owned, the muslim community is not able to open, to repair and to use the building as a place of worship.
Mr. Hadjimurad stated that there are a lot of similar cases. The state continues to hold many so called vakhaf properties (buildings, pieces of rural land etc.) and the muslim community has therefore no financial sources of income. That is the reason why we are forced to accept donations from various Islamic sources and some of them may not be the best ones, said the local mufti. He added that when the state gives back the confiscated properties the muslim community will leave off getting money from foreign sources.
The problem of the restitution of the forced confiscated church property is a serious one. More than ten years after the beginning of the democratic changes an important part of the property of the churches has continued to be state-owned. There are many C both political and juridical obstacles - before the process of restitution can be fully implemented. On July 27, 2001 Tolerance Foundation made a special seminar about that topic and it continues to work on the problem [4]. The above-mentioned conversation between the local mufti in Haskovo and the Ambassador of the USA is an additional confirmation of the seriousness of the problem.
Footnotes:
[1] Haskovo is a town situated in the southeastern part of Bulgaria.
[2] According to the aforementioned information the Ambassador handed over to the mufti the congratulatory address of President Bush to the Muslims all over the world on occasion of the Holy Month of Ramadhaan.
[3] A big town situated in the eastern part of the country.
[4] For more details on the topic see the Press Release of Tolerance Foundation dated August 02, 2001: BULGARIA: A Conference of Religious Leaders Insists on Adopting a Special Bill for Restitution of the Confiscated Church Property, now available on WEB site of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee
<http://bghelsinki.org>http://www.bghelsinki.org also on the site of the Greek Helsinki Monitor: http://www.greekhelsinki.gr
Back to the Table of Contents
Common cause of historical religions against new religious movements
An unprecedented meeting between the heads of both Orthodox Christians and Muslims calls on for joint struggle against the destructive sects and for restitution of the church property
Tolerance Foundation/ HRWF Associated member (12.11.2001)/ HRWF International Secretariat (14.11.2001) C Website: www.hrwf.net/ Email: info@hrwf.net - On November 6, 2001 an unprecedented meeting took place between Patriarch Maxim, head of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and Chief Mufti Selim Mehmed, head of the Muslim community in Bulgaria. According to the press coverage of the event the Chief Mufti was the initiator of it. The talks were part of a wider campaign of the leaders of the Muslim community in Bulgaria to persuade the public that there are no haunts of radical Islam bases of Osama bin Laden in Bulgaria. At the end of October, a visit of the Muslim school in Sarnitza[1] had already been organized for Western diplomats to show them that religious education and training was developed in the spirit of traditional Islam and not radical[2] .
The two leaders agreed to say that the joint struggle against the invasion of the dangerous sects is a very important task. They also discussed about the problems concerning the restitution of religious buildings in Bulgaria[3].
The Chief Mufti focused on the problems regarding Muslim religious classes in public schools (in the areas, where Muslims are the majority of the population). The Patriarch underlined the importance of fighting against both atheism and sects. The two leaders said it was too early to talk about concrete cooperation between their respective religious communities in the sphere of charity, but it was a possibility to be envisaged in the future.
The meeting between the two religious leaders was the first in the whole history of Bulgaria. Undoubtedly it is a positive sign for the future relations between the two main religious communities in Bulgaria. Nevertheless Tolerance Foundation is worried about the joint statement of both spiritual leaders because it might encourage the government to strengthen the measures against so-called sects and thus to restrict religious freedom in Bulgaria.
Footnotes:
[1] A small village located in the Southeast of the country; the population of the village consists of so-called Pomaks i.e. Muslims speaking Bulgarian.
[2] Some days before the visit, the British newspaper The Guardian wrote that the school in Sarnitza educates its students in the spirit of radical Islam.
[3] For more details on the topic see the Press Release of Tolerance Foundation dated August 02, 2001: BULGARIA: A Conference of Religious Leaders Insists on Adopting a Special Bill for Restitution of the Confiscated Church Property, now available both of websites of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee http://www.bghelsinki.org and of the Greek Helsinki Monitor http://www.greekhelsinki.gr
Back to the Table of Contents
Twelve Years after the Fall of the Communism
the Process of Restitution of the Church Property
is too far from Finished
A Conference of Religious Leaders Insists on Adopting a Special Bill for Restitution of the Confiscated Church Property
Tolerance Foundation (02.08.2001)/ HRWF International Secretariat (02.08.2001) ̨C Website: http://www.hrwf.net - Email: info@hrwf.net - On July 27, 2001 Tolerance Foundation in co-operation with the Bulgarian Association for Defense and Encouragement of Religious Liberties organized a conference devoted on the process of restitution of the confiscated by the communist regime church property. About 40 leaders of different religious organizations took part in the event. Leaders from almost all religious groups that existed before the communist coup detat participated in the conference. Representatives of the largest religious group in Bulgaria C the Orthodox Church, the Islamic faith and the Catholic Church, as well as of many other minority denominations (Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals and others) were present at the conference. Three members of the National Assembly and among them two vice chairmen of the Parliamentary Commission on Human Rights and Religions participated in the event.
The main speaker at the seminar was Mr Atanas Krastev, a juridical expert, co-author of the draft act known as Dogan C Mestan (a draft Denominations Act entitled Religious Liberty and Religious Organizations Act, that is strongly supported by almost all religious minorities in Bulgaria).
It was noted at the seminar that there are several general acts for restitution of the ownership, forced confiscated by the former communist regime. There is also special Act on the Restitution of Property of the Catholic Church. Owing to these bills a part of the property of the religious organizations has been restituted. Nevertheless all participants in the seminar found that the process of restitution of the church property is too far from finished. For instance, despite the existence of a special bill on the restitution of the property of the Catholic Church in Bulgaria, the representatives of this religious organization said that tens of buildings, shops and many different possessions continue to be owned by the state.
The situation with almost all other religious denominations is the same. Even the Orthodox Church has some possessions that are not restituted by the state. It should be stressed that, as a rule, almost all temples have been restituted, but the state continues to hold a lot of buildings such as hospitals, schools (some of most popular schools in the country are in fact ownership of different churches, but the state continues to rule over them), shops and even a stadium. For example, that is the case with the main stadium in Plovdiv, that is the second by population town in our country. On the other hand, the representatives of the Muslim denomination complain that during the first years of the communist regime the state took away a lot of mosques, transformed them into museums and now do not want to restitute these temples to the Muslims in order to be used for worship. Beside this, as it is well known, the state cant give enough money for maintaining of the museums and thus some of them (including a lot of the confiscated mosques) now are semi-ruined.
Furthermore it is obvious, that the topic for the state of the process of restitution of the Church property is an essential part of the religious human rights of the citizens. All participants in the seminar stressed that the current state of the process of the restitution of the property of the religious organizations considerably restricts the right of the religious organizations to own property. Thus they cannot develop activities in the sphere of charity and become dependent on state financial support. In this way, as the state continues to rule over the essential part of the former church property, twelve years after the fall of communism the human rights of the citizens and their religious organizations are very seriously violated.
The participants in the event agreed that here are a lot of reasons for this unsatisfactory situation.
The main among them is the situation, that the procedure for restitution especially of the church property is extremely complex. It was stressed that in many cases it is impossible for the denominations to prove that their claims are well grounded before the court. They cannot do it because as a rule the files for the ownership were destroyed when the former regime confiscated the church property. But there have still been witnesses who are able to give proof in support of the claims of denominations. The problem is that the present legislation does not accept this kind of proof as reliable in this type of cases. In other cases the church property was filed as owned by single persons, not by the appropriate juridical persons. Thus some religious organizations hoped to save their possessions from the encroachments of the communist authorities. However, at present according to the existing procedure they are unable to prove that their property is their own, but not of the successors of these private individuals.
In the second place, an important obstacle before the restitution process is the circumstance that in lot of cases it is impossible for the present religious organizations to prove that they are genuine successors of the juridical persons that existed before the communist takeover. This problem is due to the present procedure of registration under the acting Denominations Act. A lot of religious organizations were registered in 1990 under the provisions of Art. 16 of the Denominations Act (as it is well known, it was adopted in the beginning of the communist rule in 1949 and continues to be in effect). When they came out from the state of near illegality it was not written in their files for registration that they were inheritors of the religious organizations that existed before the communist coup.
The third reason for the existing state with the restitution is the lack of political will for adopting both a new Denominations Act and a special Law on the Restitution of the Property of the Religious Organizations. The proof for this assertion is the fact that twelve years after the fall of communism the old communist Denominations Act continues to be in force and besides there is no special Law on the Restitution of the Church Property. On the other hand, the religious organizations have fought for their rights one by one. The initiative of Tolerance Foundation was the first step for unification of the efforts of the religious communities in that direction.
The participants in the seminar unite around the opinion that a new special Law on the Restitution of the Property of the Religious Organizations is necessary to be adopted by the Parliament. It is clear that under the regulations of the existing laws for restitution that problem is impossible to be solved. All participants in the event agreed that Mr. Atanas Krastev and other presenting lawyers have to make a team for drafting of the appropriate draft act. Tolerance Foundation will give them all possible assistance in order to promote the process of creating of that new law.
Beside this the Tolerance Foundation will continue its efforts and have an intention until the end of the current year to make a special report devoted on the state of the restitution process of the property of the religious organizations. The seminar was the first step in that direction. The second will be the preparation of the report and simultaneously with it the work on the preparation of a special act will have to begin.
On behalf of Tolerance Foundation, Associate member of Human Rights Without Frontiers: Emil Cohen, President
Back to the Table of Contents
A mob of bigoted Orthodox believers have attacked
a group of Evangelicals
Tolerance Foundation C HRWF Associate Member (03.07.2001)/ HRWF International Secretariat (04.07.2001) C Website: http://www.hrwf.net - Email: info@hrwf.net - On June 21, 2001 a mob of bigoted Orthodox believers attacked a group of evangelicals in the village Ravnogor, district of Plovdiv.
On June 21 small group of evangelicals belonging to the United Church of God went to Ravnogor in order to show some movies on Biblical topics as well as to make a concert of religious songs. They had all necessary permissions, issued by the Directorate of Religious Affairs as well as by the local authorities.
In the afternoon of the same day, the local Orthodox priest went to the camp of the Evangelicals and ordered them to leave the village. He said that the villagers did not need their faith. Despite of the threats, the Evangelicals did not leave the village. Soon after, the priest came back accompanied by a lot of villagers. The mob demanded from the young Evangelicals to leave the village. The behaviour of both the priest and the mob was very aggressive. After a long discussion, both sides reached mutual understanding. The guests explained to the attackers that their mission was peaceful and that it was permitted by all authorities and they would perform their program only to those people, who wanted to see it.
In the evening, the guests performed their program before a lot of people. After the end of the performance, around 10:30 PM a mob of 30-40 people attacked the camp of the Evangelicals. The mob was leaded by the local priest and by the local leader of VMRO (the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization, a political party with strong nationalistic outlooks). The crowd torn the tent of guests and also stole their moveable generating set. A lot of the evangelicals were brought down on the earth by the attackers.
The local police station came to the place of the camp but refused to fill an appropriate file for the events. By that way it would be extremely difficult for the evangelicals to state before the court that they were targets of the assault.
Back to the Table of Contents
Bulgaria's Draft Denominations Act
The Council of Europe experts negative in their assessment
HRWF International Secretariat (27.05.2001) C Website: www.hrwf.net - Email: info@hrwf.net - Religious matters in Bulgaria are still regulated by a law dating back to 1949. For a couple of years, the Parliament, whose term is currently coming to an end, has been unable to work out a new law in conformity with the European Convention of Human Rights and other international instruments.
In 2000, the Parliaments first-reading approval of the initial drafts triggered outspoken protests by religious communities as well as by human rights organisations in the country. At the end of 2000, the Council of Europe appointed a panel of four independent experts to study the law and its compliance with the European Convention of Human Rights. Despite the acknowledgement of some positive features, especially in the introductory chapters of the draft, the overall experts opinion is negative.
The most significant criticism is related to the procedure of legal registration of religious organisations, which contains serious shortcomings from the point of view of the European Convention of Human Rights. The specific points are the theological prejudice against the legal registration, restriction of religious pluralism and development, confusing criteria as regards refusal of legal registration or cancellation of the registration itself, and lack of criteria concerning religious communities subsidising. On all four points, the Council of Europe experts recommend that the whole regime of legal registration has to be revised in order to guarantee non-discrimination and lack of intervention on doctrinal grounds.
In terms of theological prejudice against registration of religious communities, it is stated that the rules set down in the draft law contravene with the principle of the states non-interference in the process.
The Council of Europe experts have concluded that the new draft law limits to a considerable extent the right to religious pluralism as the principle of one liturgical practice, one name, one registered faith contravenes with the requirements of a democratic society. In this respect, Article 28, para. 2, presuming that any diversion from the recognised liturgical form and the development of its own religious concepts could be used as grounds for denial of registration, is at sharp variance with Article 9 of the European Convention for Human Rights.
The criteria for denial or cancellation of registration stipulated in the draft law represent a significant violation of international standards as well due to the fact that their scope is much broader compared to the criteria recognised in Article 9 of the European Convention for Human Rights.
Serious questions arise from the role of the Religious Directorate in exercising supervision over the activities of registered denominations. As it is presumed that States are not entitled to intervene to such extent in the practice of religious communities, it is critical to have supervision as provided for in Article 10, para. 9 of the draft law. This issue becomes even more serious in view of the provision that the Religious Directorate can impose considerable fines in cases of malpractice as stipulated in Article 51 of the draft law.
On the whole, the Council of Europe experts opinion is that the new draft law is targeted mainly at restricting the freedom of religion rather than providing the widest possible freedom of self-identification. Therefore, alongside the shortcomings as regards the judicial regulation of the issue, the draft law needs to be thoroughly revised with relation to its underlying concepts and principles as to reflect the priorities and approaches of the European Convention for Human Rights and its Article 9, in particular.
Back to the Table of Contents
Stefanov v. Bulgaria (no. 32438/96): friendly settlement
European Court Registrar (03.05.2001) / HRWF International Secretariat (08.05.2001) - Website: http://www.hrwf.net - Email: info@hrwf.net - Ivailo Stefanov, a Bulgarian national and Jehovahs Witness, complained about being convicted and sentenced in 1995 and 1996 for having refused to serve in the army, claiming, among other things, that there had been a violation of his right to freedom of religion and conscience guaranteed by Article 9 of the Convention.
The case* has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 2,500 Bulgarian levs is to be paid to the applicant for costs and expenses and the Bulgarian Government has agreed that:
"All criminal proceedings and judicial sentences in Bulgaria of Bulgaria citizens since 1991 ...for refusing military service by virtue of their individual conscientious objection but who were willing at the same time to perform alternative civilian service shall be dismissed and all penalties and/or disabilities heretofore imposed in these cases shall be eliminated as if there was never a conviction for a violation of the law, thus the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Bulgaria undertakes the responsibility to introduce draft legislation before the National Assembly for a total amnesty for these cases.
"The alternative civilian service in Bulgaria is performed under a purely civilian administration and the military authority is not involved in civilian service and such service shall be similar in duration to that required for military service by the law on military service then in force.
"Conscientious objectors have the same rights as all Bulgarian citizens to manifest their beliefs whether alone or in union with others after hours and on days off during the term of performing said civilian service without prejudice, sanction or another disability or impediment."
* (http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/Hudoc1doc2/HEJUD/200105/stefanov%20%2032438jfs.chb4%200305
2001e.oc)
Back to the Table of Contents
Islamic and Orthodox emissaries stir confrontation among Bulgarian Mohammedans in the Eastern Rhodopes
By Marin Delchev
Bulgarian Helsinki Committee (January 2001) / HRWF International Secretariat (16.03.2001) Website:http://www.hrwf.net - Email/ info@hrwf.net - On December 11 the first stone of a mosque was laid in the Rhodope village of Avren, with predominantly Muslim population. The creation of an Initiative Committee Against the Construction of the Mosque was announced the next day. The construction confronted Muslims and Christians and once more raised the question of tolerance and freedom to profess ones religion.
Brother versus brother, the young against the old, fellow villagers confronting fellow villagers. This is the situation in the village of Avren and some ten villages surrounding it, all in the region of Krumovgrad today. The reason is the forthcoming building of a mosque with a 25-meter minaret. The first stone of the Muslim temple stirred up the idyllic serenity of this border region and confronted the local population, consisting mainly of Bulgarian Mohammedans.
We will stop the building of the huge mosque with our bodies. It will islamise the region, claims Mitko Dobrev, chairperson of the newly established Initiative Committee for the Protection of the Rhodopes against Islamic Invasion. He is supported mainly by younger people from about a dozen Bulgarian Mohammedan villages around Avren.
As long as there are Muslims here, there will be a mosque. Let the Christians build a church- we do not oppose to that. We are building the mosque whatever happens, Aldin Uzunov, chairperson of the Mosque Board of Trustees, firmly announces.
The conflict arose after December 8 last year. High-ranking visitors arrived in Avren unexpectedly on that day - the Chief Mufti and the Chairman of the Supreme Muslim Council, Turkish diplomats from the Ankara Consulate in Plovdiv, heads of an Istanbul-based foundation, the Krumovgrad mayor and a large number of municipal officials. They organised a formal ceremony. They laid the first stone of a new mosque. The visitors from Turkey announced they had transferred 50,000 US Dollars for its construction. This piece of news exploded in Avren and the surrounding Bulgarian Mohammedan villages.
The regional population has Christian names since 1972, when under the established regime the Bulgarian Mohammedans were forcibly renamed for the seventh time during the last century. Over the past 28 years the better part of the population acquired Christian awareness. The process was also reinforced by the activity of the famous Father Boyan Saruev during the early 90s. Islam is mainly professed by the elderly. Here ethnic and religious problems are delicate as in other regions populated with Bulgarian Mohammedans and that is why no open discussion of the topic is allowed.
One church and one mosque are to be found in the region. The local Church Board of Trustees and the Mosque Board of Trustees had a tacit agreement to build a little mosque and a chapel in Avren, next to each other, and to avoid influencing the fragile religious awareness of the children and the young people in the region. The agreement is broken both by the imams and the people of Father Saruev, but they act secretly and on a small scale, so it does not cause problems.
They lied to us! exclaims the Chair of the Church Broad of Trustees, who is also a representative of the Movement for Christianity and Progress headed by Boyan Saruev. No one told us such a huge mosque was to be built, there has been no plebiscite. We are not against the Muslims. We do not reject their customs and tradition. We are not against having their place of worship in the village. But we do not accept a show-off forcible Islamic Invasion imposed by foreigners in a region where people have a vulnerable religious and ethnic awareness. We are opposed to the construction of a huge mosque, which for the time being does not correspond to the spiritual needs of the local population- there are only some ten Muslims in the village. The size of the mosque and the needs of the local population are disproportionate. To us this is an invasion of Islam conceived abroad and carried out with the collaboration of the Chief Muftis Office, the local authorities and Islamic foundations from Turkey, say the church trustees. They are supported by the Christians in the region.
There has always been a mosque in the village, everybody here used to be Muslim.
Some of the young were baptized and are now trying to force Christianity on everyone.
As long as there are Muslims in Avren we are going to build the mosque. Let the
Christians build themselves a church, we want both a mosque, and a church. The
absence of a mosque deprives us of basic religious rights, we have nowhere to go to on
religious holidays or to say a prayer. Those who oppose the mosque live outside of
Avren. They have no voice in matter, there will be a mosque!
I am not siding with anyone! says Milen Semerdzhiev, Mayor of Avren. I cannot take a position. No one can say how many Christians and Muslims live in the region- its a matter of self-determination, he claims.
Boyan Saruev instigates the young to protest! says Ahmed Yumer, Mayor of Krumograd. It is true that the building of the mosque is funded by a Turkish foundation, but what is wrong with that-we want foreign investment, dont we? Let the Christians find themselves a sponsor to build a church, be it with 100 meters domes to it, if so they wish, no Muslim will protest!
The elections are coming, that is the real reason behind the conflict reckons Plamen Ivanov, Regional Governor of Kurdjali.
And while the authorities analyse the situation, the parties argue.
A member of the Church Board of Trustees was beaten at the pub, because he opposed to the building of the mosque, Mitko Dobrev claims. He himself reported of having received death threats.
These are matters difficult to prove, but religious tension in the region is a doubtless fact. The conflict parted quite a lot of families- the elderly are for the mosque and the younger ones are against it. Even if they build it, we are going to take it down! the Christians threaten. We will build a new one! counter the Muslims. The two sides cannot come to terms for the time being.
Their argument again confirms the ancient truth that external factors interfering with the spiritual life of the Rhodope population lead to religious conflicts similar to the one in Avren. The result of this conflict is obvious. On one side of the barricade are the emissaries of father Boyan Saruev, i.e. and unofficially state authorities and a few strong foundations. On the other side stand the Chief Muftis Office, powerful Turkish foundations and, unofficially again, the local authorities. The population of Avren are but insignificant players in the controversy between the Cross and the Crescent.
Back to the Table of Contents
The European Court found Bulgaria has violated religious rights
The European Court of Human Rights declared admissibility of a case in which Bulgaria was charged with violation of the religious rights
Tolerance Foundation (12.03.2001)/ HRWF International Secretariat (13.03.2001) - Website: http://www.hrwf.net - Email: info@hrwf.net One week ago, the positive decision of the European Court of Human Rights on the admissibility of the case of Daruish Al-Nashif and Others v. Bulgaria was made public.
On September 15, 2000 Mr. Al-Nashif brought a suit before the European Court against Bulgaria on the occasion of his expelling from Bulgaria, that was done two months earlier, because he had developed an illegal religious activity, that represented a threat for the national security.
On January 25, 2001 the European Court unanimously declared that the complaint of Mr. Al-Nashif under Art. 5,4 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) was admissible. The applicant was complaining against his detention incommunicado and against the deprivation him from the right of appeal to a court against his detention.
The Court also declared by majority that the deportation of Mr. Al-Nashif had violated their right to respect for their family life (Art. 8 of the Convention) and that they had not had an effective remedy in this respect (Article 13).
It is also noteworthy that the Court's decision declared that the measures against him were in breach of his right to freedom of religion (Article 9).
On July 4, 1999 Mr. Daruish Al-Nashif was expelled from Bulgaria on the ground that he was a threat for the national security of the Republic of Bulgaria. He was charged with illegal religious activity. The basis of the expelling was Sec. 42 of the Aliens Act. Beside this he was informed that pursuant to Section 47.1 of the Aliens Act the order for expelling was not subject to appeal. Unfortunately, by its Decision that was published on March 2, 2001 the Constitutional Court of Republic of Bulgaria confirmed that the Section 47.1 of the Aliens Act remains to be in force. In 2000 there were a lot of cases of expelling of foreigners on the ground that they were claimed to represent a threat for the national security and all of them could not reach to the court.
Mr. Al-Nashif, was born in 1967 in Kuwait. He is stateless person of Palestinian origin. He came to Bulgaria together with his wife Ms Hetam Haleh in 1992. They obtained a permanent residence permit in 1995. The couple has two minor children, who were born in 1993 and 1994 respectively. The children are Bulgarian nationals by birth. In August of 1997 Mr. Al-Nashif took part in Islamic seminar that was carried out in village Narecenski Bani. The seminar was attacked by the police and later was proclaimed as illegal. No proofs were given in support of the accusation of this illegality. Later Mr. Al-Nashif has tried to establish Islamic religious and educational center in Smolian a town with considerably big Muslim minority. During the period 1998-1999 he managed Sunday school for education of Islam by the children. On the basis of these evidence for his subversive activity on July 4, 1999 Mr. Al-Nashif was expelled from the country.
The expulsion of foreign nationals from the country, claimed to represent a threat to national security due to their religious practices, continued in 2000. On 8 January, a group of six Islamic preachers Ahmadis - was caught in the region of Shoumen and expulsed from the country. According to police information, they had been preaching without a permit by the Directorate of Religious Affairs.
Later, in May and June, another three Muslims were ordered out of the country. One of them was Ahmad Musa, a Palestinian, who has been living in the country for 15 years and is married to a Bulgarian. He was later detained and expulsed on 6 August. His wife and three children remained in Bulgaria. In this case too, the reason for expulsion was threat to national security. As it was mentioned above, the orders based on such considerations in Bulgaria are not subject to judicial control. For this reason, in end effect nobody understood exactly on what facts the authorities were basing themselves. Press reports, clearly implied by the Interior Ministry, revealed that the accusation was one of illegal religious activity. The only proof that was cited was Mr. Musa's participation in the above mentioned illegal Muslim seminar in Narechenski Bani in August 1997. Mr. Musa's case is now being considered by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
The case of Mr. Al-Nashif is the second one in which the European Court on Human Rights found that Bulgaria violate art. 9 of ECHR. The first one was the case of Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria The case concerns the refusal of the government in February 1995 to register a leadership of the Muslim believers with Mr. Fikri Hasan as chief mufti. The Court held that Bulgaria had violated Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) through the failure of the Bulgarian State to remain neutral in the exercise of its powers in respect of the registration of the Muslim religion. The Court also held that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention (right to an effective remedy in the violation of human rights) in that the Bulgarian Supreme Court had refused to examine the substance of Mr. Hasan's appeal against the decision of the State and only assessed whether and to what extent the decision for registration had been taken by the competent authority within the scope of its powers.
Back to the Table of Contents
Municipal ordinances against religious freedom
By Nevena Stefanova
Bulgarian Helsinki Committee (November 2000 - January 2001, issue 74) / HRWF International Secretariat (13.03.2001) - Website: http://www.hrwf.net - Email: info@hrwf.net - The local authorities in nearly ten municipalities in the country used their competence and passed ordinances regulating the activities of religious communities. A common trait in all of them is the contradiction with the Constitution, a number of legal provisions and international treaties to which Bulgaria is a party. The ordinances restrict the right to freedom of religion, define various conditions for the exercise of this right and thus violate the uncontestable principle enshrined in the Constitution of equality of citizens before the law.
According to the Local Self-Government and Local Administration Act, local municipal councils can take decisions on the implementation of activities in the areas of municipal property, education, health care, social assistance and environmental protection. Over the last two years, however, the local councils of several municipalities in the country have settled the exercise of fundamental human rights with ordinances which come in blatant contradiction with the Constitution, international legal instruments, laws and the established hierarchy of normative acts. Such ordinances have been adopted by municipal councils in Sofia, Gorna Oriahovitza, Plovdiv and Pleven. Similar draft ordinances have been prepared and may become a reality in Kazanlak, Stara Zagora and on the territory of other municipalities.
Normative administrative acts like the above-cited ordinances can settle social relations only if they are in accordance with the normative acts of a higher standing. Instead, the said ordinances regulate clearly and lastingly established matters of religious rights and freedoms by far trespassing all predefined and legally accepted limits of regulation of the right to religious confession. They contain provisions, whose enforcement has illegally imposed the full control of the local authority over the spiritual life of a group of religious communities and above all of minority religious denominations.
The ordinances unconditionally outlaw the religious activities of religious denominations, which have not been duly registered. With a single stroke each inherent activity necessary to these communities has been prevented. Religious gatherings and conferences are only possible if carried out inside prayer houses registered at the municipality. Despite the fact that the Constitution provides that meetings held indoors do not require permission (art.43, para.3). Distribution of religious literature too is acceptable only inside the registered prayer houses and in specialized bookstores. One of the ordinances lists it along with pornographic literature. Municipal councillors have approached the intimate moves of the human soul in the most rational way. Advertisement of miraculous, healing, and sanitary effects from the activities of the denominations can be carried out only after solid evidence from the health care authorities is supplied testifying to the rehabilitation effects of the said activities. Belief is out of the question.
All addresses, circulars, papers, and publications, issued by the religious denominations should be sent promptly to the municipality, while the municipal major supervises their budgets and sources of finance, both being mandatorily presented to him. Foreign financial aid is also subject to declaration before the mayor. The obligation to manifest tolerant attitudes, which the Constitution imparts to the state within the competence of its authorities, is nonetheless imparted to religious denominations inside regulations of the municipal councils. And penitence on these who break the ordinances- the fines are severe, and their very right to exercise religious activities becomes precarious.
Special ordinances, special legal arrangements, special restrictive measures, and penal administrative liability for religious denominations C this is called discrimination. Had it not been so, there would have been a host of ordinances regulating obligations and serious liabilities of apiarists, athletes or environmentalists, for instance. But there are no such ordinances. Obviously, art.6 of the Constitution proclaiming the full equality of all citizens before the law and not allowing for any restrictions of the rights based on religion has not been of any guidance to municipal councillors.
There is no answer to the question on the basis of which constitutional or other legal provisions the above restrictions and prohibitions have been imposed. There could not possibly be one, since no such provision exists. On the contrary, under Bulgarian law no one is required to register anyway in order to exercise a religious activity. Religious denominations are free and the right to religious belief is inalienable (art. 13 and 37 of the Constitution). Citizens confessing certain religious beliefs can practice their faith in three forms C individually, in community with others without being registered, and collectively with others if the register in the form of a legal entity. The choice of these forms is absolutely free and exercise of their rights is equally guaranteed in the Constitution under any of these forms. Meetings held indoors are not subject to registration of prayer houses or other premises. The right to the free expression of opinion and the right to impart it in words are unconditional and are not subject to similar unquestionable restrictions. Local authorities cannot embezzle competence, which has not been conferred upon them by law.
The supremacy of the highest Bulgarian law and its direct effect make the enforcement of the ordinances impossible. On account of their contradiction with the Constitution and other normative acts their very existence in the legal sphere is practically null and void. They are inept and have no binding force. That is why some of them have already been contested under appropriate proceedings. In the face of the growing risk of other similar ordinances, it is a consolation that such remedies are still available.
Back to the Table of Contents
