Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Dear Sir or Madam,

The Bulgaria Human Rights Association is dealing with violation of human rights caused by the restitution in Bulgaria. A brief analysis follows, that spots the major deficiencies in the Bulgarian restitution law and its application. We would appreciate your opinion on this subject and any related information concerning this issue. Thank You in advance.

In 1992, the Parliament adopted a restitution law, with full title Restoration of ownership of expropriated real property (ROERP). Article 7 of the law regulated the restitution of property sold to private owners, herein called third parties. According to Article 7, the first owners may file a claim against the third parties in order to restore ownership, if "the property was appropriated in violation of statutes, and/or through misuse of political or official status." The disputed property was sold, taken in exchange or received in compensation about 20-30 ago. Therefore, it is almost impossible to find out any proof positive of misuse of political or official status. Due to the lack of such evidence, the court makes decisions solely on the basis of the discrepancies between the existing documents of ownership and the relevant statutes. The court decided whether the discrepancies constitute a breach of the statues.

The category of statutes includes all state decrees, regulations and rules, concerning the operation of the state administration and the municipalities, and various decisions of the executive body of the municipalities. There are two types of statues - statues regulating the rights and the obligations of the citizens and statues regulating the rights and obligations of the municipalities. The law makes no distinction as to the type of statue. Moreover, the law requires no identification of the originator of the breach of the statute. As a result, hundreds of owners were deprived of their property solely due to inaccuracies caused by the state and municipality administration officers. Even in - depth knowledge of all the statutes, concerning the operation of the municipalities, on behalf of the third parties, would not enable them to forestall such inaccuracies.

In these cases, although formally complying with the provisions of the law, the court decisions violate the Bulgarian Constitution that holds the state "liable for any damages caused by illegitimate rulings or acts on the part of its agencies and officials." The most logical explanation for these corrupt judgements is that the court has acted under influence, abandoning its constitutional obligation to be impartial in its decisions. The roots of the vulnerability of the court lie in the bipolar political system of the country. 10 years after the transition to democracy, the high level of corruption is an indicator that political power is a tool for obtaining personal gains rather than for promoting democratic changes. In this situation, every ambiguous law definition creates opportunities for corruption and interference in the judicial system.

Sincerely Yours,

Ph.D. Ivan Shopov
/ Chairman /