Anti-discrimination law in Bulgaria: full legal analysis 2026

The Protection against Discrimination Act (Закон за защита от дискриминация, ЗЗДискр), in force from 1 January 2004, is among the most “quietly revolutionary” acts in Bulgarian law. It introduces a reversed burden of proof in Art. 9, entrusts quasi-judicial power to the Commission for Protection against Discrimination (КЗД) and transposes a network of EU directives that covers the racial equality directive (2000/43/EC), the framework directive on equal treatment in employment (2000/78/EC) and a number of later acts on equal treatment of the sexes.

After more than twenty years of application and a series of amendments, among them the key rewordings of Art. 9 (State Gazette (ДВ) No. 26/2015) and of the definition of indirect discrimination in Art. 4(3) (ДВ No. 105/2016), the act continues to generate new case law of the КЗД and the Supreme Administrative Court (ВАС). This analysis systematises the rules in force, the forms of discrimination, the procedural tools and the strategic choice between proceedings before the КЗД and court proceedings under Art. 71 ЗЗДискр.

Legal framework and scope

The ЗЗДискр regulates protection against all forms of discrimination and helps to prevent it (Art. 1). The personal scope is wide: the act protects every natural person on the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria, while legal entities are protected only to the extent that they are discriminated against in connection with their membership or the persons employed by them (Art. 3(2)). In substantive terms, the scope covers employment relations, education, the provision of goods and services, social assistance, healthcare and the exercise of rights by state and municipal bodies.

The legislator has transposed into the national legal system the main EU anti-discrimination directives: Directive 2000/43/EC (racial equality), Directive 2000/78/EC (framework for equal treatment in employment), Directive 2002/73/EC (equal treatment of men and women) and Directive 2010/41/EU (self-employed persons). The constitutional basis of the regime is Art. 6(2) of the Constitution (“all citizens are equal before the law”), and at the supranational level Art. 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ЕКПЧ) and Protocol No. 12, as well as Art. 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (ХОПЕС), have to be taken into account.

Protected characteristics under Art. 4(1): an open or a closed list?

Art. 4(1) ЗЗДискр names 17 protected characteristics: sex, race, nationality, ethnic origin, human genome, citizenship, origin, religion or belief, education, convictions, political affiliation, personal or public status, disability, age, sexual orientation, family status and property status. To them the legislator adds the open clause “or any other characteristics established by law or by an international treaty to which the Republic of Bulgaria is a party”. This structure makes the Bulgarian list de facto open, in that it can be supplemented with characteristics provided for in national legislation or in an international act with direct effect.

The practical consequence is significant: when a characteristic is not in the express list of Art. 4(1), it can be brought in by relying on an international treaty, for example through Art. 14 ЕКПЧ or Art. 21 ХОПЕС, which cover a wider range of grounds. This suggests that the procedural representative should always formulate the claim in the alternative: on a specific named characteristic and on the open clause, in order to keep the possibility of classification under a different characteristic if the КЗД or the court rejects the initial one.

Forms of discrimination: direct, indirect, harassment, segregation

Art. 4(2) ЗЗДискр defines direct discrimination as “any less favourable treatment of a person on the basis of the characteristics under para. 1 than another person is treated, has been treated or would be treated in comparable similar circumstances”. The test is comparative and allows both an actual comparator (a person actually treated) and a hypothetical comparator. The perpetrator's intention is irrelevant: objective unequal treatment in a comparable situation is enough.

Indirect discrimination requires three successive assessments: (1) an apparently neutral provision/criterion/practice; (2) placing a group that carries a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage; (3) the absence of objective justification, that is a legitimate aim and proportionate means. In practice this is the test of the ЕСПЧ and the Court of Justice of the EU (СЕС) on statistical effect. In proceedings before the КЗД the claimant bears the burden of presenting evidence of the disadvantage (statistical data, comparator groups), after which the burden shifts to the respondent to justify the legitimate aim and the proportionality.

Art. 5 ЗЗДискр assimilates a number of additional forms to discrimination: harassment, sexual harassment, incitement to discriminate, victimisation, racial segregation and the construction and maintenance of an architectural environment that hinders access for persons with disabilities. The exceptions under Art. 7 (a genuine and determining occupational requirement, special measures to equalise opportunities, measures for the protection of maternity) are exhaustively listed and are to be interpreted strictly.

Art. 9 ЗЗДискр: the reversed burden of proof

Art. 9 ЗЗДискр is the procedural centre of gravity of the act. Since the amendment in ДВ No. 26/2015 the provision states that where the claimant presents facts from which it can be presumed that discrimination has occurred, the respondent party must prove that the principle of equal treatment has not been breached. This is a direct reproduction of the standard in Art. 8 of Directive 2000/43/EC and Art. 10 of Directive 2000/78/EC.

The standard of the CJEU in the cases C-54/07 Feryn and C-415/10 Meister is particularly useful in Bulgarian practice. In Feryn (10 July 2008) the Court held that public statements by an employer that it will not hire employees of a certain ethnic origin are sufficient to support a presumption of a directly discriminatory hiring policy, even without a specifically identified victim. In Meister (19 April 2012) an employer's refusal to provide information about the selection procedure may be one element in the set of facts supporting a presumption of discrimination.

Proceedings before the КЗД: structure, deadlines, powers

Proceedings before the Commission for Protection against Discrimination are opened on a complaint by the affected person, on a signal from natural or legal persons or from state and municipal bodies, or on the initiative of the КЗД itself (Art. 50). Unlike court proceedings, the inquisitorial principle applies here: the Commission gathers evidence on its own initiative and is not fully bound by the claimant's activity.

After the proceedings are opened, the chair of the КЗД appoints a rapporteur and refers the file to a standing or ad hoc panel of five members, depending on the nature of the characteristic (Art. 48 to 49). Hearings are as a rule public, unless the Commission decides otherwise to protect personal data or the interests of a child. The decision is as a rule issued within 30 days of the end of the oral arguments and must be reasoned in writing.

The powers of the КЗД under Art. 47 ЗЗДискр are broad and varied: establishing violations of the act, imposing the sanctions provided for and applying coercive administrative measures, issuing mandatory instructions to stop violations, orders to restore the position before the violation, imposing property sanctions and others. Under Art. 47, item 7, the КЗД maintains a public register of the decisions and mandatory instructions it has issued that have entered into force, which is an indispensable source for building a case by analogy.

КЗД vs court: a strategic choice for the practising lawyer

Besides the КЗД, a person whose rights under this act or other laws have been violated may bring a claim before the district court of his or her place of residence under Art. 71 ЗЗДискр. The claim may be for establishing the violation, for stopping the violation and restoring the position before it, and for compensation for damage.

The two proceedings are not mutually exclusive. The established case law of the Supreme Court of Cassation (ВКС) and the ВАС accepts that the same violation may be examined successively by the КЗД and by a court: there is no res judicata between the two procedures in the strict sense, because the subject matter and the powers differ (sanctioning and prescriptive before the КЗД against restorative and compensatory before the court). This opens up a “КЗД first, court afterwards” strategy: the establishment of the violation by the КЗД makes proof easier in the civil proceedings.

Appealing КЗД decisions before the administrative courts

The decisions of the КЗД are individual administrative acts and can be appealed under the Administrative Procedure Code (АПК). The appeal is filed within 14 days of notification, through the КЗД, before the competent administrative court. The cassation instance is the Supreme Administrative Court, as a rule in a panel of five under Art. 132 of the АПК.

The standards of judicial review of КЗД acts cover: (1) the competence of the body; (2) form (reasoning, required elements); (3) procedural violations; (4) substantive lawfulness (correct application of the ЗЗДискр and the secondary legislation); (5) conformity with the purpose of the act. Within the КЗД's operational discretion (for example in setting the amount of the sanction within the statutory range) judicial review is more limited and checks for distortion, manifestly unfair exercise and compliance with the criteria of Art. 27(5) of the Administrative Violations and Sanctions Act (ЗАНН).

The sanctions regime under Chapter Six (Art. 78 to 83)

Chapter Six of the ЗЗДискр regulates a self-contained administrative penal regime, applied in addition to the rules of the ЗАНН (for matters of attention, procedural questions, limitation periods for enforcement). From 1 January 2026, under the euro regime, the amounts are to be applied with conversion unless they have been expressly updated in the act. At present the ЗЗДискр keeps the nominal values in leva, so the enforcement authorities apply the conversion rate under Art. 25 of the Act on the Introduction of the Euro in the Republic of Bulgaria.

Accompanying regimes and common cases

The ЗЗДискр works within a dense network of accompanying laws. In employment relations it interlinks with Art. 8(3) of the Labour Code (КТ) (equality before the law in exercising labour rights), which opens up the possibility of parallel claims against an employer, under the ЗЗДискр and under the КТ. In education, the special rules of the Pre-school and School Education Act must be taken into account. On the ground of disability the ЗЗДискр works together with the Persons with Disabilities Act, and Art. 16 ЗЗДискр imposes on the employer an obligation to make reasonable accommodation in the workplace.

Of particular interest is Art. 11(2) ЗЗДискр, on multiple discrimination. This is a concept rarely discussed in Bulgarian doctrine but actively applied in the case law of the СЕС and the ЕСПЧ: when the same person is placed in an unequal position on more than one characteristic (for example an older woman with a disability), the legislator provides for priority measures to equalise opportunities. It can also be used as an evidentiary tool when building a case: pointing to an intersection of protected characteristics strengthens the prima facie standard under Art. 9.

A practical guide for lawyers: building a case

Key evidentiary means in practice include: written documents (payrolls, orders, selection records), job advertisements (especially for direct reference to a characteristic: “for men up to 35”), statistical data, witness testimony from colleagues and media publications. An often neglected source is the employer's internal rules: the internal work rules, job descriptions and selection policies may contain indirect discrimination (for example a requirement for Bulgarian at level C2 for a position that does not require professional communication).

For practical work with the current case law of the КЗД and the ВАС, use both the public register under Art. 47, item 7 on the website of the КЗД, and the information systems of the ВАС (sac.government.bg) and the Legal Information System of the Supreme Judicial Council (ВСС). In all cases a cross-check against the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU is recommended, because the ЗЗДискр transposes directives with direct effect, and national law is to be interpreted in conformity with them.

Pravko provides legal information on the ЗЗДискр and the related regimes, but it does not replace consulting a lawyer in a real case. For building a procedural strategy and preparing a complaint or a statement of claim, it is recommended to engage a licensed lawyer with practice in anti-discrimination law.